Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 705

Thread: FSG.....Wimps or what?

  1. #301  
    WirralRiddler is online now These posts brought to you by Dr Dre & Only Fools & Horses appreciation society
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    I don't agree with that, hard to judge the owners in one individual transfer window, they could do everything right and still get it wrong, they have been here 7 years though so that's a long enough period to make a proper assessment, and in the transfer department they have been pretty rubbish, that's the size of it, and is going to take a few sustained "good" transfer windows for me to change my mind.
    What represents a good transfer window in your eyes?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #302  
    WirralRiddler is online now These posts brought to you by Dr Dre & Only Fools & Horses appreciation society
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,816
    Quote Originally Posted by NY Mike View Post
    Oh I agree. And yet people will still make excuses if this window is poor.
    Who gets to decide if its been poor though?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #303  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,176
    Quote Originally Posted by WirralRiddler View Post
    What represents a good transfer window in your eyes?
    Not this one for a start. or the last one either, or the one before that as well.

    A good window would go a follows, JK gives the club his targets early - did that.

    The club goes after these targets early - er..

    The club acquires his first choice targets - er..

    The club have a plan if first choice is not possible, ie other targets...er

    The club use this plan to bring in targets on time...er..

    The club does not leave the team in as poor a state as the season before...er..

    The club has competent people scouting...er.

    the list goes on, but non of that is happening this season
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #304  
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by reallash View Post
    paying off existing debt on an asset that you own does not constitute injecting money into the club.

    They are not generous at all, who are FSG loaning the money to- LFC, who owns LFC - FSG!!!!

    The loan repayment will see the money repaid in for over the next ....er who knows how long. FSG are demanding repayment for as long as it takes, in affect, LFC see no benefit from the stand for the for seeable future. It is leveraged deal, they buy it and we pay for it. It is all aimed at the fans paying for the stand to be built and will result in FSG paying zero. I can't for the ;ife of me see how this constitutes generosity.
    that's utter tripe and shows you have a real lack of understanding to fit your agenda on FSG

    The business model as outlined by Ian Ayre was a sensible plan of repaying the 100mil over 5 years where the extra revenue stream is divided into repayment and investment which see's the debt gone in 5 years whilst still giving some back into the club during those 5 years.

    They quite openly stated that the full extra revenue stream wouldn't see the full benefit to the club until after the 5 years is up, but still increases on the current revenue stream in the short term to fund the team.

    The 200mil they have invested into the club (seperate from the stadium investment) which included paying off old debts, shutting down the plans of the stanley park stadium designs, injecting cash streams into day to day running of the club - they openly said that will never be needed to be repaid to them until the day they sell the club

    so not sure where you think repayments are going to them are from? as there simply isn't anything being paid to them outside of the new stand investment
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #305  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    For someone who claims to work as a financial advisor, you really don't have a clue. I hope you have learned some other craft to make a living.
    I'm not a financial adviser at all, who's told you that? You said what the Glazors are doing is high risk but FSG is low risk. FSG have put more of their own money into Liverpool post sale than the Glazors have Utd post sale. The Glazors risk is all on the club its self as they have used assets as leveradge like H+G did. FSG have used their own money to fund transfers etc, not taken 1p out of the club either. What FSG are doing is high risk, they could walk away now with a little gain or play the long game.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #306  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by reallash View Post
    paying off existing debt on an asset that you own does not constitute injecting money into the club.

    They are not generous at all, who are FSG loaning the money to- LFC, who owns LFC - FSG!!!!

    The loan repayment will see the money repaid in for over the next ....er who knows how long. FSG are demanding repayment for as long as it takes, in affect, LFC see no benefit from the stand for the for seeable future. It is leveraged deal, they buy it and we pay for it. It is all aimed at the fans paying for the stand to be built and will result in FSG paying zero. I can't for the ;ife of me see how this constitutes generosity.
    They did not have to pay that debt off, they could have left it there and let the interest payments eat away at LFC profits. They CHOSE to pay that debt off with their own money to make LFC more profitable. Name one club bar Chelsea and City were the owners have put more money into their club since FSG bought Liverpool.

    You agenda is you are jealous we are not owned by a oligarch or rich sheikh, thats all this boils down to.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #307  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,176
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    They did not have to pay that debt off, they could have left it there and let the interest payments eat away at LFC profits. They CHOSE to pay that debt off with their own money to make LFC more profitable. Name one club bar Chelsea and City were the owners have put more money into their club since FSG bought Liverpool.

    You agenda is you are jealous we are not owned by a oligarch or rich sheikh, thats all this boils down to.
    They were looking after their asset, paying the debt off allowed their asset to increase in value at a faster rate, it is all about what is best for FSG.Te last line, well you have just pulled that out of your arse with not a single shred of proof
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #308  
    WirralRiddler is online now These posts brought to you by Dr Dre & Only Fools & Horses appreciation society
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,816
    Quote Originally Posted by reallash View Post
    They were looking after their asset, paying the debt off allowed their asset to increase in value at a faster rate, it is all about what is best for FSG.Te last line, well you have just pulled that out of your arse with not a single shred of proof
    The asset being the club, surely that is a good thing? Would you rather their asset went down in value instead?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #309  
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    22,298
    Quote Originally Posted by reallash View Post
    They were looking after their asset, paying the debt off allowed their asset to increase in value at a faster rate, it is all about what is best for FSG.Te last line, well you have just pulled that out of your arse with not a single shred of proof
    So what your saying is they shouldn't have paid the debt off then? Would that have made you happier?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #310  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,176
    Quote Originally Posted by -Chris- View Post
    So what your saying is they shouldn't have paid the debt off then? Would that have made you happier?
    No, I am saying that you can't class paying a debt off on an asset that you own as injecting cash into the asset, as has been suggested.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #311  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,176
    Quote Originally Posted by WirralRiddler View Post
    The asset being the club, surely that is a good thing? Would you rather their asset went down in value instead?
    Why is it a good thing for an asset owned by FSG to be worth more? However, what is being said is that you can't class paying a debt off on an asset that you own as injecting cash into the asset, as has been suggested.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #312  
    NY Mike is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    30,633
    Quote Originally Posted by WirralRiddler View Post
    What represents a good transfer window in your eyes?
    One that addresses obvious deficiencies in the squad for a start.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #313  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    I'm not a financial adviser at all, who's told you that? You said what the Glazors are doing is high risk but FSG is low risk. FSG have put more of their own money into Liverpool post sale than the Glazors have Utd post sale. The Glazors risk is all on the club its self as they have used assets as leveradge like H+G did. FSG have used their own money to fund transfers etc, not taken 1p out of the club either. What FSG are doing is high risk, they could walk away now with a little gain or play the long game.
    Man, you really don't know what you are talking about. FSG have followed a very conservative strategy by investing little own money in an asset which, I repeat, includes one of the biggest global professional sports brands. There is next to ZERO risk that they would lose their money. Zilch. There is basically only upside from this limited initial investment.

    These are guys who have made their fortunes in commodities investing, where the risk/reward ratios are on a different planet to owning a major sports brand. For them, LFC is basically a license to print money given the risk they are taking and the required investment so far.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #314  
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by reallash View Post
    Why is it a good thing for an asset owned by FSG to be worth more? However, what is being said is that you can't class paying a debt off on an asset that you own as injecting cash into the asset, as has been suggested.
    are you serious?

    why is it important LFC brand is worth more? seriously???? What the hell, is this some kind of joke question?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #315  
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12,496
    Glazers buying United was high risk, high reward. I don't think they put in a penny, but leveraged the club on a high interest to pay for the asking price. After that they've taken out hundreds of millions to manage said debts. Listing the club and getting money that way has allowed United to spend more in the past couple of years, but they are still taking money out of the club and are still hundreds of millions in debt. I'm glad they are United's owners or United'd be a footballing monster and powerhouse.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #316  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Beige View Post
    Glazers buying United was high risk, high reward. I don't think they put in a penny, but leveraged the club on a high interest to pay for the asking price. After that they've taken out hundreds of millions to manage said debts. Listing the club and getting money that way has allowed United to spend more in the past couple of years, but they are still taking money out of the club and are still hundreds of millions in debt. I'm glad they are United's owners or United'd be a footballing monster and powerhouse.
    Exactly what this Bear guy does not seem able to understand. FSG have made an extremely shrewd investment in a huge global professional sports brand which they bought at distressed value. Since then, they have followed a conservative strategy which translates into a a lower expected return compared to an aggressive risk profile.

    Given all of this and the goose laying the golden eggs that is the PL TV deals, they can just sit pretty and watch their asset appreciate in value easily, without the need to be really successful on the sporting side. Not so difficult to understand.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #317  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by reallash View Post
    They were looking after their asset, paying the debt off allowed their asset to increase in value at a faster rate, it is all about what is best for FSG.Te last line, well you have just pulled that out of your arse with not a single shred of proof
    But the point is they didn't have to pay it off, loads of clubs sit in debt with owners who dont pay it off, FSG chose to pay it off.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #318  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    Man, you really don't know what you are talking about. FSG have followed a very conservative strategy by investing little own money in an asset which, I repeat, includes one of the biggest global professional sports brands. There is next to ZERO risk that they would lose their money. Zilch. There is basically only upside from this limited initial investment.

    These are guys who have made their fortunes in commodities investing, where the risk/reward ratios are on a different planet to owning a major sports brand. For them, LFC is basically a license to print money given the risk they are taking and the required investment so far.
    I dont think buying the club for 400m then spending a further c.200m is 'little of their own money'. Without the forecast increased TV money FSG would not have been interested in LFC, no matter how big a brand we were globally. Even with the forecast TV money increase it was still a risk. If the risk was so little why did LFC not have people queuing up round the corner to buy us? Why did Robert Kraft pull out? why was FSG and Peter Lim the only serious interested parties if the risk was little?

    John Henry built FSG on risk/reward, he's made his fortune on risk reward as a commodities trader, buying LFC what not to dissimilar to that. if the TV bubble bursts tomorrow (which the forecast is it will one day as streaming becomes easier) then FSG would be lucky to walk away with what they paid for us.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #319  
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12,496
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    Exactly what this Bear guy does not seem able to understand. FSG have made an extremely shrewd investment in a huge global professional sports brand which they bought at distressed value. Since then, they have followed a conservative strategy which translates into a a lower expected return compared to an aggressive risk profile.

    Given all of this and the goose laying the golden eggs that is the PL TV deals, they can just sit pretty and watch their asset appreciate in value easily, without the need to be really successful on the sporting side. Not so difficult to understand.
    On the last point I disagree. FSG put in as much money as was possible under FFP in the early years and the Main Stand financing was done at a very reasonable rate meaning the club will see the benefits much sooner.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #320  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Beige View Post
    Glazers buying United was high risk, high reward. I don't think they put in a penny, but leveraged the club on a high interest to pay for the asking price. After that they've taken out hundreds of millions to manage said debts. Listing the club and getting money that way has allowed United to spend more in the past couple of years, but they are still taking money out of the club and are still hundreds of millions in debt. I'm glad they are United's owners or United'd be a footballing monster and powerhouse.
    Thats my point, the Glazors have not put 1p in since acquisition, FSG have though. How anyone can say FSG have Zero risk in buying LFC is laughable. The Glazors have shifted the risk to the clubs assets and used that as leverage for loans etc but in return they have HUGE interests payable. If FSG had bought Utd then they would be in a much much stronger financial position right now and be running away the CL every season. They could spend 200m a year without blinking.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #321  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    Exactly what this Bear guy does not seem able to understand. FSG have made an extremely shrewd investment in a huge global professional sports brand which they bought at distressed value. Since then, they have followed a conservative strategy which translates into a a lower expected return compared to an aggressive risk profile.

    Given all of this and the goose laying the golden eggs that is the PL TV deals, they can just sit pretty and watch their asset appreciate in value easily, without the need to be really successful on the sporting side. Not so difficult to understand.
    A c.300m increase on their asset after spending c.700m is not a great return. The Glazors have spent 800m and now have a c.2b return. Thats what FSG are aiming for. To reach that LFC NEED to be successful on the pitch.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #322  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    I dont think buying the club for 400m then spending a further c.200m is 'little of their own money'. Without the forecast increased TV money FSG would not have been interested in LFC, no matter how big a brand we were globally. Even with the forecast TV money increase it was still a risk. If the risk was so little why did LFC not have people queuing up round the corner to buy us? Why did Robert Kraft pull out? why was FSG and Peter Lim the only serious interested parties if the risk was little?

    John Henry built FSG on risk/reward, he's made his fortune on risk reward as a commodities trader, buying LFC what not to dissimilar to that. if the TV bubble bursts tomorrow (which the forecast is it will one day as streaming becomes easier) then FSG would be lucky to walk away with what they paid for us.
    Again, you are talking nonsense about things you don't understand. FSG would have made valuation projections based on expected future cash flows, including forecast TV money. Based on that, they would have arrived at expected returns over a period of time, including required investments. 400 million might appear a lot to you but it is relative peanuts for large, global investment funds.

    FSG have invested primarily on the commercial side of things because they are convinced that would provide the quickest return in terms of valuation when they would decide to sell. That's just elementary investment theory. Sporting success is much riskier, requires more upfront funds with an uncertain outcome and if your expensive transfers do not work out, you run the risk of having to write them off. Sponsorships, merchandising, TV rights and other commercial revenue is much more predictable and interesting for potential investors. Given that we have won basically nothing since they own the club, what is your explanation for the club being valued at 1 billion now? Figure that out and then you have the answer for why FSG are doing what they are doing.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #323  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    A c.300m increase on their asset after spending c.700m is not a great return. The Glazors have spent 800m and now have a c.2b return. Thats what FSG are aiming for. To reach that LFC NEED to be successful on the pitch.
    I give up. You simply are not qualified to have this conversation. You have to look at discounted net cash flows to make any statement about valuation and returns. This is not a bag of potatoes we are talking about. I can bet you anything FSG's internal valuation and IRR calculations make them very happy right now.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #324  
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    23,609
    Quote Originally Posted by NY Mike View Post
    One that addresses obvious deficiencies in the squad for a start.
    Yup and given we limped over line due to lack of strength in depth last season not only did we need to add numbers of quality players, but anyone who featured even slightly last season needs replacing (i.e. Lucas)
    But the main thing is a big club constantly looks to improve on last seasons squad, you gain depth by keeping players and where you can upgrading last seasons first teamers with better players whilst keeping who they are replacing (meaning competition for places at the minimum , no point in buying inferior players, and credit so far we havnt) so far we havnt done this

    Then you look at other teams around you and think have we done enough , other teams are and will be far stronger and we are not really , which so far is concerning

    Fsg are not solely to blame , But make no mistake they can have no excuses this time if we don't have a good window given even the likes of Everton have addressed problems and spent money , then there's the fact we should have plenty given we made profit last summer and increased revenues and increased Prem money and also are in cl qualifiers ).

    Our current squad can't compete for top four in my opinion given other teams have strengthened more and thats before we add in European games, obviously there are other factors and games are not just played on paper but we would be idiots to assume we won't have similar if not more injuries to last year given our intensive style and more games . And as shown over and over last season, we don't cope well without our few decent players
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #325  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    Again, you are talking nonsense about things you don't understand. FSG would have made valuation projections based on expected future cash flows, including forecast TV money. Based on that, they would have arrived at expected returns over a period of time, including required investments. 400 million might appear a lot to you but it is relative peanuts for large, global investment funds.

    FSG have invested primarily on the commercial side of things because they are convinced that would provide the quickest return in terms of valuation when they would decide to sell. That's just elementary investment theory. Sporting success is much riskier, requires more upfront funds with an uncertain outcome and if your expensive transfers do not work out, you run the risk of having to write them off. Sponsorships, merchandising, TV rights and other commercial revenue is much more predictable and interesting for potential investors. Given that we have won basically nothing since they own the club, what is your explanation for the club being valued at 1 billion now? Figure that out and then you have the answer for why FSG are doing what they are doing.
    Thats false, FSG have invested over 100m on the playing side of things. They have invested a lot of time and effort on the commercial side but monetary wise its no comparison. FSG saw us as a 'sleeping giant' and knew we could be way more efficient in every department and wasn't maximising the potential.

    If you look at ALL clubs value increase as a % then we wont be much higher than the rest. TV money is the main reason, thats why clubs were getting bought left right a centre a few years ago. But still there is a risk aspect to everything here, if there was ZERO risk for FSG like you said then why didn't we have dozens of interested parties??

    You cant just say Glazors model is high risk and FSG low risk if the Glazors are yet to put 1p into MUFC since acquisition and have shifted all the risk onto the club. Were as FSG have pumped in c.200m and shifted no risk to the club. The Glazors are riding the TV money wave more than anyone, were as FSG have to attack it at all angles.
    Last edited by BearWithMe; 21-7-17 at 15:06.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #326  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    I give up. You simply are not qualified to have this conversation. You have to look at discounted net cash flows to make any statement about valuation and returns. This is not a bag of potatoes we are talking about. I can bet you anything FSG's internal valuation and IRR calculations make them very happy right now.
    I bet they arnt happy, I bet they had a higher projected valuation right now than what were are at. They have made mistakes and its cost them, we have only been in the top 4 once under them I think? and won 1 cup. That's not what they projected for sure. If we had won the league, a few cups and become a solid top 4 team again their asset would be worth WAY more today.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #327  
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    13,762
    I dont think FSG are wimps at all. They are just being outbid by those with deeper wallets like City/Chelsea/Real/Barca/Bayern/Manure
    We are not in that ball park.
    .
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #328  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    Thats false, FSG have invested over 100m on the playing side of things. They have invested a lot of time and effort on the commercial side but monetary wise its no comparison. FSG saw us as a 'sleeping giant' and knew we could be way more efficient in every department and wasn't maximising the potential.

    If you look at ALL clubs value increase as a % then we wont be much higher than the rest. TV money is the main reason, thats why clubs were getting bought left right a centre a few years ago. But still there is a risk aspect to everything here, if there was ZERO risk for FSG like you said then why didn't we have dozens of interested parties??

    You cant just say Glazors model is high risk and FSG low risk if the Glazors are yet to put 1p into MUFC since acquisition and have shifted all the risk onto the club. Were as FSG have pumped in c.200m and shifted no risk to the club. The Glazors are riding the TV money wave more than anyone, were as FSG have to attack it at all angles.
    You consider 100 million over 7 years as investment? OK, I am done talking to you here.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #329  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    40,995
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    You consider 100 million over 7 years as investment? OK, I am done talking to you here.
    It's more than any other club in the league bar City and Chelsea!!. c.115m investment in the playing squad is 115m more than the Glazors have put into Utd in that same time.

    You keep changing the subject, you say most of the investment has been on the commercial side, I tell you thats wrong, then you say 100m isnt enough. Do you even know what you are talking about here or just guessing?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #330  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    It's more than any other club in the league bar City and Chelsea!!. c.115m investment in the playing squad is 115m more than the Glazors have put into Utd in that same time.

    You keep changing the subject, you say most of the investment has been on the commercial side, I tell you thats wrong, then you say 100m isnt enough. Do you even know what you are talking about here or just guessing?
    Since you are just spouting incoherent nonsense, I will refer you back to my previous comment. Where do you attribute the club's current valuation at 1 billion given that we have had little/no sporting success? The answer to that question will explain why FSG are very happy right now and why there is no urgent need to invest significantly more in the team.

    I am wondering if you can figure that out yourself however....
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •