Liverpool FC Forum

by **Live4pool** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:08 am

Spot on ! There is no way David Moores will give up his family's control in Liverpool . Definitely not to an arch rival in the board room.
Morgan played with the emotions of the native Pool fans, but his initiate overtures sounded ridiculous to Moores. Less cash injection with Moores giving up control. I suspect the Thais are kept in the game to counter Morgan.

by **azriahmad** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:19 am

Quote (jonnymac1979 @ Sep. 24 2004,10:09)

What does azriahmad think?

He usually posts really good points about all the financial aspects of the club. He must work in finance, he knows what he's talking about.

I'd be interested to hear what he thinks.

Yo jonny...I am flattered by your compliment. I have been a bit distracted of late as somebody I know has been charged for criminal breach of trust involving some £30m misappropriated funds of a public listed company (convert that into the local currecny and it is a big deal in these parts of the world!) - no wonder he has so much money!

Football club ownership is more a labour of love than for money. The most well-managed club in the world, from a financial prospective, is manure with no debts and some cash in hand, only makes some £5m to £10m profit per year, a paltry return if compared to the other businesses but manure's value is some £600m, if you factor the last publicly known transaction by Grazier. Why is this so? I think it is because of the famous brand of the football club.

As I understand it, our chairman Moores is a descendent of the Littlewoods founder and his personal fortune is estimated to be worth some £50 million. It is not clear if this includes his shareholding in Liverpool, which is held via a family owned entity. In rejecting Morgan's initial bid, it was inferred that Moores values Liverpool at £140m, so his 51.6% is valued at £72.2m. It would take someone to pay the Moores family at least this amount to buy them out.

However, Moores loves the club. He still wants to remain as the Chariman and is willing to paerly sell his family stake in Liverpool, recoup whatever advances he has made to Liverpool and then dilute his shareholding by allowing this new party to buy into new shares in the club so that the club gets some much needed cash injection. Some media reports eminating from the Thai bidders after their due dilligence (last June) indicated that Moores has personally advanced £10m to part finance Houllier's transfers in the past.

Under the last Thai bid, he was supposed to get a total of about £35m while the club gets about £30m in a deal worth £65m. Morgan's bid was for £70m but with all of the money going to Liverpool and Moores will get none of it at all - this is good for the club, but not good for Moores so naturally it was rejected.

This new £100m deal bid does not spell out anything about the breakdown, so I can't add much to it. The only thing I can say is that if the deal is to be an attractive one for Moores, it must surely be part for him and the other part for the club, and also he still wants to retain the chairmanship and management control of the club, unless he has changed his mind and wants to totally sell his shares and retire from the club, meaning that out of that £100m, only some £28 goes to the club's kitty. I doubt that this will be the case, as Liverpool needs the cash and a new investor would want to invest more in the club so that is can utilise these funds to win silverware and expand the appeal of the Liverpool brand.

I will try to divulge some more info if this new deal is made more transparent.

by **jim_morrison_supported_liverpool** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:14 pm

"We travel extensively internationally and it depresses the hell out of me to see kids in Santa Monica and Cape Town running around in Manchester United shirts."

whatever their intentions, i am pretty impressed by that comment alone. i feel only a real supporter would think that

by **azriahmad** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:46 pm

jim, this is because they (manure or arsenal or real madrid) have a more well known "brand" than we have. Had our great success been in the mid-90s streching to now rather than in the 70s and 80s, Liverpool could have been the biggest club in the world. Sadly for us, in these day and age of world wide media and marketing boom, our on-field success was a thing of the past.

This is the main area where we have been left behind and we need to do some catching up. But there is a cost - with greater commercialism and merchandising, the football club will inevitably lose its "family" atmosphere as have been enjoyed by the fans of Liverpool until now. The big question is, do we want to risk losing that?

by **jim_morrison_supported_liverpool** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:15 pm

i know the reasons why this is, i was just saying it strikes me as what a real fan would think. as i was a bit sceptical of the whole "we're die-hard fans" stuff.

we dont need to go too far with the commercialisation of the club. money is running things these days, but as recent events are showing, teams can do well without it. if we start winning things, and we may not need that much money and marketability to do it (as the manager is top class) we will receive all the publicity and world wide fame again.

i dont think its a case of black or white (commercialisation or family values) i think we may be the one club that can get the balance right

by **Live4pool** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:16 pm

Guys,
Believe me, Liverpool is a brand name in Asia. It has a following even larger than Real or Arsenal, but second only to the dreaded Manure.

In the 70's through to the early 90's, Liverpool was the undisputed kingpin in Asia. The Pool fans now are generally in their late 30's to 60s. The joke here is that Pool fans are Senior citizens. The younger fans are generally the off-springs of these 'aged' fans. Therefore, these youngsters are not glory seekers as they have yet to witness any Pool success.
So supporting Liverpool is a very family thing in Asia.

The majority fans of ManU and Arsenal are generally younger set, having chosen to identify with the winning teams they see on TV.

Cable TV is a very big thing in Asia, with some 10 "live" EPL matches per week, not counting the Spanish, Italian, European competitions and WC matches.

Commercialisation is therefore a very necessary evil. If Liverpool is to compete at the highest, it needs the financial clout to attract the best talents. Yes, the question is how to strike that balance and not turn into another money-minded Manure.

:blues:

by **jim_morrison_supported_liverpool** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:45 pm

liverpool's advantages though, are that we can attract big name stars anyway just beacuase of our reputation. also, i know for a fact that benitez is considered a brilliant coach, and i believe this will also help in attracting the best. yes, we need the money to pay for them, but i dont think we need to be like chelsea or man u to start winning things. look at how arsenal did it. wenger is the french version of benitez in my opinion, he knew the french market so well and dint need big bucks. now they rule, and without being rich, anyone will play for them.

by **gabbyh** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:27 pm

No... I prefer the American bid...they would know how to market Liverpool without having to go the Man U route. He is Liverpool born, so may know the difference between Soccer and Football. Investment to Investors, Management to Managers, ie RB. US bidder may be less intractable.

by **Leonmc0708** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:27 pm

A.B. wrote:
Lee J wrote:personally I think letting the Americans in control of our club will be a disaster. They screw everything up. They don't understand the roots of football, we'll end up being Liverpool Soccer Club.

I'm not keen.

I agree. Since when did Americans know anything about football? They should stick to their own shitty football

Again, the twop people involved in the proposed buy out are both Scousers born and bred.

by **policy** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:51 am

Don't hate on the Americans.

And don't even think of comparing them with the Thais.

Half the folks on this board can't type, spell or get a coherent thought across at times. So I wouldn't bloviate about the deficiencies of America.

There can be nothing wrong with American businessmen (including at least one Scouser) buying part of the club. It will help make Liverpool the biggest international football club in the world, which if you don't get it by now is what Jefferies wants to do.

by **gabbyh** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:18 pm

Hi Policy, which dictionary did you get the word 'bloviate' from, so I can buy it. I can spell, but that word is beyond me.

Anyways back to topic in hand. Football is now a business, and I know I don't like it, but at the moment our players play as if we have to lump it, because Liverpool is owned by an LFC lover, not a business man looking for returns. We have a new manager, that is why, to my mind, our players are now playing as well as they can and probably why Danny Murphy and Michael Owen have gone. No one player should be bigger than the club.
If the American deal works- which I hope it does, Liverpool will be run by a business man, therefore, if he invests, the team have to produce the goods, not act as if they have got their pensions early!

by **The_Rock** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:31 pm

I prefer the american bid to the thais one anyday. The Thai PM can't even name half the liverpool team

by **stmichael** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:32 pm

The_Rock wrote:The Thai PM can't even name half the liverpool team

the thai prime minister can't even spell his own name

by **Redrider** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:00 pm

David Moores is undoubtedly a fanatical 'Red' and as far as he is concerned has the best interests of the club at heart. However, my feeling is that he 'let's his heart rule his head' when it comes to making the big decisions in managing the club.
It may be better all round if he were bought out, or had to take a non-executive position. If Jefferies buys into the club and leaves Moores in control, that would be a mistake. Similarly the Thai bid has the same problem, additionally they wan't all of the marketing rights in Asia where there is vast potential.
I think we need some new management here aswell as the money, no offence David Moores but we need to move with the times if we wish to 'Hang out with the Big Dog's' :blues:

by **blind** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:04 pm

the problem with the thia bid is two fold.

1- they cannot find the money ( kind of important don't ya think )
2- They wanted the asian rights of the brand (bad Idea as they will make more then their money back and we would not benefit from it )

The Us film deal he has sated that he is working to attract Investors into LFC (but chooses to film is movie at St James Park -true red there if i ever seen one.) plus this is his first major film not his 30th one where he has loads of cash he is about as billy flint as most of us as it is all tied in to his business. I think alot of this bid stuff is just a bit of self promotion and trying to gain extra backing for this picture he is making.

Liverpool FC Forum

£100m investment from usa - Us media group buy the club

Who is online