KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum FSG: How are they Doing?

I don’t see why it matters where the money has come from? They bought us without loans for close to £300m as vish said so where did that money come from? It wasn’t the club that’s for sure.

The ‘loan’ for the stand is a non issue too. It’s not like they’re a bank. As far as I know it’s a pretty open loan which will go back to them over a good few years with minimal if any interest. They certainly didn’t take the money from the club as if you look at the accounts over the years, they haven’t taken any out.

They said from the start that they wanted the club to be self sustaining which it is. It looks like pretty much every penny the club makes goes back to it. They’ve increased our commercial revenue and with the massive TV money they’re now able to go for a higher quality of player.

But whether this is ultimately enough when there are richer clubs than us in this country is debatable. Even Utd and all their money can’t compete with City.

So for me they’re good owners. They made mistakes and learned from them. We’re self sustaining and stable and unless we can get a City type sugar daddy I don’t think we can get any better.

When and how did they take it from the club, can you please elaborate?

The club finances were plunging under the previous owners. FSG bought the club and proclaimed it was at bargain basement price.
God the whole thing was a disgrace.
Their business management has brought some direction in the finances. And the team lineup and manager are better.

And the trends on the field are better.

After the team performances in the last month or so, I am really concerned that the real objective of FSG is to get to where we are right now.

That is it. Be competitive & hope to be in the champions league. That keeps up the international profile and brings in merchandising and marketing dollars.

My heart is hoping that the side can do a u-turn and power up again,....

I am really angry and sad at the moment.

Tbh who knows what the answer is...!!

Fsg will get great praise if ..as it has been..going well..

If it goes pear shaped...like it seems to be atm...then they will be in focus of criticism more..

40m for salah looked great after last seasn..lnow he looks out of sorts..
keita looks good imo but is not playing

fabinho at 40m looks a bad buy right now..

but imo these over inflated 40m deals are not all they seem..deals within deals by fsg.

Yes i say they may have even got the 150m from the club itself by stealth and then made out they were loaning it to the club...kind of corporate fraud..afterall its easier than holding a bank up isn't it...just all clever top end buisness deals that no ome will question if you get the sums right...in fact..the kind of thing you expect from the mafia...its right under your nose!!!

FSG is the mafia then...clever

The running and finances of the business are better. The players and manager are better. The on-field trends are better.

Be competitive and get in the CL. Sounds like they're doing a great job no?

After the summer spend you can't expect much more from them. Self-made billionaire's make decisions with their heads and it pays off.
It seems fashionable to deride the wealthy these days, like they owe the working class something. It's a free market and it could be a lot worse. If they'd taken over the club when H&G did, we'd have won the title with Rafa. As it stands, City are going to dominate for a long time.

Their books are public, you silly child. They didn't just steal 150 Million for the club; they have to publish what they do every year. You have nothing to base this on, but you want to have a go at them, and God forbid you let facts get in the way, so you make up something they "probably did."

Here's a summary of the financials when they took over: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/fo...sessed-14353937

It’s six years since Liverpool’s accounts laid bare the true cost of clearing up the mess left by former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

The financial results for 2011 – published in May 2012 - showed that the Reds made an annual loss of nearly £50millon before tax.

Total club revenue had fallen by just under a million pounds to £183.6million as Liverpool adjusted to life outside the Champions League.

Fenway Sports Group had just written off £35million linked to design, legal and administrative costs on the doomed new stadium project - commissioned by Hicks and Gillett - in Stanley Park.

Another ‘exceptional item’ in those accounts was the £8.4million spent on hiring and then sacking Roy Hodgson and his backroom staff. FSG had inherited a mess both on and off the pitch.

No wonder Liverpool’s chief operating officer Andy Hughes today reflected upon “a complete transformation” following the release of the club’s accounts for the year ending May 31 2017.

That revenue figure of £183.6million now stands at £364million. That £49.3million loss before tax is now a £39million profit after tax.

Here’s how Liverpool’s financial landscape has evolved during those intervening years.

2011/12 : The Reds’ loss before tax was reduced to £40.5m. The cost of rebuilding the squad and paying off under-achieving players during a season without European football saw overall debts rise by almost £22m to £87.2m. The accounts – reduced to a 10-month period to put the following year’s in line with the playing season - showed turnover of £169m. Had the accounts been taken over 12 months that would have translated to a rise on the previous year of just over £5m.

2012/13 : Liverpool made an annual loss of £49.8m during Brendan Rodgers’ first season in charge but turnover broke through the £200m barrier for the first time, climbing to £206.1m – a rise of 9%. Club bank debts were reduced by £19.9m to £45.1m mainly due to a £46.8m interest free inter-company loan from FSG. Liverpool dropped out of the top 10 in the Deloitte Football Money League.

2013/14 : Liverpool were back in the black for the first time in seven years for the 12-month period to May 31, 2014. They recorded a modest profit just short of £1m and also climbed three places to ninth in the Deloitte Football Money League. Overall revenue climbed 19% to £255.6m. Liverpool’s net debt increased by £12m to £57m but that figure is always influenced by the timing of the instalments going in and out of the club for transfer deals. The debt level when FSG bought the club in 2010 was £237m.

2014/15 : The sale of Luis Suarez to Barcelona explained why Liverpool recorded a big profit before tax of £60m. Total revenue increased by 16.5% to £297.9m with media up 21.5% to £122.6m, commercial up 12% to £116.3m and matchday up 15.9% to £59m. FSG converted £69m of debt into equity and invested £49m for stadium expansion costs.

2015/16 : Liverpool’s revenue broke through the £300m barrier for the first time with £301.8million generated in the year ending May 31, 2016. However, the Reds made a pre-tax loss of £19.8m. One of the factors behind that was the cost of sacking Rodgers in October 2015 and hiring Jurgen Klopp . Another reason was the building of the new Main Stand with the loss of footfall hitting commercial business. Media revenue went up £1m to £123.6m and matchday increased by £3.4m to £62.4m but commercial decreased by £0.7m to £115.7m.

2016/17 : The latest accounts, which show a profit after tax of £39m and record revenue of £364m, are all the more impressive considering this was a season without European football. The extra £12m from matchdays underlines the value of the new Main Stand.

There’s been sustained growth across the board which is being re-invested both into Klopp’s playing squad and the infrastructure of the club with the new training ground complex. With Liverpool currently competing in the knockout stages of the lucrative Champions League, the next set of accounts promise to be even better.

Moores sold (or sold out) because he said he wanted someone that could invest in lfc.
He could have done what fsg are doing if he had thought it through before hicks n gillete bought the club.
Revenue up etc...all good but the real investment is break even.
No sentiment...for every pound spent on a player they will have firstly recouped at least £1.50 before doing so.
I also question alot of these so called 40m deals they do for unheard of players...seem over inflated all the time.

Who are the £40m unheard of players we’ve bought?

No Moores sold because he made good money and if he wanted somebody to invest, he would have sold to the Dubai Sheik Al Makhtoom albeit a little bit cheaper but a deal already negotiated.