Following on from Toblerones question, what is your expectation from your owners with regards to the new stadium?

£40m to spend on transfers.

I don't expect anything about the new owners about the Stadium to be honest. They've been fairly quiet and we've already missed a deadline with the council.

I suspect they'll upgrade but I find it a moot point until we sort out the league form.

Hoody

It is a catch 22.

You need investment, and you need to bring in more money from gate receipts, to enable you to try to attract the kind of player to take your club forward.

Liverpool is the number two priority of your owner, the Red Sox are number one, so I don't think Kenny will be getting any blank checks.

There are 17 of them. Each one is minted. They can afford to attract any player they like wages wise.

The priority is always success on the pitch as financial rewards ALWAYS follow from that.

Just out of interest have you any kind of source that suggests we are not their number one priority?

I am surprised at how many people know, personally, each one of FSG.

Small World I guess.

hoody - If you think that Kenny (or whoever) will get £40M net to spend this summer - you're dreaming imo mate.

We'll see, but I'll be amazed if you spend anywhere near that amount.

Vidic - I asked the same question earlier, as I can't understand why the stadium development isn't their No.1 agenda item, given the fact that they could apparently fill a much larger arena & have a much larger corporate client base - makes no sense to me.

There are 17 of them. Each one is minted. They can afford to attract any player they like wages wise.
-------------------------------------------------------

They're running a business, they're not benefactors - the shareholders personal wealth is irrelevant, as they'll only invest cash that leads to a return.

A few people are talking about hindsight but no opposition fan thought Carroll for £35 Million was a good deal, even some Liverpool fans (and fans will usually try to be optimistic) thought it was a bad move...

Especially considering the player was injured there was very little reason to panic buy him, this is also not hindsight as it was common knowledge he was injured. Being bought on the last day and out for what? at least a month I guess. Means you overpaid on a player who could have at best played March, April, May and August for you.

I am sure if getting a striker in was absolutely essential you could have given a club a few million just to have their striker for a few months, or you could have gone out and bought an older player for what would have been an excessive free but still left tens of millions in the summer to purchase another player (as well as having said older player as back up for the next season)

Without any hindsight what so ever most people will say the Carroll deal was a bad one...

Totally agree FJM!

They are running a business yes. At risk of sounding patonising you have to invest in just about any business in order for it to grow.

Inestment now would be known as a loss leader.

I see no reason why we would not spend £40m this summer given the recent deals that we have secured and the gap we need to bridge in order to get the CL gravy train.

In fact it makes far more sense than not investing it as qualification and a decent run would provide that return.

comment by Robbing_Hoody (U6374)
posted 9 minutes ago

There are 17 of them. Each one is minted.

.....................

Who are they? What are their names?

I would like to research them and see exactly what they do, how they make their money and what it is invested in.

My guess will be that none of them are actually minted at all. And thet all their money is tied up in stocks and bonds, and that they are bankers or investors.

For starters, the main man has a net worth of 1billion dollars less than the Malcolm Glazer.

They are running a business yes. At risk of sounding patonising you have to invest in just about any business in order for it to grow.

Inestment now would be known as a loss leader.

I see no reason why we would not spend £40m this summer given the recent deals that we have secured and the gap we need to bridge in order to get the CL gravy train.
--------------------------------------------------------

You can't patronise me on this subject mate....believe me

No capital investment is ever considered to be a 'loss leader'.

The CL gravy train is worth over £20M p.a. on it's own without the incremental sponsorship increases that ride off the back of it, mrchandising sales etc etc.

However, there's no guarantee if you invest say £40M that the players bought will get you onto that platform (see Aston Villa for details). 2 of the current top 4 (city & Chelsea) are benefactor controlled & can literally buy their place, as the money is no real object, as they're not being run as businesses. So there's 2 places gone.........then there's Man United, so there's 3 taken - leaves 1 place for Arsenal, Spurs, you lot & anyone else who fancies 'a go' to aim at.

So your £40M isn't going to guarantee any form of return.............same as the £100M gross that was spent last year didn't.

Anyone wanting to get on that bandwagon is up against it in 2012.

John W. Henry - Principal Owner
Thomas C. Werner - Chairman
Theodore Alfond
William Alfond
Thomas R. DiBenedetto
Michael Egan
David Ginsberg - Vice Chairman
Michael Gordon[disambiguation needed ]
John A. Kaneb
LeBron James
Seth Klarman
Larry Lucchino - President, CEO
Henry F. McCance
Phillip H. Morse - Vice Chairman
The New York Times Company
Art Nicholas
Frank Resnek
Martin Trust
Jeffrey Vinik

Not sure the Glaziers are doing too well are they? Don't they own about 25 shopping malls and over 20 are haemoraging money?

No capital investment is ever considered to be a 'loss leader'.
------------------

Stopped reading there.

Yes it is. In fact of course it is!

For example my company has lost £39m this year having won 7 new Government contracts. We have invested that in new infrastructure to open 57 new offices or something and take on 250 new staff. All of which is capital investment. All of which is a loss leader as the contracts are worth 7 billion over 5 years.

Figures will be out a bit but you take my point.

Not sure the Glaziers are doing too well are they?

..................

If you think that their net worth being up two hundred and fifty thouand million from last year is not doing well, then you may be right.

.................

Don't they own about 25 shopping malls and over 20 are haemoraging money?

..................

Depends if you belive that that is all of the Glazers empire or not, and if you believe the tabloids.

I've read the rest now and I agree but they did not buy us not to take that risk. I'd be surprised anyway.

I've very briefly checked out First Allied Corp and they are heavily mortgaged. Vwery heavily.

They can have all the NET worth they like - Goldman Sachs has lots as well.

Hoody

Just gone through most of that list.

Mainly they are investors, none that I would label minted either, in the minted like Roman and the sheiks type of minted.

The point being they are not going to bankroll Liverpool like City and Chelsea are bankrolled.

The very fact they have not coughed up for a new stadium should send similar alarm bells to your previous ownership.

All of which is a loss leader as the contracts are worth 7 billion over 5 years.
--------------------------------------------

It's not a 'loss leader' it's capital investment that is required to provide the infrastructure necessary to provide the service level that you're contracted to.

It's akin to your much needed stadium investment, that would guarantee a return.

Investing in players is hit & miss, it guarantees nothing, that's my point. To guarantee it, you need to be prepared to throw enough money at it until you succeed, which City have proven is not just 10's of £M's these days, it's now 100's of £M's. They'll never get a financial return from what they've put in, but that was never their aim - unlike FSG who are here for a profit.

comment by Robbing_Hoody (U6374)
posted 8 minutes ago

I've very briefly checked out First Allied Corp and they are heavily mortgaged. Vwery heavily.

.................

And you think your ownersip are not?

Get real.

2 of the current top 4 (city & Chelsea) are benefactor controlled & can literally buy their place, as the money is no real object, as they're not being run as businesses.

---------------------

Can't speak for Chelsea, but in regards to City that is not true. City is being run as a business. One that currently is spending more than it earns, otherwise known as investment.

And no club can guarantee success (or a place in the top four). Football often does work out that way, but it is by no means a guarantee (by the very definition of the word and the context in which it is being used).

As for it being unlikely that Liverpool will spend £40m net in the summer - well obviously time will tell in that respect. But standing here, as I do now, that doesn't sound like an outlandish figure for a top club (which Liverpool are, even if their league position currently undermines such a status) to spend.

Alas, if £40m isn't a guarantee of success, then what is? £100m? £200m? Whatever the figure may be, it is nevertheless relative. Not only internally (in respect to what that particular club generates), but also externally (in respect to what other clubs spend).

Having said all that, Vidicshin makes a very good point. Considering the fact that the Carroll/Torres transfer was put into a perspective by Liverpool's owners as one which enabled the club to break even (hence the differential that Liverpool themselves imposed on the deal), that would add weight to a claim that the club won't embark on the kind of spending seen in recent years at City or Chelsea. £40m - net or gross - may not be a substantial figure in the greater scheme of things in terms of football, but it may be a figure that the current Liverpool board do seem substantial. Have they played their cards, in much the same way that Lerner did at Villa - spent so much, no more? Again, time will tell.

Can't speak for Chelsea, but in regards to City that is not true. City is being run as a business. One that currently is spending more than it earns, otherwise known as investment.
---------------------------------------------------



Losing money hand over fist in your annual P&L is not investment, it's p1ssing moeny down the grid.

In City's case they don't care, as their owners aren't involved in order to create a profit making business - they're here because they chose City to be the advertising hoarding for their Arab state, a state that has finite oil reserves & wants to become the new Dubai..........................

Ripleys

Some very good points there.

I am sure that the Liverpool ownership will want to see them become self sufficient and require minimum funding from their pockets.

But to acheive that, that are going to have to either expand Anfield, or build a new stadium.

If not I really can not see Liverpool getting much above where they are now.

I just do not see masses of money being handed out to Kenny, especially going by his recent record.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

85m was awful business given the league position

Hoody

What should also be of concern is Comolli.

What does he actually do?