NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

Duncan Oldham, there's a name I haven't heard in a while. Is that fat c**t still in business dealing with his "haters"?

 Business?  He was more of an unepic swindler. Been a while since I heard anything, I hope the parasite's not in business though.

In actuality the guy writing the blog seems to know his stuff....its just our own little plant does not know how to read.

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Liverpool

Another failure in the British Education system, another damn statistic.  You can blame the Tories and Labour for that, scandalous how both parties have treated the education system in the last two decades.  Whoops, that may be a tad off topic.

Another failure in the British Education system, another damn statistic.  You can blame the Tories and Labour for that, scandalous how both parties have treated the education system in the last two decades.  Whoops, that may be a tad off topic.

Understand, some children "Were left behind" here also.

Understand, some children "Were left behind" here also.

My parents tried that several times, luckily I had a keen sense of direction.

I suggest many contributors to this thread get back to debating the topic and not a person's political persuasions.

His credible source is a third rate blogspot, you just couldn't make this sh*t up.

Its called "uncontested facts", dimmy.

The blog your boss Henry describes as "excellent". Google it. If you know how to use Google.

Boohoohoo, looks like your little plan to ripoff football fans is in tatters.
Roddenberry, AZ Patriot, Swab, Hollywood Balls, Phect, Florida Red. Whatever nic you want to use today, my advice is to find another job. Or is that "unpaid internship".

And keep crying about Socialism all you want. But the traditions of the club AND city are heavily linked to Socialism. Altho, you'll also find that the Socialists on this forum know a lot more about business than you lot.

Tactic of the plants:-
Blert Henry's catchphrases repeatedly. When the remaining real fans get bored of you, hurl personal and bullshit abuse. Rinse and repeat.

Apparently he's a Lithuanian. Much of the country spends half the day glorifying nazism. And the other half harrassing its Russian citizens (who were born there) or fitting them up for crimes. Some of them even have the urge to lock people up for even using the word Socialism. Which is quite staggering bearing in mind that without Socialism, the whole country would have nothing more than 3 sheep and a bucket.

Please someone get this clown off the forums. Calling half a country Nazis and the rest poor and dumb is not something I'd even bother investigating. Have you ever been to Lithuania? Absolute waste of space you are.

Thanks for sharing that information mate.So, how does that work in reality? No jargon; no management-speak and no trying to f**king hoodwink people with bull-sh*t, double-speak'...FSG, the business, [principal investors John W. Henry/Tom Werner] lend LFC, the subsidiary, "independent" business, [principal owners John W. Henry/Tom Werner ] X amount. Then LFC, the independent business, use that money for capital investment, thereby increasing the value of that 'independent business' [principal owners John W. Henry/Tom Werner ] and they, LFC, [principal owners John W. Henry/Tom Werner] then, in turn...Pay the loan back to FSG, the business, [principal investors John W. Henry/Tom Werner] but... they are not really lending themselves money because LFC is a subsidiary of FSG: would that be correct?Such wonderful people; so altruistic and here was me thinking that they were merely carpet-bagging whores out to line their own pockets, without any financial risk to themselves or their investors. How silly do I feel now?

Unfortunately mate, the days when clubs are run by owners who are actually fans of the club are pretty much over, I won't insult your intelligence by pretending you don't know that. There are clubs in lower leagues where that kind of passion and connection to the club still exists, Brentford and Peterborough are good examples where the owners actually invest their own money, but not in the Prem - possibly Sunderland and one or two of the smaller clubs, but certainly not a global one like ours.

John Henry and co are certainly not saints who love the club, they have seen it as "good, long term investment" given the global fan base and the potential. LFC will make them mega rich by the time they sell it in 5 or 6 years time. That method of having LFC as a separate entity with the parent company being FSG is pretty much standard. It means if if it becomes a liability, they can sell it off, write off any debts and minimise the risk to any other part of their empire. There are other good models in Europe, notably Barca and Munich, which are part owned by fans. They still operate like a business, but just means the fans have a bit more say on who operates that business.

Now, in principle, I don't have an issue with it because they're not taking money out of the club, and the interest free loans are a good deal. The new stadium and increased sponsorship deals means increased revenues. United operate this way and it's how Arsenal paid off their new stadium. My issue is the way that revenue is re-invested. They're reluctant to commit to large contracts with players because it's too risky to their business model, and that mentality has to change. It doesn't appear to be a money issue because they don't mind laying out to loads of younger players on lower contracts, it means they can spread the "risk", but they're being shortsighted. I say they're shortsighted because they assume younger players with potential will grow into elite and help us win the league. But as we've seen with Raheem, that plan has a major flaw. They have to take some calculated risk and pool the investment on quality players. It works for LFC as a football club, which is what we are, and it will work for them as businessmen because it'll get us regular champs league with increased revenues.

As I said, I think they've done well to stabilise the club financially, kept their promise about stadium expansion and have largely kep out of the limelight. But we're ready for the next stage and they have to take a bit more of a gamble. I'm not furious with them, if they went, likelyhood is they'll be replaced by similar people. There is a chance that a replacement might be more aggressive and a risk-taker, then again could be the absolute opposite like the cancers we managed to get rid of. I accept modern football has changed and we'll never have Shankly/Bob days back, but their "safe pair of hands" approach won't win us the league unfortunately.

Football Marketing
Liverpool hit record visitor numbers for stadium tour and museum

 Published on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 12:05

April 28 – Premier League Liverpool have announced record numbers through the turnstiles for the Anfield Tour and Museum over the past 12 months. Nearly 200,000 visited the club attraction, up from 50,000 the previous year.

Andrew Parkinson, Operations Director, Liverpool Football Club, said: "We are delighted with the visitor numbers to our museum and stadium tours over the past year. We continue to strive to give our fans a unique, authentic and memorable experience when visiting Anfield."

August 2013 was reported as the busiest month with more than 23,000 visitors. Breaking down international visitors by nationality, the top ranking countries for fans making the pilgrimage were Ireland, Norway, Spain, Australia, and the US.

The club attraction has been shortlisted in the Liverpool City Region Tourism Awards for 'Best large visitor attraction'.

Anfield Tour and 'experience' packages range in price from adult entry of £8.50 to the interactive museum up to £35 for a tour of the stadium with a club legend (Phil Neal, John Aldridge, Phil Thompson and Jan Molby all lead tours). The tour can also include lunch in an executive box overlooking the pitch.


   

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/football-marketing/16905-liverpool-hit-record-visitor-numbers-for-stadium-tour-and-museum

Great here is the last major trophy we won.....

Thanks for sharing that information mate.

So, how does that work in reality? No jargon; no management-speak and no trying to f**king hoodwink people with bull-sh*t, double-speak'...

FSG, the business, [principal investors John W. Henry/Tom Werner] lend LFC, the subsidiary, "independent" business, [principal owners John W. Henry/Tom Werner ] X amount.

Then LFC, the independent business, use that money for capital investment, thereby increasing the value of that 'independent business' [principal owners John W. Henry/Tom Werner ] and they, LFC, [principal owners John W. Henry/Tom Werner] then, in turn...

Pay the loan back to FSG, the business, [principal investors John W. Henry/Tom Werner] but... they are not really lending themselves money because LFC is a subsidiary of FSG: would that be correct?

Such wonderful people; so altruistic and here was me thinking that they were merely carpet-bagging whores out to line their own pockets, without any financial risk to themselves or their investors.

How silly do I feel now?   

Read about intercompany loans (MAJORITY of multinational companies use intercompany loans, go ask ANY Chief Financial Officer about it).

http://www.accountingtools.com/questions-and-answers/what-are-intercompany-loans.html

This is a paper about the difference between internal debt & external debt

http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/bhagwan.chowdhry/jcf1.pdf

''parent loans[FSG] to foreign affiliates[LFC] are often regarded as equivalent to equity investment
both by host countries and the investing corporations. A parent company
loan is generally subordinated to all other kinds of debt and does not represent
the same threat of insolvency as an external loan''

Reason that FSG offered an intercompany loan is because of:

a) no bankruptcy or financial distress costs associated to the club.

 

FSG carries a risk, the more debt the Club has the more financial risk it carries and the higher risk FSG carries too. Risk is NEVER zero, your risk is default risk or risk of bankruptcy. If you don't run your business well you end up in the gutter, simple as that.

Read about intercompany loans (MAJORITY of multinational companies use intercompany loans, go ask ANY Chief Financial Officer about it).

http://www.accountingtools.com/questions-and-answers/what-are-intercompany-loans.html

This is a paper about the difference between internal debt & external debt

http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/bhagwan.chowdhry/jcf1.pdf

''parent loans[FSG] to foreign affiliates[LFC] are often regarded as equivalent to equity investment
both by host countries and the investing corporations. A parent company
loan is generally subordinated to all other kinds of debt and does not represent
the same threat of insolvency as an external loan''

Reason that FSG offered an intercompany loan is because of:

a) no bankruptcy or financial distress costs associated to the club.

 

FSG carries a risk, the more debt the Club has the more financial risk it carries and the higher risk FSG carries too. Risk is NEVER zero, your risk is default risk or risk of bankruptcy. If you don't run your business well you end up in the gutter, simple as that.

Again... thanks for the information - it has really help this half-wit but if you could humour me further...

Could you explain to me, in really simple terms, like I'm a six year-old - who/where the money comes from, who [which company] benefits and where the money finally ends up, if everything goes to plan?

Thanks in advance. 

Again... thanks for the information - it has really help this half-wit but if you could humour me further...

Could you explain to me, in really simple terms, like I'm a six year-old - who/where the money comes from, who [which company] benefits and where the money finally ends up, if everything goes to plan?

Thanks in advance. 

Ok mate no worries I'll try my best...

As an independent institution (that takes its decisions on it's own, meaning Ian Ayre, as the managing director, takes decisions regarding the business side of things with directives from the parent company), LFC would go to it's parent company (who is FSG) to ask for money in order to fund the expansion of the stadium (which is completely normal as subsidiaries always rely on their parent company for funds in terms of loans). Now the good side of intercompany loans is that you would not add any sort of financial risk to the subsidiary (LFC) because the club will not owe any external debtors (Banks, Financial institutions, etc...) but only to it's parent company (Like if I go ask my dad (parent) for money and tell him I'll pay him back in a while because my dad is in no rush asking for the money back).

FSG have given interest free loans (which is basically another word for equity investment, unless it was interest based then it would be a loan) to LFC in order to help us build the expansion of the stadium. The money does not go to either John Henry or Tom Werner's accounts, because it's the company FSG who are the entity not John Henry or Tom Werner. John Henry or Tom Werner only cash in on dividends at the end of each year when the Financial accounts are released in a board room meeting (Because they are shareholders and they are entitled to dividends)

The intercompany loan benefits both parties, meaning that FSG in the end will benefit from the expansion of the stadium in terms of revenue growths of their subsidiary which leads to better returns for its shareholders, and LFC will benefit from no bankruptcy costs, no financial distress costs and no financial risk from the intercompany loan. Hence, LFC will not to worry about paying more interest expense (although interest expense sometimes has its benefits as it's used to pay less taxes). The less risky LFC is the better we can utilize our resources.

I hope that helps

Ok mate no worries I'll try my best...

As an independent institution (that takes its decisions on it's own, meaning Ian Ayre, as the managing director, takes decisions regarding the business side of things with directives from the parent company), LFC would go to it's parent company (who is FSG) to ask for money in order to fund the expansion of the stadium (which is completely normal as subsidiaries always rely on their parent company for funds in terms of loans). Now the good side of intercompany loans is that you would not add any sort of financial risk to the subsidiary (LFC) because the club will not owe any external debtors (Banks, Financial institutions, etc...) but only to it's parent company (Like if I go ask my dad (parent) for money and tell him I'll pay him back in a while because my dad is in no rush asking for the money back).

FSG have given interest free loans (which is basically another word for equity investment, unless it was interest based then it would be a loan) to LFC in order to help us build the expansion of the stadium. The money does not go to either John Henry or Tom Werner's accounts, because it's the company FSG who are the entity not John Henry or Tom Werner. John Henry or Tom Werner only cash in on dividends at the end of each year when the Financial accounts are released in a board room meeting (Because they are shareholders and they are entitled to dividends)

The intercompany loan benefits both parties, meaning that FSG in the end will benefit from the expansion of the stadium in terms of revenue growths of their subsidiary which leads to better returns for its shareholders, and LFC will benefit from no bankruptcy costs, no financial distress costs and no financial risk from the intercompany loan. Hence, LFC will not to worry about paying more interest expense (although interest expense sometimes has its benefits as it's used to pay less taxes). The less risky LFC is the better we can utilize our resources.

I hope that helps

How you can even begin to post about such boring nonsense at this time is beyond me mate.

My head is up my F***ing arse right about now.

How you can even beging to post about such boring nonsense at this time is beyond me mate.

My head is up my f**king arse right about now.

He asked, I answered.

and I do this type of boring nonsense for a living (not posting I mean)

He asked, I answered.

and I do this type of boring nonsense for a living (not posting I mean)

Alrighty.

Knock yourself out mate.

I'll be in the football threads wondering where the F**k our season has went.

Ok mate no worries I'll try my best...

Jaysus A_R... Your six year olds must be F***ing geniuses. That's layman's term?

I asked a) where the money initiated from? b) who benefited? and c) where the money ends up?

The answers, put simply, (if I've waded through that explanation right) - The money [loan] comes from FSG - the money benefits both FSG and FSG's subsidiary LFC and finally... the money ends up back with FSG but...

They [FSG] aren't really lending themselves the money because it's called something else.

Boy but that took me back to A level economics class - the place I learned to sleep with my eyes open.

Thanks anyhow. 

They need to change their transfer policy because their current one is f**king sh*te!

DOes anyone know if an how we are employing statistical anlaysis in our recruitment. I mean FSG obviously lowered wages by getting rid of high (older) earners and using youngsters, hence Brendan Rodgers, but are we recruiting too based on what stats say about a player with less subjective analysis by experienced scouts.

Speaking after this side’s 1-0 defeat to Hull City on Tuesday night, Rodgers said: “For supporters, and for players themselves, it is always great if you can get in those marquee players that can really help you.”

“And I think we can see that that’s the type, maybe the one or two players, that we need.”

This is More than just a hint in my eyes, Rodgers takes a lot of blame for the transfers, but he clearly wants world class players here, someone is preventing him! I wonder who??

So why bloody sanction deals for players you describe as "calculated risks" when you had the final right to veto a transfer, Brendan?

This whole season is a mess and it keeps getting messier.

So why bloody sanction deals for players you describe as "calculated risks" when you had the final right to veto a transfer, Brendan?

This whole season is a mess and it keeps getting messier.

Agree mate.

Can see him being shown the door in a month or so.

So why bloody sanction deals for players you describe as "calculated risks" when you had the final right to veto a transfer, Brendan?

This whole season is a mess and it keeps getting messier.

Brendan knew what he was signing up for Crouchino, I'm.sure he thought at the time the job was too big of an opportunity to turn down regardless of the transfer policy, maybe he liked the challenge, but he's realized this isn't a football manager game, and is asking for a change in policy.
He's hinted before that we need top players, it needs to happen if we are going to progress at all.

Brendan knew what he was signing up for Crouchino, I'm.sure he thought at the time the job was too big of an opportunity to turn down regardless of the transfer policy, maybe he liked the challenge, but he's realized this isn't a football manager game, and is asking for a change in policy.
He's hinted before that we need top players, it needs to happen if we are going to progress at all.

He said no to us initially. So no he didn't think it was "too big of an opportunity". He told the owners (and he said this himself) that it was his way (through the transfer committee and not the DoF) or no way at all and he would turn down the offer.

He said no to us initially

He said no to Reading at first as well.  I think it's called negotiating yourself a better deal.

In any case he didn't say 'no to us'.  He said no to the media.  He was probably on the plane to Boston at the time.  I've seen a lot of peculiar post match interviews from Brendan Rodgers so I'm not too sure he strikes me as a person who tells it straight 100% all the time.