A takeover at Liverpool?

[revelationx]

It appears that more Premiership clubs are attracting outside investors who are coming in and buying stakes or ownership. Man Utd, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Portsmouth and possibly West Ham soon are being or have been purchased by Billionaires.

It is clear to everyone that Liverpool have need of investment and have indeed been looking for investors.

My question is - it appears that Premiership clubs are increasingly sought after as investment opportunity - so how come Liverpool have been unable to attract an investment that suits the club?

I am not saying I want the club to become a billionaire's plaything but I would like some rich investors to take a stake.

Has anyone any information that such a thing is on the cards?

[liverbird]

It appears that more Premiership clubs are attracting outside investors who are coming in and buying stakes or ownership. Man Utd, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Portsmouth and possibly West Ham soon are being or have been purchased by Billionaires.

It is clear to everyone that Liverpool have need of investment and have indeed been looking for investors.

My question is - it appears that Premiership clubs are increasingly sought after as investment opportunity - so how come Liverpool have been unable to attract an investment that suits the club?

I am not saying I want the club to become a billionaire's plaything but I would like some rich investors to take a stake.

Has anyone any information that such a thing is on the cards?

Its a very long story. There have been offers but the Chairman, who owns a majority of the stock, has been reluctant to abandon his controlling position. Not surprisingly other investors have been less than thrilled about providing massive funds while staying in a non-controlling position.

[revelationx]

Its a very long story. There have been offers but the Chairman, who owns a mojority of the stock, has been reluctant to abandon his controlling position. Not surprisingly other investors have been less than thrilled about providing massive funds while staying in a non-controlling position.

I am aware of the Thai saga and the Kraft link but I was just wondering if there had been any new developments.

[liverbird]

I am aware of the Thai saga and the Kraft link but I was just wondering if there had been any new developments.

It's quiet on this side of the pond as we are on what would be called 'bank holiday' in England.

[AndSomeAreAngels]

Of all the rumored investors, I would most like to see Bob Kraft put some money into LFC. The guy has been an incredibly successful sports owner and businessman and I think he would be best for the club.

He's always let his GM and coaches do their thing and has shown that he knows how to run a sports organization.

[Twenty26Six]

Of all the rumored investors, I would most like to see Bob Kraft put some money into LFC. The guy has been an incredibly successful sports owner and businessman and I think he would be best for the club.

He's always let his GM and coaches do their thing and has shown that he knows how to run a sports organization.

You might want to go int ot he Revs forum and then rethink that assessment. I believe it is common thought amongst Rev fans that Kraft is a cheap SOB, when it comes to operational costs.

[Matt Clark]

The thing about a takeover (or, indeed, the release of a heavy stake of the club to a third party) is that it's a bit of a one-shot deal. We're talking about the family silver here, after all. It's got to be right. That's why Morgan and the Thai wallah were sent packing. Moores might be a bit of a soft sod when it comes to the club and questions persist about his personal ability to put up funds, but he's still a considerably better bet than some of the alternatives that have begun to swill about in the English (and Scottish) game.

[Twenty26Six]

The thing about a takeover (or, indeed, the release of a heavy stake of the club to a third party) is that it's a bit of a one-shot deal. We're talking about the family silver here, after all. It's got to be right. That's why Morgan and the Thai wallah were sent packing. Moores might be a bit of a soft sod when it comes to the club and questions persist about his personal ability to put up funds, but he's still a considerably better bet than some of the alternatives that have begun to swill about in the English (and Scottish) game.

Excellent choice in avatar.

[AndSomeAreAngels]

You might want to go int ot he Revs forum and then rethink that assessment. I believe it is common thought amongst Rev fans that Kraft is a cheap SOB, when it comes to operational costs.

I admit I have no idea what Kraft is like as an MLS owner. He very well could be a cheapskate.

But as an NFL owner, he's done remarkably well, and I think the NFL and the New Englad Patriots is a better comparison to the EPL and LFC than the goofy financial system in place in MLS.

I certainly don't want a tightwad as an investor in the club, but LFC isn't a club that spends exorbitant amounts of money. He's done a great job in one of the hardest leagues in the world. I think he'd be an interesting investor in Liverpool.

[Matt Clark]

Actually, we do spend a lot of money - and we have done since the 60's. We might not go out and buy £30m players like United and Chelsea, but you can look at most seasons and find that Liverpool have been either the biggest spender or amongst the top spenders (obviously Chelsea's new largesse skews the true picture a bit).

What is an issue, however, is that Liverpool spend what they earn - according to public figures, Moores hasn't put any cash at all in for three years and little of note is traceable if you go back further than that either. This means we're constrained by earnings - indeed, Parry recently admitted that we gambled on getting past Haifa to the pot of CL group money when we committed to buying Kuyt, because the cash wasn't actually available to go for him independently after we'd already splashed on Bellamy, Pennant et al. So until we significantly expand our earnings, we can't significantly expand our spending.

And that's where the stadium comes in: what we haven't done - not once, since 1892 - is pay for a new stadium. And £180m is beyond us, even allowing for the loan structures, public funds and Objective 1 money that form part of the overall package. So investment from a non-loan source is clearly something that would be of benefit to us.

Problem is - and I've said this here before - you only get one shot at selling the family silver. Any investment that does come in will need to go into the stadium, rather than the playing squad, which is unlikely to play well with the fanbase who, like all fans everywhere, are too short-termist for the niceties of structural investment. But in actual fact, spunking whatever money we can attract on players would be stupid - even if we matched Chelsea for a season and bought the best there is - the following summer we'd be back to square one whereas Chelsea can repeat ad nauseum.

So the board have two challenges: one, find the right partner, offering the right package and two, make all this happen in line with developments on the stadium, so you have everything set up to ensure the investment has the maximum impact on your long-term goals, which are to increase what we earn year-on-year, rather than go out and buy a Shevchenko one summer.

That balancing act alone is difficult enough and probably the primary reason why the club are erring on the side of caution whenever a potential for financial partnership arises.

[revelationx]

The reason I asked about the situtation regarding current investors is this article.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=378063&cc=5739

If Liverpool's new stadium gets the go ahead the time is fast approaching when we will need lots of funding for the stadium development.

[usscouse]

The news this morning says Liverpool council will give Liverpool a 999 year lease on the space to build in Stanley Park.
That'll save a chunk of change and make it easier.

[Matt Clark]

Not really - we're going to pay £300,000 a year for that lease and we're handing over the land that the current Anfield stands on to the regeneration board as part of the deal. So it's basically £180m plus £300k a year for a thousand years.

[usscouse]

Not really - we're going to pay £300,000 a year for that lease and we're handing over the land that the current Anfield stands on to the regeneration board as part of the deal. So it's basically £180m plus £300k a year for a thousand years.Now that changes my perception of the deal somewhat. Their idea of "Giving" as in a lease, is different of my idea of "giving"

But just think..... In 998 years 300K will be pocket change.

[Crown Paints]

Now that the new stadium has been given the go ahead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/5327426.stm) a new injection of cash would be a massive help.

[Twenty26Six]

Now that changes my perception of the deal somewhat. Their idea of "Giving" as in a lease, is different of my idea of "giving"

But just think..... In 998 years 300K will be pocket change.

300K/year is cheaper than any footballer we are likely to buy.

[revelationx]

300K/year is cheaper than any footballer we are likely to buy.

True - Ballack allegedly earns that in a fortnight!

[liverbird]

As expected lease approved:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/5327426.stm