Liverpool Takeover (Merged)

[Matty]

Re: Liverpool Red Sox

Not Baseball at all, Baseball is more like football(the top team has a payroll of aroud 200m a year and the bottom team about 20m).

They have revebue sharing in Baseball though, the Yankees for example wille arn a hell of a lot more than a "small market" team like the Milwaukee Brewers but they have to share some of their profits. Plus they have the draft system in the US which means top prospects get picked up by the worst teams, that's why pitching phenomenon Strasburg ended up at the terminally awful Washington Nationals.

The revenue sharing, the salary cap, and the draft system means it's far easier to win the World Series than to win the Premiership title. Lets look at the last 18 seasons (i.e. since the Premiership began), we've had 4 different winners:-

United 11
Arsenal 3
Chelsea 3
Blackburn 1

The look at the last 18 World Series winners (covers slightly more than 18 years due to this season not yet being finished and 1994 not having a World Series due to a strike), you've got 11 different winners:-

Minnesota Twins 1
Toronto Blue Jays 2
Atlanta Braves 1
New York Yankees 5
Florida Marlins 2
Arizona Diamondbacks 1
Anaheim Angels 1
Boston Red Sox 2
Chicago White Sox 1
St Louis Cardinals 1
Philadelphia Phillies 1

For the Premier League to have a further 7 different winners will take decades, and may never actually happen if the current financial constraints persist.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Liverpool Takeover Imminent?

The argument seems to be around the financial viability of the football club. Portsmouth weren't viable whereas Liverpool currently are.

But if the sale doesn't go through in the next ten days they will default.
How can they then be viable?

Who do the directors of Lpool have a responsibility to first and foremost, the club or the shareholders?

The shareholders. That's their over-riding duty of care.

PMSL at Big Nose saying they don't want to be like Chelsea or City. That certainly won't be a problem. They'll be wishing they were like Stoke & Blackpool soon

 

[Bluemoonbaldboy]

Re: Liverpool Red Sox

They sacked the Red Sox coach a week after taking over. Probably not so good owners for Woy.

Woy must have known he was a stop gap, no-one wanted the job as no-one knew who the owners would be or how much they would have to spend. Liverpool were a club in turmoil, and on a downward spiral, no manager with any real aspirations was going to touch them. If the new owners do indeed clear the debts,m and give them (limited) transfer funds then the job suddenly becomes more attractive.

I think Woy will be around until January but not much longer, although if they continue to be as shit as they are currently that may change.

If any takeover does go through I think it will be quicker they will want their man in so he can see where they need improving (everywhere bar Keeper) thats partly the mistake we made With the Hughes sacking it was too late for Mancini to really get a feel of the squad before the Jan window closed.

I feel this sums the situation up so well
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8vINCq_IAI[/youtube]

 

[slbsn]

Re: Liverpool Takeover Imminent?

The crux of the legal case is whether this is deemed "a fair and reasonable" offer and therefore whether the formal undertaking given when Broughton was brought on board means that H&G no ceded their discretion in respect of the offer. I was very skeptical about the involvement of law and I was wrong about that (PrestwichBlue was spot on). But H&G will certainly lose.

This details the key facts - <a class="postlink" href="http://tinyurl.com/36z5m5m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://tinyurl.com/36z5m5m</a>

The concept of "fair and reasonable" is well understood in the City. Given that Liverpool has been for sale for many months in a very public environment and that this offer is something around 2x current and 2011 revenues and the business is and will be a loss maker and a huge capex requirement is anticipated for the stadium, the offer looks fair. This was my view on valuation from a couple of months ago <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=184307&p=3484839#p3484839" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=184307&p=3484839#p3484839</a>

We can assume there have been no other offers at this level or above that have managed to demonstrate bona fides and proof of funds. On a peer group comparison of any public traded football clubs £250m is a fair price. And looking at comparable football deals from the last 3-5 years this is also a fair price - turnover multiples are a key metric and 2x is generous.

Accordingly, the deal is recommendable and the offer fair and reasonable. I can only assume that H&G will try and demonstrate some outlandish growth plans that show the club will generate huge revenues and profits "just around the corner". But without an offer around to validate their point of view its very hard to argue this is not fair.

BTW, this deal doesn't change the overall landscape for LFC. This is a financial acquisition and one that will be funded by debt (albeit in the holding company and not directly on LFCs assets). They still need to improve the squad, buy a new stadium and fund working capital (they will make big losses in 2011 and 2012 (assuming no Champions League)). If Liverpool are celebrating they should only with caution.

 

[the talisman]

Re: Liverpool Takeover Imminent?

just seen massive scouse conk Thompson on ssn,this prick talks so much crap.did anyone else see it?

he reminded me of the way i tried to convince my dad i loved that second hand chopper he got me for christmas .. i was expecting a ten gear racer .I actually
didn`t want the interview to end ..comedy gold

you were lucky, I had to make do with a "chipper".

 

[mancity dan]

Re: Liverpool Takeover Imminent?

But if the sale doesn't go through in the next ten days they will default.
How can they then be viable?

Who do the directors of Lpool have a responsibility to first and foremost, the club or the shareholders?

The shareholders. That's their over-riding duty of care.

PMSL at Big Nose saying they don't want to be like Chelsea or City. That certainly won't be a problem. They'll be wishing they were like Stoke & Blackpool soon

You mean he doesn't want Liverpool to be like the 1st & 2nd teams in the Premier League?

 

[Frank the Yank]

Re: Liverpool Red Sox

Not Baseball at all, Baseball is more like football(the top team has a payroll of aroud 200m a year and the bottom team about 20m).

They have revebue sharing in Baseball though, the Yankees for example wille arn a hell of a lot more than a "small market" team like the Milwaukee Brewers but they have to share some of their profits. Plus they have the draft system in the US which means top prospects get picked up by the worst teams, that's why pitching phenomenon Strasburg ended up at the terminally awful Washington Nationals.

The revenue sharing, the salary cap, and the draft system means it's far easier to win the World Series than to win the Premiership title. Lets look at the last 18 seasons (i.e. since the Premiership began), we've had 4 different winners:-

United 11
Arsenal 3
Chelsea 3
Blackburn 1

The look at the last 18 World Series winners (covers slightly more than 18 years due to this season not yet being finished and 1994 not having a World Series due to a strike), you've got 11 different winners:-

Minnesota Twins 1
Toronto Blue Jays 2
Atlanta Braves 1
New York Yankees 5
Florida Marlins 2
Arizona Diamondbacks 1
Anaheim Angels 1
Boston Red Sox 2
Chicago White Sox 1
St Louis Cardinals 1
Philadelphia Phillies 1

For the Premier League to have a further 7 different winners will take decades, and may never actually happen if the current financial constraints persist.

I definitely agree with your premise. The fact is a larger % of team in MLBaseball have a chance at winning the title than do team in the Prem or La Liga etc.. Thats whats good. Havingn said that there are way too many shit teams.

Actually the Yanks dont have to share PROFITS. There is a "salary cap" of sorts. Once you go over that set figure you have to write a check that gets distributed to the other teams. Now I think there are only a couple of teams who go over that cap and the Yanks are always one of them. The bad partr is the smaller teams just pocket the money instead of reinvesting it. The shitty teams make a healthy profit because of it. Thats wrong.

Also, its much tougher to build via the draft in baseball than it is, say, Yank football or basketball. Its tougher to designate some cant miss prospects in baseball and very good ball players tend to mature later. As for the Nats and Strausberg-how did THAT work out??? Sad story that....

 

[bluespana]

Re: Liverpool Red Sox

Not Baseball at all, Baseball is more like football(the top team has a payroll of aroud 200m a year and the bottom team about 20m).

They have revebue sharing in Baseball though, the Yankees for example wille arn a hell of a lot more than a "small market" team like the Milwaukee Brewers but they have to share some of their profits. Plus they have the draft system in the US which means top prospects get picked up by the worst teams, that's why pitching phenomenon Strasburg ended up at the terminally awful Washington Nationals.

The revenue sharing, the salary cap, and the draft system means it's far easier to win the World Series than to win the Premiership title. Lets look at the last 18 seasons (i.e. since the Premiership began), we've had 4 different winners:-

United 11
Arsenal 3
Chelsea 3
Blackburn 1

The look at the last 18 World Series winners (covers slightly more than 18 years due to this season not yet being finished and 1994 not having a World Series due to a strike), you've got 11 different winners:-

Minnesota Twins 1
Toronto Blue Jays 2
Atlanta Braves 1
New York Yankees 5
Florida Marlins 2
Arizona Diamondbacks 1
Anaheim Angels 1
Boston Red Sox 2
Chicago White Sox 1
St Louis Cardinals 1
Philadelphia Phillies 1

For the Premier League to have a further 7 different winners will take decades, and may never actually happen if the current financial constraints persist.

There's no salary cap in baseball. There is a luxury tax where the team that spends more than a given amount is taxed and this is spread amongst the rest of the league. The Yankees have exceeded this for years and have won more championships than most but they average $7million per player which is about 7x more than what the lowest teams spend on wages.

Also baseball is a different type of sport than football and has never really had parity. Look at the Yankees 27 titles and the Chicago Cubs with 0 in the last 100 years.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Liverpool Red Sox

In the MLB, a deal was struck in 2002 to share revenues through till next year (2011),

Essentially each team pays 31% of its locally generated revenues and that pot is split evenly among all 30 teams. In addition, a chunk of MLB’s Central Fund — made up of revenues from sources like national broadcast contracts — is allocated to teams based on their relative revenues, so that lower-revenue teams get more than higher revenue ones.

There are no salary caps or min-max ranges.

 

[fbloke]

Re: Liverpool Takeover Imminent?

Just come back from a nice walk in the country with the dog and to be honest I feel a bit sorry for H and G, after all they own the club and yet have been seemingly outmanoeuvred by a right fecking devious bastards in Broughton.

What does strike me now though is that there is a slim possibility that in announcing the deal and the values now Broughton may open himself up to a legal challenge if H and G can show that they had a better deal in place (or even refinancing in the pipeline) at a higher value.

In an open auction which Liverpool were no doubt part of why would they announce these things PRIOR to the owners consent? And why have they gone public in the way they have until they could force the issue once RBS called in the loans?

Surely there is a case of the board not putting the owners/shareholders first as they should?