Liverpool being lined up for 700m Middle Eastern takeover.

Surely the owners are the shareholders,the days of shareholders of L.F.C. finished when Moores sold out to Twit and T**t otherwise known as Hicks and Gillette.

There are shareholders in FSG. There is also one minority shareholder in Liverpool, LeBron James, but what percentage he owns is up for debate

There are shareholders in FSG. There is also one minority shareholder in Liverpool, LeBron James, but what percentage he owns is up for debate

Minority shareholders are known to own less than 10% each apart from the below.

Estimated shareholding structure of FSG

Gordon’s ownership stake, which started at roughly 2 percent, grew to an estimated 12 percent, the second-largest slice after Henry (about 40 percent) and ahead of Werner (about 10 percent), according to sources with knowledge of the ownership structure.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/06/michael-gordon-plays-private-but-powerful-role-with-red-sox/LTyWgAifZdBWdqvLjLFt7H/story.html

Minority shareholders are known to own less than 10% each apart from the below.

Estimated shareholding structure of FSG

Gordon’s ownership stake, which started at roughly 2 percent, grew to an estimated 12 percent, the second-largest slice after Henry (about 40 percent) and ahead of Werner (about 10 percent), according to sources with knowledge of the ownership structure.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/06/michael-gordon-plays-private-but-powerful-role-with-red-sox/LTyWgAifZdBWdqvLjLFt7H/story.html

Lebron only owns share in Liverpool not FSG. But PL rules state ( I believe) if anyone owns more than 10% th ePL has to be told. So I would say it is fair to say he owns under 10 %

Abu Dhabi aren't in football for the money, they probably make losses every year from Man City. Its all about buying symbols of Western culture for them, their reasons for investing are purely political and cultural.

No

wrong, they are mostly in it for the money. They are diversifying their investments into other sectors to generate more revenues, one of them is football.

I absolutely dispute that having new owners like these would make us Soulless. Firstly, we have a huge loyal world wide support already in place, unlike City and Chelsea. Sure we may add a few more band wagon jumpers if we became successful again, but we have our bleed Red fan base already in place.

Secondly, it's all very well saying that you'd rather build a team of little known players, and turn them into world beaters, but that is NOT the proven method of becoming a hugely successful team. While we piss about trying to find fought diamonds to mold into top class players, the usual suspects (City, Chelsea, Utd) will be busy using all the extra tv money to buy the type of player that will widen the gap between themselves and us.

When you watch Madrid, Barca or Bayern, do you look at them and think, "wow those clubs look Soulless" as they lift yet another Champions league trophy? You may well think that, but it doesn't change the fact that these clubs, the ones you don't want to become like, are proving that the teams with the money are generally the most successful!

Class...

City started from scratch (a distant 9th or 10th) and in 7 years Mansour has brought 2 titles and two trophies. Will he stay longer than the Boston boys? Will he make as much money from 'the deal' as the Boston boys? I'm betting "yes" and "no" (in that order).

Football before profit all day every F***ing day. 

I wish we had an owner like abramovich and Mansour , they've pumped all their money in because they have the winning mentality and they love winning . It's not about the profit to them as much . These owners we have are an upgrade on Randy Lerner that's all they are .

Yeah but your 'assumption' that 6000 houses was good is naive

Oh dear.

I'll try again:

"if you want to read what I wrote again (and not what you think I wrote) you'd see...

* FMS inferred that I hadn't looked behind the headlines; that I was naive.

* I replied that he was "probably right"... that "I just accepted that the 6,000 new homes being built in a regeneration programme, (which City's owners are funding, in a £1bn deal), was a good thing just because the local media and council appear to think so." and that  "I should have known better."

However... the fact that FMS was then mature enough to acknowledge that "1 billion is a lot and is impressive.", would maybe suggest that I wasn't actually being too naive; that maybe he hadn't realised Mansour had ploughed so much money into 'the community' when he made his initial claim.

Read what the people of Manchester [not me or you] think of that £1bn... I promise you it will help.

 

I wish we had an owner like abramovich and Mansour , they've pumped all their money in because they have the winning mentality and they love winning . It's not about the profit to them as much . These owners we have are an upgrade on Randy Lerner that's all they are .

Naive to think Mansour or Mubadala isn't in it for the money

Mubadala is a diversified investment company that has been investing in real estate, construction, finance, retail and now football. They see there is an opportunity to make more money in football so they bought Man City.

FSG is not as rich as Mubadala or the the royal family in the Emirates. FSG doesn't have as much money as Mansour to pump into the club. Both companies also differ in their business models and cost structure, hence you see why Man City can afford to have losses rather than us Liverpool cannot afford to have losses.

I wish we had an owner like abramovich and Mansour , they've pumped all their money in because they have the winning mentality and they love winning . It's not about the profit to them as much . These owners we have are an upgrade on Randy Lerner that's all they are .

Of course it's about profit, why do you think the City owners came up with a seriously dodgy sponsorship deal? You can't spend what you don't make in our league. 

Naive to think Mansour or Mubadala isn't in it for the money

Mubadala is a diversified investment company that has been investing in real estate, construction, finance, retail and now football. They see there is an opportunity to make more money in football so they bought Man City.

FSG is not as rich as Mubadala or the the royal family in the Emirates. FSG doesn't have as much money as Mansour to pump into the club. Both companies also differ in their business models and cost structure, hence you see why Man City can afford to have losses rather than us Liverpool cannot afford to have losses.

Obviously they want to make profit and if you see in my post i wrote it's not about the profit as much . I believe they are better owners than ours , fsg have been pissing around since they came in . From the sacking of King Kenny to the appointment of Rodgers to the transfers . Klopp has been the only credible decision they've made .

No more reports of it since the topic was started. Amazed this topic is still going, was clearly just a slow day for the media.

No more reports of it since the topic was started. Amazed this topic is still going, was clearly just a slow day for the media.

not so I saw a flag with Dubai Reds Tax Dodgers on tour so it must have been our new owners surely

whenever we don't need to think about the owners this sh*t comes up and peoples eyes are filled with dollar signs and they immediately start talking like robots about "getting man citys owners brother so we can get 6 world class players and challenge for the league", people just lose their absolute minds after reading 1 made up article. stay strong, we are on the right path, it's all bullshit you're reading

I am not too sure about any take overs, every time there is a takeover there is the possibility the new owners will want t rename the stadium, in such cases as arsenal or city with emirates and Etihad etc...

Can't see the yanks letting go yet. Not with all the dosh now coming into the prem, and the possible extras from the C.L.

I'm not sure why they would want to sell. They're far from the worst owners in the world.