NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

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
 

If I offended you in any way then I apologize. I didn't intend to.

But yes you are wrong, annual profit has no relevance to when the owners want to profit from club sale. At each end of fiscal year (in the case of Liverpool it's May 31) the directors or shareholders decide what to do in case of profit or loss, the profit is distributed to shareholders or it's used to re-invest into the club. So far I have not seen our owners backing out on their promises of investing. I cannot agree with other supporters when they say that the owners have not invested or lack ambition because it's plainly not true, and no I'm not an FSG apologist, I'm very objective when it comes to reading financial statements, if I see that FSG are using profits just to redistribute it back to shareholders then that's a problem and I'll be one of the first like many others to ask questions and seek more answers on FSG's intent.

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

This is a very subjective question, because it depends on many factors, I just can't give you a yes or no question and it depends on the 2016 income statement that hasn't been out yet.

If I offended you in any way then I apologize. I didn't intend to.

Not sure if you understand that I was joking.... Always hard to tell

But yes you are wrong, annual profit has no relevance to when the owners want to profit from club sale. At each end of fiscal year (in the case of Liverpool it's May 31) the directors or shareholders decide what to do in case of profit or loss, the profit is distributed to shareholders or it's used to re-invest into the club. So far I have not seen our owners backing out on their promises of investing. I cannot agree with other supporters when they say that the owners have not invested or lack ambition because it's plainly not true, and no I'm not an FSG apologist, I'm very objective when it comes to reading financial statements, if I see that FSG are using profits just to redistribute it back to shareholders then that's a problem and I'll be one of the first like many others to ask questions and seek more answers on FSG's intent.

Yes but the annual profit is very relevant as far as this discussion does and the Profit on the sale of the Club is just "Icing on the Cake" to FSG

Yes but the annual profit is very relevant as far as this discussion does and the Profit on the sale of the Club is just "Icing on the Cake" to FSG

No it's not. We could be on a loss next year, who knows.

Yes but the annual profit is very relevant as far as this discussion does and the Profit on the sale of the Club is just "Icing on the Cake" to FSG

The point you are clearly missing is that the accounts show clearly that FSG are not taking any dividend from when we make a profit.

What the F**k is so hard to understand about that?

For anyone who can read a set of accounts, it's as clear as day.

Profit when they sell the club has been the FSG strategy all along, which is why they don't take a yearly dividend when we make a profit.
F***ing hell, it's like trying to explain colour to a blind man.

And the point you are avoiding is that Klopp stated clearly he has money to spend, but he chose not to spend it.
That's not the fault of FSG, and doesn't show anything other than the manager being in charge of transfers.

No it's not. We could be on a loss next year, who knows.

If we have a big summer, I expect us to show a loss or break even, and for that loss to be carried forwards and offset against future profits.
They've done this before, so it seems to be part of their financial management strategy, and to be fair, it's hardly uncommon.

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.

Those same parameters and benefits apply to LFC, your description of the manc's earning power is what we all know, we are all aware also that LFC's financial prospects have improved dramatically under FSG; debt is cheaper than equity, moreso now than ever which is even more reason for the owners to show faith in a sound investment and use debt to their profit. It may sound a contradiction but is exactly what the Glazers have done with the mancs.

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.

A hedge fund would not in any way provide the return they will get from LFC.
A quick return is under-investment for a given period until the asset realises it's true value and is sold off for a huge profit; as opposed to making the investment bigger in real terms and maximising the return.

If FSG went the way of the Glazers who are there for the long term and invest as such in that club, we would not be in free-fall even with the best manager in the world.

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.

Yes Swab they haven't signed any mega stars, thats IS the point, We could actually do with a couple of mega stars to improve the team to a level that could win the league in a regular basis. Financially we can afford to do this is we stop wasting money on sh*te.
I think Jürgen actually regrets not bringing in more players in the summer.

If we have a big summer, I expect us to show a loss or break even, and for that loss to be carried forwards and offset against future profits.
They've done this before, so it seems to be part of their financial management strategy, and to be fair, it's hardly uncommon.

Yup,

would like to see the 2016 financial results, out next month I hope

Yes Swab they haven't signed any mega stars, thats IS the point, We could actually do with a couple of mega stars to improve the team to a level that could win the league in a regular basis. Financially we can afford to do this is we stop wasting money on sh*te.
I think Jürgen actually regrets not bringing in more players in the summer.

When did LFC ever sign mega-stars though?

The answer is never.

Maybe we should start though, plunge the club back into debt, and have all our earnings go on interest payments.
It didn't work out very well for H&G, or Leeds come to that, but hey, we're special, right, so we'll manage something.

Like it or not, we have a finite amount of money to spend, that is less than 4 of our rivals.
That's the truth of where we are.
CL money could somewhat change that, but we won't be signing players at a premium like PSG, Madrid or Barca any time soon.

If FSG went the way of the Glazers who are there for the long term and invest as such in that club, we would not be in free-fall even with the best manager in the world.

To be honest Stu, if we went the way of the mancs then we would be a publicly traded company and would pay a dividend to the shareholders every year and the largest shareholder are the Glazers.

Maybe they should go that way but if FSG did that just as the Glazers they would be getting paid back every year; it would actually be much better for the owners to do this; but I am not so sure that it would be best for the club.

The reason they spend so much is they make so much and the reason they use debt is because Wall Street pretty much demands a publicly traded company to do so especially in this interest rate environment.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AMANU&authuser=1&ei=9_CdWJGDGce22AanmZnwCQ

Yup,

would like to see the 2016 financial results, out next month I hope

Thought it was April they are due mate?

Or have the club changed the accounting period again and I missed it, or (more likely) forgot?

Whichever.
It doesn't really matter, and like you I'm looking forwards to having a good look through, to see where we're at.

To be honest Stu, if we went the way of the mancs then we would be a publicly traded company and would pay a dividend to the shareholders every quarter.

Maybe they should go that way but if FSG did that just as the Glazers they would be getting paid back every quarter; it would actually be much better for the owners to do this; but I am not so sure that it would be best for the club.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AMANU&authuser=1&ei=9_CdWJGDGce22AanmZnwCQ

That would be a nightmare IMO.
We simply don't generate that kind of revenue, and let's not forget, the Glazers have re-financed at least twice, and paid themselves handsomely to do it, via new share issues.

Those same parameters and benefits apply to LFC, your description of the manc's earning power is what we all know, we are all aware also that LFC's financial prospects have improved dramatically under FSG; debt is cheaper than equity, moreso now than ever which is even more reason for the owners to show faith in a sound investment and use debt to their profit. It may sound a contradiction but is exactly what the Glazers have done with the mancs.

A hedge fund would not in any way provide the return they will get from LFC.
A quick return is under-investment for a given period until the asset realises it's true value and is sold off for a huge profit; as opposed to making the investment bigger in real terms and maximising the return.

If FSG went the way of the Glazers who are there for the long term and invest as such in that club, we would not be in free-fall even with the best manager in the world.

But the profit they made are being reinvested into the club, this what me Swab and others are trying to explain to people. If bad decisions are made towards player investment or transfer strategy then it is not about lack of ambition or lack of investment, it is because of bad management and this has changed now with Klopp taking more power in choosing who he signs and Mike Gordon being heavily involved in player negotiations instead of Ian Ayre. Hence, for the changes to bear fruit we need to wait another year or two to judge.

I used a hedge fund as an example if FSG wanted something quick, and yes a hedge fund, which is a lot riskier because it's investment in high risk assets could yield more return than investing in LFC. If I was a millionaire who wanted to make money fast and take more risks I would set up a hedge fund with my millionaire buddies. But if I wanted to diversify and look at long term benefits I would invest in companies that has potential to grow. Yes, FSG's intent is to sell off later, but which owner doesn't in the end? All owners have an exit strategy, so I don't see a problem in that. 7 years in the club is a long time, so again I'm afraid I don't see how they are in here for a quick-return.

That would be a nightmare IMO.
We simply don't generate that kind of revenue, and let's not forget, the Glazers have re-financed at least twice, and paid themselves handsomely to do it, via new share issues.

I agree Swab but this idea that the Glazers are putting there own money in now is simply not true, if anything they are taking money out of United.

The fact of the matter is that over the past 25+ years they have built a commercial juggernaut and we are far behind them and playing catch up...this is not down to the Glazers investing some huge some of money every year it is because that club is a cash cow and of course if they need to they will borrow money if they have a poor year.

When did LFC ever sign mega-stars though?

The answer is never.

Maybe we should start though, plunge the club back into debt, and have all our earnings go on interest payments.
It didn't work out very well for H&G, or Leeds come to that, but hey, we're special, right, so we'll manage something.

Like it or not, we have a finite amount of money to spend, that is less than 4 of our rivals.
That's the truth of where we are.
CL money could somewhat change that, but we won't be signing players at a premium like PSG, Madrid or Barca any time soon.

See there you go on one of your rants again! No one has said we should get the club in debt to sign players, it's possible to sign these players without going there, simple really, less quantity more quality.
If we're thinking long term success, a couple of top player per season is better than 7 average ones.
So what if we've never bought mega stars before, the footballing world has changed, and we've been left behind. Time we acted like the club we want to be.

Even Crystal Palace spent £30 million on Bedrest, Everton spent similar or Bossier. Our record is £36 million approximately. We need to be willing to pay the going rate to get the players we want.

But the profit they made are being reinvested into the club, this what me Swab and others are trying to explain to people. If bad decisions are made towards player investment or transfer strategy then it is not about lack of ambition or lack of investment, it is because of bad management and this has changed now with Klopp taking more power in choosing who he signs and Mike Gordon being heavily involved in player negotiations instead of Ian Ayre. Hence, for the changes to bear fruit we need to wait another year or two to judge.

I used a hedge fund as an example if FSG wanted something quick, and yes a hedge fund, which is a lot riskier because it's investment in high risk assets could yield more return than investing in LFC. If I was a millionaire who wanted to make money fast and take more risks I would set up a hedge fund with my millionaire buddies. But if I wanted to diversify and look at long term benefits I would invest in companies that has potential to grow. Yes, FSG's intent is to sell off later, but which owner doesn't in the end? All owners have an exit strategy, so I don't see a problem in that. 7 years in the club is a long time, so again I'm afraid I don't see how they are in here for a quick-return.

A hedge fund set up with 200m now worth a prospective 800m!!
Sinking your 200m in a hedge fund with the built in worries and uncertainty would appeal to very few investors, said investors would jump on a 200m sure fire asset that would earn 600m in seven years.
FSG have only one intention, dust off the H&G sh*t for approx. 200m, let the asset develop as assets will and sell when fatter.
None investment = an ever growing product!!
Who the F**k wouldn't stick around??

A hedge fund set up with 200m now worth a prospective 800m!!
Sinking your 200m in a hedge fund with the built in worries and uncertainty would appeal to very few investors, said investors would jump on a 200m sure fire asset that would earn 600m in seven years.
FSG have only one intention, dust off the H&G sh*t for approx. 200m, let the asset develop as assets will and sell when fatter.
None investment = an ever growing product!!
Who the F**k wouldn't stick around??

And their due diligence would have show what they they could make with minimal investment. Making money with spending it, a dream for all businessmen.

The hungry hoors were trying to instigate the cream off, by "top" PL teams, of overseas TV revenue.

Carpetbaggers v2.0 mocking mug fans since 2010.

Your football team... the one you say you support?... Going nowhere fast as FSG get richer and richer and richer.

Ignore anything their shills and the F**k wits tell you... FSG  do NOT care if YOUR teams wins. End. Of.

See there you go on one of your rants again! No one has said we should get the club in debt to sign players, it's possible to sign these players without going there, simple really, less quantity more quality.
If we're thinking long term success, a couple of top player per season is better than 7 average ones.
So what if we've never bought mega stars before, the footballing world has changed, and we've been left behind. Time we acted like the club we want to be.

Even Crystal Palace spent £30 million on Bedrest, Everton spent similar or Bossier. Our record is £36 million approximately. We need to be willing to pay the going rate to get the players we want.

Look fella, it wasn't a "rant" or anything of the sort, so stop being so bloody melodramatic.

We're fifth in the PL earnings table, and with very few exceptions there is a clear correlation between revenue, wages and success.
We are 5th in the wages table as well.

Success will come from 2 things; 1) building the club in a way that maximises commercial activity in a sustainable way, 2) finding players that complement the whole, rather than relying on a couple of big money buys.

The bottom line is that we cannot compete financially with the clubs above us, yet, so like it or not, we won't be buying any mega-stars.

Nor will Klopp buy for the sake of it; it's either got to be the right player or no player at all.

And there was me thinking £50 million for Carroll was the club record buy, regardless of how it came about.

I agree Swab but this idea that the Glazers are putting there own money in now is simply not true, if anything they are taking money out of United.

The fact of the matter is that over the past 25+ years they have built a commercial juggernaut and we are far behind them and playing catch up...this is not down to the Glazers investing some huge some of money every year it is because that club is a cash cow and of course if they need to they will borrow money if they have a poor year.

All true, and to be fair united fans have got a lot more to moan about than we have given that the Glazers have been milking them for years, something our owners haven't been doing at all.

Look fella, it wasn't a "rant" or anything of the sort, so stop being so bloody melodramatic.

We're fifth in the PL earnings table, and with very few exceptions there is a clear correlation between revenue, wages and success.
We are 5th in the wages table as well.

Success will come from 2 things; 1) building the club in a way that maximises commercial activity in a sustainable way, 2) finding players that complement the whole, rather than relying on a couple of big money buys.

The bottom line is that we cannot compete financially with the clubs above us, yet, so like it or not, we won't be buying any mega-stars.

Nor will Klopp buy for the sake of it; it's either got to be the right player or no player at all.

And there was me thinking £50 million for Carroll was the club record buy, regardless of how it came about.

How did Chelsea get were they are from being also rans? Through player investment which led to on field success. Now they are basically able to bring in big players through the money they generate with going into Roman's pockets. They even sell more shirts than us, F***ing Chelsea!!
You can make profit way the way FSG do, like opportunists, it you can speculate to accumulate like Chelsea did (to a lesser extent) and both grow the "brand" and be successful on the field.
I know which I'd prefer from my owners!

How did Chelsea get were they are from being also rans? Through player investment which led to on field success. Now they are basically able to bring in big players through the money they generate with going into Roman's pockets. They even sell more shirts than us, F***ing Chelsea!!
You can make profit way the way FSG do, like opportunists, it you can speculate to accumulate like Chelsea did (to a lesser extent) and both grow the "brand" and be successful on the field.
I know which I'd prefer from my owners!

Abramovich lent them the money, and it still took them years to build a team.
They owe him hundreds of millions, which he can call in at any time.
The minute he gets bored or (more likely) assassinated, chelsea will drop like a stone down to their true level.

FSG haven't made any profit from us.
It's quite simply untrue to say they have.