Trending Topics

      Next match: LFC v Spurs [Premier League] Sun 5th May @ 4:30 pm
      Anfield

      Today is the 30th of April and on this date LFC's match record is P26 W15 D5 L6

      The Facts Of The Apparent Investment

      Read 3021 times
      0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
      YNWABairn
      • Forum Emlyn Hughes
      • ****
      • Started Topic

      • 835 posts |
      • Anti Modern Football
      The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Mar 30, 2010 05:09:04 pm
      http://www.caughtoffside.com/2010/03/30/liverpool-takeover-plan-all-you-need-to-know-about-120m-rhone-group/

      According to various reports Liverpool is on the verge of sealing a 120 million pound investment from the “Rhone group” for 40% control of the club. Approximately 100 million will be invested to decrease our 237 million pound debt and 25 million will be made available to Rafael Benitez in the transfer market.

      Rhone Group

      Rhone Group was formed in 1996 and is owned and managed by the millionaire financiers Robert Agostinelli and Steven Langman, and is a mid-market private equity firm. Very little information is available to do a proper research of their company as a visitation to their website is only accessible with a “partnership login”.

      Club control

      If this deal is to go through, which looks pretty imminent at the moment, as various reports are suggesting that Christian Purslow has already held meetings with Rafael Benitez and indispensable first team players like Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Fernando Torres. It would leave George Gillett and Thomas Hicks with 30% shares each and Rhone Group with 40%. To many who believe that this would mean that Rhone Group have the final say on club matters, you couldn’t be more wrong.
      This would only mean that if Rhone Group try to force through an idea and 1 of the two American owners(Hicks or Gillett) disagrees, that their vote is void. But if it was to come down to investing money into the squad or to free up funds for the stadium and both Gillett and Hicks disagree than it doesn’t happen.

      Advantages

      · George Gillett and Thomas Hicks’ disagreements would no longer be an issue as they would have to come to a mutual agreement to stop the Rhone Group from making changes.

      ¡ Debt reduced by 50%.

      ¡ Initial 25 million pounds made available to the Manager.

      ¡ Security of holding on to players like Mascherano and Torres for at least 1 more year

      Disadvantages

      · Any changes to the structure of the football club would have to go through a voting process – and we all know how long that can take with just 2 Americans, one has to wonder how long it would take with 3.

      ¡ Short term strategy in place, but still no long term strategy which still means uncertain times off the pitch.

      ¡ Still no sole controlling body.

      Debt reduction

      With current debt set at 237 million pounds, a reduction of 50% is ideal. What has to be mentioned though is that this still isn’t “debt-free” and still no stadium. Liverpool football club have an annual profit of approx. 10 million pounds – to reduce future debts we would have to decrease the current debt to 0 and then take out a loan(mortgage) to finance the new stadium. New stadium would increase revenue by 50 million pounds ensuring a profit of around 20-30 million depending on the cost of maintenance required for the new stadium. At present loan costs for a 237 million pound debt is set at around 40 million pounds annually – this of course has to do with interest rates that are set up because of “short-term” borrowing.

      Long-term loans come with a lower interest rate, financing a stadium would prove no stumbling block for Liverpool football club. However, with “Personal” loans still burdened on the club which inevitably come with high interest rates, the future still looks bleak.

      If the stadium costs for example 400 million pounds than the annual interest rate would be approx. 4-5% APR depending on various variables including (deposit, Club-Bank relations, etc) 400 million pound mortgage over a period of 20 years means annually between 29-30 million pounds. If we take into account that we already operate at a profit of 10 million pounds per year with the current stadium then we can calculate the following: 10 million + 25 million from new stadium revenue = 35 million pounds in profit if we subtract the loans necessary to purchase the new stadium it leaves us with approx. 5-10 million pounds profit. But, this is a calculation of what could happen if the club was “debt-free” if we was to add on the 15-20 million that would now be required to be paid because of personal loans than we will still be increasing debt.

      Conclusion

      Anything to decrease George Gillett and Thomas Hicks’ power over our club will always get the green light from me. But, somehow this deal seems to me like “not the right” way to go. Liverpool need a single owner, who understands the corporate culture of a football club, including how things are supposed to be run at this historical club. I think what most of these foreign owners do not understand is how to properly conduct themselves as a leader of a culture. American’s always seem to mess it up more than their fellow counterparts from other countries. And the only conclusion I can sum up for this kind of attitude is how business and sports is conducted on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. When they takeover a club in the States they use their Emotional Intelligence to deceive their club supporters into believing every single word that comes out of their mouth. In England and the rest of the world, this is just considered “Bull”.

      Rhone Group do not seem to me like the financial backing that we need. Firstly, private equity firms are generally “long-term” investors. But, I am not fooled by this tag, as I understand what is considered a “long-term” investor in the business world – anything above 3 years. From the research I have gathered, Rhone Group usually hold on to their investment for an average of 7 years, which in football terms is short-term – and – not what Liverpool football club are looking for.

      Also, what is a no-go for me in this deal is the description of the investor – private equity firm – some might be saying right now “what is wrong with that?”. Well I just don’t like the idea that my football club who I support through good and bad times is being bought up by people who have the only intention of making a quick buck. An owner of a football
      for me is someone who wants to increase the sporting activity and in that process gaining financially.

      So, is this investment good or bad?
      racerx34
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,618 posts | 3849 
      • THE SALT IN THE SOUP
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #1: Mar 30, 2010 05:14:11 pm
       Short term strategy in place, but still no long term strategy which still means uncertain times off the pitch.

      What has to be mentioned though is that this still isn’t “debt-free” and still no stadium.

      Liverpool need a single owner, who understands the corporate culture of a football club, including how things are supposed to be run at this historical club.

      Also, what is a no-go for me in this deal is the description of the investor – private equity firm – some might be saying right now “what is wrong with that?”. Well I just don’t like the idea that my football club who I support through good and bad times is being bought up by people who have the only intention of making a quick buck. An owner of a football
      for me is someone who wants to increase the sporting activity and in that process gaining financially.

      They key points in that for me.^^^^^




      Emotional Intelligence> This made me laugh
      Cardy
      • Forum Phil Babb
      • **

      • 173 posts |
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #2: Mar 30, 2010 05:47:51 pm
      I don't think the problem is who is in charge of the team as to who is in control of the club, people seem to excited by the prospect of the Rhone Group but do we really need any more factions involved in the running of the club, what we need is the bank to take control and if they do they can only sell it for what they are owed this may flush some of the middle east people out to take the club at a realistic value instead of the inflated price that abbot and Costello are asking .
      HUYTON RED
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 40,241 posts | 8575 
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #3: Mar 30, 2010 06:23:36 pm
      Bad, very F***ing bad.

      H & G get to pay off the banks and everything carries on as it did before!

      « Last Edit: Mar 30, 2010 06:33:18 pm by HUYTON RED »
      Brian78
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 19,279 posts | 2834 
      • A Liverbird upon my chest
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #4: Mar 30, 2010 06:26:04 pm
      NO THANKS
      NO MORE YANKS
      RedLFCBlood
      • Guest
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #5: Mar 30, 2010 06:57:17 pm
      Hate to say but I'd rather see the club get the investment than fall into the hands of the banks and be asset stripped to get their money.

      Would prefer an outright buyout so hopefully this perceived investment will see any of genuine interest come out the woodwork and put in a good solid bid to buy lock stock the F***ing lot.
      LFC-LCFC
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,766 posts | 128 
      • Adopted Scouser
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #6: Mar 30, 2010 06:59:08 pm
      It just keeps getting worse. The bank in charge or 3 profit-seeking Americans? I dont know which is worse. If the bank came in and stripped the club down, we'd be able to immediately rebuild. With three Americans, we could be doomed to mediocracy year after year after year.

      F**k off Parry and Moores. Shithouses.
      neilh2105
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,275 posts | 37 
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #7: Mar 30, 2010 09:12:02 pm
      It just keeps getting worse. The bank in charge or 3 profit-seeking Americans? I dont know which is worse. If the bank came in and stripped the club down, we'd be able to immediately rebuild. With three Americans, we could be doomed to mediocracy year after year after year.

      F**k off Parry and Moores. Shithouses.
      Why on earth would RBS asset strip the club FFS, they would be desimating their security. Bear in mind what Confusious said about engaging mind and all that
      MIRO
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 12,989 posts | 3124 
      • Trust The Universe
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #8: Mar 30, 2010 09:42:59 pm
      Bad Bad Bad.

      Very bad.

      Its obvious than any interested party that has come to the table in the last few months has been kicked into touch by Hicks and Gillett.
      There have been some offers that Hicks and Gillett have obviously shooo'ed away.

      Hicks especially intends to hold on by his grimy fingers to our club.

      Just look at what we are really talking about here....

      H and G  are prepared to "reduce" the club value to that of a Fire Sale ! ......only ÂŁ 250 million ! for their mates to buy in 40%.
      ÂŁ 250 million for the institution that is Liverpool Football Club F.F.S.
      Thats less than the club debt! Repeat..... Thats less than the club debt.

      For DIC two years, ago Hicks demanded 1,000 million .......which is one billion pounds.
      DIC offered 500 million.
      Hicks refused it.

      If you want a vision of the future and dont know about the Corinthians disaster check it out on the net.
      It is very scary.    Leeds Utd cant hold a candle to that.

      The Glazers will turn out to be pussycats compared to this crew.
      chats
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 31,389 posts | 2823 
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #9: Mar 30, 2010 09:52:36 pm
      Oh F***ing hell I'm worried.
      corballyred
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 17,707 posts | 307 
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #10: Mar 30, 2010 10:02:42 pm
      I'm sorry but ÂŁ25 million from new owners these days is peanuts, even Birminghams owners have made more money available for McLeish. If we want to compete whoever comes in will have to provide  much more than that.
      LFC-LCFC
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,766 posts | 128 
      • Adopted Scouser
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #11: Mar 30, 2010 10:22:49 pm
      Why on earth would RBS asset strip the club FFS, they would be desimating their security. Bear in mind what Confusious said about engaging mind and all that

      What are you on about? RBS are a bank, that will want their money back. A F***ing BANK. What do you expect them to do?
      corballyred
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 17,707 posts | 307 
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #12: Mar 30, 2010 11:01:12 pm
      I wonder how many more major clubs in Europe are owned by private equity banks that specialize in levarged buy outs, I bet you'll find there is none, this would be a F***ing diaster surely there is someone else interested are we that F***ing desperate.
      Chico Banderas
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 2,072 posts | 150 
      Re: The Facts Of The Apparent Investment
      Reply #13: Mar 30, 2010 11:17:10 pm
      ÂŁ25 mil...? Fookin great... Well that should get us David Villas left boot.. Yay.. *Tries to kick maself in the nuts*

      Quick Reply