The Owners

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,013
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
7,013
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
11,508
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
2,219
Can some explain Why is the uefa coefficient part of the income?


 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
22,762
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.
 

Bonus

TIA New Signing
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,030
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.
if the 2 Spanish giants (Barca + Real) loose money from EUFA,
will they look to increase their already unfair slice of La Liga Tv money?


Personally, I hope both clubs spend years in the doldrums,
its no more than they deserve after showing so much disrespect to other clubs over the years.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
22,762
if the 2 Spanish giants (Barca + Real) loose money from EUFA,
will they look to increase their already unfair slice of La Liga Tv money?


Personally, I hope both clubs spend years in the doldrums,
its no more than they deserve after showing so much disrespect to other clubs over the years.
I think they probably won't, because the change has been good for them - a smaller slice of a larger pie. La Liga is as a whole heading in a better direction than it was 5 years ago, on a model more like the PL. Even the Bundesliga has made a nod to that principle, just had the weakest execution of it.
 

Notasuperfan

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
65
I think it is time for J W Henry & Mike Gordon to organise a season-end retreat after the CL tie for a few days to help clear the disappointment in losing the title and give that pep talk and assurance that LFC will win a league title during their reign.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
11,508
Your comment, regarding the Moores shareholding in Liverpool, is incorrect.

John Moores never held a majority stake in Liverpool; he held 375 shares out of 12,000 allotted and issued shares.

When David Moores first became a director in 1990, he held 325 ordinary shares. Over the years his shareholding increased to 3,111 shares (including the 375 shares he held as a nominee of the estate of John Moores), but he did not acquire a majority holding in the club until after the 1994 rights issue, as evidenced by this extract from the 1994 accounts:

Still no answer from you as to why you say the claim, made by me and supported by Reuters, that the Moores family held the majority stake in the club for nearly 50 years is incorrect.

To date, the only evidence you've produced is the above. But that's simply a breakdown of the shares held by the directors and only accounts for 4,115 of the 12,000 issued shares. It doesn't refute the claim at all. You say that it wasn't until the increase share issue following the EGM on 29 June 1994 that David Moores acquired a majority shareholding but he's not the only member of the Moores family.

Having now obtained from Companies House the bulk shareholders list as at 15 September 1993 it is evident that even before David Moores became majority shareholder in his own right, the Moores family owned the majority stake in the club. There are apparently up to 34 members of the Moores family who had an interest in Littlewoods but without having to go beyond three they held the majority shareholding in Liverpool.

David Moores held 3,101 shares
Sir John Moores held 1,849 shares
John Moores Junior held 1,174 shares

That's a total of 6,124 out of 12,000 issued shares just between three of them [the family held more].

So, did you reply to Reuters question as to whether you had evidence that their claim (that I repeated and have heard before) was incorrect? What makes you say it is?
 

Livvy

Alles wird gut
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
5,598


Premier League teams were allotted the following prize money for their respective finishing positions in the table:


  1. Manchester City – £38.4million
  2. Liverpool – £36.5m
  3. Chelsea – £34.6m
  4. Tottenham – £32.6m
  5. Arsenal – £30.7m
  6. Manchester United – £28.8m
  7. Wolves – £26.9m
  8. Everton – £25m
  9. Leicester – £23.1m
  10. West Ham – £21.1m
  11. Watford – £19.2m
  12. Crystal Palace – £17.3m
  13. Newcastle – £15.4m
  14. Bournemouth – £13.4m
  15. Burnley – £11.5m
  16. Southampton – £9.6m
  17. Brighton – £7.7m
  18. Cardiff – £5.8m
  19. Fulham – £3.8m
  20. Huddersfield – £1.9m
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,939
Still no answer from you as to why you say the claim, made by me and supported by Reuters, that the Moores family held the majority stake in the club for nearly 50 years is incorrect.

To date, the only evidence you've produced is the above. But that's simply a breakdown of the shares held by the directors and only accounts for 4,115 of the 12,000 issued shares. It doesn't refute the claim at all. You say that it wasn't until the increase share issue following the EGM on 29 June 1994 that David Moores acquired a majority shareholding but he's not the only member of the Moores family.

Having now obtained from Companies House the bulk shareholders list as at 15 September 1993 it is evident that even before David Moores became majority shareholder in his own right, the Moores family owned the majority stake in the club. There are apparently up to 34 members of the Moores family who had an interest in Littlewoods but without having to go beyond three they held the majority shareholding in Liverpool.

David Moores held 3,101 shares
Sir John Moores held 1,849 shares
John Moores Junior held 1,174 shares

That's a total of 6,124 out of 12,000 issued shares just between three of them [the family held more].

So, did you reply to Reuters question as to whether you had evidence that their claim (that I repeated and have heard before) was incorrect? What makes you say it is?
I have contacted Reuters, advising them of the distribution of shares reported in the 1980 edition of the Echo. Here is their reply:



As you can see, they now suspect their report is erroneous and suggest that I should ignore it.

Do you have any other evidence supporting your claim that the Moores family owned the club for 50 years.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
11,508
I have contacted Reuters, advising them of the distribution of shares reported in the 1980 edition of the Echo. Here is their reply:



As you can see, they now suspect their report is erroneous and suggest that I should ignore it.

Do you have any other evidence supporting your claim that the Moores family owned the club for 50 years.
The shareholding set out by the Echo leaves over 4,000 issued shares unaccounted for.

I will have to see if I can find where I first saw the claim that the Moores family had owned Liverpool for nearly 50 years. Given the age of the Reuters article it may well have been there.

The family have certainly owned it for a considerable period of time despite your provably false assertion that
There is no evidence of the Moores family ever, either individually or collectively, holding a majority stake in Liverpool, not until David Moores acquired a majority stake in 1994, 13 years before he sold the club to the cowboys.
Whether I can substantiate the claim I repeated that the Moores family owned Liverpool for nearly 50 years I don't know. By the same measure neither may it be refuted by you given the absence of publicly available company records showing the full list of shareholders prior to 1986.

Your statement that there was "no evidence of the Moores family ever, either individually or collectively, holding a majority stake in Liverpool, not until David Moores acquired a majority stake in 1994" was provably false.

Did the family hold the majority shareholding back to the 60s, 70s, 80s? I'm not sure that evidence is easy to come by. I'm happy to check the position in 86 (the first available records at Companies House) although I accept that would only get us around halfway there.

Is it important for you to know?