Straight from the horses' - tradition and history mean nowt

[fbloke]

Dipper-tastic news and perhaps a wake-up call for the Rags ;-)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2010/10/09/2158127/martin-broughton-admits-liverpool-searched-the-world-for-an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/pre ... rld-for-an</a>

Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton has revealed that the Merseyside club looked all over the world for a billionaire owner like Roman Abramovich at Chelsea or Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City, but all to no avail.

The club have instead concluded a deal in principle with New England Sports Ventures although the high court must decide next week whether the proposed sale will go through or not.

However, speaking to ESPNsoccernet Broughton admitted that he had searched the globe but had been unable to find a mega rich investor willing to buy the club.

"We searched the world looking for another owner like the ones at Chelsea and Manchester City. With all of Liverpool's traditions, heritage, history and powerful global brand, I must admit I thought it would be possible to find one,” he explained.

"We hoped for someone who wanted a 'trophy asset', but having scoured the world without finding one, the conclusion is that there are no more Romans [Abramovich] out there.

"Yes, of course, it is disappointing that even a name like Liverpool failed to attract one, so I cannot imagine other club having much luck."

The chairman also hinted that he was a little surprised he couldn’t attract the type of owner he preferred as he believed the lure of a club like Liverpool would have been enough of an enticement.


Sugar daddy | There's only one Sheikh Mansour according to Broughton

“Everyone is aware of how many Premier League clubs there are for sale, but Liverpool is different, at least it should have been different, as it is a global brand compared to some of the other clubs, and for that reason you would have thought it would have appealed to a sugar daddy,” he added.

"But the truth is that there is only one Roman Abramovich, there is only one Sheikh Mansour, because we couldn't find another one.

"With Liverpool, whatever the price to buy it, came a heavy obligation to spend something like £300 million on a new stadium, and £350 million of debt or an obligation to turn that into equity. Liverpool came with some heavy numbers, whereas Abramovich paid very little to gain control of Chelsea.

"So no matter how far and wide we looked there was no evidence of a sugar daddy type around.”

Yet Broughton also sought to reassure the club’s fans, that this was not necessarily a bad thing and that the potential new owners could be a blessing in disguise.

"Perhaps it will end up being to our advantage, when the financial fair play rules apply in 2013, we will have the ideal owners in a way, owners who understand the commercial realities of a running a club and running a sporting team, and how to invest in the team, and produce a winning team,” said Broughton.

"More reality will come in to football, and it is important that our supporters take this aspect on board. Put Manchester City to one side, and how many big money transfers were there this summer? Not that many. Reality is setting in across the board."

 

[Rammyblues]

IMO the Glazers are doing a fine job, the rags posted a record profit of over 100m if you believe the spin. The Glazers will milk the club for all it is worth to keep their other business interests afloat, they are in it only for the money. They are not going to give that cash cow up lightly. As far as the dippers are concerned don't really understand their situation but I am content to sit back and watch it from a distance. Even if their debt is paid and they get new owners without them being in the CL and playing shite they need to invest in players and probably only have the January window to do it in because after that we are into the FFP regulations.

 

[blue John]

Time to thank the good Doctor

 

[Deleted member 14625]

Everyone is aware of how many Premier League clubs there are for sale, but Liverpool is different, at least it should have been different, as it is a global brand compared to some of the other clubs, and for that reason you would have thought it would have appealed to a sugar daddy

No, no, no Martin Broughton; Liverpool aren't different and should not be different like you think. They are just one club. This is what us City fans realised in the 80's and especially late 90's. No club deserves to be somewhere or someone, no club has a devine right to be in the top league or in the top 6 or top 4 or very top winning trophies. You are where you are, you deserve to be there and should be there. Whether that's Chelsea or Grimsby, even Wigan.

 

[law74]

Everyone is aware of how many Premier League clubs there are for sale, but Liverpool is different, at least it should have been different, as it is a global brand compared to some of the other clubs, and for that reason you would have thought it would have appealed to a sugar daddy

No, no, no Martin Broughton; Liverpool aren't different and should not be different like you think. They are just one club. This is what us City fans realised in the 80's and especially late 90's. No club deserves to be somewhere or someone, no club has a devine right to be in the top league or in the top 6 or top 4 or very top winning trophies. You are where you are, you deserve to be there and should be there. Whether that's Chelsea or Grimsby, even Wigan.

But Liverpoo are ifferent to most clubs as they have an already established fanbase in asia etc and that part of the market has already been coined, so there are fewer "new" places that the new owners can turn to to improve the cashflow, likewise with the rags, though for clubs like ourselves, chelsea when they were taken over and a few other clubs, it would be quite concievable that after a period of growth and realitive success our fanbase globally could multiply, and in so doing then the revenue streams and non matchday turnover would likewise increase.

 

[1.618034]

Martin Broughton admits Liverpool searched the world for an owner like those at Manchester City or Chelsea

Missing out on billionaire owner could yet prove an advantage Yeah Right! lol


Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton has revealed that the Merseyside club looked all over the world for a billionaire owner like Roman Abramovich at Chelsea or Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City, but all to no avail. Scousers hawk themselves all over the world like a cheap whore...

The club have instead concluded a deal in principle with New England Sports Ventures although the high court must decide next week whether the proposed sale will go through or not. They've had to settle for another bunch of Yanks who haven't got a pot to piss in but hope to make a quick buck...

However, speaking to ESPNsoccernet Broughton admitted that he had searched the globe but had been unable to find a mega rich investor willing to buy the club. No one's stupid enough to throw money at a club that's living in the past and going down faster than John O'Shea in the showers...

"We searched the world looking for another owner like the ones at Chelsea and Manchester City. With all of Liverpool's traditions (murdering Italians, robbing cars and whingeing so much that they've gone hypersonic), heritage, history and powerful global brand, I must admit I thought it would be possible to find one,” he explained. Deluded isn't in it! Plus I thought our owners were only in it for the money...? Hmm.

"We hoped for someone who wanted a 'trophy asset', but having scoured the world without finding one, the conclusion is that there are no more Romans [Abramovich] out there.

"Yes, of course, it is disappointing that even a name like Liverpool failed to attract one, so I cannot imagine other club having much luck." QPR seem to have done ok...

The chairman also hinted that he was a little surprised he couldn’t attract the type of owner he preferred as he believed the lure of a club like Liverpool would have been enough of an enticement.

There's only one Sheikh Mansour according to Broughton and all Man City fans!

“Everyone is aware of how many Premier League clubs there are for sale, but Liverpool is different (is it really?), at least it should have been different, as it is a global brand compared to some of the other clubs, and for that reason you would have thought it would have appealed to a sugar daddy,” he added.

"But the truth is that there is only one Roman Abramovich, there is only one Sheikh Mansour, because we couldn't find another one stupid enough.

"With Liverpool, whatever the price to buy it, came a heavy obligation to spend something like £300 million on a new stadium, and £350 million of debt or an obligation to turn that into equity. Liverpool came with some heavy numbers, whereas Abramovich paid very little to gain control of Chelsea.

"So no matter how far and wide we looked there was no evidence of a sugar daddy type around.”

Yet Broughton also sought to reassure the club’s fans, that this was not necessarily a bad thing and that the potential new owners could be a blessing in disguise. Hmm wonder if they'll fall for that one...? AGAIN

"Perhaps it will end up being to our advantage, when the financial fair play rules apply in 2013, we will have the ideal owners in a way, owners who understand the commercial realities of a running a club and running a sporting team, and how to invest in the team, and produce a winning team,” said Broughton hopefully.

"More reality will come in to football (Liverpool FC), and it is important that our supporters take this aspect on board. Put Manchester City to one side, and how many big money transfers were there this summer? Not that many. Reality is setting in across the Liverpool FC board."

Oh how we laughed... Brightened up my day anyway!

-)

 

[ifiwasarichfan]

This could get better. Imagine Moyes get's Taggert's Job and weeks later Evilton find themselves a " Sugar Daddy" ??. Rags in freefall, Incandescent rage on RAWK -; the possibilities for piss taking would be endless.

 

[unexpected item]

Time to thank the good Doctor

You're right there mate, and to think Liverpool turned down Thaksin before he came for us...oh how different things would be now if he had bought them instead.

 

[fbloke]

Time to thank the good Doctor

You're right there mate, and to think Liverpool turned down Thaksin before he came for us...oh how different things would be now if he had bought them instead.

He was going to fund the liverpool purchase with a lottery in thailand. Seems rather apt and somewhat funny considering the lottery it turned into when the pools man turned him down ;-)

 

[hbruz80]

Well they could have just sold to DIC, but then Sheikh Mansour would never have bought City!

 

[fbloke]

Well they could have just sold to DIC, but then Sheikh Mansour would never have bought City!

Welcome back hbruz.

Was the DIC deal ever close though?

And how much would it have cost?

 

[DaveH]

The thing with buying an established top 4 side is that as a buyer you would be just continuing the success. Therefore hardley anyone would notice the difference.
However with teams like City it sends out a global message when we start to break into the top 4 and oust one of the Bigger teams.

Much more fun for a Billionaire

 

[hbruz80]

Well they could have just sold to DIC, but then Sheikh Mansour would never have bought City!

Welcome back hbruz.

Was the DIC deal ever close though?

And how much would it have cost?

Thanks fbloke

It was more than close, a deal was agreed, but Liverpool thought Hicks and Gillett were better long term partners, there prerogative I guess. DIC left their proposal on the table, but Hicks and Gillett were not prepared to sell. I would say the offer was more than fair, and more importantly a plan was in place, to build a new stadium and dramatically increase Liverpool's turnover. Their loss is however, our gain, as who do you think suggested to his son-in-law that buying a Premier League football team would be a good investment?

 

[fbloke]

Welcome back hbruz.

Was the DIC deal ever close though?

And how much would it have cost?

Thanks fbloke

It was more than close, a deal was agreed, but Liverpool thought Hicks and Gillett were better long term partners, there prerogative I guess. DIC left their proposal on the table, but Hicks and Gillett were not prepared to sell. I would say the offer was more than fair, and more importantly a plan was in place, to build a new stadium and dramatically increase Liverpool's turnover. Their loss is however, our gain, as who do you think suggested to his son-in-law that buying a Premier League football team would be a good investment?

You havent been off trying to buy Liverpool have you? ;-)

Sometimes though its impossible to get a real sense of how lucky we are as Blues until a week like the one we have just had arrives. Between Liverpool and United they have made me smile on a dull grey day.

 

[Uber Blues]

I think you will find chaps that our good owner HRH Sheikh Mansour has a little more about himself than buying an "off the peg" football club. He could have bought any of them but he chose us! Maybe he wants to build something special from the ground up, and for it to be forever linked with the people's of the UAE/Manchester.
We as a club, and our owners are special because we are just starting this adventure together, one day Liverpool and United will be like Juventus, the old ladies of the premiership. Not even their huge arrogance will prevent change, that is after all what makes the world turn! Why should football be any different?............I for one am proud to be a City fan, proud of our owners, and looking forward to a bright future in the safe hands of our great fans and the good Sheikh.