Bitter Rivals
International
- 24 January 2005
Re: Liverpool Thread
it can only be good news at this time
it can only be good news at this time
-
Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here
Liverpool Thread
- Thread starter Misfit
- Start date
TikTikTikTikTik
*****
- 7 August 2004
- Team
- Liverpool
Re: Liverpool Thread
Not sure about the US bid tbh. It just looks like a somewhat more financially strong H/G. I wouldn't expect these companies to accept the nonsense going on at City and would expect the business dealings of the club to be very financially sound with them looking to get some profit out of it.
That's what worries me with these people, they aren't bidding to make the club the biggest in the world with no limitations like Chelsea and City, they are businesses that will want to make money out of their investment. And we all know clubs can barely make decent profits, with a couple (Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool) having enough commercial draw to make maybe 10-30mil a year. That's 1 or 2 players a season. And then they can only stay at the top with 2 of the best managers in the world, Liverpool were trying to keep their head above water without the extra investment and you can see what's happened with a poorer manager in charge* (albiet in very negative circumstances). The club would need 100mil of player investment, 300mil stadium invetsment, a new top class manager and having all the income generated to be used for squad development the next few years before the new owners could even think about getting some profit! I can't see them doing that tbh.
* There really is no point in comparing which manager is better, just look at their careers. And if you really want to use Fulham as an example.......Then you can consider Peter Reid a great manager aswell seeing as he got Sunderland promoted and had them finish in the top 6 two seasons running. I think we can all agree we don't consider him a top manager.
Not sure about the US bid tbh. It just looks like a somewhat more financially strong H/G. I wouldn't expect these companies to accept the nonsense going on at City and would expect the business dealings of the club to be very financially sound with them looking to get some profit out of it.
That's what worries me with these people, they aren't bidding to make the club the biggest in the world with no limitations like Chelsea and City, they are businesses that will want to make money out of their investment. And we all know clubs can barely make decent profits, with a couple (Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool) having enough commercial draw to make maybe 10-30mil a year. That's 1 or 2 players a season. And then they can only stay at the top with 2 of the best managers in the world, Liverpool were trying to keep their head above water without the extra investment and you can see what's happened with a poorer manager in charge* (albiet in very negative circumstances). The club would need 100mil of player investment, 300mil stadium invetsment, a new top class manager and having all the income generated to be used for squad development the next few years before the new owners could even think about getting some profit! I can't see them doing that tbh.
* There really is no point in comparing which manager is better, just look at their careers. And if you really want to use Fulham as an example.......Then you can consider Peter Reid a great manager aswell seeing as he got Sunderland promoted and had them finish in the top 6 two seasons running. I think we can all agree we don't consider him a top manager.
D
DagsJT
Guest
Re: Liverpool Thread
The danger with owners coming in with no limitations is that they'll get bored at some point and want to leave, and then you're left with players on huge wages and no money to improve the squad.
If NESV intend to strengthen the squad and then run a tight ship and run us properly, I'd be happy with that.
Purslow and Broughton are experienced in financial matters, surely if anyone is going to put in enough due dilligence into NESV, it has to be those two. Right?
NESV haven't said anything either, whether they do intend to invest in the squad, whether a new stadium is in the plans, whether there's going to be a fan representative on board. Purslow has said all along that the new owners must agree to significant funds towards buying players and committing to a stadium and that no deal would be agreed if these weren't met. So you'd THINK that NESV have met this criteria...
Jay McKenna from SoS was on Sky Sports News earlier, and the way he spoke was that SoS haven't spoken to NESV at all. A bit worrying.
Edit: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/08/mlb.owners/index.html
The danger with owners coming in with no limitations is that they'll get bored at some point and want to leave, and then you're left with players on huge wages and no money to improve the squad.
If NESV intend to strengthen the squad and then run a tight ship and run us properly, I'd be happy with that.
Purslow and Broughton are experienced in financial matters, surely if anyone is going to put in enough due dilligence into NESV, it has to be those two. Right?
NESV haven't said anything either, whether they do intend to invest in the squad, whether a new stadium is in the plans, whether there's going to be a fan representative on board. Purslow has said all along that the new owners must agree to significant funds towards buying players and committing to a stadium and that no deal would be agreed if these weren't met. So you'd THINK that NESV have met this criteria...
Jay McKenna from SoS was on Sky Sports News earlier, and the way he spoke was that SoS haven't spoken to NESV at all. A bit worrying.
Edit: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/08/mlb.owners/index.html
Last edited by a moderator:
D
DagsJT
Guest
Re: Liverpool Thread
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/broughton-takeover-q-a
Broughton interview.
Looks like G&H are buggered, not sure how much of a leg they've got to stand on.
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/broughton-takeover-q-a
Broughton interview.
Looks like G&H are buggered, not sure how much of a leg they've got to stand on.
daikirai
statement™
- 3 November 2003
Re: Liverpool Thread
I don't know a ton about the red sox, but they seem to always bring in the talent necessary to win. It seems like their team is full of established players though. Not a lot of youngsters, but that could be more of a baseball thing.
It's hard to say if any positives or negatives are a direct result of the owners though. I've never heard how involved they are with anything.
They missed the playoffs this year but i believe they had a ton of injuries. I get the impression that once they're done with you, that's it, you're out.
I should state that I absolutely hate baseball and don't really watch it. So I'm not the best to comment, these are just my observations.
I don't know a ton about the red sox, but they seem to always bring in the talent necessary to win. It seems like their team is full of established players though. Not a lot of youngsters, but that could be more of a baseball thing.
It's hard to say if any positives or negatives are a direct result of the owners though. I've never heard how involved they are with anything.
They missed the playoffs this year but i believe they had a ton of injuries. I get the impression that once they're done with you, that's it, you're out.
I should state that I absolutely hate baseball and don't really watch it. So I'm not the best to comment, these are just my observations.
UJSupanova
@Bobothy
Re: Liverpool Thread
Why?
I don't think it's worrying at all, why would they speak to some fans before they've made a bid to buy the club and risk the story being leaked to the press before it's even happened? I think SOS are a being a bit naive here. I'm glad NESV have gone about it in a professional way rather than doing what DIC, Huang, Kirdi etc. have done in the past by talking a big game but not following through. NESV did everything on the quiet with the club officials and only the club officials, the way it should be done.
Why?
I don't think it's worrying at all, why would they speak to some fans before they've made a bid to buy the club and risk the story being leaked to the press before it's even happened? I think SOS are a being a bit naive here. I'm glad NESV have gone about it in a professional way rather than doing what DIC, Huang, Kirdi etc. have done in the past by talking a big game but not following through. NESV did everything on the quiet with the club officials and only the club officials, the way it should be done.
D
DagsJT
Guest
Re: Liverpool Thread
Good point actually, still hope that talks can place about having a fan rep though. I saw someone mention that the Red Sox have a fan rep and that they meet with the board each month, sounds pretty good to me.
Good point actually, still hope that talks can place about having a fan rep though. I saw someone mention that the Red Sox have a fan rep and that they meet with the board each month, sounds pretty good to me.
UJSupanova
@Bobothy
Re: Liverpool Thread
Yeh i'm all for having a fan rep, what i'm not all for is SOS dictating how things should be done.
Sometimes they appear to have the clubs best interests at heart, other times they seem to be agenda driven idiots hellbent on getting what they want. They've spread an awful lot of lies about Hicks and Gillett and have sensationalised a lot of the problems we've had in order to garner more support, and for that reason i'm out.
Yeh i'm all for having a fan rep, what i'm not all for is SOS dictating how things should be done.
Sometimes they appear to have the clubs best interests at heart, other times they seem to be agenda driven idiots hellbent on getting what they want. They've spread an awful lot of lies about Hicks and Gillett and have sensationalised a lot of the problems we've had in order to garner more support, and for that reason i'm out.
D
DagsJT
Guest
Re: Liverpool Thread
I've always wondered what SoS will do once the club has changed hands. Kinda like they're a bit TOO obsessed and happy to have something to do but I think they'll be a bit lost once we're taken over.
In saying that, they've done a lot to publicise how badly run the club is and highlight G&H.
Yeh i'm all for having a fan rep, what i'm not all for is SOS dictating how things should be done.
Sometimes they appear to have the clubs best interests at heart, other times they seem to be agenda driven idiots hellbent on getting what they want. They've spread an awful lot of lies about Hicks and Gillett and have sensationalised a lot of the problems we've had in order to garner more support, and for that reason i'm out.
I've always wondered what SoS will do once the club has changed hands. Kinda like they're a bit TOO obsessed and happy to have something to do but I think they'll be a bit lost once we're taken over.
In saying that, they've done a lot to publicise how badly run the club is and highlight G&H.
StuartCulli
College Dropout
- 25 July 2006
- Team
- Newcastle United
Re: Liverpool Thread
This really is pathetic
This really is pathetic
Jumbo_
-
Re: Liverpool Thread
I agree with that too, surely there's better representatives that SOS though?
EDIT: 3 posts since I started wrote that You know what I meant.
I agree with that too, surely there's better representatives that SOS though?
EDIT: 3 posts since I started wrote that
You know what I meant.
UJSupanova
@Bobothy
Re: Liverpool Thread
They'll probably continue with the pipe dream that is fan ownership tbh.
I've always wondered what SoS will do once the club has changed hands. Kinda like they're a bit TOO obsessed and happy to have something to do but I think they'll be a bit lost once we're taken over.
In saying that, they've done a lot to publicise how badly run the club is and highlight G&H.
They'll probably continue with the pipe dream that is fan ownership tbh.
quiet_riot
Welcome To Manchester
Re: Liverpool Thread
When has this ever happened? It's always mooted as a stick to beat a club with, god knows it's happened at City. But I've yet to ever see a change of ownership of a club happen because someone was 'bored'.
It usually comes down to financial restrictions forcing someone to sell up. The 'unlimited' pots from the likes of Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour show no signs of becoming bored and leaving.
Personally, I think anyone who says 'what happens when the rich bloke gets bored' is merely highlighting how little they know about the business side of football.
I say good luck to Liverpool, and anyone who happens upon rich ownership. If it makes the league more competitive and breaks up the status quo of the top 2/3/4, without risk of those who don't receive CL money leaving because they can't afford it, I'm all for it.
When has this ever happened? It's always mooted as a stick to beat a club with, god knows it's happened at City. But I've yet to ever see a change of ownership of a club happen because someone was 'bored'.
It usually comes down to financial restrictions forcing someone to sell up. The 'unlimited' pots from the likes of Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour show no signs of becoming bored and leaving.
Personally, I think anyone who says 'what happens when the rich bloke gets bored' is merely highlighting how little they know about the business side of football.
I say good luck to Liverpool, and anyone who happens upon rich ownership. If it makes the league more competitive and breaks up the status quo of the top 2/3/4, without risk of those who don't receive CL money leaving because they can't afford it, I'm all for it.
Last edited:
D
DagsJT
Guest
Re: Liverpool Thread
Abramovich and Mansour can't last forever tho, that's the worry.
Abramovich and Mansour can't last forever tho, that's the worry.
UJSupanova
@Bobothy
Re: Liverpool Thread
the new UEFA rules will put a stop to the Man City model of spending ridiculous amounts on money on players who are worth less than half of what was paid. That's why i'm glad we haven't got some daft oil baron in spending shitloads of money on prima donnas which could get us disqualified from UEFA competitions.
the new UEFA rules will put a stop to the Man City model of spending ridiculous amounts on money on players who are worth less than half of what was paid. That's why i'm glad we haven't got some daft oil baron in spending shitloads of money on prima donnas which could get us disqualified from UEFA competitions.
quiet_riot
Welcome To Manchester
Re: Liverpool Thread
Well, yes, they can.
Despite what the press would have you believe, the UEFA regulations will not stop any Prem club from competing in Europe (even £800 million in debt Man Yoo), aside from anything else, UEFA are hugely fearful of any disqualifications of the 'big clubs' leading to the formation of a different league. One where the clubs see more of the money than UEFA themselves.
Well, yes, they can.
Despite what the press would have you believe, the UEFA regulations will not stop any Prem club from competing in Europe (even £800 million in debt Man Yoo), aside from anything else, UEFA are hugely fearful of any disqualifications of the 'big clubs' leading to the formation of a different league. One where the clubs see more of the money than UEFA themselves.
Last edited:
D
DagsJT
Guest
Jumbo_
-
Re: Liverpool Thread
The Glazer's debt is irrelevant. We make a profit and fall inside UEFA's rules. At he moment you don't and given that the transfer fees are amortized over the duration of the players contract, there's a possibility that when it comes to the crunch in 2012, you won't then either.
Saying that, I agree with you that nothing will happen. City will have either found a way around it or UEFA will back down and give special dispensation of sorts.
The Glazer's debt is irrelevant. We make a profit and fall inside UEFA's rules. At he moment you don't and given that the transfer fees are amortized over the duration of the players contract, there's a possibility that when it comes to the crunch in 2012, you won't then either.
Saying that, I agree with you that nothing will happen. City will have either found a way around it or UEFA will back down and give special dispensation of sorts.
D
DagsJT
Guest
Re: Liverpool Thread
If that's true, then
If that's true, then
matherto
20 times 20 times Man United
Re: Liverpool Thread
Indirectly, be part owned.
So not really then.
Indirectly, be part owned.
So not really then.
UJSupanova
@Bobothy
Re: Liverpool Thread
It's not about debt levels it's about operating at a loss. You aren't allowed into UEFA competitions if you've had a loss for 3 consecutive seasons (i think that's the rule, or something like that) and at the minute city are operating at a big loss consistently.
Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea are all making profits.
It's not about debt levels it's about operating at a loss. You aren't allowed into UEFA competitions if you've had a loss for 3 consecutive seasons (i think that's the rule, or something like that) and at the minute city are operating at a big loss consistently.
Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea are all making profits.
gerd
Retired Footballer
Re: Liverpool Thread
Dream on my friend...it happens all the time in lower league football.
It happened with Tapie and Marseille in France, it happened with Racing Matra in France.
It happened twice in Belgium: with my favourite club (RWDM) who had a rich owner and who walked away...the club does not exist anymore.
It happened wit KV Mechelen who had a rich owner in the '80's. Mechelen came out of the blue, went on to win the ECII (against Ajax), became champions and the the guy left...Anderlecht bought their best players, they relegated and are since two years once again in the Jupiler League.
I know that you can't compare those two Belgian clubs with Man City and Chelsea, but that was another era.
Racing Matra can easily be compared with both English clubs (come to think of it there used to be a similar French club, i think it was Cannes...Cantona played one season for them).
Oh and didn't it happened to a lesser degree with Elton John and Watford?
There must be plenty of other examples.
Dream on my friend...it happens all the time in lower league football.
It happened with Tapie and Marseille in France, it happened with Racing Matra in France.
It happened twice in Belgium: with my favourite club (RWDM) who had a rich owner and who walked away...the club does not exist anymore.
It happened wit KV Mechelen who had a rich owner in the '80's. Mechelen came out of the blue, went on to win the ECII (against Ajax), became champions and the the guy left...Anderlecht bought their best players, they relegated and are since two years once again in the Jupiler League.
I know that you can't compare those two Belgian clubs with Man City and Chelsea, but that was another era.
Racing Matra can easily be compared with both English clubs (come to think of it there used to be a similar French club, i think it was Cannes...Cantona played one season for them).
Oh and didn't it happened to a lesser degree with Elton John and Watford?
There must be plenty of other examples.
UJSupanova
@Bobothy
Re: Liverpool Thread
A far as i know the only connection he has is that he loaned the New York Times Company a load of money, and they're one of the partners at NESV.
If that's true, then
A far as i know the only connection he has is that he loaned the New York Times Company a load of money, and they're one of the partners at NESV.
StuartCulli
College Dropout
- 25 July 2006
- Team
- Newcastle United
Re: Liverpool Thread
YOU HAVE NO SOUL, TOM HICKS!
YOU HAVE NO SOUL, TOM HICKS!
Jumbo_
-
Re: Liverpool Thread
Hey, at least if it all goes wrong you'll be able to reuse the 'Yanks Out' flags and banners. Saves forking out for 'Bugger off Arabs' or whatever.
Hey, at least if it all goes wrong you'll be able to reuse the 'Yanks Out' flags and banners. Saves forking out for 'Bugger off Arabs' or whatever.
quiet_riot
Welcome To Manchester
Re: Liverpool Thread
No wishing to turn this into a City thread, how is one season's announced loss "consistently?"
We made a loss because we paid transfer fees in one payment, not staggered like many do. Last year, all 'loss' was tunred into equity and therefore we did not make an official loss.
I'm at a loss how you came to that conclusion?
No wishing to turn this into a City thread, how is one season's announced loss "consistently?"
We made a loss because we paid transfer fees in one payment, not staggered like many do. Last year, all 'loss' was tunred into equity and therefore we did not make an official loss.
I'm at a loss how you came to that conclusion?
Jumbo_
-
Re: Liverpool Thread
Last season your total turnover was £125m, and you spent £133m on wages alone.
Last season your total turnover was £125m, and you spent £133m on wages alone.
StuartCulli
College Dropout
- 25 July 2006
- Team
- Newcastle United
Re: Liverpool Thread
ARF.
ARF.
quiet_riot
Welcome To Manchester
Re: Liverpool Thread
Not that you're bothered about likkle Citeh or Liverpool of course.
Listen, the Ferrostaal, Etihad, Etisalat and Aabar deals bring in nearly £100m over the year, so wherever you made your numbers up from is way out.
Not that you're bothered about likkle Citeh or Liverpool of course.