NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

I wish people would stop going on about money. It's not about money. They've handed him plenty of it. It's the structure of that money's use that needs to change, not an increase in funding, i.e. budgeting for higher wages out of the transfer kitty as and where appropriate.

I think that's a too simplistic way of looking at it mate..

Let's say for arguments sake that Brendan had full use of a budget this summer of 100m.. Ok

So he decides to spend 50 million on one player who wants 250k a week [around 12.5m in wages per year] so that's 62.5m of his budget gone..

He then goes and brings in a 20 million player on 150k a week [7.5m a year]

That's leaves him 10 million left over of his budget

So let's say that how he is wanting to spend it from his own free will..

Then he gets several phone calls from agents of current players hearing about the new players on far more money than their clients at the club and all harmony goes out the window as players want to be brought in line with the new guys

Added to that our squad with the trimming it's had in recent years isn't in a position depth wise to add two players a window

We essentially have a wage cap under a different name at the club, so he can't go around 'appropriately' dispersing the budget where he wants as he has to work within a structure.

I have no worries personally about that structure as there is nothing I can do about it however I persist with the fact we won't win under these with that structure as the clubs above us [even ones without oil] don't work to those structures we are.

We have a good squad put together but it has a ceiling, add three or four real world class stars to that and we may compete as they are the ones that make the real difference but we aren't in the market for that type.. And aren't viewed by those players and their agents as being as far along to winning things as the clubs above us..
We are probably viewed by those players or the ones slightly below as a stepping stone or a selling club that we can't keep hold of the real world class talents who move on to win things..

That's the structure we are living within

I wish people would stop going on about money. It's not about money. They've handed him plenty of it.

It's the structure of that money's use that needs to change, not an increase in funding, i.e. budgeting for higher wages out of the transfer kitty as and where appropriate.

It IS the use of the money we are talking about .....

ozi, I think as far as the commercial side goes, we have come on a fair bit under FSG.We were starting from a pretty low point, because that side of things had been neglected for years.Thanks to Parry, we were basically 20 years behind man u in terms of commercial success.Ayre apparently has lots of contacts in Asia, and has done a good job on the commercial side so far, but I think you're right and they need to step it up a gear.For the owners, the profit will come when they sell us on, something which won't happen for a good few years.

indeed, i completely agree. i actually went to a questions and answers session with ayre a few years back when he was in london and he talked extensively about the neglected commercial opportunities in the past. he laid out the club's plans for expansion into asia and i think we've been seeing the fruits of those plans in the past 2 years especially. there was also a documentary on bbc about the business of football and we were mentioned as one of the most sophisticated business set ups in the pl, so i'm comfortable with the ambitions.

when i say we need to do more commercially, i do mean unexploited markets, such as south america where we're almost non-existent, india where football is becoming more popular but we have failed to be as aggressive as united. we've done well in south east asia - when i was travelling i came across so many dedicated lfc stores, supporters clubs and advertising in thailand, vietnam, china and phillipines, but not india. deffo need to step it up because if we don't, someone else will.

you've also made an excellent point about club's sell-on value. it's well known that there is no money in football from an operating sense, it doesn't work in the same way as other businesses. so it makes no sense to me when people say that the owners want to buy cheap, young players and make a profit by selling them on. they will make money if the clubs becomes successfull on the pitch, and it expands commercially and then they can sell the club for a huge profit, there is nothing wrong with that. as much as i'm a fan and i don't like seeing the club as an asset, this is the business of football these days, so i care about the type of owners we have. fsg are far better than most others imo - so long as they don't sell to cancerous people like you know who.

It IS the use of the money we are talking about .....

Well that's not what you said. You specifically said "trust Brendan Rodgers with more money" 

Well that's not what you said. You specifically said "trust Brendan Rodgers with more money" 

........... because of the use of the money to date.   Thought that would be obvious to anyone.
?

indeed, i completely agree. i actually went to a questions and answers session with ayre a few years back when he was in london and he talked extensively about the neglected commercial opportunities in the past. he laid out the club's plans for expansion into asia and i think we've been seeing the fruits of those plans in the past 2 years especially. there was also a documentary on bbc about the business of football and we were mentioned as one of the most sophisticated business set ups in the pl, so i'm comfortable with the ambitions.

when i say we need to do more commercially, i do mean unexploited markets, such as south america where we're almost non-existent, india where football is becoming more popular but we have failed to be as aggressive as united. we've done well in south east asia - when i was travelling i came across so many dedicated lfc stores, supporters clubs and advertising in thailand, vietnam, china and phillipines, but not india. deffo need to step it up because if we don't, someone else will.

you've also made an excellent point about club's sell-on value. it's well known that there is no money in football from an operating sense, it doesn't work in the same way as other businesses. so it makes no sense to me when people say that the owners want to buy cheap, young players and make a profit by selling them on. they will make money if the clubs becomes successfull on the pitch, and it expands commercially and then they can sell the club for a huge profit, there is nothing wrong with that. as much as i'm a fan and i don't like seeing the club as an asset, this is the business of football these days, so i care about the type of owners we have. fsg are far better than most others imo - so long as they don't sell to cancerous people like you know who.

Just to address your last point (because I agree with your other points), I don't think it's that well known that there is little profit in football.
People think there is because of the perception of huge fees, but the reality is that a businessman/investor would do far better putting their money elsewhere because they would get a far greater return in a much shorter timespan.
In fact if you look at clubs across the world, even the wealthiest wouldn't get into the FTSE 100, and I doubt that many, if any would get into the FTSE 500.
So all this talk about a group of multi millionaires and a few billionaires (in the FSG group headed by Henry as "principle" investor) raking what amounts to loose change (for them) out of the club makes no sense to me.

The talk of buying young players cheap and then selling them on when they are at maximum value is a method used by Lyon, and has been successful for them, albeit in a less competitive league and one that isn't awash with money in the same way the Prem is, although that may change now that there is oil money going into the clubs in France.
However, the "Lyon method" would struggle to gain any type of traction in the Prem (or any English league), in my opinion, simply because the structure is so different.
In France, as in other countries, a DoF makes the decisions about the acquisition of players, and the managers aren't managers at all, instead they are coaches and they stick to coaching with little input into buying players.

I do have one major issue with FSG, which is that of heavily incentivised contracts for established players.
Now, it could be said that buying them young and giving them contracts based on how well they do is a good thing, and I agree to an extent.
The issue I have is when they try to apply (IF this is what they do) the same conditions to established players.
We've seen that they are prepared to award big contracts to players (Suarez was our highest earner I think after he signed his last contract), but (and here's the IF again) IF this is the case, and we want established players then a high basic package along with incentivised add-ons is what these players look for.
Of course this might be wide of the mark, and they may have changed how contracts are awarded, but that's my understanding.

We essentially have a wage cap under a different name at the club, so he can't go around 'appropriately' dispersing the budget where he wants as he has to work within a structure.

I have no worries personally about that structure as there is nothing I can do about it however I persist with the fact we won't win under these with that structure as the clubs above us [even ones without oil] don't work to those structures we are.

We have a good squad put together but it has a ceiling, add three or four real world class stars to that and we may compete as they are the ones that make the real difference but we aren't in the market for that type.. And aren't viewed by those players and their agents as being as far along to winning things as the clubs above us..
We are probably viewed by those players or the ones slightly below as a stepping stone or a selling club that we can't keep hold of the real world class talents who move on to win things..

That's the structure we are living within

Replace the underlined with constriction Jon and a more relevant synopsis appears

I do have one major issue with FSG, which is that of heavily incentivised contracts for established players.Now, it could be said that buying them young and giving them contracts based on how well they do is a good thing, and I agree to an extent.The issue I have is when they try to apply (IF this is what they do) the same conditions to established players.We've seen that they are prepared to award big contracts to players (Suarez was our highest earner I think after he signed his last contract), but (and here's the IF again) IF this is the case, and we want established players then a high basic package along with incentivised add-ons is what these players look for.Of course this might be wide of the mark, and they may have changed how contracts are awarded, but that's my understanding.

This is true and the impression I got from the summer was that some established players (Falcao, Cavani) wouldn't come to us because wages were one of the issues. Does that mean we upset the wage structure for the sake of risking some big names? Falcao's form suggests it wouldn't have been worth the risk. I imagine the mood in the changing rooms would have been negatively impacted if some other established players were unhappy at the sky-high wages handed out to new big names.

Completely agree with the point about buy-to-sell strategy not really fitting into the PL. Swansea were the most profitable club last year with 21m profit (not exactly raking it in but not bad) and I wouldn't describe them as a club whose strategy is buy-them-young-sell-for-profit. Doesn't stop people on this forum accusing FSG of doing the very same though, just baffles me.

This is true and the impression I got from the summer was that some established players (Falcao, Cavani) wouldn't come to us because wages were one of the issues. Does that mean we upset the wage structure for the sake of risking some big names? Falcao's form suggests it wouldn't have been worth the risk. I imagine the mood in the changing rooms would have been negatively impacted if some other established players were unhappy at the sky-high wages handed out to new big names.

Completely agree with the point about buy-to-sell strategy not really fitting into the PL. Swansea were the most profitable club last year with 21m profit (not exactly raking it in but not bad) and I wouldn't describe them as a club whose strategy is buy-them-young-sell-for-profit. Doesn't stop people on this forum accusing FSG of doing the very same though, just baffles me.

I don't think we have a wage cap in the way Arsenal do, and FSG showed they are prepared to pay big wages if the player is performing at a level where they merit a big wage when they gave big increases to some players. Gerrard and Suarez are the ones who immediately spring to mind, and I know Agger had a new contract, which I assume included an increase.

I also think the effect of big names on big wages affecting the dressing room are exaggerated, unless of course a player thinks their own contribution is equal to or greater than a new player, but again, a player of that stature would be well rewarded under FSG's structure as has been proven.

We also don't have a prima dona like rooney demanding 300k a week, and briefing the press that he wants a transfer unless the club pays him what he thinks he deserves, in fact I think it's quite the opposite, and we have a pretty tight unit bar the odd falling out that always happens and which gets blown out of proportion by the press.

So, to sum up, I don't think big wages are an issue for existing players, because they would view it as having been earned, and if a big name came in, they should also recognise that the club is prepared to pay them a high basic wage because of what they have achieved elsewhere. However, it appears from what's been reported that the club is offering a comparatively small basic package, with lots of inducements and add ons. It wouldn't surprise me if our win bonus and league position bous were amongst the highest in the league, with the basic salary being on the low end.

Arsenal seem to have no problem attracting players on what is a very rigid pay structure, that is not very high in comparison to other top 4 teams of recent years (excluding us), and the same goes for Spurs, so perhaps the lure of London is greater than I give it credit for being.

I've always been of the opinion that if you want the best, you pay the going rate and if you have to increase it because of other factors (like London), then that's what you do, so to me FSG's policy (IF we have it right) is flawed when it comes to getting the best players in.

I've always been of the opinion that if you want the best, you pay the going rate and if you have to increase it because of other factors (like London), then that's what you do, so to me FSG's policy (IF we have it right) is flawed when it comes to getting the best players in.

It depends Shabs. By in large, you make a good point about the personalities in our team. We don't have big egos, even Luis, knowing he was one of the bets in the world, worked like a donkey for the team and never seemed to see himself as above others.

The current structure rewards exceptional players with big salaries like Luis and Stevie...in both cases, these guys earned it after proving themselves in the club. You would prefer more of a shift towards offering big wages to the right transfers. I myself am against it. I completely understand and respect your opinion, you're correct in saying that top class players simply won't come unless they're offered the right wages. My only argument against it is that it's risky because

1- you're not guaranteed the return for your money - plenty of examples of players who have flopped, allbeit there are plenty who are thriving as well
2 - it's not much more of a risk in investing into unproven, younger players who could earn it and stay for the long haul. Luis was a special case, but players like Sterling, Couts, Llalana, Can, Sturridge, Moreno are the future of our club and at least one of those is on the way to becoming a superstar

Not downplaying your case mate, it's a completely valid point. Just a difference of opnion I guess. So, if you or I owned the club, we know what the relative direction the club would take

I'm thankful FSG don't spend millions every summer or pay ridiculous wages. I'd hate to see us winning the league in the manner Chelsea and City have.

I don't involve myself too much with the politics of the club, I prefer to just watch the match and discuss what happened on the pitch, but from what I can gather they seem to put into the club whatever we earn without spending much or any of their own money - seems pretty fair to me.

Some owners, Ashley and Kenwright perhaps, would have pocketed 75% of Luis's transfer fee but they've given it all to Brendan to bring in who he sees fit.

Despite the loss of Luis, 100m onto what we already had last season should easily see us qualify for the CL no matter what wages our players are on. Then next season, maybe the year after, I expect those players to have gelled and for LFC to be a squad challenging for the league title.

It depends Shabs. Swab By in large, you make a good point about the personalities in our team.

Fixed it for yah Ozi

I'm thankful FSG don't spend millions every summer or pay ridiculous wages. I'd hate to see us winning the league in the manner Chelsea and City have.

I'd love it.

It depends Shabs. By in large, you make a good point about the personalities in our team. We don't have big egos, even Luis, knowing he was one of the bets in the world, worked like a donkey for the team and never seemed to see himself as above others.

The current structure rewards exceptional players with big salaries like Luis and Stevie...in both cases, these guys earned it after proving themselves in the club. You would prefer more of a shift towards offering big wages to the right transfers. I myself am against it. I completely understand and respect your opinion, you're correct in saying that top class players simply won't come unless they're offered the right wages. My only argument against it is that it's risky because

1- you're not guaranteed the return for your money - plenty of examples of players who have flopped, allbeit there are plenty who are thriving as well
2 - it's not much more of a risk in investing into unproven, younger players who could earn it and stay for the long haul. Luis was a special case, but players like Sterling, Couts, Llalana, Can, Sturridge, Moreno are the future of our club and at least one of those is on the way to becoming a superstar

Not downplaying your case mate, it's a completely valid point. Just a difference of opnion I guess. So, if you or I owned the club, we know what the relative direction the club would take

That's fair enough.
I can see both sides of the argument, and wouldn't disagree.
If anything, paying big wages to an established player is a greater risk than giving an incentivised contract to a young player who may or may not improve.
I would prefer it to be the managers call more than anything.
For example, the papers are talking about the Reus rumours again. If the manager sits down with the player and after talking with him decides this player is worth (for instance) 150k per week basic, with fewer add ons and incentives, I'd like for him to be able to make that choice rather than have Ayre negotiate the contract based on guidelines set by the owners.

Of course, much of this is supposition, but I think it's an interesting discussion even though we are not fully aware of the minutiae of any guidelines or even if they exist regarding wages.

Fixed it for yah Ozi

Always getting people's names wrong, story of my life. My apologies sirs...

Liverpool owner John W Henry may be in Dubai to discuss naming rights

• American billionaire has travelled with former CEO Rick Parry
• Liverpool searching for sponsorship for redeveloped Anfield



Liverpool’s principal owner, John W Henry, has travelled to Dubai for meetings that could open up sponsorship or naming rights deals between the Anfield club and businesses in the Middle East.

The Boston-based billionaire has been accompanied on the trip by the former Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry, who left the club during the near-ruinous reign of George Gillett and Tom Hicks, and watched Al Wasl’s game with Ajman on Wednesday.

Liverpool are not believed to be the only topic on Henry’s agenda in Dubai but, with planning permission recently granted for a new £75m Main Stand at Anfield, and Fenway Sports Group increasing the club’s commercial revenue since taking over, his visit in the company of Parry raises the prospect of a new sponsorship arrangement.

Meanwhile, Liverpool have released three of the club’s scouts as part of an overhaul of their scouting network. Alan Harper, Mel Johnson and Mike McGlynn have all parted company with the club.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/05/liverpool-john-w-henry-dubai-naming-rights

Rick F***ing Parry.

The Briefcase ?

WTF is Parry doing in on the business ?  Useless commercial acumen ....bad judge of business associates (H and G)  etc ?


Three of our "scouts" been let go ?
(They were good then.....)



Shambles   F***ing Shambles.

Three of our "scouts" been let go ?
(They were good then.....)

F**k knows mate but I'm glad something seems to have been changed in the player recruitment department. More changes to follow is all I can hope.

Three of our "scouts" been let go ?

Hopefully it's not because they told FSG " Whatever you do don't sell Suarez"

It can only be positive after the calamitous transfer windows we have had over the last few years.

F**k knows mate but I'm glad something seems to have been changed in the player recruitment department. More changes to follow is all I can hope.

Hopefully it's not because they told FSG " Whatever you do don't sell Suarez"

It can only be positive after the calamitous transfer windows we have had over the last few years.

Got to be an improvement.  Agreed.

Liverpool owner John W Henry may be in Dubai to discuss naming rights

• American billionaire has travelled with former CEO Rick Parry
• Liverpool searching for sponsorship for redeveloped Anfield



Liverpool’s principal owner, John W Henry, has travelled to Dubai for meetings that could open up sponsorship or naming rights deals between the Anfield club and businesses in the Middle East.

The Boston-based billionaire has been accompanied on the trip by the former Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry, who left the club during the near-ruinous reign of George Gillett and Tom Hicks, and watched Al Wasl’s game with Ajman on Wednesday.

Liverpool are not believed to be the only topic on Henry’s agenda in Dubai but, with planning permission recently granted for a new £75m Main Stand at Anfield, and Fenway Sports Group increasing the club’s commercial revenue since taking over, his visit in the company of Parry raises the prospect of a new sponsorship arrangement.

Meanwhile, Liverpool have released three of the club’s scouts as part of an overhaul of their scouting network. Alan Harper, Mel Johnson and Mike McGlynn have all parted company with the club.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/05/liverpool-john-w-henry-dubai-naming-rights

God help us if Parry is the chief business advisor to John Henry and Fenway. He caused us enough problems when was an official employee of L.F.C.

God help us if Parry is the chief business advisor to John Henry and Fenway. He caused us enough problems when was an official employee of L.F.C.

Maybe Henry is going to get his advice and then do the exact opposite? One can always hope

Laughable how many on here want us to outspend the petrodollar clubs.

We have spent hundreds of millions on transfers and some of our contracts are approaching 200k per week yet we should be hosing more money at the team because the arabs can afford to.

Here's a newsflash for you - we will never outspend those clubs and that has never been our strategy at this club. If you think that buying success is the only way to win the league you are supporting the wrong club.

Laughable how many on here want us to outspend the petrodollar clubs.

We have spent hundreds of millions on transfers and some of our contracts are approaching 200k per week yet we should be hosing more money at the team because the arabs can afford to.

Here's a newsflash for you - we will never outspend those clubs and that has never been our strategy at this club. If you think that buying success is the only way to win the league you are supporting the wrong club.

Isn't it more a case of unwilling to offer the wages to lure the top quality players here?