NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

Bleed the asset ? What exactly is that supposed to mean ?

Can you tell me why a club being self sufficient is a bad thing ?

You seem to have some difficulty with the written detail.

Bleed the asset ? What exactly is that supposed to mean ?

Can you tell me why a club being self sufficient is a bad thing ?

Being "Self Sufficient" is a great thing, and it would be even better if it was done with the betterment of the club as the main driving force behind it, but it was not. It was done with so the owner  could make more money for themselves without risking thier own...

How do I reach this conclusion...?

They did not start by given the then manager, let's say £60 mil then tell him that further monies would come from buying and selling of players. Then didn't even give him the money and say that they would take the money back out of future transfers, no, it was decided that the manager had to buy young players with potential and resalable value, and that resalable value would fund future transfers... Changes to the TV rights has helped the manager, and the sell of Coutinho. If Coutinho had not been sold, nor the run to reach the CL happened we would not have seen VVD, Keita,Fab' The Allison, nor Shaqiri...

I am pleased FSG came in when they did, but It has not blinded me to the real reasons they did, nor to what they are really here for...

You seem to have some difficulty with the written detail.

And you seem to have difficulty asking a simple question and providing solid base proof to derogatory comments you keep making about the owners

So can you prove that the owners are “bleeding the asset”

And what is wrong with a club being self sufficient

I expect you won’t have the answer because you are just full of sh*te

Being "Self Sufficient" is a great thing, and it would be even better if it was done with the betterment of the club as the main driving force behind it, but it was not. It was done with so the owner  could make more money for themselves without risking thier own...

How do I reach this conclusion...?

They did not start by given the then manager, let's say £60 mil then tell him that further monies would come from buying and selling of players. Then didn't even give him the money and say that they would take the money back out of future transfers, no, it was decided that the manager had to buy young players with potential and resalable value, and that resalable value would fund future transfers... Changes to the TV rights has helped the manager, and the sell of Coutinho. If Coutinho had not been sold, nor the run to reach the CL happened we would not have seen VVD, Keita,Fab' The Allison, nor Shaqiri...

I am pleased FSG came in when they did, but It has not blinded me to the real reasons they did, nor to what they are really here for...

If the owners are making more money for themselves then please provide proof within the publically published accounts

Each manager was given a lot of money - Kenny , Rodgers and Klopp have all spent a lot of money on players - the reason why the amount is going up is because the commercial plans the owners have put in place are starting to flourish and they have also managed to ensure they get maximum value for players and the increase in telly money.

Money has also gone to pay of the rest of the debt plus building a stand - very penny earned by the club is used by the club - nothing goes to the owners. If you think any different then you would need to prove that

Being "Self Sufficient" is a great thing, and it would be even better if it was done with the betterment of the club as the main driving force behind it, but it was not. It was done with so the owner  could make more money for themselves without risking thier own...

How do I reach this conclusion...?

They did not start by given the then manager, let's say £60 mil then tell him that further monies would come from buying and selling of players. Then didn't even give him the money and say that they would take the money back out of future transfers, no, it was decided that the manager had to buy young players with potential and resalable value, and that resalable value would fund future transfers... Changes to the TV rights has helped the manager, and the sell of Coutinho. If Coutinho had not been sold, nor the run to reach the CL happened we would not have seen VVD, Keita,Fab' The Allison, nor Shaqiri...

I am pleased FSG came in when they did, but It has not blinded me to the real reasons they did, nor to what they are really here for...

You really shouldn't get involved in things you know nothing about.
Is this more plus farming?

The owners gave Dalglish an interest free £50 million loan when he took over the managers job from Hodgson.
He used it to buy Suarez (in part).
The money had to be in the form of a loan to comply with the upcoming FFP.
It was paid back over a period of years, and used to reduce taxes on club profits.
We also came under investigation for failing to comply with FFP.

Tell me, how does an owner pump their own money in without getting investigated for FFP violations?
FYI, city have been investigated and fined for failing to comply and had sanctions placed on them.

As previously stated, show in the accounts where the owners are taking money out.

If the owners are making more money for themselves then please provide proof within the publically published accounts

Each manager was given a lot of money - Kenny , Rodgers and Klopp have all spent a lot of money on players - the reason why the amount is going up is because the commercial plans the owners have put in place are starting to flourish and they have also managed to ensure they get maximum value for players and the increase in telly money.

Money has also gone to pay of the rest of the debt plus building a stand - very penny earned by the club is used by the club - nothing goes to the owners. If you think any different then you would need to prove that

The money for the stand came in the form of an interest free loan.
There was a payment to JH from Mike Gordon, which increased his equity, and then Gordon made the loan for the stand, which still sits on the books as a revolving credit facility, until such time as it is either paid back or Gordon uses it to increase his share of any future sale.
Money paid back can also be set against taxes on club profits.

And you seem to have difficulty asking a simple question and providing solid base proof to derogatory comments you keep making about the owners

So can you prove that the owners are “bleeding the asset”

And what is wrong with a club being self sufficient

I expect you won’t have the answer because you are just full of sh*te

So FSG are a charitable organisation and receive no financial reward with regard to LFC?

It seems that is the proposition some would foist on supporters when in fact FSG are extremely well rewarded for their service to the club, to stay nothing of the boost to the owner's standing with the asset that is LFC on their books.

Nothing in the world wrong with self-sufficiency as FSG will confirm.

You appear to be on a wind up yet again with your inane comments and insults.

So FSG are a charitable organisation and receive no financial reward with regard to LFC?

It seems that is the proposition some would foist on supporters when in fact FSG are extremely well rewarded for their service to the club, to stay nothing of the boost to the owner's standing with the asset that is LFC on their books.

Nothing in the world wrong with self-sufficiency as FSG will confirm.

You appear to be on a wind up yet again with your inane comments and insults.

Well let’s not forget when it comes to insults they came from you first when you started accusing me off being a Manc or s bitter then a WUM , if you want to cry about insults then don’t type them yourself

As for financial rewards ? How exactly are they “rewarding themselves” ? Is it just another phrase with no sustance behind it - the accounts are there for you to see so if you think they are rewarding themselves I’m sure you will be able to let us know exactly how much

As for having Liverpool on their books boosting their standing ? Im not sure what negative you are trying to find there - if they want to improve the standing then the best way is to improve the overall picture of the club which is good for us surely not ?

And If there is nothing wrong with self sufficient why do people post as if it’s a negative ?

Well let’s not forget when it comes to insults they came from you first when you started accusing me off being a Manc or s bitter then a WUM , if you want to cry about insults then don’t type them yourself

Your inane comment was the reason for my comment, I did not use the word "sh*te".

 

As for financial rewards ? How exactly are they “rewarding themselves” ? Is it just another phrase with no sustance behind it - the accounts are there for you to see so if you think they are rewarding themselves I’m sure you will be able to let us know exactly how much

The accounts will show FSG and whoever it concerns therein will be on the payroll and well rewarded for their "service".

 

As for having Liverpool on their books boosting their standing ? Im not sure what negative you are trying to find there - if they want to improve the standing then the best way is to improve the overall picture of the club which is good for us surely not ?

And If there is nothing wrong with self sufficient why do people post as if it’s a negative ?

Non comprende.

Your inane comment was the reason for my comment, I did not use the word "sh*te".

 
The accounts will show FSG and whoever it concerns therein will be on the payroll and well rewarded for their "service".

 
Non comprende.

I would have thought it would be quite simple

If the owners want to have a “showpiece” on their books ie Liverpool then they will want to maximise that showpiece as much as possible so will look to enhance the overall value of it both on and off the field - ie the better the team and the club the better it looks for them so they will try as best as possible to enhance the club as much as possible. Which surely is a good thing ?

As for the payroll - the accounts will show they pay someone for the job they do - again what’s wrong with that ?

Anyway must go - have a happy new year and I guess there will never be a time where you will give owners credit even if we end up winning countless trophies

I would have thought it would be quite simple

If the owners want to have a “showpiece” on their books ie Liverpool then they will want to maximise that showpiece as much as possible so will look to enhance the overall value of it both on and off the field - ie the better the team and the club the better it looks for them so they will try as best as possible to enhance the club as much as possible. Which surely is a good thing ?

As for the payroll - the accounts will show they pay someone for the job they do - again what’s wrong with that ?

Exactly what I said, no negativity whatever.

Anyway must go - have a happy new year and I guess there will never be a time where you will give owners credit even if we end up winning countless trophies

When the owners are instrumental in us winning trophies they shall receive unrestrained accolades.

Happy New Year to you.

If the owners are making more money for themselves then please provide proof within the publically published accounts

Each manager was given a lot of money - Kenny , Rodgers and Klopp have all spent a lot of money on players - the reason why the amount is going up is because the commercial plans the owners have put in place are starting to flourish and they have also managed to ensure they get maximum value for players and the increase in telly money.

Money has also gone to pay of the rest of the debt plus building a stand - very penny earned by the club is used by the club - nothing goes to the owners. If you think any different then you would need to prove that

Can you provide proof that nothing goes to the owners... ? It seems very unlikely that they are not pulling at least a wage from the club

Can you provide proof that nothing goes to the owners... ? It seems very unlikely that they are not pulling at least a wage from the club

The accounts will be the proof

And why would they get a wage ? They own the club but the work is done by others

They may well get a wage from FSG

Can you provide proof that nothing goes to the owners... ? It seems very unlikely that they are not pulling at least a wage from the club

I think the proof would be in the public records, and i seriously doubt that anybody is in need of pulling a wage to cover the mortgage or car loan.

You really shouldn't get involved in things you know nothing about.
Is this more plus farming?

You seem to know little yourself

The owners gave Dalglish an interest free £50 million loan when he took over the managers job from Hodgson.

Well that ok then, they loaned the club they bought £50 million, wait was that interest free? and did not Liverpool sell players that season?

He used it to buy Suarez (in part).

Really... Did we not make a bid for Suarez of £11.5 million which was turned down, and we returned with a further bid of £13.7 mil. also turned down and it was not till we sold Ryan Babel did we pay the asking price of £22.5 mil for Suarez us getting him get him had f**k all to do with any money loaned from FSG, and we later sold Torres to Chelsea for £50 mil of which Andy Carroll was bought from that...

Tell me, how does an owner pump their own money in without getting investigated for FFP violations?
FYI, city have been investigated and fined for failing to comply and had sanctions placed on them.

Kind of my point... They loan the club the money and charge the club "Interest" on the money

As previously stated, show in the accounts where the owners are taking money out.

You show me where they are not taking a wage...Directors:John W. Henry,  Tom Warner, David Ginsberg, Michael Gordon, Michael Egan all are listed as Directors thus all are entitled to a salary

You seem to know little yourself

Well that ok then, they loaned the club they bought £50 million, wait was that interest free? and did not Liverpool sell players that season?

Really... Did we not make a bid for Suarez of £11.5 million which was turned down, and we returned with a further bid of £13.7 mil. also turned down and it was not till we sold Ryan Babel did we pay the asking price of £22.5 mil for Suarez us getting him get him had f**k all to do with any money loaned from FSG, and we later sold Torres to Chelsea for £50 mil of which Andy Carroll was bought from that...

Kind of my point... They loan the club the money and charge the club "Interest" on the money

You show me where they are not taking a wage...Directors:John W. Henry,  Tom Warner, David Ginsberg, Michael Gordon, Michael Egan all are listed as Directors thus all are entitled to a salary

When FSG took over tbe signing of Suarez was already wanted -  money was given to spend on him , when Torres was looking to leave the club asked Chelsea for whatever Newcastle wanted for Carrol plus money to fill the gap for Suarez - hence why we spend £55mil and sold played for £55mil

In the summer Kenny was given the transfer kitty to be added to the debt to help the club start to bring players in - hence people like Downing and Henderson were bought

When Rodgers arrived he was given a bit more money - plus more over a number of Windows

Klopp arrived and a bit more money was available due to commercial deals bearing fruit etc and the rest is history

Any money the owners have lent has all been interest free including the money for stadium development

As for taking a wage - they are employed by FSG to run things so they will be the company paying wages to any employee looking after one of their assets

I think the proof would be in the public records, and i seriously doubt that anybody is in need of pulling a wage to cover the mortgage or car loan.

Kind of like a program I saw some ten plus years  back. It was about people who were had private pensions some getting £1500 plus p.w. yet still claiming thier state pension (£70+ p.w.) One old boy said I had to pay in for It so I'm claiming It...

Point... They don't draw a salary because they need it, they draw it because they are entitled to it

When FSG took over tbe signing of Suarez was already wanted -  money was given to spend on him , when Torres was looking to leave the club asked Chelsea for whatever Newcastle wanted for Carrol plus money to fill the gap for Suarez - hence why we spend £55mil and sold played for £55mil

Wrong... Suarez sell was completed and price agree when we sold Babel, until then we did not offer the £22.8 mill they wanted...Sorry previously stated £22.5 m Liverpool FC had intended Suarez to play along side Torres and when Torres decided to leave Carroll was bought out of that money

You show me where they are not taking a wage...Directors:John W. Henry,  Tom Warner, David Ginsberg, Michael Gordon, Michael Egan all are listed as Directors thus all are entitled to a salary

Do you believe as owners they are not entitled to any money generated by the club they own?..

What next do they pay for their tickets on match day?  Do they pay for their Pie and Chips?

Do you believe as owners they are not entitled to any money generated by the club they own?..

Yes of course they are, but just sick of the fact that some here (There personal PR Machine's) are trying to make out that they are all that's good and right in the world, the perfect owners when in fact they really are no better than Hicks & Gillete, merely smarter about the way they are doing things

What next do they pay for their tickets on match day?  Do they pay for their Pie and Chips?

Whhhaaatttt!!! They don't pay for there ticket, and Get free pie and Chips... It's a diabolical Liberty 

Let’s all just agree that the owners are doing a wonderful job.

End of the day they get one of the best signings in Liverpool’s entire history: Jürgen Klopp!