NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

We have total debt of £114million which includes external debt of £45million. We owe £45million to the bank the rest has been loaned from FSG.

I said we had total debt of £114million according to the accounts .... and we have total debt of £114million according to the accounts.... fact.

I never said I would, could, or wanted to predict what comes next, if you do that is your prerogative. 

So at the of the day we are arguing over semantics?

I asked you because then your opinion could be held accountable. Instead I look forward to you coming in here in 6/12/24 months time and claiming things you thought all along but didn't want to express them beforehand because you hate being wrong.

To this day all I have read from those who critique is unsubstantiated claims with heavy use of hyperbole. I just want to know how people expect this ownership to go if they're so passionately speaking - for lack of a better phrase - against their decisions.

So far all I have come up with is that expectations from the time they took over were to be self-sufficient with on field success, a strong academy with quality young players coming through, not funded by a sugar daddy to maintain some values and to get rid of the dead wood.

When we go from where we were, to where we are, in 3-4 years and all that we wanted has happened I can't fathom so much criticism still arises.

Understandable to feel that way, no?

How or when do you see FSG taking back the money they have loaned to the club Crouchie?

So at the of the day we are arguing over semantics?

I asked you because then your opinion could be held accountable. Instead I look forward to you coming in here in 6/12/24 months time and claiming things you thought all along but didn't want to express them beforehand because you hate being wrong.

To this day all I have read from those who critique is unsubstantiated claims with heavy use of hyperbole. I just want to know how people expect this ownership to go if they're so passionately speaking - for lack of a better phrase - against their decisions.

So far all I have come up with is that expectations from the time they took over were to be self-sufficient with on field success, a strong academy with quality young players coming through, not funded by a sugar daddy to maintain some values and to get rid of the dead wood.

When we go from where we were, to where we are, in 3-4 years and all that we wanted has happened I can't fathom so much criticism still arises.

Understandable to feel that way, no?

In all honesty I have no wish to discuss anything with you at the moment. I found your posts arrogant and the way you constantly attributed things I have never said to me and tried to change the subject under discussion at every opportunity annoying, which I think I made plain.

I come on here to talk about Liverpool and have a laugh and a good time, not for stupid arguments with someone who can't admit when they are wrong.

So I think I will leave it there thanks. 

I'm sorry but who the f**k is Don Hutchinson - he's before my time I realise for sure.

Something about Scots pundits (not discriminating as I'm a Scot) - usually the really sh*t players like Craig Burley and Hutchison are as sh*t with their opinions as they were with the ball. Complete fuckers.

Seems a bit of a random post mate

He played for Liverpool under Souness, I think we either sold him to West ham or swopped him? Was a bit of a c**t really as he went on to play for a s*n football team later in his career.

Was actually a decent footballer from what little I can remember of him.... mainly for Scotland.

Seems a bit of a random post mate

He played for Liverpool under Souness, I think we either sold him to West ham or swopped him? Was a bit of a c**t really as he went on to play for a s*n football team later in his career.

Was actually a decent footballer from what little I can remember of him.... mainly for Scotland.

He was mentioned in the Balotelli thread mate so I think SOAG got lost.

He was mentioned in the Balotelli thread mate so I think SOAG got lost.

I wondered what the relevance was

Easily done though, I have done the same a time or two.

Sorry to butt into Crouchie and Saints 'debate' but Crouch surely debt is debt whether it be inter company or not and as a result that money will have to be paid back at some point in time.

You mount a staunch defense of FSG Crouchie mate but I just dont see why its so important to defend the owners as much as you do mate.

Sorry to butt into Crouchie and Saints 'debate' but Crouch surely debt is debt whether it be inter company or not and as a result that money will have to be paid back at some point in time.

You mount a staunch defense of FSG Crouchie mate but I just dont see why its so important to defend the owners as much as you do mate.

It has to be paid back but doesn't need to be "serviced", and as such sits on the balance sheet twiddling its thumbs until it can be offset against future profits.
Yes, it's debt but it should be treated differently than external debt in discussions because it doesn't affect the club in the way an external debt does.
 

Sorry to butt into Crouchie and Saints 'debate' but Crouch surely debt is debt whether it be inter company or not and as a result that money will have to be paid back at some point in time.

You mount a staunch defense of FSG Crouchie mate but I just dont see why its so important to defend the owners as much as you do mate.

This probably wouldn't be the case if there weren't inane conspiracy theorists posting nothing but cynicism FSG's way.

I think The Lark a page or two back made the best post regarding FSG. But people have their agendas, for whatever reason.

Sorry to butt into Crouchie and Saints 'debate' but Crouch surely debt is debt whether it be inter company or not and as a result that money will have to be paid back at some point in time.

You mount a staunch defense of FSG Crouchie mate but I just dont see why its so important to defend the owners as much as you do mate.

Essentially the owners have lent themselves money hence all the argument about whether it is really a "debt" as such.

Down the road we can see the results of another set of owners "backing the manager". Rumours are that United are going to drop 60m on Di Maria following their acquisitions of Fellaini, Herrera,  Mata and Shaw (who is on a ludicrous 120k per week and is too fat to play) and re-signing of Rooney on big money. NONE of these purchases actually seem to reliably address United's problems and if you look at their projected wage bill due to the increased TV rights they simply HAVE to get Champions League this season otherwise they will fall farther behind with revenue and have serious problems with rebuilding their squad to actually win anything.

Some people on this thread still don't seem to get the simple notion that success is much harder to achieve than just "backing the manager" and spending money.

This probably wouldn't be the case if there weren't inane conspiracy theorists posting nothing but cynicism FSG's way.

I think The Lark a page or two back made the best post regarding FSG. But people have their agendas, for whatever reason.

By definition those who consistently laud the owners and attempt to vilify any view that differs have an agenda.
FSG have until recently provoked great disquiet in their perceived inaction regarding the skeleton squad, a result of their ''pruning'', and the snail-pace new stadia.
Pointing the above out is fact.
Fact has no part whatsoever in the definition of agenda.

By definition those who consistently laud the owners and attempt to vilify any view that differs have an agenda.
FSG have until recently provoked great disquiet in their perceived inaction regarding the skeleton squad, a result of their ''pruning'', and the snail-pace new stadia.
Pointing the above out is fact.
Fact has no part whatsoever in the definition of agenda.

Probably because those who laud our owners see them as part of our club and defend them as much as anyone else at the club. Quite frankly, it's fair enough considering they are not another H&G. All the whinging and moaning typically comes from ideological (when it suits them) socialists who can't spend other peoples' money quick enough, the demanding and ungrateful gits.

In all honesty I have no wish to discuss anything with you at the moment. I found your posts arrogant and the way you constantly attributed things I have never said to me and tried to change the subject under discussion at every opportunity annoying, which I think I made plain.

I come on here to talk about Liverpool and have a laugh and a good time, not for stupid arguments with someone who can't admit when they are wrong.

So I think I will leave it there thanks. 

Hang on, you debated the loan was not interest free. Then you found out it was interest free. Then you took the arrogant and condescending tone out of your posts because you found out you were wrong.

No more ''s or expletives in my direction because you shown up for a Googler with no real knowledge about it.

Sorry to butt into Crouchie and Saints 'debate' but Crouch surely debt is debt whether it be inter company or not and as a result that money will have to be paid back at some point in time.

You mount a staunch defense of FSG Crouchie mate but I just dont see why its so important to defend the owners as much as you do mate.

This got answered but essentially, while it is a sum of money that will be repaid, because it doesn't have a repayment date or any interest on the figure FSG provided the club it doesn't really equate to a liability on the club. If we were to go bust, we wouldn't owe the owners that money.

I defend them because they are exactly what we wanted. We rarely see their faces, too. But it isn't enough for some people.

I'm studying these things at uni and i even got to choose FSG as a topic for my assignment. I studied them, their history and how they act, so when people perpetuate inaccuracies but try to pass it off as an educated summarisation i get annoyed. Because Joe Smith doesn't care about reading through the financial statements and what they mean, he will just read that some bloke named s@int with a large amount of posts said the club has this amount of debt, and the owners are handicapping our progress through greed and he will believe it. Then he spreads that around and at the end of the day this inaccuracy has been taken as fact.

s@int based a whole argument on one article from ESPN without any quotes from the club and then posted a screenshot without knowing what it means. That argument proved to be wrong so he goes with the other angle of his argument which purely debated semantics.

By definition those who consistently laud the owners and attempt to vilify any view that differs have an agenda.
FSG have until recently provoked great disquiet in their perceived inaction regarding the skeleton squad, a result of their ''pruning'', and the snail-pace new stadia.
Pointing the above out is fact.
Fact has no part whatsoever in the definition of agenda.

stuey, with your vocabulary i will assume you are an intelligent man. But when you claim snail-pace progress made on stadia, i do question how easy you think it is to make progress in such a situation? We are talking about relocation or reconstruction. If we get that decision wrong, we are fu**ed to put it bluntly.

To compare it to a similar club, Arsenal planned their stadium since 1999. And on top of our planning, FSG covered the £50m or so in planning fees that H&G racked up against the club which were obviously never going to happen. From the time they actually started planning in 2010, to now they have got designs approved, a construction site and managed to keep us at Anfield. That is not snail-like one bit mate.

I'm not defending them for the sake of equalling the negativity from other people. It's not a contest. I want what is best for the club and through what i have researched i found their actions to be extremely logical and impressive. Their financial decisions are low variance but highly responsible and the club needed that to get out of the sh*t situation we were in.

I wouldn't trade our owners for anyone else in the league. Yes we could get a Sheikh in but Liverpool is above that and it would take some of the soul out of the club. We're in good hands, i promise that.

Probably because those who laud our owners see them as part of our club and defend them as much as anyone else at the club. Quite frankly, it's fair enough considering they are not another H&G. All the whinging and moaning typically comes from ideological (when it suits them) socialists who can't spend other peoples' money quick enough, the demanding and ungrateful gits.

FSG have received deserved credibility in what some see (cautiously) as an about turn in the transfer window in using the Suarez monies to strengthen the squad,
There is still a need to bolster the squad for the season's greater demands - once again a desire to see this implemented is not a criticism or a snipe at the owners, but a wish to see LFC capitalise on what has been achieved.
Failure to do so will very probably condemn us to an 'also ran' status. 

If FSG pull out tomorrow they will want their loan back its a f***in debt today ,tomorrow and forever until it is repaid interest or not.
we are told these are smart owners ,businessmen so far the jury is out looking at the amount of debt on the club. As far as the best owners in the league Roman is miles ahead of any other owners just look at the silverware he has brought to Chelsea and then tell me there is a better owner. Their saviour has been Brendan and Luis Suarez firstly for his goals and secondly for the £75mil they sold him for. It strikes me they are still not 100% convinced they did the right thing buying into a club in a sport they have little knowledge of or little love for.

If FSG pull out tomorrow they will want their loan back its a f***in debt today ,tomorrow and forever until it is repaid interest or not.
we are told these are smart owners ,businessmen so far the jury is out looking at the amount of debt on the club. As far as the best owners in the league Roman is miles ahead of any other owners just look at the silverware he has brought to Chelsea and then tell me there is a better owner. Their saviour has been Brendan and Luis Suarez firstly for his goals and secondly for the £75mil they sold him for. It strikes me they are still not 100% convinced they did the right thing buying into a club in a sport they have little knowledge of or little love for.

He might be the most successful but do you want Roman running our club? 9 managers have come and gone in 10 season at that club. Very Liverpool-like.

walton, it's not debt. Them putting that money in shows they aren't going to sell any time soon.

Them putting that money in shows they aren't going to sell any time soon.

Speculate to accumulate.

Them loaning money into the club, and will fully want a return, so by them wanting their money back as some stage, it counts as debt.

He might be the most successful but do you want Roman running our club? 9 managers have come and gone in 10 season at that club. Very Liverpool-like.

walton, it's not debt. Them putting that money in shows they aren't going to sell any time soon.

They sacked Kenny the manager who actually won them a trophy and got to another final no different than Roman and if we finished 6th or 7th then they will sack Brendan.Managers come and go as do players we have sacked 2 of the most revered managers we have had so as a club we have had 4 managers in 4 years similar to Chelsea so we are no longer able to throw that at them.the difference is they won the CL and the league in that time.

If FSG pull out tomorrow they will want their loan back its a f***in debt today ,tomorrow and forever until it is repaid interest or not.
we are told these are smart owners ,businessmen so far the jury is out looking at the amount of debt on the club. As far as the best owners in the league Roman is miles ahead of any other owners just look at the silverware he has brought to Chelsea and then tell me there is a better owner. Their saviour has been Brendan and Luis Suarez firstly for his goals and secondly for the £75mil they sold him for. It strikes me they are still not 100% convinced they did the right thing buying into a club in a sport they have little knowledge of or little love for.

We repaid £8million of the inter-company debt in 2012 mate. We also repaid £4 million of inter-company debt the previous year too.


And we will have to repay the rest of the debt....

I would rather pay inter-debt to the owners.

I would rather not pay interest at a ridiculous rate to the bankers which could effect our managers ability in the transfer market.

I would rather pay inter-debt to the owners.

I would rather not pay interest at a ridiculous rate to the bankers which could effect our managers ability in the transfer market.

No question an interest free loan is better mate.... but it is still a loan and sooner or later it has to be repaid.

They sacked Kenny the manager who actually won them a trophy and got to another final no different than Roman and if we finished 6th or 7th then they will sack Brendan.Managers come and go as do players we have sacked 2 of the most revered managers we have had so as a club we have had 4 managers in 4 years similar to Chelsea so we are no longer able to throw that at them.the difference is they won the CL and the league in that time.

They sacked Hodgson the shithouse and then Kenny. Brendan seems to be doing an amazing job so were they wrong in sacking Kenny?

Two of the sackings should never of happened as Rafa should of stayed but the cowboys fu**ed him, which led to Hodgson coming and going.

Speculate to accumulate.

Them loaning money into the club, and will fully want a return, so by them wanting their money back as some stage, it counts as debt.

The loan itself cannot generate the owners any return as there is no interest payable by the club to the owners on this money.

The owners hope by injecting this money it will help finance aspects of the club which helps the club grow and THEN they get a return on those specific activities. But the loan itself cannot generate a return. For example, providing £50m and spending that on player acquisitions would hopefully lead to improved performance on the pitch and then higher prize money. Then the club receives a return on the money they spent on the players but the £50m itself does not generate anything.

Compared to a loan by an owner that does include interest payable, whereby the money injected to the club generates a return at a fixed rate (say for example 3%) and also the money it is used for also hopefully generates a return. Then they owner would be guaranteed to receive for example a $3,000 profit on their $100,000 loan, but in our situation the owners are guaranteed nothing if they don't invest it wisely in the club. 

This thread is great. It's helping me revise my theory.

No question an interest free loan is better mate.... but it is still a loan and sooner or later it has to be repaid.

But the loan will be repaid at the owners convenience without compromising the squad.

There are no external pressures into repaying it back.

That's the beauty.

Abromovich has given Chelsea plenty of Director loans which the club will have to pay back once he decides to sell in all honesty which I dont think he ever will.