NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

I can't, won't and have never disagreed with that s@int; long time posters will know my opinion on the importance of a new stadium without me repeating myself.

It's a big project which demands massive investment; too big to get wrong. F.S.G. have to get this right and the fact that they've made no hasty or rash promises would suggest they are, at least, approaching the decision with the care and respect it demands.

Here's hoping.

At least they haven't spunked £50m on architects fees whilst trying to make a decision, like the last pair did mate.

Caution is the key word here and to discourage any 'big job' borrowers who cannot smell the coffee, interest rates are hiked up to disproportianate levels.
Coming from the US of A as he does, smelling coffee is a honed practice no doubt for John Henry and Co.

  loving it stuey.

All this patience talk is fine but mark my words with out investment from the owners we will not be competing for titles or dare i say qualifying for top four

All this patience talk is fine but mark my words with out investment from the owners we will not be competing for titles or dare i say qualifying for top four

Goes without saying mate and we would be back to square 1 a la H&G, or maybe not, it is incomprehensible that anyone could bring LFC to the verge of bankruptcy again, but mid table mediocrity is another form of bankruptcy for this club.

I do wonder are we actually in the midst of a Depression but the powers that be won't acknowledge it.

Look around you mate...unemployment figures the worst for 17 years, diabolical trading figures, businesses winding up everywhere you look - empty and closing shopping facilities are a fact of life, juggled inflation rates to keep wage demands down.
The Tory's won't admit to a recession because they blamed Labour for inflation and unemployment and promised their policy's were the dog's bollocks and would sort it , in the event it was a world wide phenomenon which they are incapable of affecting, the same situation applied to Labour.
But the fuckers got in compliments of a gullible electorate and proceed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, as is their way.   

Look around you mate...unemployment figures the worst for 17 years, diabolical trading figures, businesses winding up everywhere you look - empty and closing shopping facilities are a fact of life, juggled inflation rates to keep wage demands down.
The Tory's won't admit to a recession because they blamed Labour for inflation and unemployment and promised their policy's were the dog's bollocks and would sort it , in the event it was a world wide phenomenon which they are incapable of affecting, the same situation applied to Labour.
But the fuckers got in compliments of a gullible electorate and proceed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, as is their way.   

Same in Ireland.
Promise the earth to get in and now we're putting in place German policies to satisfy the terms of their bailout.
Meanwhile SME's close everyday because the very banks we bailed out refuse to give reasonable credit and
continue to hunt down anyone who owes them money.

Did the owners invest 35 million quid in Andy Carroll?

Only asking cos it appears those saying the owners haven't invested are the same ones who bring up Andy's transfer fee at every given opportunity. So I'm just a bit perplexed as to which one it is.

Did the owners invest 35 million quid in Andy Carroll?

Only asking cos it appears those saying the owners haven't invested are the same ones who bring up Andy's transfer fee at every given opportunity. So I'm just a bit perplexed as to which one it is.

The Double Edged Sword of Doom.

It wasn't their money, it was the funds from Torres, but they should have invested it in Aguero.

It's a high level attack that leads you defenseless.

The Double Edged Sword of Doom.

It wasn't their money, it was the funds from Torres, but they should have invested it in Aguero.

It's a high level attack that leads you defenseless.

So once the deal was done for Torres, that 50 million didn't become John Henry's to spend - is that the way it works? If it did become Henry's money then surely he invested his own money into the club didn't he?

I'm giving meself a headache here. Back to caring what happens on the field for me.

So once the deal was done for Torres, that 50 million didn't become John Henry's to spend - is that the way it works? If it did become Henry's money then surely he invested his own money into the club didn't he?

I'm giving meself a headache here. Back to caring what happens on the field for me.

No Billy. 

The money from player sales belongs to the Club as they are assets of the business.  He could have taken it like the other pair of t**ts used to but he didn't, it was reinvested into the playing squad.

Did the owners invest 35 million quid in Andy Carroll?

Only asking cos it appears those saying the owners haven't invested are the same ones who bring up Andy's transfer fee at every given opportunity. So I'm just a bit perplexed as to which one it is.

Not saying the owners haven't put money in Billy but you know as well as anyone progress has a price, you can't just throw a shitload of money no matter how fortuitously it was obtained and say well that's that go and do the business. The monies in question were compliments of Rafa's better judgement in acquirig Torres and the dosh the club received for him  (hahaha).
The plan isn't going to plan and some funds are required to keep LFC at the pinacle where it belongs, we are all immensely grateful to John Henry and Co for getting us out of the sh*t and H&G's clutches but the lifeblood of new investment must be an ongoing factor.

Not saying the owners haven't put money in Billy but you know as well as anyone progress has a price, you can't just throw a shitload of money no matter how fortuitously it was obtained and say well that's that go and do the business. The monies in question were compliments of Rafa's better judgement in acquirig Torres and the dosh the club received for him  (hahaha).
The plan isn't going to plan and some funds are required to keep LFC at the pinacle where it belongs, we are all immensely grateful to John Henry and Co for getting us out of the sh*t and H&G's clutches but the lifeblood of new investment must be an ongoing factor.

I think we all agree that investment in the squad is needed.
What we can't afford is to squander 35 Million on the likes of Carroll again in the hope that their potential will be realised.
For that kind of investment you need performance and results. That is something we haven't got out of the likes of Carroll and Downing.
Whatever money we do invest in the summer I hope we get it right this time.

50 million is a huge chunk of investment to have not inject fresh impetus into our team.
I think that is where a lot of peoples frustration is stemming from. We went on a run that
saw us on Championship challenging form. We hoped to kick on in the summer and we
haven't.

As a team we learn from our mistakes and move on. Hopefully this summer we get it right.

The general consensus is that investment is needed and I would highly doubt that we will go through the entire summer window without signing a few players.

Personally I don't mind if it is the owners own personal money or money raised from selling others as long as we get the players Kenny feels we need to move on next season.

Like a few have said today I don't think we need a massive turnaround in players just money spent on two or three quality players to turn out already good football into consistent, winning football.

The whole thing is whether we believe in it or not the owners from day one have said they are following FFP rules coming into effect. Those rules stipulate that over a period of 3 years owners can put in up to 45M of their own money outside of revenue for player acquisition. Now we can argue all day long if FFP will truly come to fruition or be enforced, that being said the owners said from the outset that they were going to follow those rules so the idea of them putting in 50-100M really is a mute point is it not?

The whole thing is whether we believe in it or not the owners from day one have said they are following FFP rules coming into effect. Those rules stipulate that over a period of 3 years owners can put in up to 45M of their own money outside of revenue for player acquisition. Now we can argue all day long if FFP will truly come to fruition or be enforced, that being said the owners said from the outset that they were going to follow those rules so the idea of them putting in 50-100M really is a mute point is it not?

If that is Federal Financial Participation Erik surely it is US based and has no implication in the UK.

If that is Federal Financial Participation Erik surely it is US based and has no implication in the UK.

Nah I think this one is global Stu, comes into full effect next season when they will go thru the books for the past 2 season and move forward.

The whole thing is whether we believe in it or not the owners from day one have said they are following FFP rules coming into effect. Those rules stipulate that over a period of 3 years owners can put in up to 45M of their own money outside of revenue for player acquisition. Now we can argue all day long if FFP will truly come to fruition or be enforced, that being said the owners said from the outset that they were going to follow those rules so the idea of them putting in 50-100M really is a mute point is it not?

That it is AZ, so can we take it then that they could conceivably give us the Warrior money, SC money, player sales, EL money and a potential 15 million from themselves?

I'd be happy with that if so.

The whole thing is whether we believe in it or not the owners from day one have said they are following FFP rules coming into effect. Those rules stipulate that over a period of 3 years owners can put in up to 45M of their own money outside of revenue for player acquisition. Now we can argue all day long if FFP will truly come to fruition or be enforced, that being said the owners said from the outset that they were going to follow those rules so the idea of them putting in 50-100M really is a mute point is it not?

Two things:

1.  If our total revenues after all ticket & tv sales, sponsorships, merchandise sales, etc are in the region of 25-30M per season (I think I have read that somewhere before) then we would have that amount + money raised from player sales to fund new arrivals. 

2.  The building of a new stadium is one of the things that is outside of the realm of control of FFP.  They have supposedly frowned upon City's sale of the naming rights to Etihad (a corporation with incredibly close ties to City's owners) but they have not really done anything about it yet.  Either way, the money invested into a new stadium is not considered as part of FFP.  The only things taken into account are revenues compared to money spent on player transfers and wages. 

Nah I think this one is global Stu, comes into full effect next season when they will go thru the books for the past 2 season and move forward.

My bad mate, you are correct of course.

That it is AZ, so can we take it then that they could conceivably give us the Warrior money, SC money, player sales, EL money and a potential 15 million from themselves?

I'd be happy with that if so.

I would be happy with that. It represents a significant war chest to improve the squad with. There may even be money available that was not spent in January added on top of that, although that may be just wishful thinking.

Two things:

1.  If our total revenues after all ticket & tv sales, sponsorships, merchandise sales, etc are in the region of 25-30M per season (I think I have read that somewhere before) then we would have that amount + money raised from player sales to fund new arrivals. 

2.  The building of a new stadium is one of the things that is outside of the realm of control of FFP.  They have supposedly frowned upon City's sale of the naming rights to Etihad (a corporation with incredibly close ties to City's owners) but they have not really done anything about it yet.  Either way, the money invested into a new stadium is not considered as part of FFP.  The only things taken into account are revenues compared to money spent on player transfers and wages. 

The stadium or debt thereof has no implications on FFP so you are correct in that, neither is money spent on Academies, support, scouting or management.


As far as revenues I do not know or have ticket/merchandise numbers but if I am not mistaken the Standard Charter/Warrior deals should be around 45M a year on they're own. Now whether the club spends all that money on player acquisition/salary is yet to be seen but as I mentioned earlier I think we we have a heads up on teams like arsenal/chelsea/spurs simply because our fanbase is massive compared to theirs.

Stadium is the linchpin here, always has been and will continue to be.

I would be happy with that. It represents a significant war chest to improve the squad with. There may even be money available that was not spent in January added on top of that, although that may be just wishful thinking.

2011/2012 money would have had to been spent by the winter window according to the rules, that also is a reason why we did not sit on the Torres money last winter as if we spent it in the summer it would have put us way over.

That it is AZ, so can we take it then that they could conceivably give us the Warrior money, SC money, player sales, EL money and a potential 15 million from themselves?

I'd be happy with that if so.

So would I mate, unfortunately I don't believe we will get the £15million extra from the owners. Henry made it clear(ish) that not only would they be sticking to the FFP rules but would not "deficit spend".

"We've always spent money we've generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool," he said, referring to the group's ownership of the Boston Red Sox baseball team. "It's up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that."