The Owners

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
14,730
Not convinced of that. He lost control of the stadium project, and his club will be carrying a significant debt for years as a result. He has done so right as his club had the most promising concentration of talent it has had in at least a generation. You could easily argue that they are 1-2 players away from being able to compete for league and Europe at the highest level. Instead, they are running 3rd well back in the league, look spent playing in a CL semi-final, and are very likely to lose more talent than they bring in this summer.

Undoubtedly a very intelligent man, but seems either to have a poor sense of the big picture, or overconfidence in the ability of the improved stadium revenue to create a chance like this for his club again. Had FSG done to LFC what Levy has done to Spurs, SoS would be in full activist mode demanding they sell the club.
Isn't part of the cost being met by government funds?

Also, they will have greater opportunities for growing non football revenues than us.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
14,730
Yes a major fuck up on their part which I think will hold them back as a club for years. No point in having a 60,000 stadium if you can only fill it once a year for the north London derby and can’t compete on the pitch because of a lack of funds. When you see how other owners fuck up like this it makes you grateful for the yanks.
Revenues from corporate events and concerts will probably help them out.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,969
Isn't part of the cost being met by government funds?

Also, they will have greater opportunities for growing non football revenues than us.
I don't think so. In terms of growing other revenue streams, sure, probably. But paying off 500M one concert at a time is a mug's game.
 

RedForever2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
3,976
I don't expect City level net spending, and there has been loads of good work done by the club under FSG on and off the pitch.

But Liverpool Football Club is wealthy enough to have better back up forwards than Origi and Sturridge.

We should not be relying on three quality players for three forward positions with no back up.

One injury to one of them should not require a central midfielder to be playing at 9, because the back ups are too poor to start.

FSG should take advantage of Klopp being here, by enabling the addition of quality depth throughout the squad, not exploiting him being here and getting us close to trophies, but never actually winning them because he doesn't have the tools he needs.
 

Irishanfield

Internet Terrorist
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
4,737
Sorry I got the facts re our new stand slightly out but I think my wider point survives. This very old article (2004) suggests building costs of £5k per seat for an iconic stadium including hospitality etc.

If we allow for inflation in the intervening period to say double the costs then we are still only looking at £10k per seat. Spurs seem to have paid £16k per seat which seems massively over the top. I don’t think Levi is a stupid man but builders are brilliant at exploiting contractual loopholes and every tradesmen in London knew that the construction was running late and spurs were desperate. Anecdotally I heard that at one point the electricians on the site were being paid over £1000 per day and sitting around reading their phones because the other tradesmen weren’t ready for them. Only pub talk obviously but I heard it more than once. Anyway it’s their problem but thank the lord our project seemed to go a lot more smoothly.
LOL you've obviously never been anywhere near a building site so. Yes you will get days like that
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,234
I don't expect City level net spending, and there has been loads of good work done by the club under FSG on and off the pitch.

But Liverpool Football Club is wealthy enough to have better back up forwards than Origi and Sturridge.

We should not be relying on three quality players for three forward positions with no back up.

One injury to one of them should not require a central midfielder to be playing at 9, because the back ups are too poor to start.

FSG should take advantage of Klopp being here, by enabling the addition of quality depth throughout the squad, not exploiting him being here and getting us close to trophies, but never actually winning them because he doesn't have the tools he needs.
Copy and paste job from the Klopp thread or simply half of your posts for the last few years?

We can't do everything at once. We were devastating in attack last year but vulnerable at the back. This year we've scored even more goals at the same time as nearly halving the goals conceded so now we've got the best defence in the league when last year it ranked fourth.

Do you honestly believe that Sturridge and Origi will still be our first choice back up for the front three next year?!

I'm confident that we're going to have the best squad and first XI in my lifetime next year.
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts.
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
23,656

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,969
Pretty shocking, I missed that entirely. We got lucky with that one in terms of timing. What happened to the roughly 25k employees they had in the UK? All without a job?
At least some Carillion businesses were simply sold off whole to meet obligations, leaving most of the workforce employed. I don't know the numbers for the UK, but the Canadian operations were financially viable - insolvency protection was a result of the collapse of the parent. The vast majority of the employees remained in their jobs
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,234
You stated as fact that the family were majority share-holders for nearly 50 years, so, present the evidence supporting your claim.
Well, I've seen it referenced before but I note that the Reuters article that is available from David Moores' wikipedia page also makes the claim:


"— The club’s ownership changed hands and was owned for more than 50 years by the Moores family, who made their fortune from the locally based Littlewoods pools and shopping empire."

You've said that is incorrect but the only evidence you've produced is to show that David Moores, on his own, did not hold a majority stake in Liverpool before 1994. But that doesn't refute the assertion that the Moores family owned a majority stake particularly as you've only accounted for the ownership of 4,115 shares out of 12,000 of the issued shares prior to 1994.

Reuters seem to believe that of the 12,000 issued shares more than 6,000 were in the control of the Moores family. David had 3,111 so of the 7,885 shares unaccounted for do you know that at least 2,890 were not in the control of the Moores family or do you just not have any evidence either way?

[Moved the discussion to the Owners thread]
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,234
Thats easy as factual. The history of ownership is as of 1930 there were 12,000 Liverpool shares. In the absence of dividends shares provided little benefit besides season tickets/priority access to cup games etc.

The major shareholder at the time was a man called John Smith he had 1001 shares.

Over time ownership passed hands and Thomas "Valintine" Willams was the majority shareholder. He was the majority shareholder in the 60s, and resisted John Moores approaches. Very few of the 12000 shares typically exchanged hands each year (less than 20) so they were hard to come by.

Upon Williams death in the 70s Moores had controlling stakes. As of the shareholders meeting in August 1979 the shareholding breakdown was:

Sir John Moores 1213
John Moores Jnr 1174
Martindale ltd 430
Peter Moores 300
Eric Sawyer 279
+ 10 other people with 100+ shares.

So the Moores family were the largest shareholders, owning approximately 20% of the club. This is as opposed to Everton where of the same date of the 2500 shares John Moores owned 751. The next biggest share holder was John Lindop with 92 and half a dozen people with approx 30 shares.

Over the following years Liverpool issued more shares, and as of 1991 David Moores owned 17,850 shares or 51% of the club.

I could dig out the exact dates but that would take me time.
For the Moores family to have a controlling stake from the 70s they'd need control over more than 50% of the issued shares but you later say that the family only owned approximately 20%. Of the five shareholders you mention their aggregate shareholding is about 3,400 out of 12,000. I've seen reference to the Moores family shareholding being in the hands of up to 34 individuals. If the other 29 not referenced owned an average of 100 shares each then that would give the Moores family a majority shareholding of around 6,300 shares out of the 12,000.

Re David Moores increased shareholding that came about following the EGM on 29 June 1994 that increase the authorised share capital from 15,000 to 32,500.
 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,383
For the Moores family to have a controlling stake from the 70s they'd need control over more than 50% of the issued shares but you later say that the family only owned approximately 20%. Of the five shareholders you mention their aggregate shareholding is about 3,400 out of 12,000. I've seen reference to the Moores family shareholding being in the hands of up to 34 individuals. If the other 29 not referenced owned an average of 100 shares each then that would give the Moores family a majority shareholding of around 6,300 shares out of the 12,000.

Re David Moores increased shareholding that came about following the EGM on 29 June 1994 that increase the authorised share capital from 15,000 to 32,500.
Sloppy language on my side. What I meant was by owning 20% they were the biggest individual shareholders by a significant number. Especially as the vast majority of shares were individual ownership. Not a majority but a controlling shareholder. This afforded considerable power.

I can provide a list of shareholder with >30 shares tommorow. There are not many. It was published in the echo.

Edit
Moores became majority shareholder in 1991 and then issued shares in 1994 increasing his stake to 58% before then selling 7% to granada
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,430
Well, I've seen it referenced before but I note that the Reuters article that is available from David Moores' wikipedia page also makes the claim:


"— The club’s ownership changed hands and was owned for more than 50 years by the Moores family, who made their fortune from the locally based Littlewoods pools and shopping empire."

You've said that is incorrect but the only evidence you've produced is to show that David Moores, on his own, did not hold a majority stake in Liverpool before 1994. But that doesn't refute the assertion that the Moores family owned a majority stake particularly as you've only accounted for the ownership of 4,115 shares out of 12,000 of the issued shares prior to 1994.

Reuters seem to believe that of the 12,000 issued shares more than 6,000 were in the control of the Moores family. David had 3,111 so of the 7,885 shares unaccounted for do you know that at least 2,890 were not in the control of the Moores family or do you just not have any evidence either way?

[Moved the discussion to the Owners thread]
I contacted Reuters regarding how they discovered their information about the Moores family. Here is their response:

In other words, "We can't remember".
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,234
I contacted Reuters regarding how they discovered their information about the Moores family. Here is their response:

In other words, "We can't remember".
They asked the same question of you that I did. You're asserting that it's incorrect but I'm still yet to know on what basis you say it is.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,234
Sloppy language on my side. What I meant was by owning 20% they were the biggest individual shareholders by a significant number. Especially as the vast majority of shares were individual ownership. Not a majority but a controlling shareholder. This afforded considerable power.

I can provide a list of shareholder with >30 shares tommorow. There are not many. It was published in the echo.

Edit
Moores became majority shareholder in 1991 and then issued shares in 1994 increasing his stake to 58% before then selling 7% to granada
Before David Moores acquired the majority of the 17500 increase in share capital in 1994 he owned just over 3,000 out of the existing 12,000 issued shares so didn't individually hold the majority shareholding until 1994.

It might be difficult to get a definitive answer to whether the Moores family, collectively, held the majority shareholding because we may struggle to identify which individuals that includes. Apparently there were up to 34 members of the family who held an interest in Littlewoods, for example.
 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,383
You might be right and he might only have had a controlling share. But in the letter Moores wrote post hicks and gillet he wrote:

"To give a proper context to the situation we find ourselves in now, it’s important to trace things back to their roots. I became the majority shareholder of LFC in 1991, and underwrote a new share issue in 1994. Pre Euro 96, football was incredibly unfashionable. There was nobody else on the scene in Liverpool who was even remotely interested in taking on the financial challenge of LFC. I became involved for one reason – for the love of the club. But in the wake of Euro 96 with the influx of more and more overseas superstars on superstar wages, I was aware the game was changing beyond all recognition and deeply worried, too, about my ability to continue underwriting the financial side."

 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,383
It might be difficult to get a definitive answer to whether the Moores family, collectively, held the majority shareholding because we may struggle to identify which individuals that includes. Apparently there were up to 34 members of the family who held an interest in Littlewoods, for example.
Yeah that is true. Very difficult to know who was family or related
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,234
You might be right and he might only have had a controlling share. But in the letter Moores wrote post hicks and gillet he wrote:

"To give a proper context to the situation we find ourselves in now, it’s important to trace things back to their roots. I became the majority shareholder of LFC in 1991, and underwrote a new share issue in 1994. Pre Euro 96, football was incredibly unfashionable. There was nobody else on the scene in Liverpool who was even remotely interested in taking on the financial challenge of LFC. I became involved for one reason – for the love of the club. But in the wake of Euro 96 with the influx of more and more overseas superstars on superstar wages, I was aware the game was changing beyond all recognition and deeply worried, too, about my ability to continue underwriting the financial side."

I think this comes back to the issue of control and if he acquired majority control (ie held or controlled more than 50% of the issued shares) before he held them in his own name that does make it likely that those shares were held by the wider Moores family as at 1991 at least.
 

lfc.8

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
2,479

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,969
Totally crap way to give out money
The Spanish clubs that were in the ascendancy when they wrote those rules are going to be hoisted on their own petard. It was even then transparently a way to give them advantage as against the previous system, which gave more weight to the size of the audience/money brought in. But with the surge of English clubs, and a rebuilding era seemingly upon both of the Spanish giants, another year under the system is going to make it obvious how the design favours incumbents. Real and Barca won't be hit by the problem next year, but it won't take long.