The Owners

ubermick

Willing to drive Lovren to the airport
Admin
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
10,625
Likes
16,229
Oh, I'm aware of how it works. But Hope's not talking about a fan representative on the board here, we're talking about full fan ownership. As such everyone would be elected, and I guarantee we'd end up with self serving knobheads packing the boardroom. One person would be proposing a summer tour of whatever part of the world they happen to be from, another would be screaming them down demanding that the club never set foot outside of a 50 mile cordon around Anfield, another demanding we spend a squillion pounds on Marco Reus, another advocating that tickets be free and that the club buy a fleet of 777s to fly the traveling Kop around.

I have no problem with democracy at ALL, @Hope in your heart but this is a different entity entirely. It's a football club, where every fan has their own idea about how it should be run, and frankly none of us know ACTUALLY how it should be run. And when I wake up every morning, I see JUST how fucking horrific things can be when someone who's a complete imbecile but was able to whip a specific fanbase into a frenzy with rhetoric is elected.
 

redbj

hurry up, July 1st, let's get the show on the road
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
16,317
Likes
11,193
Yeah, but have you seen our lot? Right now there's a massive wedge of the local fans are losing their shit over our club because of the Champions League final. It's LFC's fault that tickets are expensive, it's their fault that the touts are gouging those who didn't get one in the lottery, it's the club's fault there was a lottery in the first place (otherwise not sure how you divvy up 16,000-odd tickets between about 60,000 "qualified" fans), it's the club's fault that flights are so expensive, it's their fault that hotels are canceling bookings and upcharging everyone. Most are demanding that LFC charter planes for our fans to get there, that they subsidize accommodation, have buses to take them from the airport to wherever they're staying, and make sure more fans get tickets (but only locals).

Beyond that, can you imagine the utter furore from the likes of the lads on RAOTL and the SOS lot if there were wools and OOTers having as much say in the running of the club as they do?
If nothing else, it could be entertaining.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
18,175
Likes
19,007
We know they are doing it, we just don't know to what extent because FSM accounts aren't publicly available.

I do wonder to what extent it would be lawful though, particularly as it seems to be a fairly obvious tax avoidance measure. I can only presume that at some stage the club sold/licensed these rights to FSM - for market value? Hmm.
There are ways to get it wrong and/or make it tax avoidance, but all things equal an American marketing agency representing a UK company to an American firm is going to have a reasonably sound argument for extraterritoriality. Work performed and value substantially delivered offshore, and the reality is that it is what happened (Dunkin' Donuts and NB are both Boston-area, in fact). The fact that a portion is taken off on the revenue side rather than the expense side isn't necessarily problematic, commissions can be paid by either side, and an intervening border does not change that.
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts...
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
20,899
Likes
17,499
Oh, I'm aware of how it works. But Hope's not talking about a fan representative on the board here, we're talking about full fan ownership. As such everyone would be elected, and I guarantee we'd end up with self serving knobheads packing the boardroom. One person would be proposing a summer tour of whatever part of the world they happen to be from, another would be screaming them down demanding that the club never set foot outside of a 50 mile cordon around Anfield, another demanding we spend a squillion pounds on Marco Reus, another advocating that tickets be free and that the club buy a fleet of 777s to fly the traveling Kop around.

I have no problem with democracy at ALL, @Hope in your heart but this is a different entity entirely. It's a football club, where every fan has their own idea about how it should be run, and frankly none of us know ACTUALLY how it should be run. And when I wake up every morning, I see JUST how fucking horrific things can be when someone who's a complete imbecile but was able to whip a specific fanbase into a frenzy with rhetoric is elected.
No no, my ideal model to start with is the one eddie was referring to. As for democracy, do you have an idea how to actually run a country properly? ... That's what I thought, nor have I... lol But we both have our opinions and I'm sure we both want to be able to elect people, not live in a dictatorship / an absolute kingdom / whatever.

A football club is the same: either you elect someone to represent your best interests, or you live with a random owner. If you are lucky, it will turn out well, if not... Being able to elect the people who will run your club is not the promise of an ideal world, but it's the least bad.
 

ubermick

Willing to drive Lovren to the airport
Admin
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
10,625
Likes
16,229
I do remember that FSG talked about appointing a fan representative to be on the board, but that strangely disappeared after they met with the Spirit of Shankly and it changed to the Supporters' Committee. (Can't for the life of me imagine why)

They also recently appointed Tony Barrett, about as red as red can be, as head of club and supporter liaison recently, and he's been subsequently battered on Twitter for the aforementioned "How come I can't get a ticket to the Champions League final, and why are flights so expensive, and hotels in Kiev are ripoff merchants and it's all your fault, blaaaaaargh"
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
46,604
Likes
32,064
Oh, I'm aware of how it works. But Hope's not talking about a fan representative on the board here, we're talking about full fan ownership. As such everyone would be elected, and I guarantee we'd end up with self serving knobheads packing the boardroom. One person would be proposing a summer tour of whatever part of the world they happen to be from, another would be screaming them down demanding that the club never set foot outside of a 50 mile cordon around Anfield, another demanding we spend a squillion pounds on Marco Reus, another advocating that tickets be free and that the club buy a fleet of 777s to fly the traveling Kop around.

I have no problem with democracy at ALL, @Hope in your heart but this is a different entity entirely. It's a football club, where every fan has their own idea about how it should be run, and frankly none of us know ACTUALLY how it should be run. And when I wake up every morning, I see JUST how fucking horrific things can be when someone who's a complete imbecile but was able to whip a specific fanbase into a frenzy with rhetoric is elected.
The clubs that @Hope in your heart mentioned, especially the German ones, mostly have a corporate ownership too. The corporate investor usually owns a bigger chunk than any one fan. As for elected a knobhead, it can also happen with our current ownership where they may hire a self serving, power hungry, fame loving knobheads too (ahem.... Rodgers and Ayre). That isn't something that can only happen with fans ownership.

We often took what we read in the forum, twitter or listen to phone-ins as the yardstick to the fanbase we have, which to me is a very wrong way to judge our fans. Like yourself and a few in here, there are a large number of fair minded fans who has at least a couple of ounce of brain to use to reason when it comes to their money.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
There are ways to get it wrong and/or make it tax avoidance, but all things equal an American marketing agency representing a UK company to an American firm is going to have a reasonably sound argument for extraterritoriality. Work performed and value substantially delivered offshore, and the reality is that it is what happened (Dunkin' Donuts and NB are both Boston-area, in fact). The fact that a portion is taken off on the revenue side rather than the expense side isn't necessarily problematic, commissions can be paid by either side, and an intervening border does not change that.
I may have got completely the wrong end of the stick, but you appear to be saying (as fact) that all LFC's commercial payments go directly to FSM, which takes cut, before the balance is paid to LFC. While I agree with you (and @Kopstar ) that this is a possibility, maybe even a probability, I cannot find any hard evidence to back it up.

Obviously FSM are entitled to payment for services rendered, and as you say, it matters little how the fees are paid, provided the amount extracted/paid (pre/post) is more or less the same.

It only becomes an issue if the amount extracted by FSM is substantially in excess of what might normally be charged for the services rendered, and if that excess is then transferred to FSG as a sort of covert dividend. Then the question of tax avoidance becomes germane. Any dividends can only be paid out of a company's profits, profits which are subject to UK corporation tax; and the dividends received are subject to UK corporation tax (if paid to a company) or income tax (if paid to an individual). So, a covert dividend is, in effect, double tax avoidance.

If FSG is taking covert dividends not only is it defrauding the exchequer, but it also raises the question of how we might perceive FSG's performance / fitness as owners.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
8,545
Likes
16,417
I may have got completely the wrong end of the stick, but you appear to be saying (as fact) that all LFC's commercial payments go directly to FSM, which takes cut, before the balance is paid to LFC. While I agree with you (and @Kopstar ) that this is a possibility, maybe even a probability, I cannot find any hard evidence to back it up.

Obviously FSM are entitled to payment for services rendered, and as you say, it matters little how the fees are paid, provided the amount extracted/paid (pre/post) is more or less the same.

It only becomes an issue if the amount extracted by FSM is substantially in excess of what might normally be charged for the services rendered, and if that excess is then transferred to FSG as a sort of covert dividend. Then the question of tax avoidance becomes germane. Any dividends can only be paid out of a company's profits, profits which are subject to UK corporation tax; and the dividends received are subject to UK corporation tax (if paid to a company) or income tax (if paid to an individual). So, a covert dividend is, in effect, double tax avoidance.

If FSG is taking covert dividends not only is it defrauding the exchequer, but it also raises the question of how we might perceive FSG's performance / fitness as owners.
But what if LFC have licensed their commercial rights to FSM for a fee that then entitles FSM to be paid a % commission that is either paid directly by the commercial partner or is taken as a cut from the overall value of the deal? If FSM have 'bought' those rights then the % received by them is their property, not LFC's so outside of LFC's revenue, surely?
 

Noo Noo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
1,251
Likes
912
What you may find is that FSM actually provides the contract link between whoever is buying the commercial stuff. They then Subcontract to LFC.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
But what if LFC have licensed their commercial rights to FSM for a fee that then entitles FSM to be paid a % commission that is either paid directly by the commercial partner or is taken as a cut from the overall value of the deal? If FSM have 'bought' those rights then the % received by them is their property, not LFC's so outside of LFC's revenue, surely?
I think it depends on how you view the whole arrangement, the initial fee (if any) paid by FSM to Liverpool / UKSV Holdings, and ongoing cut / payment FSM takes from the commercial rights payments.

If the marketing company was a third party entity, with no ties to and completely independent of FSG, then there would be no question of the probity of the deal. If the ongoing fees paid to / extracted by the third party marketing company were excessive, both in relation to the initial fee it paid to Liverpool / UKSV Holdings or the going market rate, so what, it could be viewed simply as a particularly poor business decision by FSG.

However, FSM is not independent of FSG; it is wholly owned subsidiary. So, if the amounts that FSM makes is considered excessive (and that excess is taken by FSG) then it is to the benefit of FSG at the detriment to Liverpool's bottom line. In effect FSG is artificially deflating Liverpool profits thereby avoiding any Corporation Tax that might otherwise be due.

Obviously, as we do not have access to FSM's accounts, we do not know the true nature of the arrangement or the amounts paid. Consequently the discussion is simply conjecture* on our part.


* unless @ Arminius has better information.
 
Last edited:

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
18,175
Likes
19,007
I may have got completely the wrong end of the stick, but you appear to be saying (as fact) that all LFC's commercial payments go directly to FSM, which takes cut, before the balance is paid to LFC. While I agree with you (and @Kopstar ) that this is a possibility, maybe even a probability, I cannot find any hard evidence to back it up.

Obviously FSM are entitled to payment for services rendered, and as you say, it matters little how the fees are paid, provided the amount extracted/paid (pre/post) is more or less the same.

It only becomes an issue if the amount extracted by FSM is substantially in excess of what might normally be charged for the services rendered, and if that excess is then transferred to FSG as a sort of covert dividend. Then the question of tax avoidance becomes germane. Any dividends can only be paid out of a company's profits, profits which are subject to UK corporation tax; and the dividends received are subject to UK corporation tax (if paid to a company) or income tax (if paid to an individual). So, a covert dividend is, in effect, double tax avoidance.

If FSG is taking covert dividends not only is it defrauding the exchequer, but it also raises the question of how we might perceive FSG's performance / fitness as owners.
No, I have no hard evidence to back it up. Once you get outside the LFC company, FSG is very much a black box. We don't have anything but press releases and some MLB reports to judge the Sox, even less transparency than with LFC. However, I find it hard to believe that FSM sustains itself with deals with entities like Fulham, and simply provides LFC and the Red Sox services without remuneration - and don't really think it is problematic unless the fees are, as you note, in excess of what it would be charged on an arm's length basis.

But what I was alluding to was the contract structure was likely to avoid the entire question of a dividend. Possibly by having all commercial revenues pass through FSM, however I think that is unlikely - at least as many border taxation headaches in that as the dividend. What I would guess is that the mechanism might be as simple as a finder's fee paid by the sponsoring entity, where Dunkin' Donuts pays X million a year to LFC, and either a single or annualized fee directly to FSM for producing the deal, or some sort of associated ongoing services.

I take FSG at their word that they have not taken any funds out of LFC or the Red Sox, certainly not with a mechanism like a covert dividend. In both cases, I think it is simply a matter of using their ownership of the respective brands to build value for one of their businesses while increasing club commercial revenue. As long as we are making ground on ManU's commercial revenue, I don't much care about the mechanisms.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
No, I have no hard evidence to back it up. Once you get outside the LFC company, FSG is very much a black box. We don't have anything but press releases and some MLB reports to judge the Sox, even less transparency than with LFC. However, I find it hard to believe that FSM sustains itself with deals with entities like Fulham, and simply provides LFC and the Red Sox services without remuneration - and don't really think it is problematic unless the fees are, as you note, in excess of what it would be charged on an arm's length basis.

But what I was alluding to was the contract structure was likely to avoid the entire question of a dividend. Possibly by having all commercial revenues pass through FSM, however I think that is unlikely - at least as many border taxation headaches in that as the dividend. What I would guess is that the mechanism might be as simple as a finder's fee paid by the sponsoring entity, where Dunkin' Donuts pays X million a year to LFC, and either a single or annualized fee directly to FSM for producing the deal, or some sort of associated ongoing services.

I take FSG at their word that they have not taken any funds out of LFC or the Red Sox, certainly not with a mechanism like a covert dividend. In both cases, I think it is simply a matter of using their ownership of the respective brands to build value for one of their businesses while increasing club commercial revenue. As long as we are making ground on ManU's commercial revenue, I don't much care about the mechanisms.
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with your conclusions.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
46,604
Likes
32,064
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with your conclusions.
This is an old news, but nevertheless still valid I am pretty sure...
http://nationalpost.com/sports/nba/confusing-news-dept-lebron-now-owns-small-share-of-liverpool-fc/
FSM is owned by Fenway Sports Group, the parent company of the Red Sox and Liverpool FC and a co-owner of Roush Fenway Racing. FSM handles the marketing for all of them, and now it will handle James, too.
That's the article about how LeBron owns Liverpool FC.

These folks in FSG didn't have a country filled with oil, and if they are not in this for the money, I would be worried too. As long as they have cash ready for us to use if our profit without selling super star player isn't enough to cover transfer expenses, I am all good.
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,227
Likes
1,662
This is an old news, but nevertheless still valid I am pretty sure...
http://nationalpost.com/sports/nba/confusing-news-dept-lebron-now-owns-small-share-of-liverpool-fc/

That's the article about how LeBron owns Liverpool FC.

These folks in FSG didn't have a country filled with oil, and if they are not in this for the money, I would be worried too. As long as they have cash ready for us to use if our profit without selling super star player isn't enough to cover transfer expenses, I am all good.
Yes, LeBron is a part owner, and he was mentioned here recently about this in light of Liverpool making it to the Champions League final and what that did for his valuation from his portion.

Here is the link if anyone is interested: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ions-league-final-financial-boon-lebron-james

Essentially though:
"Sources said James received a 2 percent stake in Liverpool in April 2011, when his marketing firm, LRMR, agreed to a joint venture with Fenway Sports Partners. Fenway Sports Partners is owned by Boston Red Sox owner John Henry and chairman Tom Werner, who bought Liverpool for a bargain $477 million in October 2010. Sources said James' 2 percent stake, which he still retains, was given to him in lieu of roughly $6.5 million."
"Last June, Forbes said Liverpool was the eighth-most-valuable soccer team in the world at a value of $1.49 billion. But the trip to the UEFA Champions League final will guarantee an award of more than $100 million to Liverpool.

One sports investment banker told ESPN that given the team's rise to prominence, combined with its history, which includes the second-most titles in English soccer (18), the team could be sold today conservatively for $1.6 billion. That means James' investment has grown nearly five times ($6.5 million to $32 million) in seven years."
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
The Premier League have announced the payouts for the 2017/18 season.

LFC received the third highest payout of £145.90 million. Only City on £149.44 million, and manure on £149.77 million received more.
Tottenham came in fourth place with £144.45 million.

Each club's total payment is made up of
  • UK broadcast revenue
    • of which 50% is shared equally between clubs,
    • 25% is shared based on the number of live UK television matches,
    • 25% is based on league position
  • central commercial revenues
  • international broadcasting revenues.
Liverpool's payment is comprised of
  • UK broadcast revenue
    • Equal share, £34.8 million
    • UK televised matches, £32.6 million
    • league position, £34.83 million
  • central commercial revenues, £4.84 million
  • international broadcasting revenues, £40.8 million
Liverpool's prize money this season is lower than the £148.4m earned in the 2016/17 season as one fewer game was televised this season.

Next season might represent the high watermark for Premier League UK TV rights. The amount raised so far, from the sale of rights packages for seasons 2019 to 2022, is £676 million less than that for 2016 to 2019. Two rights packages (F & G) remain unsold, three months on from when all the deals were supposed to have been concluded. It's thought that the two packages have failed to make the Premier League's unofficial reserve price, and that as a consequence the PL will delay any announcement, regarding these packages, until the figures for the sale of overseas TV rights are declared. It's one way of burying bad news.
 

Red_Jedi

Anfield kick about
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
971
Likes
2,507
The Premier League have announced the payouts for the 2017/18 season.

LFC received the third highest payout of £145.90 million. Only City on £149.44 million, and manure on £149.77 million received more.
Tottenham came in fourth place with £144.45 million.

Each club's total payment is made up of
  • UK broadcast revenue
    • of which 50% is shared equally between clubs,
    • 25% is shared based on the number of live UK television matches,
    • 25% is based on league position
  • central commercial revenues
  • international broadcasting revenues.
Liverpool's payment is comprised of
  • UK broadcast revenue
    • Equal share, £34.8 million
    • UK televised matches, £32.6 million
    • league position, £34.83 million
  • central commercial revenues, £4.84 million
  • international broadcasting revenues, £40.8 million
Liverpool's prize money this season is lower than the £148.4m earned in the 2016/17 season as one fewer game was televised this season.

Next season might represent the high watermark for Premier League UK TV rights. The amount raised so far, from the sale of rights packages for seasons 2019 to 2022, is £676 million less than that for 2016 to 2019. Two rights packages (F & G) remain unsold, three months on from when all the deals were supposed to have been concluded. It's thought that the two packages have failed to make the Premier League's unofficial reserve price, and that as a consequence the PL will delay any announcement, regarding these packages, until the figures for the sale of overseas TV rights are declared. It's one way of burying bad news.
Do you know how much we would have made from Champions League - I know that there is that one small game left....
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,227
Likes
1,662
Do you know how much we would have made from Champions League - I know that there is that one small game left....
i read somewhere that we make $100m from making it to the final . can't remember where i read it though lol ( might have been on here so probably inaccurate :tongue:
I think you may have read it from one of my posts where it was talking about LeBron James and his 2% ownership. Here is a quote and the link:
"Last June, Forbes said Liverpool was the eighth-most-valuable soccer team in the world at a value of $1.49 billion. But the trip to the UEFA Champions League final will guarantee an award of more than $100 million to Liverpool."

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ions-league-final-financial-boon-lebron-james

That said, if we do win it.... the financial windfall that results from being champions will be substantially more from a marketing side than what we actually earn in the game. Heck the financial windfall from just making it to the final is already high for next year, but winning will just make it nuts.
 

Klopptinho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
6,045
Likes
9,855
I think you may have read it from one of my posts where it was talking about LeBron James and his 2% ownership. Here is a quote and the link:
"Last June, Forbes said Liverpool was the eighth-most-valuable soccer team in the world at a value of $1.49 billion. But the trip to the UEFA Champions League final will guarantee an award of more than $100 million to Liverpool."

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ions-league-final-financial-boon-lebron-james

That said, if we do win it.... the financial windfall that results from being champions will be substantially more from a marketing side than what we actually earn in the game. Heck the financial windfall from just making it to the final is already high for next year, but winning will just make it nuts.
sorry.. i meant to say .. it's 100% accurate lol lol ;-)
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
Do you know how much we would have made from Champions League - I know that there is that one small game left....
The figures I presented are for the Premier League and are independent of any moneys earned from the Champion's League.

We will make €78.2 million (equivalent to $92 million) from the CL, come what may. I hesitate to go any further for fear of jinxing us.
 
Last edited:

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
This is an old news, but nevertheless still valid I am pretty sure...
http://nationalpost.com/sports/nba/confusing-news-dept-lebron-now-owns-small-share-of-liverpool-fc/

That's the article about how LeBron owns Liverpool FC.
Yes, LeBron is a part owner, and he was mentioned here recently about this in light of Liverpool making it to the Champions League final and what that did for his valuation from his portion.

Here is the link if anyone is interested: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ions-league-final-financial-boon-lebron-james

Essentially though:
"Sources said James received a 2 percent stake in Liverpool in April 2011, when his marketing firm, LRMR, agreed to a joint venture with Fenway Sports Partners. Fenway Sports Partners is owned by Boston Red Sox owner John Henry and chairman Tom Werner, who bought Liverpool for a bargain $477 million in October 2010. Sources said James' 2 percent stake, which he still retains, was given to him in lieu of roughly $6.5 million."
"Last June, Forbes said Liverpool was the eighth-most-valuable soccer team in the world at a value of $1.49 billion. But the trip to the UEFA Champions League final will guarantee an award of more than $100 million to Liverpool.


One sports investment banker told ESPN that given the team's rise to prominence, combined with its history, which includes the second-most titles in English soccer (18), the team could be sold today conservatively for $1.6 billion. That means James' investment has grown nearly five times ($6.5 million to $32 million) in seven years."
I'm not sure what either article demonstrates, other than the byzantine complexity / opacity of Fenway Sports Group's operations / corporate structure. For a start, I cannot find any other references to either Fenway Sports Partners, or Fenway Sports Marketing (FSM is Fenway Sports Management). I'm not saying that they don't exist, just that I can't find any other reference to them. (Any assistance would be appreciated)

Secondly, the details of LeBron James' interest in Liverpool are somewhat vague. Apparently, in 2011 FSM entered into a business partnership with LRMR Marketing & Branding, and, as a consequence, or so it is reported, LeBron acquired an interest in Liverpool. This interest must be indirect e.g. an interest in FSG, as he is not listed as a shareholder in either the Annual Return / Confirmation Statements of UKSV Holdings Company Ltd or Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
18,175
Likes
19,007
I'm not sure what either article demonstrates, other than the byzantine complexity / opacity of Fenway Sports Group's operations / corporate structure. For a start, I cannot find any other references to either Fenway Sports Partners, or Fenway Sports Marketing (FSM is Fenway Sports Management). I'm not saying that they don't exist, just that I can't find any other reference to them. (Any assistance would be appreciated)

Secondly, the details of LeBron James' interest in Liverpool are somewhat vague. Apparently, in 2011 FSM entered into a business partnership with LRMR Marketing & Branding, and, as a consequence, or so it is reported, LeBron acquired an interest in Liverpool. This interest must be indirect e.g. an interest in FSG, as he is not listed as a shareholder in either the Annual Return / Confirmation Statements of UKSV Holdings Company Ltd or Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd.
Fenway Sports Management is the marketing firm, must be a confusion on what the correct name is somewhere. I suspect that is what has happened with Fenway Sports Partners as well. FSG is legally organized as NESV I LLC, structured as a partnership if I understand correctly. There is a subordinate vehicle in the US that holds UKSV (which allowed 'FSG' to be able to own LFC while Di Benedetto owned Roma), that may be where LeBron actually has his interest.

That said - would a 2% shareholder have to be disclosed in those filings? Genuine question, I have no idea, but that seems invasive.
 

Red_Jedi

Anfield kick about
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
971
Likes
2,507
The figures I presented are for the Premier League and are independent of any moneys earned from the Champion's League.

We will make €78.2 million (equivalent to $92 million) from the CL, come what may. I hesitate to go any further for fear of jinxing us.
So £145m for 38 games in the Prem League and another £70m for what is 21 games in Champions League. Just shows how significant Top 4 has become (from a financial sense)...

Is there a big difference from Winners to Quarter Finalists? (The Prem Table doesn't separate between clubs that much)
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
18,175
Likes
19,007
So £145m for 38 games in the Prem League and another £70m for what is 21 games in Champions League. Just shows how significant Top 4 has become (from a financial sense)...

Is there a big difference from Winners to Quarter Finalists? (The Prem Table doesn't separate between clubs that much)
That is a really skewed way of framing it though, earnings per game really distorts it. Relatively speaking, the CL is less important now than it was 8 years ago because PL money is so massive, and as you say there is not much difference between finishing 4th and finishing 8th.

A large amount of the CL money is based on 'market pool', ie. how much your home TV market is worth, and how many other clubs you share it with (which is why Juve earned more last year than Real, only Roma to split it with, and they got knocked out early). Once you get to the knockout rounds, the CL is worth about 2M per match, climbing steadily, with the final jumping to 10M+.
 



Red_Jedi

Anfield kick about
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
971
Likes
2,507
That is a really skewed way of framing it though, earnings per game really distorts it. Relatively speaking, the CL is less important now than it was 8 years ago because PL money is so massive, and as you say there is not much difference between finishing 4th and finishing 8th.

A large amount of the CL money is based on 'market pool', ie. how much your home TV market is worth, and how many other clubs you share it with (which is why Juve earned more last year than Real, only Roma to split it with, and they got knocked out early). Once you get to the knockout rounds, the CL is worth about 2M per match, climbing steadily, with the final jumping to 10M+.
I agree that its "skewed"... regular success in the prem or champions league would increase revenue from lots of other avenues too - Gates, sponsorships, hospitality, shirt and merchandise sales, and then of course more players wanting to play for us - so maybe leading to better value for money on players and maybe more options of free transfers of higher quality players.

From the owners perspective, they've just expanded the stadium and every game has been a sell out since - 2 full seasons. We've also got to 3 finals now under Klopp, and so when negotiating the next set of sponsorship deals, surely they will increase revenue too.

All very positive, but it starts and ends with what happens on the pitch.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
Fenway Sports Management is the marketing firm, must be a confusion on what the correct name is somewhere. I suspect that is what has happened with Fenway Sports Partners as well. FSG is legally organized as NESV I LLC, structured as a partnership if I understand correctly. There is a subordinate vehicle in the US that holds UKSV (which allowed 'FSG' to be able to own LFC while Di Benedetto owned Roma), that may be where LeBron actually has his interest.

That said - would a 2% shareholder have to be disclosed in those filings? Genuine question, I have no idea, but that seems invasive.
I once tried to map out the whole corporate structure of NESV, but I gave up after I traced links via NESV II LLC to Salem Hospital all the way back to NESV Florida Real Estate and thereafter gave up the will to live.

Regarding share holdings, prior to 2016 it was necessary to list all share holders in private limited companies in the annual return. Since then, only significant shareholdings have to be declared in the confirmation statement.

In the 2015 annual return for Liverpool, there were 34825 shares allotted; all 34825 shares were held by UKSV Holding Company Ltd.

Likewise in the UKSV Holdings Company ltd annual return for 2015, all allotted shares (100 ordinary, 100 A ordinary) were held by UKSV 1 LLC.

As any transfer of shares in Liverpool, or its UK parent, to LeBron James would have had to have taken place prior to 2015, it is reasonable to conclude that he doesn't directly hold any shares in Liverpool, or its UK parent.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
So £145m for 38 games in the Prem League and another £70m for what is 21 games in Champions League. Just shows how significant Top 4 has become (from a financial sense)...

Is there a big difference from Winners to Quarter Finalists? (The Prem Table doesn't separate between clubs that much)
I estimate the difference to be roughly €27 million.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
18,175
Likes
19,007
I once tried to map out the whole corporate structure of NESV, but I gave up after I traced links via NESV II LLC to Salem Hospital all the way back to NESV Florida Real Estate and thereafter gave up the will to live.

Regarding share holdings, prior to 2016 it was necessary to list all share holders in private limited companies in the annual return. Since then, only significant shareholdings have to be declared in the confirmation statement.

In the 2015 annual return for Liverpool, there were 34825 shares allotted; all 34825 shares were held by UKSV Holding Company Ltd.

Likewise in the UKSV Holdings Company ltd annual return for 2015, all allotted shares (100 ordinary, 100 A ordinary) were held by UKSV 1 LLC.

As any transfer of shares in Liverpool, or its UK parent, to LeBron James would have had to have taken place prior to 2015, it is reasonable to conclude that he doesn't directly hold any shares in Liverpool, or its UK parent.
Presumably whatever entity holds UKSV is where he has the reported interest - which probably makes good sense in taxation terms, keeps things simpler for him having it a US holding.

Once you get into the sports media and so on, FSG/NESV really become impossible to follow, though that is largely due to how low the reporting obligations are in many of the jurisdictions.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,201
Likes
3,477
Presumably whatever entity holds UKSV is where he has the reported interest - which probably makes good sense in taxation terms, keeps things simpler for him having it a US holding.

Once you get into the sports media and so on, FSG/NESV really become impossible to follow, though that is largely due to how low the reporting obligations are in many of the jurisdictions.
Impossible to follow, just about sums it up.

UKSV Holdings Company Ltd's immediate parent company is UKSV I LLC. It is a company registered in Delaware and that is more or less all we know about it other than it is a subsidiary of NESV I LLC (Fenway Sports Group).

Whether it is an immediate subsidiary, or if it is held through other, intermediate, holding companies, is information unavailable in the public domain.

NESV I LLC is also incorporated in Delaware and licensed to trade in Massachusetts. It has sister companies NESV II LLC & NESV IV LLC (dormant); all three companies are subsidiaries of New England Sports Ventures LLC. The only detail, that can be stated with any certainty, is that John Henry and Tom Werner are managing members of all four companies.

I have no idea if NESV III LLC is active / dormant / has ever existed.