NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

What the F**k are you on about???... . You only profit on a sale?...May be true in things like buy a house (If not for rental) or buy something that does not draw money but will rise over time i.e. a painting... But that is not the case with something that has a daily/weekly/monthly/annual turn over... In This case a football Club... Don't know how much FSG has made, but it seems quite feasible to me that FSG has made  profits on thier initial investment...Ticket raises,player sales, sponsorship deals, the revenue from TV deals (Sky/B.T) merchandising  to name but a few ways Clubs make money

No, try reading.
That £800 million is profit according to some on here, and because of this "profit" FSG should be spending hundreds of millions.
It's absolute nonsense.
We might make a yearly profit, but until such time as the club is sold, the £800 million that people keep gobbing off about is nothing more than an estimate that will change yearly, and applies only when the club is sold.
That's what happens when idiots read the club is worth over a billion (according to DeLoitte), then subtract £200 million we were bought for (which is also wrong), and think that equals £800 million profit.
It doesn't, and to suggest it does is nothing short of moronic.

If Klopp decides he needs some proven talent, I would hope he he's back sufficiently, with the players that will likely be leaving, Sakho, Lucas, possibly Sturridge there should be money available if he wants to do so. I have doubts wether he'll be allowed more than one player round the 40 million mark and that's with player sales.

We'll see OR.
As you can see, myself and others keep a close eye on accounts, and rest assured if something looks dodgy, we will flag it up.

Well

they just banned the s*n from football matches (don't know if it's new or old)

very good news

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-ban-the-sun-hillsborough-disaster-reporters-attending-matches-anfield-a7573621.html

Especially if they work for FSG 😀

Haha!

I think people are getting profit, revenue and valuation mixed up. Not that hard folks.

We'll see OR.
As you can see, myself and others keep a close eye on accounts, and rest assured if something looks dodgy, we will flag it up.

Id like to think we're all on the same side.

I think people are getting profit, revenue and valuation mixed up. Not that hard folks.

No, it's not hard at all, but this is what happens when people with no training or understanding of finance start thinking they're accountants.

What the f**k are you on about???... . You only profit on a sale?...May be true in things like buy a house (If not for rental) or buy something that does not draw money but will rise over time i.e. a painting... But that is not the case with something that has a daily/weekly/monthly/annual turn over... In This case a football Club... Don't know how much FSG has made, but it seems quite feasible to me that FSG has made  profits on thier initial investment...Ticket raises,player sales, sponsorship deals, the revenue from TV deals (Sky/B.T) merchandising  to name but a few ways Clubs make money

this is so wrong on so many levels, I'm sorry mate but you are being very intellectually dishonest. This is a false statement and a misconception on the way corporate finance works. I suggest you do a bit of reading on this subject.

You profit when you sell the club and this depends on the date of the sale (which when the owner decides to sell to another party). The value will vary from now till the date of the sale and has no relevance to annual profits of the club. You never know, maybe in 5 years time that value might go down to purchase level and FSG decide to quit while not receiving any profit on their sale (we hope that doesn't happen). The profit at each year end is either distributed to shareholders or re-invested into the club to improve assets or pay off debts,

Id like to think we're all on the same side.

Of course we are, and I've said repeatedly that I scrutinise the accounts every year, and have found no sign of anything dodgy.
It's almost impossible to hide dodgy dealing these days, so I'm confident one of us will pick up any wrong doing.

Well

they just banned the s*n from football matches (don't know if it's new or old)

very good news

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-ban-the-sun-hillsborough-disaster-reporters-attending-matches-anfield-a7573621.html

I assumed they've been banned since Hillsborough 😕

This is last year's analysis from the swiss ramble

It perfectly explains our financial situation and debunks mosts myths on here

http://swissramble.blogspot.it/search/label/Liverpool?updated-max=2016-11-22T07:17:00%2B01:00&max-results=20&start=1&by-date=false

It also shows we are still lagging behind the likes of Arsenal, Man Utd, City and Chelsea.

The mancs are £450m in debt and are possibly the richest club in the world.
I would be in your debt if you could explain this anomaly to me.
They spend money like it's going out of fashion.
Apparently LFC is a small club, devoid of the commercial structure and fan base [not] unlike the mancs who operate quite successfully with such debt - the figure has been known to approach a billion if I'm not mistaken.

Could it be that their owners know a good earner and are prepared to speculate on that investment?
Could it be that their owners are not in it for a quick return unlike FSG who want to present a very viable asset for the sale of?

No, try reading.
That £800 million is profit according to some on here, and because of this "profit" FSG should be spending hundreds of millions.
It's absolute nonsense.
We might make a yearly profit, but until such time as the club is sold, the £800 million that people keep gobbing off about is nothing more than an estimate that will change yearly, and applies only when the club is sold.
That's what happens when idiots read the club is worth over a billion (according to DeLoitte), then subtract £200 million we were bought for (which is also wrong), and think that equals £800 million profit.
It doesn't, and to suggest it does is nothing short of moronic.

I know the difference between what something is bought for "Net Investment" and what it sells for "Net Profit"... When people here talk about the money FSG has made or taken out of the Club, then are talking about Annual income and profits

Lets look at it this way... Last summer with had a net transfer spend of lets say - £10m (just for the stake of argument) so Klopp had £100m to speed on players, he spent that but sold £110m worth of player ie -£10m...
This summer window Klopp is due (lets say) £90m... Now does that mean Klopp get £200m (Last summers £100m + the  £10m he bought in OR as most of us believe FSG will only honor the £90m promise and if so where does that other £110m go?..

I know the difference between what something is bought for "Net Investment" and what it sells for "Net Profit"... When people here talk about the money FSG has made or taken out of the Club, then are talking about Annual income and profits

Lets look at it this way... Last summer with had a net transfer spend of lets say - £10m (just for the stake of argument) so Klopp had £100m to speed on players, he spent that but sold £110m worth of player ie -£10m...
This summer window Klopp is due (lets say) £90m... Now does that mean Klopp get £200m (Last summers £100m + the  £10m he bought in OR as most of us believe FSG will only honor the £90m promise and if so where does that other £110m go?..

No, you don't know what Net Investment is.
Nor, it seems, do you understand net profit.

Nor does your "net transfers" take amortization into account.

We are not talking about "Annual income and profits" a phrase you've just made up, we are talking about the Profit and Loss, and the Balance sheet accounting; the 2 worldwide accounting standards.

I'm done with you now, you're clearly clueless and have no idea what you're talking about.

The mancs are £450m in debt and are possibly the richest club in the world.
I would be in your debt if you could explain this anomaly to me.
They spend money like it's going out of fashion.
Apparently LFC is a small club, devoid of the commercial structure and fan base [not] unlike the mancs who operate quite successfully with such debt - the figure has been known to approach a billion if I'm not mistaken.

Could it be that their owners know a good earner and are prepared to speculate on that investment?
Could it be that their owners are not in it for a quick return unlike FSG who want to present a very viable asset for the sale of?

Debt is usually misconstrued, it is not necessarily a bad thing, but too many of it could put you in financial distress. What's important is how to manage it properly to your advantage, it's when you use it to produce a positive value, this is why some companies calculate return on debt. Man Utd can afford to have big debts because they are generating revenues like crazy and their debts are managed properly that they are paying them back on time and they are having a positive effect on their investment return. In addition, debt is CHEAPER than Equity, I can spare the details because Equity return relies a lot on risk while debt only relies on bank conditions.

I'm not sure how FSG are in a quick return when they have been our owners for the past 7 years. There is no such thing as a quick return, if they wanted something short term they would invest in a hedge fund which would yield short term returns. But they aren't in a hedge fund, they are here for a long term and when they decide to move on it wouldn't be now. The same applies with The Glazers at Man Utd.

Debt is usually misconstrued, it is not necessarily a bad thing, but too many of it could put you in financial distress. What's important is how to manage it properly to your advantage, it's when you use it to produce a positive value, this is why some companies calculate return on debt. Man Utd can afford to have big debts because they are generating revenues like crazy and their debts are managed properly that they are paying them back on time and they are having a positive effect on their investment return. In addition, debt is CHEAPER than Equity, I can spare the details because Equity return relies a lot on risk while debt only relies on bank conditions.

I'm not sure how FSG are in a quick return when they have been our owners for the past 7 years. There is no such thing as a quick return, if they wanted something short term they would invest in a hedge fund which would yield short term returns. But they aren't in a hedge fund, they are here for a long term and when they decide to move on it wouldn't be now. The same applies with The Glazers at Man Utd.

I've tried to explain til I'm blue in the face (along with a couple of others) that Debt is not a bad thing, and can actually be a good thing when managed properly, especially when it comes to tax time, but either people simply don't get it, or (more likely) they ignore this because it doesn't fit their narrative.

I've tried to explain til I'm blue in the face (along with a couple of others) that Debt is not a bad thing, and can actually be a good thing when managed properly, especially when it comes to tax time, but either people simply don't get it, or (more likely) they ignore this because it doesn't fit their narrative.

This is basic finance, anyone can open a corporate finance book or managerial finance book and read about it.

Exactly, lots of companies do this to pay less taxes, they either increase their expenses by raising their operating expense or increase their debt.

this is so wrong on so many levels, I'm sorry mate but you are being very intellectually dishonest. This is a false statement and a misconception on the way corporate finance works. I suggest you do a bit of reading on this subject.

Two points  AS..."being very intellectually dishonest" I never try to deceive anyone here people, I may get things wrong but i do not do it with the intent to deceive

Second point Who the F**k are you calling "intellectually" I come on to this site, show you respect and you insult me? call me "intellectually"...

You profit when you sell the club and this depends on the date of the sale (which when the owner decides to sell to another party). The value will vary from now till the date of the sale and has no relevance to annual profits of the club. You never know, maybe in 5 years time that value might go down to purchase level and FSG decide to quit while not receiving any profit on their sale (we hope that doesn't happen). The profit at each year end is either distributed to shareholders or re-invested into the club to improve assets or pay off debts,

I believe that i made it clear what I was saving, that apart from the Valuation of the Club and what it is sold for there is a Annual Profit here of which the shareholder see a part and the owners see thier part... Now as Swab pointed out himself.....

How many times do people have to be told that Mike Gordon is responsible for running LFC having increased his stake in FSG for that very purpose?
[/quote]
And shares no doubt... that's another way to siphon money out of the Club
 

I know the difference between what something is bought for "Net Investment" and what it sells for "Net Profit"... When people here talk about the money FSG has made or taken out of the Club, then are talking about Annual income and profits

Lets look at it this way... Last summer with had a net transfer spend of lets say - £10m (just for the stake of argument) so Klopp had £100m to speed on players, he spent that but sold £110m worth of player ie -£10m...
This summer window Klopp is due (lets say) £90m... Now does that mean Klopp get £200m (Last summers £100m + the  £10m he bought in OR as most of us believe FSG will only honor the £90m promise and if so where does that other £110m go?..

Mate, a transfer budget is distributed depending on how we are doing financially in a fiscal year (let's say 2017 summer budget will rely on how well we did financially in 2016). Has nothing to do to what you are saying.

Two points  AS..."being very intellectually dishonest" I never try to deceive anyone here people, I may get things wrong but i do not do it with the intent to deceive

Second point Who the F**k are you calling "intellectually" I come on to this site, show you respect and you insult me? call me "intellectually"...

I believe that i made it clear what I was saving, that apart from the Valuation of the Club and what it is sold for there is a Annual Profit here of which the shareholder see a part and the owners see thier part... Now as Swab pointed out himself.....

How many times do people have to be told that Mike Gordon is responsible for running LFC having increased his stake in FSG for that very purpose?

And shares no doubt... that's another way to siphon money out of the Club

 

FSG is the Parent company, and increasing his stake in FSG only has bearing on his seniority within the Parent or umbrella (if you prefer) company.
LFC's accounts have no bearing on internal FSG structure, and holdings of individuals.

Shares and dividends both show up in the accounts.
Yet more evidence that you haven't a F***ing bulls notion what you're on about.

No, you don't know what Net Investment is.
Nor, it seems, do you understand net profit.

Nor does your "net transfers" take amortization into account.

We are not talking about "Annual income and profits" a phrase you've just made up, we are talking about the Profit and Loss, and the Balance sheet accounting; the 2 worldwide accounting standards.

I'm done with you now, you're clearly clueless and have no idea what you're talking about.

I understand Both... What is happening here is that YOU do not understand what it is that is upsetting people, and it has nothing to do with Net investment nor net profit on some sale further down the road that may or may not take place... It is about Investment or lack of In the Club, players etc

I understand Both... What is happening here is that YOU do not understand what it is that is upsetting people, and it has nothing to do with Net investment nor net profit on some sale further down the road that may or may not take place... It is about Investment or lack of In the Club, players etc

No, you clearly understand F**k all, and are just plucking words at random from a google search because you think they fit.

Bottom line, they have invested in the club (new stand), they have backed pretty much every manager (Hodgson excluded), and we have signed plenty of players for large amounts during their tenure, and on top of that we have hugely increased commercial revenues.
The fact they haven't signed mega-stars is what people like you are whining about.

Klopp says he has the money to spend; he chose not to spend it.
F***ing get over it and move on.

Mate, a transfer budget is distributed depending on how we are doing financially in a fiscal year (let's say 2017 summer budget will rely on how well we did financially in 2016). Has nothing to do to what you are saying.

I know that... But you are not answering the general question would FSG,or should FSG give Klopp £110m plus this summer transfer kitty? (Lets call it £90m) so £200m Yes or no

No, you clearly understand f**k all, and are just plucking words at random from a google search because you think they fit.

Bottom line, they have invested in the club (new stand), they have backed pretty much every manager (Hodgson excluded), and we have signed plenty of players for large amounts during their tenure, and on top of that we have hugely increased commercial revenues.
The fact they haven't signed mega-stars is what people like you are whining about.

Klopp says he has the money to spend; he chose not to spend it.
F***ing get over it and move on.

I am not the one avoiding the questions and I am certainly not the one being explained to what people are upset about then ignoring that point and talk about something completely difference