• This website uses cookies. More information.
  • The This Is Anfield Forums community is moving to a new home. Click here for more information on the transition.

The Owners

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
I agree, but it is their representative body, and is charged with negotiating for them.

The idea that pay cuts will save jobs is age old and a tactical weapon in times of austerity. It was successfully utilised by Irish Government to shore up the bank bail out. As private sector workers lost jobs a campaign to make public service workers the pariahs was mounted, sufficing to ensure that no support was available for industrial action when public service pay was slashed.....

Anyway, cutting wages isnt the be all and end all here. Revenue loss from income tax is surely a consideration fir the government?? And why are the Government involving themselves in the running of clubs all of a sudden? Its not like there is assistance when clubs hit hard times.

The propaganda war is levied against highly paid players? What about Lewis Hamilton, Rory McIlroy or Anthony Joshua?? All high earners and no word about taking income from them? Why was there no furore over Formula One furloughing staff? Multi billion dollar industry......

There are many facets to seeking pay cuts from highly paid people, and there is Tory history concerning trade unions, which us one great reason to baulk at the proposal.

Football can and should sort its own issues, clubs can discuss contracts etc without interference from people who know fuck all about the sport. Whether Taylor and the PFA are good or bad at their job is really a side issue in all of this.
Some fair points but we can look at the position of the PFA in isolation to any political aspects. The current situation is extrinsic to that.

If the PFA stand firm by the contractual rights of their players then they risk the very survival of the thing that sustains them. How many parasites kill the host? The PFA (players) need to be very careful that they don't start drawing comparisons to COVID-19 itself.

Regardless of strict interpretations of their contractual rights steps will be taken to change the legal landscape to adjust to any attempt by the players that could cause damage to the sport. If the players do not voluntarily agree to temporary measures to support the continued existence of the football 'industry' then they'll find the environment is changed permanently around them regardless. Perhaps that will benefit the sport in the long run, but it wouldn't be thanks to the players.
 

FGred

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
3,958
I don't underestimate the complexity of running a club like us for a second, particularly at a time like this, but the amounts involved are piffling and it was patently the wrong decision, as evidenced by the fact that the club has now reversed it. That really should be the end of the matter but I know there's not much else to discuss right now. Roll on some actual football to talk about.
I should have posted separately as I never intended to imply that you underestimated the complexity of running a club by replying to your post I just added to what you wrote.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,417
Some fair points but we can look at the position of the PFA in isolation to any political aspects. The current situation is extrinsic to that.

If the PFA stand firm by the contractual rights of their players then they risk the very survival of the thing that sustains them. How many parasites kill the host? The PFA (players) need to be very careful that they don't start drawing comparisons to COVID-19 itself.

Regardless of strict interpretations of their contractual rights steps will be taken to change the legal landscape to adjust to any attempt by the players that could cause damage to the sport. If the players do not voluntarily agree to temporary measures to support the continued existence of the football 'industry' then they'll find the environment is changed permanently around them regardless. Perhaps that will benefit the sport in the long run, but it wouldn't be thanks to the players.
There is probably more support amongst the players than we imagine. As regards to damage to the sport, well essentially the players are the sport. Everything else is dependent upon their 90 minute contributions individually and collectively.
I doubt that you consider players as parasites to the sport but I understand the analogy. I suppose fundamentally this is an issue in the game, and government commentary on how the sport manages itself is largely unneeded
 

nikz200

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
1,249
Apparently now after this Athletico Madrid thing , there have been some of our fans who are asking how come our ownership isn't donating 10 million pounds to the local hospital the same way Stoke ownership is currently doing........ urghhhhh
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,417
Apparently now after this Athletico Madrid thing , there have been some of our fans who are asking how come our ownership isn't donating 10 million pounds to the local hospital the same way Stoke ownership is currently doing........ urghhhhh
Seriously?
Fuck them.
 

Not Worthy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,763
Dont need to know them to understand how "worth" works. A man who owns a house of 150k out right (no mortgage) and a 9k car with 1k in the bank is "worth" 160k. Another man who lives in a rented property and who gets the bus but just won 100k on the lottery is only "worth" 100k. One man is worth 50% more than the other. One has access to 1k the one worth less has access to 100k. FSG are rich because they own a lot of business enterprises that are worth a lot of money (pre coronavirus). That does not mean they have cash to resolve problems or keep bills getting paid when there is no income. We are run smartly but we can't survive without income. Like the majority of clubs the scenario were this season is voided and next season delayed (worst case scenario) would almost certainly kill our club and the "worth" of FSG would significantly divebomb.
Whilst there may a threat to the current business model(s) for football, the clubs and the players unions, there most defintely is not an existential threat to globally popular sports or specifically football: some clubs may falter, yes. However, there will be a post-COVID appetite for matches, perhaps even moreso. Therefore, there is a business and it will still be generating Billions. If you can agree with that assumption, then it follows that there will be clubs with players, fans, matchday revenue, TV contracts, sponsors etc...

In order for the current circumstances to "......almost certainly kill our club", you would have to assume that LFC is NOT an attractive proposition to investors prepared to take a position on our ability to compete for and exploit those future Billions. We currently have some of those investors as parent/owners and they mostly certainly DO have access to the cash to fund operating expenses long enough to be part of the new world order, IF they believe the potential returns and even enhanced power propects are there.

Additionally, there will be others out there, specifically because we are currently one of the biggest draws in the worlds most popular sport. Money hasn't disappeared; it is sitting and waiting for investment opportunities to arise. I would suggest that in a worst case scenario that LFC would be one of those and I would almost certainly believe at a price above what FSG paid. I don't believe it helpful to be catasrophising, predicting Armegeddon scenarios when you are not armed with anything close to the required information to make that judgement.

There is a lot of heat in many of the posts and arguments at the moment. I think a calmer approach would help. There will be a football business and there will be an LFC team competing.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,632
Whilst there may a threat to the current business model(s) for football, the clubs and the players unions, there most defintely is not an existential threat to globally popular sports or specifically football: some clubs may falter, yes. However, there will be a post-COVID appetite for matches, perhaps even moreso. Therefore, there is a business and it will still be generating Billions. If you can agree with that assumption, then it follows that there will be clubs with players, fans, matchday revenue, TV contracts, sponsors etc...

In order for the current circumstances to "......almost certainly kill our club", you would have to assume that LFC is NOT an attractive proposition to investors prepared to take a position on our ability to compete for and exploit those future Billions. We currently have some of those investors as parent/owners and they mostly certainly DO have access to the cash to fund operating expenses long enough to be part of the new world order, IF they believe the potential returns and even enhanced power propects are there.

Additionally, there will be others out there, specifically because we are currently one of the biggest draws in the worlds most popular sport. Money hasn't disappeared; it is sitting and waiting for investment opportunities to arise. I would suggest that in a worst case scenario that LFC would be one of those and I would almost certainly believe at a price above what FSG paid. I don't believe it helpful to be catasrophising, predicting Armegeddon scenarios when you are not armed with anything close to the required information to make that judgement.

There is a lot of heat in many of the posts and arguments at the moment. I think a calmer approach would help. There will be a football business and there will be an LFC team competing.
While much of that is true, a big part of the EPL's success has been the competitive landscape. LFC may be an attractive proposition, but the next tier of clubs is much less so. This period could fundamentally alter the nature of the league, and bring an end to an era. Unless players reach some sort of accord soon, it seems very likely that one or more clubs will collapse by May. You may exactly that point with the 'new world order' comment, the league won't look the same after that.
 

Mascot88

Bootroom Member
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
24,404
[
While much of that is true, a big part of the EPL's success has been the competitive landscape. LFC may be an attractive proposition, but the next tier of clubs is much less so. This period could fundamentally alter the nature of the league, and bring an end to an era. Unless players reach some sort of accord soon, it seems very likely that one or more clubs will collapse by May. You may exactly that point with the 'new world order' comment, the league won't look the same after that.
Spurs look very vulnerable, and might have to look to even riskier loans to cover the payments on the ones they have.
 

Not Worthy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,763
While much of that is true, a big part of the EPL's success has been the competitive landscape. LFC may be an attractive proposition, but the next tier of clubs is much less so. This period could fundamentally alter the nature of the league, and bring an end to an era. Unless players reach some sort of accord soon, it seems very likely that one or more clubs will collapse by May. You may exactly that point with the 'new world order' comment, the league won't look the same after that.
I agree that it may not be the same but it will be substantially similar and still attractive as a business opportunity.

However, I was responding more specifically to the point ARD made about our club and its continued existence.

Change is inevitable, I suspect. However, with our level of knowledge , the speed of events etc... wild predictions are best saved for more definitive actions to have been made by governing bodies and, yes, players organisations.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,632
[


Spurs look very vulnerable, and might have to look to even riskier loans to cover the payments on the ones they have.
I think that could be incredibly difficult, because they already had to push the boat out to get that refinancing done. They were supposedly pushint the boundaries of their existing banking obligations. They might be able to find capital willing to underwrite those riskier loans, but their own bank would have to allow it.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
FFP will certainly have to be suspended if Owners are going to be expected to put in capital to cover otherwise unaffordable wages.

I can imagine how that will play in the Citeh boardroom.

"Oh, ohh...what's that you say? You want us owners to pump money in to cover club costs that it otherwise has no hope of sustaining? Huh. So...now you're ok with it, eh? Suddenly our petrodollars don't look so bad, eh? Where's your [whiney voice] "but you artificially inflated the amount of your sponsorships and said some mean things in emails" [/whiney voice] now, eh?"

Separately, FIFA are going to have to look at emergency amendments to their regulations from transfer windows, player contracts, just cause etc. May even be forced into a review of TPI.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
2,027
I think that could be incredibly difficult, because they already had to push the boat out to get that refinancing done. They were supposedly pushint the boundaries of their existing banking obligations. They might be able to find capital willing to underwrite those riskier loans, but their own bank would have to allow it.
There is wild speculative talk on city chat rooms that the banks are threatening Spurs with foreclosure after Easter if the season is declared void and Spurs default on their debt payments. Presumably the bank would put the first team up for sale to recover a part of their debt, wipe out the owners equity and try to flog the remainder of the club to a rich Arab or Russian to cover what they can for the rest. This would be a truly seismic event for the premier league.
 

Mascot88

Bootroom Member
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
24,404
By the way, the Mail published an estimate of how much clubs stand to lose out on should this season be cancelled.


Liverpool would lose £102.6m. The figure includes broadcasting, matchday and commercial. It doesn’t include refunds to season ticket holders or to sponsors, so the figure would be higher than this.
 

cynicaloldgit

#MbappéonaBosman2022
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
6,688
By the way, the Mail published an estimate of how much clubs stand to lose out on should this season be cancelled.


Liverpool would lose £102.6m. The figure includes broadcasting, matchday and commercial. It doesn’t include refunds to season ticket holders or to sponsors, so the figure would be higher than this.
It’s the Mail. So it’s almost certainly wrong.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,632
There is wild speculative talk on city chat rooms that the banks are threatening Spurs with foreclosure after Easter if the season is declared void and Spurs default on their debt payments. Presumably the bank would put the first team up for sale to recover a part of their debt, wipe out the owners equity and try to flog the remainder of the club to a rich Arab or Russian to cover what they can for the rest. This would be a truly seismic event for the premier league.
The 'put the first team up for sale' seems unlikely, between the fact that their value would be badly impaired, and they would presumably need to keep paying them to do that. I would have thought it would be more likely they just release some using insolvency provisions (caveat: no clue if that is actually possible in the UK) and focus on the stadium as the real value of the club.
 

Mascot88

Bootroom Member
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
24,404
There is wild speculative talk on city chat rooms that the banks are threatening Spurs with foreclosure after Easter if the season is declared void and Spurs default on their debt payments. Presumably the bank would put the first team up for sale to recover a part of their debt, wipe out the owners equity and try to flog the remainder of the club to a rich Arab or Russian to cover what they can for the rest. This would be a truly seismic event for the premier league.
I think it’s worth remembering that there are Spurs fans who love their club just as much as we love ours. I’d be devastated for them.

The amount of money they borrowed to fund that stadium was already a terrible decision, but what a way to compound it.

On the subject of a fire sale, who’s even buying at the minute? How do you even go about buying a player this summer? No-one has any money? Isn’t it more likely player just have their contracts terminated to get the wages off the books.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
I agree that it may not be the same but it will be substantially similar and still attractive as a business opportunity.

However, I was responding more specifically to the point ARD made about our club and its continued existence.

Change is inevitable, I suspect. However, with our level of knowledge , the speed of events etc... wild predictions are best saved for more definitive actions to have been made by governing bodies and, yes, players organisations.
Worst case scenario this season is voided, that will reportedly cost us around 100 million, and the next season is delayed until a vaccine is available, that would take over a year with testing procedures. In that worst case yes our club would cease to exist. A new club may operate with the same name the way Rangers do but it would not be this Liverpool Football Club.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
2,027
I’ve just read Spurs have got £527m of bond debt but this is not in the accounts so must have happened since.
I think it’s worth remembering that there are Spurs fans who love their club just as much as we love ours. I’d be devastated for them.

The amount of money they borrowed to fund that stadium was already a terrible decision, but what a way to compound it.

On the subject of a fire sale, who’s even buying at the minute? How do you even go about buying a player this summer? No-one has any money? Isn’t it more likely player just have their contracts terminated to get the wages off the books.
In their latest accounts they have £1.3 billion of debt and only value the squad at £124m. They do have £123m of cash but the wage bill was £300m on turnover if £460m so it’s a pretty precarious position.
 

Not Worthy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,763
Worst case scenario this season is voided, that will reportedly cost us around 100 million, and the next season is delayed until a vaccine is available, that would take over a year with testing procedures. In that worst case yes our club would cease to exist. A new club may operate with the same name the way Rangers do but it would not be this Liverpool Football Club.
That is speculation, again. The £100m assumes that there will be change to the deal the EPL has with the broadcasters. None of us has insight to the conversations between EPL and Sky / BT about rearranging those deals: perhaps extending it in return for mitigating revenues now, new formats, scheduling times etc. The situation will be expolited. The broadcasters will continue to want to air football, but you would have to think that they will want something in return. The EPL will want as close to the status quo as is possible. Actually, so too the players, probably.

I have a different view on this to you, obviously. However, it is a view that is based upon the same paucity of insight and information to hand.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,632
I’ve just read Spurs have got £527m of bond debt but this is not in the accounts so must have happened since.

In their latest accounts they have £1.3 billion of debt and only value the squad at £124m. They do have £123m of cash but the wage bill was £300m on turnover if £460m so it’s a pretty precarious position.
That financing was done last Fall, so not in their now one year old accounts.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,632
Yeah I thought that. I don’t know if it’s interest only or there is a repayment profile.
Not a full profile - average maturity of 23 years, average coupon of 2.66%, but supposedly unusually front loaded within the overall bundle of bonds - some shorter and higher coupon ones in the mix, contrary to what one would normally expect.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
That is speculation, again. The £100m assumes that there will be change to the deal the EPL has with the broadcasters. None of us has insight to the conversations between EPL and Sky / BT about rearranging those deals: perhaps extending it in return for mitigating revenues now, new formats, scheduling times etc. The situation will be expolited. The broadcasters will continue to want to air football, but you would have to think that they will want something in return. The EPL will want as close to the status quo as is possible. Actually, so too the players, probably.

I have a different view on this to you, obviously. However, it is a view that is based upon the same paucity of insight and information to hand.
I was only ever stating worst case scenario. If they can get the games played behind closed doors within next couple of months and it is decided that the next season can start within reasonable time frame then not only would we be ok but I think we would be one of the strongest sides around financially.
 

Not Worthy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,763
I was only ever stating worst case scenario. If they can get the games played behind closed doors within next couple of months and it is decided that the next season can start within reasonable time frame then not only would we be ok but I think we would be one of the strongest sides around financially.
Yes, I think we may well be.

I'm grateful that these circumstances didn't come about 10 years back.
 

Obanite

Full time coo
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
3,574
Honestly quite embarrassed by some of the posts on here, desperate to protect billionaires (not the majority of you I should add). They backed down because of the collective efforts of the supporters of Liverpool Football Club. We are not bootlickers - it's one of the things that makes me proudest to support this club. Outside of this forum, people are overwhelmingly in agreement on this, particularly friends and family in the city.

Yes, FSG run Liverpool better than most football owners, but that doesn't mean football as a business hasn't become unregulated, hypercapitalistic and unbearably corrupt. It's not been the working man's game for a long time. Times like these are important for putting a line in the sand. Fans have done that and can hold their heads high.

Now let's get staff paid, follow guidance and get this title won the second we're permitted :cool:
 

sandsoftime

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
27
…. in this frenzy amongst so called biased experts / pundits / gobs on legs for want of a better phrase... in their eagerness or maybe even stupidity… to force their opinions upon us, when calling for this season to be cancelled as in null and void... have they even given any thought to actually how long this pandemic can have a devastating impact... for all we know.. the season could begin again at exactly the same juncture as it was cancelled this year..!! Continue where we left off so to speak.
Whatever the opinion of FSG regarding their decision to furlough... should we not be grateful for having such astute minds running our club at the moment so that we at least still have one to support at the end of this unprecedented situation....
Stay safe people... YNWA