NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

That's fantastic! Did you make that?

That's fantastic! Did you make that?

It's from last season's Napoli calendar.

 http://www.balls.ie/football/3424-rafa-benitez-stars-in-the-most-brilliantly-bizarre-football-calendar-of-the-year/163255

It's from last season's Napoli calendar.

 http://www.balls.ie/football/3424-rafa-benitez-stars-in-the-most-brilliantly-bizarre-football-calendar-of-the-year/163255

WTF?

Where are the usual moaners bleating on about how the manager hasn't been backed?

Not only have we completed the transfers he wanted we have changed the structure of the club to get the deals wrapped up early.

A few embarrassed faces around here I see.

IN
Firmino £22m (plus add ons to £29m dependent on contractual clauses)
Gomez £3.5m
Bogdan Free
Ings Tribunal (let's say £8m)
Milner Free
Clyne £12.5
Benteke £16m (plus add ons to £32.5m dependent on contractual clauses)

Out
Coates £2m
Sterling £49m

Money out £62m
Money in £51m

Difference £11m

Even if we paid full whack for Firmino and Benteke (which we have not) they've only shelled out around £34m. Hardly anything to go partying over

So to date FSG have backed the manager with £11m. And that's not even including potential sales of Lambert, Borni and whoever else.

Difference £11m

Even if we paid full whack for Firmino and Benteke (which we have not) they've only shelled out around £34m. Hardly anything to go partying over
So to date we FSG have backed the manager with £11m. And that's not even including potential sales of Lambert, Borni and whoever else.

Surely not!!

Why are certain individuals striving to convince black is white?
This in spite of JWH stating he does not intend spending his own dosh supporting LFC, those monies must be self-generating by the asset itself, which by the figures quoted is self-evident.

Can we please not forget that FSG are also currently funding a £100million+ renovation of Anfield which will definitely have an impact on the transfer kitty.

This in spite of JWH stating he does not intend spending his own dosh supporting LFC

Sorry to pick this part out Stuey but I've seen this posted a few times now and I'm not sure the point?

FSG, until FFP is relaxed, couldn't spend their own money on players even if they wanted to so its a moot point is it not?

As far as I'm concerned FSG have gone even further than I thought in backing the manager this summer and credit where it is due they have backed their man in every way possible.

Can we please not forget that FSG are also currently funding a £100million+ renovation of Anfield which will definitely have an impact on the transfer kitty.

Bit of a misconception there mate.
The money is in the form of a type of loan (capital investment) that has no repayment timetable, and can be paid in the form of equity or cash dividend. No repayments have been made yet.

Can we please not forget that FSG are also currently funding a £100million+ renovation of Anfield which will definitely have an impact on the transfer kitty.

As stated JWH is not spending his own dosh on LFC, it is a loan.

My post was in reply to HB's statement that certain posters should be embarrassed because FSG have backed the manager.

I just gave figures that show we have spent (whoever 'we' is) around £11m.

Bit of a misconception there mate.
The money is in the form of a type of loan (capital investment) that has no repayment timetable, and can be paid in the form of equity or cash dividend. No repayments have been made yet.

>_<

I'm sick to death of hearing the word loan in football. It's just another way of saying debt.

Sorry to pick this part out Stuey but I've seen this posted a few times now and I'm not sure the point?

FSG, until FFP is relaxed, couldn't spend their own money on players even if they wanted to so its a moot point is it not?

As far as I'm concerned FSG have gone even further than I thought in backing the manager this summer and credit where it is due they have backed their man in every way possible.

This has been done to death Si.
The manager has not been supported totally as you suggest.
For instance would you say Balotelli was his first choice to address the lack of firepower and as a stand in for Studge?
What about Lambert?
We are told BR has the casting vote with the transfer committee, is that revelation another means to confuse while we bring in has beens and players past their better days?

The breaking of JWH's perceived fee for a player's worth by £2.5m is surely more to do with the Sterling sale than a shift in economic strategy on the part of FSG, as has been pointed out the actual spend figure will eventually even out thank you very much.

This has been done to death Si.
The manager has not been supported totally as you suggest.
For instance would you say Balotelli was his first choice to address the lack of firepower and as a stand in for Studge?
What about Lambert?
We are told BR has the casting vote with the transfer committee, is that revelation another means to confuse while we bring in has beens and players past their better days?

The breaking of JWH's perceived fee for a player's worth by £2.5m is surely more to do with the Sterling sale than a shift in economic strategy on the part of FSG, as has been pointed out the actual spend figure will eventually even out thank you very much.

I'll come back to this mate but I'm pretty sure an answer to my question wasn't in that post?

I'll come back to this mate but I'm pretty sure an answer to my question wasn't in that post?

On the contrary Si I have addressed your assertion that the manager was financially supported by our owners.
Take the Suarez deal, BR was not allowed to acquire a like for like replacement skill wise, which is the obvious strategy when his stand in is injury plagued; he went for potential not proven quality, and of course the veteran ingredient.

He is certainly not morally supported, it appears FSG are loathe to stand by the manager's decisions with a transfer committee in place as BR's preference to a DoF.
The owner's influence extends far beyond financial matters; a state of affairs that can only be of detriment to LFC.

On the contrary Si I have addressed your assertion that the manager was financially supported by our owners.

I said he has been backed this summer and he has 100%. In fact apart from the balls up in getting a striker I'm last summer they also backed him then as well.

But the main point in my original post was asking why it keeps getting brought up about JW not spending his own money on players and using that as a criticism when under FFP he couldn't spend his own money even if he wanted to?

He is certainly not morally supported, it appears FSG are loathe to stand by the manager's decisions with a transfer committee in place as BR's preference to a DoF.
The owner's influence extends far beyond financial matters; a state of affairs that can only be of detriment to LFC.

Every club that doesn't have a DoF will have some form of transfer committee as there is virtually no manager I can think of that just gets free reign to buy players. If you can think of one I'd be keen to hear it mate.

FSG have fully backed Brendan this summer and possibly last summer as well, apart from the striker issue, and I'm not sure what else they could do this summer in terms of backing their guy.

I said he has been backed this summer and he has 100%. In fact apart from the balls up in getting a striker I'm last summer they also backed him then as well.

But the main point in my original post was asking why it keeps getting brought up about JW not spending his own money on players and using that as a criticism when under FFP he couldn't spend his own money even if he wanted to?

Every club that doesn't have a DoF will have some form of transfer committee as there is virtually no manager I can think of that just gets free reign to buy players. If you can think of one I'd be keen to hear it mate.

FSG have fully backed Brendan this summer and possibly last summer as well, apart from the striker issue, and I'm not sure what else they could do this summer in terms of backing their guy.

FFP has been relaxed, irrespective LFC appeared to be the only club that had an issue with it.
The striker issue encapsulates the whole quandary, as stated previously it would be unthinkable from previous experience that FSG would replace Suarez like for like or address the lack of quality in depth in the team, in five years their lack of foresight in footballing matters is noticeable by it's absence.

To reiterate they have spent the Sterling monies as the Suarez fee should have been used - to replace the departing quality, there has been talk of some behind the scenes shuffling of rolls which may be relevant.

You know as I do where the weak links are in the team and the inability of the transfer committee to confront our Achilles' heel is damning.

FFP has been relaxed, irrespective LFC appeared to be the only club that had an issue with it.

Aye its literally only just been relaxed mate and maybe you're right that we were the only club who had an issue with it, I'm sure we werent though, but if FSG had spent money willy nilly and did get penalised under FFP they would have been slaughtered for that as well. No win perhaps?

To reiterate they have spent the Sterling monies as the Suarez fee should have been used - to replace the departing quality, there has been talk of some behind the scenes shuffling of rolls which may be relevant.

So they have backed the manager.

Aye its literally only just been relaxed mate and maybe you're right that we were the only club who had an issue with it, I'm sure we werent though, but if FSG had spent money willy nilly and did get penalised under FFP they would have been slaughtered for that as well. No win perhaps?

If FSG lashed LFC's money around it could result in pressure on the parent company, what immediately comes to mind is having the wherewithal to repay the loan afforded to LFC to build the stadium extension.
Worse still it could entail JWH getting his hand in his pocket.
 

So they have backed the manager.

They are overseeing LFC tick over at an acceptable level.

I've seen many assertions that FFP has been relaxed, has this actually been confirmed by UEFA? 

I've seen many assertions that FFP has been relaxed, has this actually been confirmed by UEFA? 

My understanding they are talking about ideas; nothing as of yet has been changed.

My understanding they are talking about ideas; nothing as of yet has been changed.

Didn't think so, enough people talking about it like it has though.

My understanding they are talking about ideas; nothing as of yet has been changed.

I think the changes went through on the 29/30th of June mate.

UEFA relaxes Financial Fair Play rules as president Michel Platini aims to increase investment in European clubs
UEFA has lifted some Financial Fair Play restrictions on club spending
They will make more teams competitive and attractive to investors
Clubs will be allowed period of accelerated spending if they present affordable business model
But they must prove they will return to even spending within three years
Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain among clubs sanctioned in 2014

By Rob Harris, Ap

Published: 08:06, 30 June 2015  | Updated: 11:35, 30 June 2015 
European football is lifting some of the restrictions on club spending in an attempt to make more teams competitive and ensure clubs are more attractive for new investors.

UEFA on Monday agreed to relax some of its Financial Fair Play rules, allowing clubs a period of accelerated spending on players if they present an affordable business model and show they are not 'gambling on success.'

The loosening of the rules comes after UEFA found that collective losses by clubs decreased by 70 per cent over the last three years, pointing to how European football grew despite the tough economic climate on the continent.

UEFA president Michel Platini has unveiled relaxed Financial Fair Play rules in Prague

'We are just evolving from a period of austerity to one where we can offer more opportunities for sustainable growth and development,' UEFA president Michel Platini said.

FFP has been the flagship scheme of Platini's presidency since being launched in 2009.

The rules have been criticised for protecting commercially successful elite clubs from challenges by ambitious opponents, with the biggest sanctions in 2014 imposed on Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City and Qatar-funded Paris Saint-Germain.

UEFA acknowledged that the regulations, which were designed to curb losses, put off some prospective buyers of clubs who believed their ability to spend on strengthening the squad would have been too heavily restricted.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3144154/Michel-Platini-launches-tougher-Financial-Fair-Play-rules-UEFA-President-hopes-attract-investment-European-clubs.html#ixzz3gbEuvAby
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is further to the original announcement made in May 2015

Can we please not forget that FSG are also currently funding a £100million+ renovation of Anfield which will definitely have an impact on the transfer kitty.

It's only a guess but I'd be pretty confident the renovation will be funded by naming rights and sponsorship Mags [much easier that if 'we' had built a new stadium if the truth be told].

As for FSG backing the manager and his transfer preferences: I welcome that but I find it amusing that anyone could see that as, somehow, worthy of extraordinary praise - isn't that what they should have been doing all along anyhow?