Venting, sell the club, etc. thread

[Sampinjon]

Self sustainable model is not bad but within reasonable limits. I mean, I don't want to wait 20 years or so for it to work. One don't need to spend 300M per year for the next decade, but also - spend a little more than 35-50M per year.

[Sleeping Giant]

Do read this thread

[reza]

If I am not mistaken they have 10% of Liverpool bought in last year yet some of that thread is attaching Liverpool positives to RedBird, it is bit of a stretch.

[Arildonardo]

If I am not mistaken they have 10% of Liverpool bought in last year yet some of that thread is attaching Liverpool positives to RedBird, it is bit of a stretch.

RedBird own 10% of Fenway Sports Group who again own Liverpool and Boston Red Sox. They acquired these 10% last year, so yeah, they are no big part of what's going on at Liverpool.

[nefremo]

If they own 10% of FSG, then I'm sure they are probably in the top 5 in terms of controlling stake. To put it in perspective, John Henry, the founder and largest shareholder, owns 40%. The 750M investment from Redbird into FSG i velieve was the largest buy-in ever, and valued FSG at 7.5 Bil. To put that in perspective, Lebron James got in at 6Mil.

I'm not saying that have control because they obviously don't....but at 10% they sure as hell got a seat at the all exclusive table next to John Henry. There is no way you pay 750M to acquire 10% of a company....and don't play a part in decision making in that company.

Anyway, the media keeps bringing up their ownership in FSG because it makes for a juicy story. The 2 will be, and are, completely different investments and ventures. Nobody will "feed" the other and how one is run is no indication of how the other will be.

[xudong]

I get it guys. But not sire how that has a lot to do with running a healthy and self-sustainable business. That's the part I want to compare with.

I think it has a lot to do with it. If it is "business", then revenue and cost are important. With monopoly and monopsony power, they can easily buy low and sell high, and that will contribute to a virtuous cycle in their business. Also, from a sporting perspective, nobody is screwing them domestically which helps with the revenue as well.

Remember our 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 seasons? We had an extremely strong team (which doesn't come very often) yet ended up winning nothing. We had to fight against bad luck, and Juventus/referees. To be clear, I am not claiming that back then we were running a sustainable business, but as a business, we were royally screwed. Can you imagine that happened to Bayern in Germany? Of course, they have the luxury to run/talk about a healthy and self-sustainable business. They have everything literally put on a silver plate for them.

[xudong]

If they own 10% of FSG, then I'm sure they are probably in the top 5 in terms of controlling stake. To put it in perspective, John Henry, the founder and largest shareholder, owns 40%. The 750M investment from Redbird into FSG i velieve was the largest buy-in ever, and valued FSG at 7.5 Bil. To put that in perspective, Lebron James got in at 6Mil.

I'm not saying that have control because they obviously don't....but at 10% they sure as hell got a seat at the all exclusive table next to John Henry. There is no way you pay 750M to acquire 10% of a company....and don't play a part in decision making in that company.

Anyway, the media keeps bringing up their ownership in FSG because it makes for a juicy story. The 2 will be, and are, completely different investments and ventures. Nobody will "feed" the other and how one is run is no indication of how the other will be.

I agree with you on this one. 10% stake is indeed very significant ownership, however, the twitter author trying to credit all to them is at least borderline laughable.

[nefremo]

I think it has a lot to do with it. If it is "business", then revenue and cost are important. With monopoly and monopsony power, they can easily buy low and sell high, and that will contribute to a virtuous cycle in their business. Also, from a sporting perspective, nobody is screwing them domestically which helps with the revenue as well.

Remember our 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 seasons? We had an extremely strong team (which doesn't come very often) yet ended up winning nothing. We had to fight against bad luck, and Juventus/referees. To be clear, I am not claiming that back then we were running a sustainable business, but as a business, we were royally screwed. Can you imagine that happened to Bayern in Germany? Of course, they have the luxury to run/talk about a healthy and self-sustainable business. They have everything literally put on a silver plate for them.

I agree what you're sayibg about monopoizing the league. It sure does help them have healthy accounts. But I am not saying we need to match their success domestically or have the same level of success on the books. Just saying that it's a model that can be followed. And in all honesty, it's Eurooe where you get your mark and where you get the most money (directly - prize money and broadcasting, etc ; and indirectly - sponsorships due to that exposure, etc). 

So we don't need to monopolize the league and win it every year. We just need to fight for the title every year and at worst finish top 4. I don't see that as such a hard thing to do when balancing the books.

Either way...maybe it's not a great example. But it's still the model i'd like for us to follow.

[xudong]

I agree that Europe is more important, and domestic performance won't matter as long as that won't cause us to miss out on CL.

I am sure that Ladri and Merda fans will all want to trade 10 scudetti for one CL trophy. They wish.

[Aficio]

I agree that Europe is more important, and domestic performance won't matter as long as that won't cause us to miss out on CL.

I am sure that Ladri and Merda fans will all want to trade 10 scudetti for one CL trophy. They wish.

Haha, it seems we own the Serie A


Well, let's progress to the CL era, again