We Almost Bought Liverpool FC

Got a ton more respect for Southampton and Swansea than City and Chelsea. Clubs that make it (for lack of a better term) "the right way" always have a spot soft for me.

I F***ing hate City, Chelsea and the other oil rich clubs that attract sh*t house fans - and let's face it, we can't afford to have a worse fan base attend games than right now. Imagine having plastic drones with the already sh*t atmosphere at games. Unbearable.

Don't want us to ever become that. We're the only top club in the country that has some sort of soul, culture, identity that relates to working hard and gaining success that way, not throwing money at the problem. Sheikh can F**k off.

One thing I don't understand is this notion that if we had billionaire owners, we'd be hiring mercenaries. Where's the cut off point? How much do you have to spend before you're classed as mercenary employers?

Are we saying Borini loves the club, because he cost just £13m? Is Couts going to live and die in Liverpool because we only paid £8.5m for him?

It's easy to point the finger and say City and Chelsea are nothing but mercenaries. And this talk about the soul of the club is romantic and all that, but end of the day, they are high earners who seem to be working hard for their team (at least Aguero seemed to be giving his all for City today and looked mightily fed up having been taken off).

Only yesterday posters were calling our players lazy bas**rds and not pulling their weight. That if they can't be bothered, perhaps they shouldn't be picking up a pay check (Balo anyone)?

So who are the real mercenaries here? The ones who win title after title, or the lazy b***ard ones who have us pulling our hair out?

I know which ones I'd rather hire, because end of the day, it's nothing to do with mercenary people, it's about having the cash to buy title winning players.

Real mercenaries are owners who sell assets to keep investors & shareholders happy.

Who put a manager in a position to lead the club in the top 4 & challenge for titles without giving him the players that he requires.

Who will sell the club for a hearty profit to the highest bidder & won't give a F**k about the supporters once they have sold up.

Really can't be bothered to get into the owners again mate, it's not really the thread for it either

You like them, sound I respect that, no worries, I don't and won't.

Ye I know what you mean. Fair play, respect your opinion too.

Dont believe FSG have ruined the soul of the club. Quite the opposite. They have made mistakes though.

We sold the club to people who have no interest in Liverpool or even in football itself .... to me that is the very definition of selling your soul and sadly we didn't even get a good price for it. 

I thought this was common knowledge but Parry and Moores fu**ed us over by selling to the cancers instead. 

We can all speculate that things may have been different, we might not have come close to administration or had a load of debt placed on us but this group had just as many financial problems around that time so who knows.

It's too late now anyway as due to ffp no owner can come in and spend for the fun of it like Roman or the other Sheiks did.

Football clubs don't make money so how can you say that what they are here for.FSG are trying to change that and forcing there operating methods on to the club to make it a stand alone entity.
I didn't see many City fans complaining about their investors or Chelsea fans wanting Roman out.

No football is not big business but it is a profitable business, especially if you are successful. City fans have been around since the year dot, good fans too. But they rose from nothing to Heros in the space of 2 years. Its a bought title. UTD are rich because they ran the league for all the profitable years before the Rich bought clubs. UTD have done it right. Just like we did it right when we won all our titles. Its not like we completely inflated the cost of everything at the time either.

This might not be the most popular view but the hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. Not one of you, not a single one of you would be here moaning about getting rid of a manager or evil owners or substandard players if we where owned by some oil rich Sheikh and we where winning Titles and cups left, right and centre every season. There are entire threads dedicated to moaning about the lack of money handed to Rodgers to pay for the players we all want to see but none of you want owners with the money capable of achieving that. You can not have your cake and eat it in modern football. You either have a rich owner and you're successful or you don't and you're not.

This might not be the most popular view but the hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. Not one of you, not a single one of you would be here moaning about getting rid of a manager or evil owners or substandard players if we where owned by some oil rich Sheikh and we where winning Titles and cups left, right and centre every season. There are entire threads dedicated to moaning about the lack of money handed to Rodgers to pay for the players we all want to see but none of you want owners with the money capable of achieving that. You can not have your cake and eat it in modern football. You either have a rich owner and you're successful or you don't and you're not.

I agree mate, my only disappointment is we sold out and didn't even get the money.

Give me the titles and the cups and I will somehow try to live with the fact that we didn't win them the "right way" as I celebrate wildly.

I agree mate, my only disappointment is we sold out and didn't even get the money.

Give me the titles and the cups and I will somehow try to live with the fact that we didn't win them the "right way" as I celebrate wildly.

You say we sold out but would you sooner the alternative? Administration and possibly relegation? For all their faults, for all we believe their strategy is flawed, let none of us forget just how close we came to that being a reality.

You say we sold out but would you sooner the alternative? Administration and possibly relegation? For all their faults, for all we believe their strategy is flawed, let none of us forget just how close we came to that being a reality.

It was selling out that put us in that position mate. 

This might not be the most popular view but the hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. Not one of you, not a single one of you would be here moaning about getting rid of a manager or evil owners or substandard players if we where owned by some oil rich Sheikh and we where winning Titles and cups left, right and centre every season. There are entire threads dedicated to moaning about the lack of money handed to Rodgers to pay for the players we all want to see but none of you want owners with the money capable of achieving that. You can not have your cake and eat it in modern football. You either have a rich owner and you're successful or you don't and you're not.

agree with this.

only change is if we had a rich sheikh, we wouldn't have BR.  we would have a proven manager at the highest level come in and build this team. 

Here is a thought for all of you.  BR is much like the players we are buying... on potential.  and like some of these 'potential' players, they kind of fizzle... lets hope BR is more in the camp of cou and sturridge rather than the likes of aspas /alberto

Chelsea and City built their squads up to a higher level before FFP rules came into effect,  meaning they are capable of bringing in more money every season through winning Titles and qualifying for the CL. You have to spend money to make money!

Got a ton more respect for Southampton and Swansea than City and Chelsea. Clubs that make it (for lack of a better term) "the right way" always have a spot soft for me.

I F***ing hate City, Chelsea and the other oil rich clubs that attract sh*t house fans - and let's face it, we can't afford to have a worse fan base attend games than right now. Imagine having plastic drones with the already sh*t atmosphere at games. Unbearable.

Don't want us to ever become that. We're the only top club in the country that has some sort of soul, culture, identity that relates to working hard and gaining success that way, not throwing money at the problem. Sheikh can F**k off.

Fair enough mate,  but I would rather have trophies than people's respect!

Got a ton more respect for Southampton and Swansea than City and Chelsea. Clubs that make it (for lack of a better term) "the right way" always have a spot soft for me.

I f**king hate City, Chelsea and the other oil rich clubs that attract sh*t house fans - and let's face it, we can't afford to have a worse fan base attend games than right now. Imagine having plastic drones with the already sh*t atmosphere at games. Unbearable.

Don't want us to ever become that. We're the only top club in the country that has some sort of soul, culture, identity that relates to working hard and gaining success that way, not throwing money at the problem. Sheikh can f**k off.

 Swansea have done it "The right way" but Southampton are only where they are due to a rich owner (Markus Liebherr) putting money into the club. Southampton were the same as City and Chelsea just on a smaller scale. If it was not for Leibherr they might still be in the first division

They could have bought us, we could have won a couple of trophies and then they could have fu**ed off. I just wanna get the 25 year Monkey off our friggin backs.

My issue with the owners is the hancuffed way the manager has to buy future talent,  we won't be willing to improve or even meet an already top players salary when they come.
For instance say a Marco Reus negotiation is happening, it won't go through because of an ethical rule the owners have regarding wages.
All this is ever going to lead to is our rivals offer better incentives and we always lose out.

I'd just like owners who care. Who care if we win or lose, who care about this club, who care about the game of football, who want to win and who actually turn up to watch us!
My problem with the current lot is that they don't care, about the club, about winning, about football, all they care about is their exit strategy and making a profit.
Shanks would hate this lot with a passion, simply because they have no passion!
At least the Sheikh knew about football and, as was reported many times had a soft spot for us.

They could have bought us, we could have won a couple of trophies and then they could have fu**ed off. I just wanna get the 25 year Monkey off our friggin backs.

If they'd had of bought us back then apparently the plan then was for them to sell us this year - 2014.

The article:-

Consortium planning to buy
Liverpool could sell in seven years

AP/CNN

The Dubai-based consortium trying to buy English Premier League club Liverpool doesn't plan to be the sole owner and could sell for a large profit in seven years time, a newspaper report claimed Wednesday.

Earlier this month, Liverpool said it was in "exclusive negotiations'' with Dubai International Capital (DIC), a consortium led by Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, for a possible takeover of the storied soccer club.

DIC considers its purchase of Liverpool solely as a business deal, and plans to borrow up to 300 million pounds (US$587 million; ?447 million) to finance its 450-million-pound (US$882 million; ?670 million) purchase of the club, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported Wednesday. The newspaper cited investment documents shown to potential investors.

By selling in seven years, DIC would provide a return of around 25 percent on its original investment for every year of ownership, the paper said. It did not elaborate.

DIC would not be the sole owner of Liverpool, unlike Malcolm Glazer at Manchester United and Randy Lerner at Aston Villa - who are both Americans who also own NFL clubs - and Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich at Chelsea.

The Daily Telegraph said 30 percent of the 90 percent stake DIC is bidding for will be offered to outside investors. It said three banks - Bank of Ireland, RBS and Bank of America - had been approached for financing.

A new stadium, estimated at 240 million pounds (US$470 million; ?357 million), to replace Anfield is key to the deal, the paper said.

In September, Liverpool received the go-ahead to build a 60,000-capacity new stadium, clearing the way for the Reds to leave the 45,000-seat Anfield after 114 years and move to a part of nearby Stanley Park, depending on financing.

Six Premier League clubs are under foreign ownership, with Man U, Chelsea and Aston Villa joined by Portsmouth, Fulham and West Ham. 

I also read somewhere that Moores reckoned that "we had a lucky escape" by not being sold to them! Really? Laurel and Hardy knowingly sold us to a fat Texan renowned for gaining his wealth through 'leveraging' companies and then smashing them up. If he and Parry had had half the brains of Robinson they wouldn't have had to have sell in the first place.

Anyhow, it's all by the by now. They had at least 3 separate chances to buy us so why is he bringing it back up now?

If they'd had of bought us back then apparently the plan then was for them to sell us this year - 2014.

The article:-

Consortium planning to buy
Liverpool could sell in seven years

AP/CNN

The Dubai-based consortium trying to buy English Premier League club Liverpool doesn't plan to be the sole owner and could sell for a large profit in seven years time, a newspaper report claimed Wednesday.

Earlier this month, Liverpool said it was in "exclusive negotiations'' with Dubai International Capital (DIC), a consortium led by Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, for a possible takeover of the storied soccer club.

DIC considers its purchase of Liverpool solely as a business deal, and plans to borrow up to 300 million pounds (US$587 million; ?447 million) to finance its 450-million-pound (US$882 million; ?670 million) purchase of the club, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported Wednesday. The newspaper cited investment documents shown to potential investors.

By selling in seven years, DIC would provide a return of around 25 percent on its original investment for every year of ownership, the paper said. It did not elaborate.

DIC would not be the sole owner of Liverpool, unlike Malcolm Glazer at Manchester United and Randy Lerner at Aston Villa - who are both Americans who also own NFL clubs - and Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich at Chelsea.

The Daily Telegraph said 30 percent of the 90 percent stake DIC is bidding for will be offered to outside investors. It said three banks - Bank of Ireland, RBS and Bank of America - had been approached for financing.

A new stadium, estimated at 240 million pounds (US$470 million; ?357 million), to replace Anfield is key to the deal, the paper said.

In September, Liverpool received the go-ahead to build a 60,000-capacity new stadium, clearing the way for the Reds to leave the 45,000-seat Anfield after 114 years and move to a part of nearby Stanley Park, depending on financing.

Six Premier League clubs are under foreign ownership, with Man U, Chelsea and Aston Villa joined by Portsmouth, Fulham and West Ham. 

I also read somewhere that Moores reckoned that "we had a lucky escape" by not being sold to them! Really? Laurel and Hardy knowingly sold us to a fat Texan renowned for gaining his wealth through 'leveraging' companies and then smashing them up. If he and Parry had had half the brains of Robinson they wouldn't have had to have sell in the first place.

Anyhow, it's all by the by now. They had at least 3 separate chances to buy us so why is he bringing it back up now?

Sheik Bin Rashid al Maktoum has more pressing problems than a hypothetical plan to sell LFC which he wasn't able to acquire.
A debt of £142 Billion to Abu Dhabi has been extended for a further 5 years at a very amicable interest rate.
Were it not for the Royal Families of both countries being closely related by marriage Dubai would be in deep sh*t.
As the article below states Dubai is drowning in debt.
Sheik Bin Rashid al Maktoum did show some interest when H&G put their sabotage plan forward but the whisper then was that incredibly, financial matters led to a cooling of said interest.
It is said there is some LFC support within the Dubai Royal Family, perhaps it was merely a dream of owning the club that prompted an enquiry.
 
http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/dubai-drowning-in-debt/



   

Yep water under the Bridge now, that's for sure...not sure why its being rehashed.

Yep water under the Bridge now, that's for sure...not sure why its being rehashed.

I posted it because I never knew that the head honcho himself was a lifelong LFC supporter

We won't get a billionaire owner until the stadium has at least been expanded. 

Swansea have done it "The right way" but Southampton are only where they are due to a rich owner (Markus Liebherr) putting money into the club. Southampton were the same as City and Chelsea just on a smaller scale. If it was not for Leibherr they might still be in the first division

Yeah thats true of course, but most clubs that get from the lower leagues to the Premier League take investment to do so but they have a terrific production line of young talent they are not afraid to throw in to the team and most of their important players up until this season were at the club from <21 years old. Ideally, i'd love to see us do that. Produce from the academy and then fill the holes with quality players from outside of the club.

As opposed to isolating the academy and giving the kids zero chance of making it like every oil-rich club in the world. If i wanted that as a football fan i'd stick to Football Manager.