Originally Posted by
Steveo
What’s this..? Have FSG offered to pay for it? Or maybe cover the interest?
Brilliant, so we can have that rebate back and buy the players that we needed years ago… instead of paying back those loans so fast.
No.. CD they don’t count. Liverpool football club pays for the infrastructure. Not a single penny of it comes out of the owners pockets and all of it goes against what we can spend on players!
I'm confused.
Which part of this do you have a problem with?
The fact that they've re-structured the club financially and brought it to a place where it can finance the construction of a new training ground almost entirely through its own revenue streams (i.e. being financially independent and self-supporting - which was always their goal when they bought the club if I remember correctly).
Or is it the fact that they didn't use their own money to build it, as you seem to be suggesting they should have, in which case the club would be IN DEBT to them for the cost of those funds (i.e. the Glazers-SCUM/Abramovich-Chelsea model that left both clubs in the debt situation the former finds themselves in and which the latter had to pay off as part of the sale to Boehly, whose now started the cycle again)?
Because let's be clear here; the money you think they should be taking out of their pockets and putting in the club to build stuff like infrastructure and the like, WOULD NOT be free money.
That's not how a business is run.
At least not a responsible one.
That's how an expensive plaything for an Oil baron (and not even then - see : Abramovich) or a Petro-state is operated.
I'm sure there must have been some financing (bank loans and the like) involved in getting those construction projects done (that's how any large scale construction financing works. You always build with other people's money. Never your own), which would have necessitated them to provide collateral proof in the form of THEIR own financial standing and holdings.
So it's not exactly like they did nothing and played no part in it even it LFC ends up paying off the whole thing and the loans involved through their own revenue streams.
Wasn't this always the goal?
That the club would be in a position such that if we needed to add some structure or facility, we would eventually be able to finance it and pay for it through our own means rather than have to rely on the deep pockets of some owner that might not last here for the long-term.
Are we now upset that they seem to have brought us partway through towards achieving that goal?
Originally Posted by
Steveo
And for the record:
The infrastructure spend has been puny, for this very reason.. literally minuscule even compared to what Henry expected would be needed based on prices back in 2010!
And that's for a good reason.
Do you want the club to be in debt when they eventually sell it or not?
Simple yes or no.
We would either be in debt to Henry or to other "investors".
What's your preferred poison?
Originally Posted by
Steveo
AXA @ half what the mighty Leicester City spent, despite cashing in on Melwood
2 new stands @ little over 1/5 what Spurs spent on their new version of White Hart Lane.
Plus these investors, who stand to make over 10x what they put in are the only real beneficiaries. It is they who make the profit on the increased value put against the club. Yet both stands pander to corporate sales. Corporate capacity up over 50% on before, while actual seats for genuine fans have gone up at a whopping 9%.. This shit show despite the ground being maxed out to capacity.
Priorities…
My word!!!
It's shocking that you seem to be suggesting that people who would invest their own money into something would hope to....**gasp**......make a profit and get a return on their investment.
Oh, the Horror!!
The sheer naked hubris of it all.
WHAT'S THE WORLD COMING TO!?!?!?!?!?
That in the 21st Century - Businessmen - people who've gotten to where they are and their financial status of wealth and prosperity, would have the audacity to expect that what has worked to elevate them to their success in business should continue to work to make them rich.
Were you under some sort of delusion when they bought this club that this was a charity mission ro some sort of Mother Teresa deal?
Dear Lord.
You poor thing.
As to whether or not they're the only beneficiaries - I'll pose yet another one of those simple "yes" or "no" questions:-
Is the club better off today than when they bought it?
Financially, self-sustainably, long-term viability-wise?
...and to help you answer that,....
Are we facing administration?
Are we facing relegation or deduction of points due to administration?
Are we in the relegation zone with a Hodgson or some such establishment darling as our gaffer?
Because that's where we were when they bought us.
If your answer to the original question is anything other than a "no" and the sky is blue where you live too, then NO, they're not the only beneficiaries of this little business venture of theirs.
I'd throw in Klopp (who didn't hire himself and certainly doesn't pay his own salary), Numbers 19 and 6 - both of which don't happen without them either - in there as well, but what's it matter at this point?
According to some fans some of those things might as well have happened by magic and willed themselves into existence.
Tough shit that they seem to be making a profit off of a business that seemed to be badly run when they bought it and which (....despite current on-field issues) seems to be in a better place now.
Welcome to the cruel cruel world of modern business.
All that being said, thanks for all the fish, FSG.
Now please sell us to someone else better suited to make us competitive on the field ....CONSISTENTLY.....and let's both go our separate ways
'I got told there's an English phrase, 'You don't win trophies with kids'. I didn't know that' ... - Jurgen Klopp
Stone-Cold Savage!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks