alera said:Thing is the actual backers have not been confirmed. There are a number of funds in the region the biggest being Chinas and Singapore.
But its s very very unlikely to be the big funds. The investments they normally make - infrastructure etc are solid long term prospects. Property. Things like the national lottery.
Buying a football club is a big gamble no one has ever really made serious money from it, massively speculative. Those funds are not in it for small speculative profit. They are in it to store the nations wealth in stable, sensible solid assets - the exact opposite to a football club.
The people that bought city dont seem to care about making money but there is more in the area and the overall pacakge that makes it more likely than Liverpool (Already have the stadium - 200 acres to redevelope etc)
The way its being conducted suggests its more along the lines of the way a smaller hedge fund or venture capatalists work. Trying to buy a distressed asset on the cheap (in a very aggresive manner in this case) stabalise the situation and then sell in the short to medium term for a big profit. The way its being conducted there is nothing to suggest there will be massive amounts of money for transfers and for the stadium redevelopement and even if there is its very unlikley to be on the same terms as Chelsea and city - gratis free no debt involved. It would more along the debt profile of utd but spread over a much longer period.
We will see, part of me even as a city fan wants to see those yanks get fucked on this as there is no doubt they haver run Liverpool into the ground, would be a bit annoying to see them making a big profit for taking the piss so much.
Also the amount it will wind up the rags will be epic - they would be the only major UK club in the top 6 in a fucked up financial siutation.
Prestwich_Blue said:Anyway who cares? The more clubs that have money, the better for the game and we're then on a more level playing field at the top of the league.
Instead of 3 or 4 clubs dominating, we could have 7 or 8 battling it out and it will come down to who has the best management, like it used to be pre-Sky days.
And dare we say Hillsborough - but I won´t go there.....1_barry_conlon said:dick slexia said:The scousers have always prided themselves over how socially concious they are ( and rightfully so I think) I just wonder how they will now square the fact that they might be owned or funded by a totalitarian government with an awful human rights record.
Just like the socially conscious way they tried to absolve theirselves of any blame for Heysel?
projectriver said:Prestwich_Blue said:Anyway who cares? The more clubs that have money, the better for the game and we're then on a more level playing field at the top of the league.
Instead of 3 or 4 clubs dominating, we could have 7 or 8 battling it out and it will come down to who has the best management, like it used to be pre-Sky days.
I care. No interest in other teams being able to compete with us. We have all waited decades for this!
Anyway why the nostalga for pre-Premier League days. In the 17 seasons from 1975, Liverpool won it 10 times, Everton and Arsenal twice and Villa, Leeds and Forest once each. Hardly a wide spread of success. Liverpool's utter domination was as unhealthy as anything we have seen since the Premier League.
projectriver said:Prestwich_Blue said:Anyway who cares? The more clubs that have money, the better for the game and we're then on a more level playing field at the top of the league.
Instead of 3 or 4 clubs dominating, we could have 7 or 8 battling it out and it will come down to who has the best management, like it used to be pre-Sky days.
I care. No interest in other teams being able to compete with us. We have all waited decades for this!
Anyway why the nostalga for pre-Premier League days. In the 17 seasons from 1975, Liverpool won it 10 times, Everton and Arsenal twice and Villa, Leeds and Forest once each. Hardly a wide spread of success. Liverpool's utter domination was as unhealthy as anything we have seen since the Premier League.
mike channon´s windmill said:And dare we say Hillsborough - but I won´t go there.....1_barry_conlon said:Just like the socially conscious way they tried to absolve theirselves of any blame for Heysel?
BillyShears said:projectriver said:I care. No interest in other teams being able to compete with us. We have all waited decades for this!
Anyway why the nostalga for pre-Premier League days. In the 17 seasons from 1975, Liverpool won it 10 times, Everton and Arsenal twice and Villa, Leeds and Forest once each. Hardly a wide spread of success. Liverpool's utter domination was as unhealthy as anything we have seen since the Premier League.
I hear what you're saying PR - but within the context of the premier league as it currently stands - i sort of agree with PB. I'd rather have more competitive teams than less.
Taking it one step further - I think there'd be much more satisfaction in winning a very competitive league than winning a league in which there's only ever two teams in the running...