• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

The Owners

Bonus

TIA New Signing
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,208
personally, I would be gutted if the owners sold the club,
I think they have done a grand job since buying the club,

This club was a fucking mess, when they took over, make no mistake about that,
we where a ship drifting and lost at sea

they have got rid of all the dead wood, brought a calmness, stability, professionalism and direction to the club,
increased the capacity and have plans to add more seats, increased revenue
and any cash they have made has been re-invested in the club, ( I know other will argue about the cash bit)

So whats not to like?

Granted, it hasn't all been plain sailing and they have made mistakes, Comolli, Moneyball, Rodgers, and the TC
(where I think they where trying to be too smart, and get ahead of the game)
but they realised their mistake pretty quickly and changed their thinking and adapted,
so they are not stubborn in their thinking and can change to suit the clubs needs.

So I hope they are here for a very long time,
 


ptt

2020, head of the table.
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
14,819
personally, I would be gutted if the owners sold the club,
I think they have done a grand job since buying the club,

This club was a fucking mess, when they took over, make no mistake about that,
we where a ship drifting and lost at sea

they have got rid of all the dead wood, brought a calmness, stability, professionalism and direction to the club,
increased the capacity and have plans to add more seats, increased revenue
and any cash they have made has been re-invested in the club, ( I know other will argue about the cash bit)

So whats not to like?

Granted, it hasn't all been plain sailing and they have made mistakes, Comolli, Moneyball, Rodgers, and the TC
(where I think they where trying to be too smart, and get ahead of the game)
but they realised their mistake pretty quickly and changed their thinking and adapted,
so they are not stubborn in their thinking and can change to suit the clubs needs.

So I hope they are here for a very long time,
Amen brother.
 

Claymenza

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
1,838
The owners have been great so far. It's not like we have a finance issue. Our books are good and so are the results.
Also, if man united is worth 4 billion, I don't see why we're only worth half that. We're progressing and they are regressing.

I like how FSG were decisive about expanding anfield instead of moving to stanley park. The reign of rodgers was positive in nature, because we started playing proper football. When Klopp took over, he was happy to have a side that already good at football and cranked up the intensity.
 
Last edited:

redbj

hurry up, July 1st, let's get the show on the road
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
17,515
personally, I would be gutted if the owners sold the club,
I think they have done a grand job since buying the club,

This club was a fucking mess, when they took over, make no mistake about that,
we where a ship drifting and lost at sea

they have got rid of all the dead wood, brought a calmness, stability, professionalism and direction to the club,
increased the capacity and have plans to add more seats, increased revenue
and any cash they have made has been re-invested in the club, ( I know other will argue about the cash bit)

So whats not to like?

Granted, it hasn't all been plain sailing and they have made mistakes, Comolli, Moneyball, Rodgers, and the TC
(where I think they where trying to be too smart, and get ahead of the game)
but they realised their mistake pretty quickly and changed their thinking and adapted,
so they are not stubborn in their thinking and can change to suit the clubs needs.

So I hope they are here for a very long time,
the best compliment i can pay the owners is that even just a few years ago my first thought would be that you would be an FSG PR plant even on a wee website like this......now at least i give your POV some thought.

i think im just burnt by the whole owners being so influencial in deciding the outcome of the sport...from Hand G to the owners of Chelsea and Citeh, through to Berlusconi.....it even happens in smaller leagues....its like a game within a game now.
 



Spitfire

Resident Realist
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
2,307
the best compliment i can pay the owners is that even just a few years ago my first thought would be that you would be an FSG PR plant even on a wee website like this......now at least i give your POV some thought.

i think im just burnt by the whole owners being so influencial in deciding the outcome of the sport...from Hand G to the owners of Chelsea and Citeh, through to Berlusconi.....it even happens in smaller leagues....its like a game within a game now.
To me the best thing is they are letting the work and resutls do the talking. We aren;t seeing constant updates press messages, posturing form the directors box etc etc.

They seem to have a plan - know the people they want to drive it and are now quietly supporting it along the way.

They aren't perfect - but they are about as good as we could have hoped for based on the circumstances, with which we ended up with them.

On a side note a tip of the hat to Martin Broughton - recently read an interview he did on some fo the detail around that time..........a lesser man and we could have been in a world of shit!
 



Kopstar

★★★★★★
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,667
WTH? Would that be something dated October 1 as in prior years?
Yes, it would need to be filed by 15 October 2018. Failure to file it on time is an offence committed by—

(a) the company,

(b) every director of the company,

(c) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, every secretary of the company, and

(d) every other officer of the company who is in default.

For this purpose a shadow director is treated as a director.

(853L of the Companies Act 2006)

That might then prompt the Registrar to send a notice requesting that information within 14 days and then, if no response had been received, send a further notice that if no response is received within a further 14 days from the second communication that a notice of strike off may be published in the Gazette...

The timing suggests somebody at UKSV hasn't a) filed the confirmation statement by 15 October, b) responded to the first 14 day notice letter, c) failed to respond to the second/final 14 day notice letter...

WAKE UP PEOPLE!
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,087
Yes, it would need to be filed by 15 October 2018. Failure to file it on time is an offence committed by—

(a) the company,

(b) every director of the company,

(c) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, every secretary of the company, and

(d) every other officer of the company who is in default.

For this purpose a shadow director is treated as a director.

(853L of the Companies Act 2006)

That might then prompt the Registrar to send a notice requesting that information within 14 days and then, if no response had been received, send a further notice that if no response is received within a further 14 days from the second communication that a notice of strike off may be published in the Gazette...

The timing suggests somebody at UKSV hasn't a) filed the confirmation statement by 15 October, b) responded to the first 14 day notice letter, c) failed to respond to the second/final 14 day notice letter...

WAKE UP PEOPLE!
I had been waiting for the Confirmation Statement in anticipation of possible changes, given the delay in publication.

However, to miss so many deadlines is very poor form. It's not as though the Confirmation Statement is a long and complicated document - the last one was all of four pages long (and mostly white space).
 

CymruRed

TIA Youth Team
Ad-free Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
921
Yes, it would need to be filed by 15 October 2018. Failure to file it on time is an offence committed by—

(a) the company,

(b) every director of the company,

(c) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, every secretary of the company, and

(d) every other officer of the company who is in default.

For this purpose a shadow director is treated as a director.

(853L of the Companies Act 2006)

That might then prompt the Registrar to send a notice requesting that information within 14 days and then, if no response had been received, send a further notice that if no response is received within a further 14 days from the second communication that a notice of strike off may be published in the Gazette...

The timing suggests somebody at UKSV hasn't a) filed the confirmation statement by 15 October, b) responded to the first 14 day notice letter, c) failed to respond to the second/final 14 day notice letter...

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Forgive my ignorance and having absolutely no clue about the legal side of business,in laymans terms,what does this actually mean and it's potential outcome on the club?
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,667
Forgive my ignorance and having absolutely no clue about the legal side of business,in laymans terms,what does this actually mean and it's potential outcome on the club?
In terms of liability, fines in the daily amount of up to £500 for each director. In terms of what happens if the holding company is struck off then the assets (and UKSV own 100% of the shares in Liverpool Football Club and Athletics Grounds Limited) pass to the Crown (bona vacantia). The Treasury Solicitor will then look to sell those assets for market value.

That's some way off though but no doubt someone needs to start sorting this out sharpish.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,087
In terms of liability, fines in the daily amount of up to £500 for each director. In terms of what happens if the holding company is struck off then the assets (and UKSV own 100% of the shares in Liverpool Football Club and Athletics Grounds Limited) pass to the Crown (bona vacantia). The Treasury Solicitor will then look to sell those assets for market value.

That's some way off though but no doubt someone needs to start sorting this out sharpish.
Isn't it likely that HMRC would object to UKSV being struck off the register of companies and dissolved, as any outstanding tax liabilities would be lost?
 



Kopstar

★★★★★★
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,667
Isn't it likely that HMRC would object to UKSV being struck off the register of companies and dissolved, as any outstanding tax liabilities would be lost?
They'd be payable from the assets though.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,087
They'd be payable from the assets though.
Although the assets would pass to the crown, any liabilities would be extinguished:

Bona vacantia dissolved companies

"Property, cash and any other assets owned by a company when it is dissolved automatically pass to the Crown. This is because the law says this happens. You can find the main provisions of this law in the Companies Act 2006.

Liabilities of a company do not pass to the Crown on dissolution: they are normally extinguished."
 

Red over the water

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
2,001
Has another company been set up and the former holding company is now being allowed to dissolve?

We need more info. I’m not panicked yet!
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,667
The Company have finally filed their confirmation statement. Threat of strike off should now be removed upon payment of the required fines.
 



Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,087
The Company have finally filed their confirmation statement. Threat of strike off should now be removed upon payment of the required fines.
The late submission of the Confirmation Statement is ridiculous given that there are no updates. Only two things had to be changed: the date of the Confirmation Statement, and the date it was submitted electronically; a job you would struggle to stretch out to ten minutes even with a coffee break. :rolleyes:
 



Claymenza

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
1,838
I think nord vpn are missing a marketing trick there - pic of Allison, vvd etc - the best defence in the world.....
To be fair, fsg does not get enough credit for changing the way they think in terms of moneyball.
It was effective during the brendan rodgers era when he effectively weeded out all the high investment/low value players like joe cole.

When coutinho, sterling and suarez left, only klopp could come in and replace them with players of similar or better calibur.
To think we were linked to Shaq and salah back during rodgers' era.

Also, we defend as a unit. When rodgers brought in sakho, it was done on the basis that the defense would be better one on one than rely on a unit. Lovren is not hard wired this way and requires to be part of a unit. Allison also has more involvement with the defenders than mignolet would
Yes it's smart to make moneyball signings like robertson and shaq. However, allison and van dyjk were the premium signings that Klopp and FSG knew they trusted.

Brilliant recruitment and retention strategy. Next will be youth development.
 

lfc.8

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
2,297
Liverpool in talks with New Balance over record kit deal from 2020-21... and they want to eclipse Manchester United's £75m-a-year adidas contract
  • Liverpool are looking to beat Manchester United's record £75m kit deal
  • At present, the Reds earn £45million-a-year with American brand New Balance
  • They are now in talks with New Balance about extending their deal
  • However, they will need to significantly improve their current terms
Liverpool are in negotiations to seal a record Premier League kit deal, with club officials looking to eclipse Manchester United's £75million-a-year agreement with adidas.

The Anfield club's current kit deal with New Balance ends at the end of the 2019-20 season and it is understood that talks to extend the current deal under improved terms have already got under way.

Liverpool's current deal is worth £45m-a-year - but while the club and American kit company consider the agreement a massive success - it is understood New Balance will have to increase their sponsorship offer by at least £30m a year for it to continue.

They have reported two straight years of record kit sales.

Owners Fenway have overseen massive progress at the club since signing a kit deal with Warrior at the beginning of the 2012-13 season - before the sponsorship switched to parent company New Balance ahead of the 2015-16 season.

Since the New Balance deal was brokered, Liverpool have appointed Jurgen Klopp, who has built a massively talented squad and overseen an exciting brand of football.

Klopp has also developed superstars including Mo Salah, Sadio Mane, Roberto Firmino, Alisson and Virgil van Dijk. They have all committed to the club by signing long-term contracts.

The German has already taken the club - currently top of the league - to a Champions League final, Europa League final and League Cup final.

Liverpool were also listed in the world's top five strongest football brands in The Football 50 table, conducted by Brand Finance during the summer. Liverpool were behind only Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Manchester United.

A source close to the talks told Sportsmail: 'The club are established in Europe again and challenging at home. They were the most watched Premier League team last season with 880 million viewers across all competitions.

'Liverpool will be competing with Manchester United's £75m-a-year deal. They are open to extending with New Balance, but if they don't come up with the cash, the club would be open to finding another partner.'

In June, Forbes ranked Liverpool as the fourth most valuable club in the Premier League, behind Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal.

Both Arsenal and Chelsea earn £60m a year from their latest kit deals. Arsenal start a five-year deal with adidas worth £300m in the summer, while Chelsea signed 15-year deal with Nike in 2016 worth £900m.

Manchester City have signed a £50m a year deal with Puma starting next season.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6526719/Liverpool-talks-new-balance-record-kit-deal-2020-21-season.html
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
Liverpool in talks with New Balance over record kit deal from 2020-21... and they want to eclipse Manchester United's £75m-a-year adidas contract
  • Liverpool are looking to beat Manchester United's record £75m kit deal
  • At present, the Reds earn £45million-a-year with American brand New Balance
  • They are now in talks with New Balance about extending their deal
  • However, they will need to significantly improve their current terms
Liverpool are in negotiations to seal a record Premier League kit deal, with club officials looking to eclipse Manchester United's £75million-a-year agreement with adidas.

The Anfield club's current kit deal with New Balance ends at the end of the 2019-20 season and it is understood that talks to extend the current deal under improved terms have already got under way.

Liverpool's current deal is worth £45m-a-year - but while the club and American kit company consider the agreement a massive success - it is understood New Balance will have to increase their sponsorship offer by at least £30m a year for it to continue.

They have reported two straight years of record kit sales.

Owners Fenway have overseen massive progress at the club since signing a kit deal with Warrior at the beginning of the 2012-13 season - before the sponsorship switched to parent company New Balance ahead of the 2015-16 season.

Since the New Balance deal was brokered, Liverpool have appointed Jurgen Klopp, who has built a massively talented squad and overseen an exciting brand of football.

Klopp has also developed superstars including Mo Salah, Sadio Mane, Roberto Firmino, Alisson and Virgil van Dijk. They have all committed to the club by signing long-term contracts.

The German has already taken the club - currently top of the league - to a Champions League final, Europa League final and League Cup final.

Liverpool were also listed in the world's top five strongest football brands in The Football 50 table, conducted by Brand Finance during the summer. Liverpool were behind only Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Manchester United.

A source close to the talks told Sportsmail: 'The club are established in Europe again and challenging at home. They were the most watched Premier League team last season with 880 million viewers across all competitions.

'Liverpool will be competing with Manchester United's £75m-a-year deal. They are open to extending with New Balance, but if they don't come up with the cash, the club would be open to finding another partner.'

In June, Forbes ranked Liverpool as the fourth most valuable club in the Premier League, behind Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal.

Both Arsenal and Chelsea earn £60m a year from their latest kit deals. Arsenal start a five-year deal with adidas worth £300m in the summer, while Chelsea signed 15-year deal with Nike in 2016 worth £900m.

Manchester City have signed a £50m a year deal with Puma starting next season.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6526719/Liverpool-talks-new-balance-record-kit-deal-2020-21-season.html


Thanks for posting this. I saw it earlier today. It just goes to show the significant progress made by the club both on and off the field and is testament to the excellent stewardship of FSG as owners alongside Peter Moore as CEO.
 

Red over the water

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
2,001
Puts New Balance on the map so they have to pay, and if they don’t another major brand will be waiting in the wings, probably Adidas.

I think New Balance will pay the dough. It will be win-win, and part of the money will be based on success.