NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

As posted the club itself are paying for the stadium extension, loaning a very viable asset the funds to generate more dosh is a win win situation.

It is highly unlikely any club would use the JWH&Co's blueprint of achieving success, their CV is damning in that respect, from a financial point of view the owners are on a winner.

I bet when you talk you sound just like C-3PO  . C'mon , tell us what the odds of successfully navigating an Asteroid field are .

Not really. Why wouldn't a club pay for their  own stadium? Who do you think should pay for it? 

It is by definition a loan, such a proposition is utilised when the party taking out the loan is not financially equipped to undertake such an obligation at that time.

The owners bought LFC for a knock-down price, they know it, we know it, they are also fully aware of the potential the asset represents and that potential translates as being fully able to repay any debt within reason taken on board, that also translates as LFC being fully solvent while being a nice little earner for JWH&Co.

Where in that scenario does the need for the billionaire owners to lend the club money jump out at you?
What does jump out is a lack of commitment and faith in LFC.

I bet when you talk you sound just like C-3PO  . C'mon , tell us what the odds of successfully navigating an Asteroid field are .

You having trouble again with the big words nobhead?

It is by definition a loan, such a proposition is utilised when the party taking out the loan is not financially equipped to undertake such an obligation at that time.

The owners bought LFC for a knock-down price, they know it, we know it, they are also fully aware of the potential the asset represents and that potential translates as being fully able to repay any debt within reason taken on board, that also translates as LFC being fully solvent while being a nice little earner for JWH&Co.

Where in that scenario does the need for the billionaire owners to lend the club money jump out at you?
What does jump out is a lack of commitment and faith in LFC.

You didn't answer my question...who do you think should pay for it? The club  is receiving an interest free loan to pay for the stadium...try going down the street to your local bank and asking for an interest free loan. You'll get laughed out of the place.

The main stand is costing 114m to extend, we are going to get 90m just for selling the naming rights of that stand itself. Sounds to me they want the full 114m back plus 90m from naming rights. That's not generous it's genius way to rip Liverpool off. Work it out, FSG loaning Liverpool the money but FSG own Liverpool? Maybe they should charge themselves interest?    too say it is interest free is a no brainer.  My main question is, where is the 90m going from the naming rights Liverpool will get paid? My guess is FSG pockets. If Liverpool pay for this and the sponsorship money just goes into FSG pockets, that means Liverpool -114m. FSG +90m. It is obvious from the terminology they class Liverpool as an external entity the drain money from. Some people even think this is a win win.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-set-tie-up-10918771

You didn't answer my question...who do you think should pay for it? The club  is receiving an interest free loan to pay for the stadium...try going down the street to your local bank and asking for an interest free loan. You'll get laughed out of the place.

Been over this a hundred times at least and once again you want me to regurgitate the same lines, they got the club for a song, the 200m loan is of no consequence when the other profit making areas of the club are taken into account, the worth of the asset they obtained for 300m is now approaching 1bn by most credible estimates.
Why don't JWH&Co acknowledge and commit to a successful enterprise?

The vast majority on this forum are fully in agreement with the above and do not believe JWH&Co are the right custodians of LFC.

Been over this a hundred times at least and once again you want me to regurgitate the same lines, they got the club for a song, the 200m loan is of no consequence when the other profit making areas of the club are taken into account, the worth of the asset they obtained for 300m is now approaching 1bn by most credible estimates.
Why don't JWH&Co acknowledge and commit to a successful enterprise?

The vast majority on this forum are fully in agreement with the above and do not believe JWH&Co are the right custodians of LFC.

again. Where is the sponsorship money for naming rights going? Where is 200m figure coming from?

The main stand is costing 114m to extend, we are going to get 90m just for selling the naming rights of that stand itself. Sounds to me they want the full 114m back plus 90m from naming rights. That's not generous it's genius way to rip Liverpool off. Work it out, FSG loaning Liverpool the money but FSG own Liverpool? Maybe they should charge themselves interest?    too say it is interest free is a no brainer.  My main question is, where is the 90m going from the naming rights Liverpool will get paid? My guess is FSG pockets. If Liverpool pay for this and the sponsorship money just goes into FSG pockets, that means Liverpool -114m. FSG +90m. It is obvious from the terminology they class Liverpool as an external entity the drain money from. Some people even think this is a win win.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-set-tie-up-10918771

Do you think all things LFC work of fresh air?...

There are cost involved in running a football club,who pays for the salaries of all staff,maintenance,liabilities,policing....

If it was that easy to run a club everyone would be on it....

I bet when you talk you sound just like C-3PO  . C'mon , tell us what the odds of successfully navigating an Asteroid field are .

As opposed to you who talks just like a C-UNT.

As opposed to you who talks just like a C-UNT.

😳😆😂

again. Where is the sponsorship money for naming rights going? Where is 200m figure coming from?

Ask JWH&Co and their accountants.

Been over this a hundred times at least and once again you want me to regurgitate the same lines, they got the club for a song, the 200m loan is of no consequence when the other profit making areas of the club are taken into account, the worth of the asset they obtained for 300m is now approaching 1bn by most credible estimates.
Why don't JWH&Co acknowledge and commit to a successful enterprise?

The vast majority on this forum are fully in agreement with the above and do not believe JWH&Co are the right custodians of LFC.

I don't care about FSG and how much they got the club for, that's irrelevant because they don't make a profit till they sell and they haven't and aren't selling, so...I'm asking you  a question, how do you propose the club should pay for their stadium re-development.

It's a simple question stuey, just provide a simple  answer. I'm confused as to why you keep avoiding the question?

FSG may not be the right custodians as you say, but they are  the ones we have, and if you think that some other owners would somehow pay for the stadium expansion in a different way....well that's just short sighted and to be honest, it's something a simpleton would believe. I'm not talking about right and wrong, I'm talking about the real world and how these things actually work.

I don't care about FSG and how much they got the club for, that's irrelevant because they don't make a profit till they sell and they haven't and aren't selling, so...I'm asking you  a question, how do you propose the club should pay for their stadium re-development. It's a simple question stuey, just provide a simple  answer.

Your assumption that the owners will not sell up is naïve, they are purely and simply businessmen and know exactly what to do with gift horses.
 
The club will pay for the extension as they are doing, however perverse that may seem, from the incoming revenue including gate money, royalties, sponsorship etc.
FSG will not sell until whatever profit margins they require for that transaction are met, they have no interest in soccer or LFC but as long as the club and it's reputation continue to swell the coffers with minimal financial input the owners are happy as pigs in sh*t in their Boston enclave.

As they are doing, from the incoming revenue including gate money, royalties, sponsorship etc.
FSG will not sell until whatever profit margins they require for that transaction are met, they have no interest in soccer or LFC but as long as the club and it's reputation continue to swell the coffers with minimal financial input the owners are happy as pigs in sh*t in their Boston enclave.

So you agree with how they are paying for the stadium...then why are you bitching? I thought there was something at play here that we didn't already know.

We all already know that they aren't putting any of their own money in, that's evident not only from what they've always contended, but also from our transfer windows.

We all already know that they aren't putting any of their own money in, that's evident not only from what they've always contended, but also from our transfer windows.

Why are you defending owners who do not have the faith or commitment to invest in our club?
A fact that ensures we can never compete with our rivals.
 Seven years of none commitment and no trophies - correction, one league cup and FSG sacked the man who won it. 

Why are you defending owners who do not have the faith or commitment to invest in our club?
A fact that ensures we can never compete with our rivals.
 Seven years of none commitment and no trophies - correction, one league cup and FSG sacked the man who won it. 

How am I defending the owners? Please tell me how I'm defending them because there are a select few of you that seem to throw that claim around at people that aren't actually defending the owners of anything, but rather discussing the "nuts and bolts" of how this club is run. It's not all black and white, there can be both good and bad from the club ownership (and there is). There's plenty of bad from them, but they aren't as bad as the prior two jokers and they aren't as bad as some of the owners in the league.  And absolutely they aren't as good as some other ownership in our league and in other leagues. But I thought we were talking about how the stadium was paid for?

why are we talking about the stadium and owners here?

why are we talking about the stadium and owners here?

Merged into a more appropriately titled thread.

All of the clubs money is a result of FSG so when the club pays for something, FSG pays for it... who else does? I don't get the separation.

The increasing value of the club from when FSG bought is because...its value keeps increasing due to various things, many of which are caused by FSG managing well (such as the commercial end - and the NAMING RIGHTS).

If they take the stand-naming money for themselves (and what kind of business arrangement would do THAT?), that value is then gone from the club - meaning they get less (not more) on their selling price at some future point. It can't be both/and. In the same way, it is the profit margin from the sale that pays back the loan (at least most of it), not the owners skimming money from "other" club revenue to pay themselves back. There wouldn't be that much revenue to skim from if they did that anyway.

Increasing the value of the club can be done by improving various facets of it (including its competitive fortunes) - and these things are GOOD for the long-term health of the club, financially and otherwise. The fact that the owners at some point are rewarded for their legitimately good work in improving the club (legitimately good does not equal perfect so give them slack for getting better at this as they go along) is perfectly acceptable. In fact its necessary or otherwise, owners who can invest meaningfully in the club will not be found. There's nobody out there who is going to dump hundreds of millions in to the club over x amount of years, with no intention of getting something back.

How am I defending the owners? Please tell me how I'm defending them because there are a select few of you that seem to throw that claim around at people that aren't actually defending the owners of anything, but rather discussing the "nuts and bolts" of how this club is run. It's not all black and white, there can be both good and bad from the club ownership (and there is). There's plenty of bad from them, but they aren't as bad as the prior two jokers and they aren't as bad as some of the owners in the league.  And absolutely they aren't as good as some other ownership in our league and in other leagues. But I thought we were talking about how the stadium was paid for?

Seven years of FSG ownership and none commitment see us trophyless, with the exception of 1 (one) league cup and as stated the manager who won it was sacked.

You attempt to distract wanting discussions about stadium extensions to obscure and detract from the fact that JWH&Co are making LFC a shadow of what it was; you like the owners are oceans, if not light years away from true ethos of LFC, wishing to juggle finance ahead of what this club is really about. 

Seven years of FSG ownership and none commitment see us trophyless, with the exception of 1 (one) league cup and as stated the manager who won it was sacked.

You attempt to distract wanting discussions about stadium extensions to obscure and detract from the fact that JWH&Co are making LFC a shadow of what it was; you like the owners are oceans if not light years away from true ethos of LFC, wishing to juggle finance ahead of what this club is really about. 

We've played pathetic in some winnable games though that would have either seen us win the trophy or get to the final. FA Cup semi-final against Villa, League Cup semi-final against Southampton, losing on pens to Man City in the League Cup final, losing to Sevilla in the EL final after leading 1-0 at HT etc. Our squads at the time of those games were more than good enough to win those games and should have won most of them. The owners can't be blamed for us failing to get anything against Chelsea in the league in 13/14 that would have seen us win the league. The problem I have is that our depth has been sh*t for a while but the managers take blame for that too not just the owners.

We've played pathetic in some winnable games though that would have either seen us win the trophy or get to the final. FA Cup semi-final against Villa, League Cup semi-final against Southampton, losing on pens to Man City in the League Cup final, losing to Sevilla in the EL final after leading 1-0 at HT etc. Our squads at the time of those games were more than good enough to win those games and should have won most of them. The owners can't be blamed for us failing to get anything against Chelsea in the league in 13/14 that would have seen us win the league. The problem I have is that our depth has been sh*t for a while but the managers take blame for that too not just the owners.

Seven years? - how many managers? - we now have an acknowledged world-class manager and realistically no chance of any silverware half way through the season.

Our depth is still sh*t.

Which manager would you blame most, is there any manager you feel should be allotted more blame proportionately for the team's demise?

The jump out word there is 'blame' with the owner's appointments shouldering the majority of it, another jump out word regarding the above is 'scapegoats'.