The Owners

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,410
I read a piece by James Pearce over the weekend that suggested that Liverpool felt backed into a corned in releasing their initial statement because private discussions they had with another club (maybe multiple clubs) were leaked so they felt they had to jump out to get ahead of the story without having had the chance to do the ground work to prepare people for it. That seems like a big revelation, yet was stated almost as an aside to the article.

That is second weird thing I have read/heard about this in a few days.
What was the other?

The one off the French radio?
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,404
Tottenham reverse their decision too.

Tottenham must have been cursing us :LOL:

Whilst the other clubs who were also going to dip into the government scheme before they saw the reaction to our initial decision and changed their minds must have been smirking like a bunch of cunts.
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
15,625
Tottenham must have been cursing us :LOL:

Whilst the other clubs who were also going to dip into the government scheme before they saw the reaction to our initial decision and changed their minds must have been smirking like a bunch of cunts.
I think that is what was implied in the commented I referenced above from the James Pearce piece. It seems several clubs got together to discuss their options, presumably thinking that solidarity would help fight negative criticism, and one of the other clubs threw liverpool's name out there as a trial balloon.
 

Red over the water

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,079
On wages, the Spurs percentage is lower, but they have a problem with that, because their better players will wind down their deals or agitate to move if they aren’t being paid the going rate. We are seeing that somewhat, but you get the sense that they are relaxing their tight wage structure a little.

Levy apparently said he would sell Kane for £200M to Man Utd To ease their money worries. I bet he would!

For the life of me I don’t see it with Harry Kane. No great pace. No trick to speak of. Not especially strong. Not brilliant in the air. But he can shoot and score goals, so I suppose that’s it. I have no idea how such a modest player keeps scoring. One of life’s great mysteries.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,404
I think that is what was implied in the commented I referenced above from the James Pearce piece. It seems several clubs got together to discuss their options, presumably thinking that solidarity would help fight negative criticism, and one of the other clubs threw liverpool's name out there as a trial balloon.
Yeah, I had also read that article where that was referred to almost as an aside (although I thought it was Simon Hughes). I'm not sure how the Liverpool news was first leaked though? Anyone know what supposedly 'forced' Liverpool to come out and confirm they were furloughing staff before they wanted to?
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,458
That was my thinking as well - the stadium is paid for, their wage to turnover is probably on the low end, and they are in some real difficulty. Just looking at summaries from a year ago, there are many clubs at 70%+, perhaps a third of the league. Spurs actually had the lowest (39%), but have a unique problem of their own.
In some respects, looking at a club's wage bill as a percentage of its turnover, is, at the moment, an irrelevance, given that there currently is no turnover.

It might be more informative therefore to look at how much cover each of the top 6 club's cash at bank and in hand (as at June 2019) provides for its employment costs.
Turnover​
Employement Costs​
Percentage of T/O​
Cash at Bank &
in Hand​
Equivalent Months​
Millions​
Millions​
Millions​
Liverpool
£533.022​
£309.917​
58.14%​
£37.512​
1.5​
City
£631.373​
£400.535​
63.44%​
£65.402​
2.0​
Chelsea
£446.741​
£285.550​
63.92%​
£35.580​
1.5​
Man Utd
£601.935​
£324.004​
53.83%​
£290.087​
10.7​
Tottenham
£460.695​
£178.602​
38.77%​
£123.484​
8.3​
Arsenal
£362.877​
£230.463​
63.51%​
£107.074​
5.6​

Obviously the cash figure is ten months out of date, but unless there has been a dramatic change in fortunes, we might have more reason to be concerned than the arse.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,404
In some respects, looking at a club's wage bill as a percentage of its turnover, is, at the moment, an irrelevance, given that there currently is no turnover.

It might be more informative therefore to look at how much cover each of the top 6 club's cash at bank and in hand (as at June 2019) provides for its employment costs.
Turnover​
Employement Costs​
Percentage of T/O​
Cash at Bank &
in Hand​
Equivalent Months​
Millions​
Millions​
Millions​
Liverpool
£533.022​
£309.917​
58.14%​
£37.512​
1.5​
City
£631.373​
£400.535​
63.44%​
£65.402​
2.0​
Chelsea
£446.741​
£285.550​
63.92%​
£35.580​
1.5​
Man Utd
£601.935​
£324.004​
53.83%​
£290.087​
10.7​
Tottenham
£460.695​
£178.602​
38.77%​
£123.484​
8.3​
Arsenal
£362.877​
£230.463​
63.51%​
£107.074​
5.6​

Obviously the cash figure is ten months out of date, but unless there has been a dramatic change in fortunes, we might have more reason to be concerned than the arse.
City and United revenue figures don't look right to me?
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,235

I wonder how things would have turned out if she was successful in purchasing us back then?
With Dubai money or Saudi money and the right manager anything can happen. If this happens for Newcastle they will be another major player in the league in the next few years.
You might lose your soul though. That can happen if you dance with the wrong partner.
Look at City.
 

nikz200

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
1,091
With Dubai money or Saudi money and the right manager anything can happen. If this happens for Newcastle they will be another major player in the league in the next few years.
You might lose your soul though. That can happen if you dance with the wrong partner.
Look at City.

With all the recent backlash about the furloughs and people getting up in arms about morals, i wonder if our fan base would even allow that type of ownership to take over the club? It seems everyone was angry at the owners for doing this , but i can imagine if we were owned by the Arabs they would either
a) Just pour money through some means and just proceed as normal
b) instill the furloughs and if anyone didn't like it, well tough

Im just saying, would we as a fan base be willing to put aside the background of these type of potential owners and just go in as usual?

Newcastle ownership issues is different i know, Mike Ashley is quite frankly a greedy soul sucking entity. But i mean, lets just say you can still voice your opinion , go down to the bar in Newcastle and buy a pint and not have to worry about Mike Ashley sending out a hit squad to terminate you for voicing dissent on the regular regarding not buying players or keeping a manager they don't want.

Again on the flip side of this, generally arab ownership is known for leaving football decisions to football people and provide money for transfers and infrastructure improvements, and helping marketing and things like that. (Man City, Sheffield Utd, PSG) So maybe it won't be like that, and the Newcastle fans seem overjoyed. If our fan base was faced with FSG selling to a ownership that was morally suspect, would we be ok with it?
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,235

With all the recent backlash about the furloughs and people getting up in arms about morals, i wonder if our fan base would even allow that type of ownership to take over the club? It seems everyone was angry at the owners for doing this , but i can imagine if we were owned by the Arabs they would either
a) Just pour money through some means and just proceed as normal
b) instill the furloughs and if anyone didn't like it, well tough

Im just saying, would we as a fan base be willing to put aside the background of these type of potential owners and just go in as usual?

Newcastle ownership issues is different i know, Mike Ashley is quite frankly a greedy soul sucking entity. But i mean, lets just say you can still voice your opinion , go down to the bar in Newcastle and buy a pint and not have to worry about Mike Ashley sending out a hit squad to terminate you for voicing dissent on the regular regarding not buying players or keeping a manager they don't want.

Again on the flip side of this, generally arab ownership is known for leaving football decisions to football people and provide money for transfers and infrastructure improvements, and helping marketing and things like that. (Man City, Sheffield Utd, PSG) So maybe it won't be like that, and the Newcastle fans seem overjoyed. If our fan base was faced with FSG selling to a ownership that was morally suspect, would we be ok with it?
We wouldn't be generally I think.
Would it matter what we thought? If FSG decide to sell the club they may have our best future interests in mind. But if the FA due dilligence allows "dirty" money to buy then would the club be in a position to reject the highest bid?

I think we have a higher moral compass than most supporters of clubs, borne from history and perhaps contemporary success. But lets say we were back in the doldrums of Hicks/Gillette/Hodgson/Poulsen would we take an owner who would bring in Mbappe/Klopp/VVD etc? Morals vs Success??
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
15,625
Look at the reactions to the each of the DIC overtures. Each time the fan base was split (maybe not evenly, but there was enough support on either side of the debate for there to appear to be have been 2 sides). Even when DIC came back and tried to release us from Hicks and Gillette there was a significant part of the fan base who would not accept such ownership.