KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 31 1 2 3 … 30 31
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Re the debate on the stadium which I am sure will run for years.

It got me thinking about owners and the type of owner who can run a big club like Liverpool in the current environment for the premiership game.

The game has changed in the last 5 years but especially in the last two years. The money coming into premiership football is of an imaginable scale. Yet none of this money is going to the clubs or the owners its almost entirely going to players and their agents. The big clubs spent over a £100m on new players this year and I believe that is the new norm from now on.

Most of the top four clubs make a small profit or even a loss. Therefore as an investment its poor if clubs don't make a trading profit and hence dividends then perhaps they make a future capital profit ?

But even this is now flawed let's say John Henry spends £350m on buying Liverpool and say £150m on re-developing the ground and looks to receive £800m for Liverpool in a future sale.

Who and where would the buyer be? and why would anyone want to buy an asset for £800m that delivers no trading dividend ? It's almost a worthless investment.

As you know I believe Liverpool need and must have a new stadium to compete in the long term but I can see why John Henry would not want to build a new stadium its throwing good money after bad.

So....

And this is my point

Given the way modern football is, is the idea of buying a club as an investment (Glaziers / Henry) now an outdated concept given there is no money to be made? And that the only format now is to have an owner so rich they don't care about blowing crazy sums on the club they own sums that simply laugh at investment appraisal. There is FFP I know but as we know that can be overcome by channelled sponsorship and other means.

An alternative to a multi billionaire individual is some form of consortium perhaps an owner with partners like multinational companies that simply pump money into the club for advertising / branding but also have an equity stake.
The stadium debate we are debating a symptom the base problem is a club like Liverpool is simply too big for a man like John Henry.

I do hear people say well I don't want rich backers I want the club to grow on its own two feet. That's simply ridiculous for me the days of Derby / Forest / Ipswich getting a good manager and working their way up are long gone and they won't be coming back, not ever. Modern football is not even a commercial exercise its really a marketing enabler for third party businesses. The people making money are the TV companies, the agents, the sponsors etc therefore all that matters is that the club has the supply of investment and the more the better. The club is not a business but a marketing brand for other businesses.

In terms of Liverpool FC if you accept my assertions above then it's clear John Henry is not enough. FSG and partners might work though in the absence of finding a super rich individual.

But as things stand I fear for the future of Liverpool FC as we are not adequately financed.


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
That's a very thought provoking article Stanley


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Originally Posted By: theanfieldpigeon
We are All Doomed


We are not doomed we are probably set for 6th place ish or mid table long term say 10 years on when the other clubs have consolidated ahead of us. But if we restructured to meet our financing needs there is no reason Liverpool cannot be as big as Real Madrid or certainly in the top three in England. As explained the single moderately wealthy owner no longer works I am sure the glaziers would struggle if old Trafford was not already built


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Are the Glaziers not already struggling with their massive, massive debt?

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
Your entire post us based on the assumption that John Henry and the Glazers bought the clubs as an investment whereas Abramovich and Mansour bought clubs to have as playthings. That notion alone is so ridiculous and far fetched that it shows how out of touch with reality you are. If you honestly believe Mansour and Abramovich bought clubs as anything other than business investments, it truly is a thought provoking post, for a medical practitioner though.


Sign Reus
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,988
1st Team Regular
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,988
Wasn't the club up for sale on a number of occasions in the past few years? Where is this rich owner your speak of, why hasn't he came and purchased the club already?


Back to Back World Champions baby!
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By: Stanley Park
Re the debate on the stadium which I am sure will run for years.

It got me thinking about owners and the type of owner who can run a big club like Liverpool in the current environment for the premiership game.

The game has changed in the last 5 years but especially in the last two years. The money coming into premiership football is of an imaginable scale. Yet none of this money is going to the clubs or the owners its almost entirely going to players and their agents. The big clubs spent over a £100m on new players this year and I believe that is the new norm from now on.

Most of the top four clubs make a small profit or even a loss. Therefore as an investment its poor if clubs don't make a trading profit and hence dividends then perhaps they make a future capital profit ?

But even this is now flawed let's say John Henry spends £350m on buying Liverpool and say £150m on re-developing the ground and looks to receive £800m for Liverpool in a future sale.

Who and where would the buyer be? and why would anyone want to buy an asset for £800m that delivers no trading dividend ? It's almost a worthless investment.

As you know I believe Liverpool need and must have a new stadium to compete in the long term but I can see why John Henry would not want to build a new stadium its throwing good money after bad.

So....

And this is my point

Given the way modern football is, is the idea of buying a club as an investment (Glaziers / Henry) now an outdated concept given there is no money to be made? And that the only format now is to have an owner so rich they don't care about blowing crazy sums on the club they own sums that simply laugh at investment appraisal. There is FFP I know but as we know that can be overcome by channelled sponsorship and other means.

An alternative to a multi billionaire individual is some form of consortium perhaps an owner with partners like multinational companies that simply pump money into the club for advertising / branding but also have an equity stake.
The stadium debate we are debating a symptom the base problem is a club like Liverpool is simply too big for a man like John Henry.

I do hear people say well I don't want rich backers I want the club to grow on its own two feet. That's simply ridiculous for me the days of Derby / Forest / Ipswich getting a good manager and working their way up are long gone and they won't be coming back, not ever. Modern football is not even a commercial exercise its really a marketing enabler for third party businesses. The people making money are the TV companies, the agents, the sponsors etc therefore all that matters is that the club has the supply of investment and the more the better. The club is not a business but a marketing brand for other businesses.

In terms of Liverpool FC if you accept my assertions above then it's clear John Henry is not enough. FSG and partners might work though in the absence of finding a super rich individual.

But as things stand I fear for the future of Liverpool FC as we are not adequately financed.


But who is adequately financed, City? Who else, maybe Chelsea but both are being penalised through FFP. Arsenal has the same type of owners as us and though they have a 60k stadium they sell less mechandise than us and as soon as we get to a 60k stadium, our revenues will be more than them. Competing with United will be difficult though unless they stop qualifying for CL for a few years. So we will at least be in the top 3 clubs in terms of revenues and profitability once the stadium completed.This is why we need to spend the minimum to get there (otherwise all additional revenues will go to banks) and make sure we are successful on the pitch.

Good that you have started to see the light because you were talking about a great long term vision even if it meant short term risk of going bust, however, you are having problems to see beyond. One thing you are right is that it would make no sense for an investor to buy from FSG at 800m or more, this is why I don't think that FSG will sell as nobody would buy the club at a premium, unless its a rich arab having too much dosh and is looking for attention. However, an IPO will make FSG very rich if they manage to implement their plan. For that to happen, we need to be successful on the pitch and increase significantly the corporate seats capacity. United has currently a market cap of 2.5 Billion USD (it was 3 Billion USD quite recently), with a stadium and success on the pitch, I am sure we can be worth at least 1.5 Billion easily. It all depends on success on the pitch, once we are quoted we can always raise more money on the market to build a new stadium IF REQUIRED, but again, we'll need to be successful on the pitch.

Last edited by vish LFC; 08/09/14 05:16 PM.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
We do need to be successful on the pitch vish but we also need to be successful off it to be successful on the pitch. I know your logic is we need to hold back investment in our infrastructure in order to buy better players in order to be successful on the pitch in order to buy better players. There are some flaws in that though firstly as you know you can waste tens of millions in players that can come to nothing. Second a bigger infrastructure will have short term cash flow but once payback it's pure profit. The factor I was drawing attention to is our limiting factor is not the opportunity but the investment for the sake of £300m we are limiting the club. I do understand why John Henry does not want to risk that but that's a factor of his limited funds. My idea of a consortium could provide the wider spread of risk that enables the required investment. John Henry might not want to do that of course but I am thinking only of what's best for the club not what John Henry might do or not do. As for your analogy of Manchester United and their capitalisation well can I point out their stadium and their bigger merchandising and sponsorship which is my whole point. If Manchester United had a ground like Liverpool's I doubt the glazier family could afford to finance it the day of the single moderately wealthy ownership in today's game is over.


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Originally Posted By: Ninja Skrtel
Your entire post us based on the assumption that John Henry and the Glazers bought the clubs as an investment whereas Abramovich and Mansour bought clubs to have as playthings. That notion alone is so ridiculous and far fetched that it shows how out of touch with reality you are. If you honestly believe Mansour and Abramovich bought clubs as anything other than business investments, it truly is a thought provoking post, for a medical practitioner though.


I don't know the motives of any of the owners marko only that a club needs adequate infrastructure I don't think city's owner is buying it as a plaything as anyone who has been to eastlands will tell you it's far more than the football club. But city's owners have the resources to invest we don't which us the point I was making the individual either has to be fabulously wealthy or as a consortium the likes of Henry do not have the resources

Last edited by Stanley Park; 08/09/14 06:29 PM.

IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,446
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,446
Is there any real world examples? I don't know enough about other clubs ownership to know if this is a current trend or just an idea you've come up with.

Page 1 of 31 1 2 3 … 30 31

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion