Liverpool Takeover Thread

Saviola · 20 Oct 2010 at 16:26

BaZ87 said:
Not exactly. He's been removed from the day to day running of the club (and most importantly footballing matters). It's not that much different to David Moores being given a role at the club after he sold to H&G.

Removed? He stepped down as Henry wanted him to advise on football matters.

BaZ87 · 20 Oct 2010 at 16:32

Saviola said:
Removed? He stepped down as Henry wanted him to advise on football matters.

He's taken a role as a non-exec advisor to the owners. He has no power whatsoever. If he had any use or his opinion was valued then why has he not stayed on in a role where he could actually make decisions?

Neither side would want to release a statement saying he's been sacked/not wanted/not needed but that's in effect what has happened.

As I said, this is very similar to what happened with David Moores. He was given a non-exec role at the club too.

Saviola · 20 Oct 2010 at 17:10

BaZ87 said:
Neither side would want to release a statement saying he's been sacked/not wanted/not needed but that's in effect what has happened.

That's fine you dislike him, so will take that point of view. After watching the videos of NESV at training and a few others I very much doubt they wanted him out.

But its a non story either way.

BaZ87 · 20 Oct 2010 at 17:15

The fact that I don't like him has nothing to do with it. He's a banker (in every meaning of the word

) that was brought in to find investment (and as above, failed). What need is there to keep him on at the club?

He's got no past experience in football or running any other sporting clubs or associations. He's been let go because he's not needed at the club, it's simple.

Saviola · 20 Oct 2010 at 17:18

BaZ87 said:
The fact that I don't like him has nothing to do with it. He's a banker (in every meaning of the word ) that was brought in to find investment (and as above, failed). What need is there to keep him on at the club?

He's got no past experience in football or running any other sporting clubs or associations. He's been let go because he's not needed at the club, it's simple.

He did not fail, as such. The offer(s) he brought in were tuned down by Hicks.

The talk is that the day to day running of the club would interfere with his current Advisory tasks that NESV have set out for him.

Plus I am sure he did not overly like the death threats etc that he was getting while doing his job. If it was not for him (and MB, IA) we would still be in the crapper.

CliffyBiro · 20 Oct 2010 at 17:20

Alpherah said:
Havn't heard that joke 9 million times since yesterday!

Want to hear it again?

BaZ87 · 20 Oct 2010 at 17:30

Saviola said:
He did not fail, as such. The offer(s) he brought in were tuned down by Hicks.

So he failed in his task to reduce the debt by a certain deadline :confused:

Saviola said:
The talk is that the day to day running of the club would interfere with his current Advisory tasks that NESV have set out for him.

So this 'advisory' role is more important than being responsible for the day to day running of the club?

As above, if he's so highly valued then why is he a non-exec? Why take away all his power?

It's a token gesture from NESV. It's very much a case of thanks but no thanks.

Saviola said:
Plus I am sure he did not overly like the death threats etc that he was getting while doing his job. If it was not for him (and MB, IA) we would still be in the crapper.

That's the first I've heard of death threats. If that's true then it's out of order however that doesn't mean what he done and the way he handled himself prior to the sale of the club was right.

I've said before that I'm thankful for his contribution to ousting H&G (although Broughton could have just replaced him if he wasn't playing ball) but that doesn't mean he should stay on at the club.

Rick Parry fought against and blocked H&G securing all their loans against the clubs assets which we should all be thankful for. There's no ****ing way I want him back at the club though. He was the lesser of 2 evils at the time, just like Purlsow was the lesser of 2 evils during the takeover.

My reasons for not wanting Purslow at the club is not purely because I dislike him for the way he's handled himself; he's simply not needed anymore.

edit: as I was replying, it's coming out that Ian Ayre also offered his resignation to NESV and it was declined and he was told he has a future at the club.

daz.wallace · 20 Oct 2010 at 19:02

BaZ87 said:
edit: as I was replying, it's coming out that Ian Ayre also offered his resignation to NESV and it was declined and he was told he has a future at the club.

Good, bit of an unsung hero is Ian Ayre

BaZ87 · 6 Apr 2011 at 21:55

Interesting bit of news that's come out tonight. FSG (our owners) have reached an agreement with LeBron James (the NBA star), where by they will handle all his sponsorships and endorsements in return for a minority stake in FSG - and therefore he'll be a minority owner of Liverpool (and the Red Sox).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703280904576246640754493456.html?mod=e2tw

edit: A lot of talk saying this is just a PR stunt with him being given a fraction of a % stake in the club and both he and the club will use the link to boost their image in certain markets etc.

Alpherah · 6 Apr 2011 at 22:10

BaZ87 said:
Interesting bit of news that's come out tonight. FSG (our owners) have reached an agreement with LeBron James (the NBA star), where by they will handle all his sponsorships and endorsements in return for a minority stake in FSG - and therefore he'll be a minority owner of Liverpool (and the Red Sox).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703280904576246640754493456.html?mod=e2tw

edit: A lot of talk saying this is just a PR stunt with him being given a fraction of a % stake in the club and both he and the club will use the link to boost their image in certain markets etc.

Yup basically, he has shares in FSG, Henry and co send sponsorships, advertising etc his way = more cash for him, a % of these deals also go to FSG = more cash for us.
+ It allows us to boost our profile in the US without even having to kick a ball over there.

BaZ87 · 6 Apr 2011 at 22:50

Alpherah said:
Yup basically, he has shares in FSG, Henry and co send sponsorships, advertising etc his way = more cash for him, a % of these deals also go to FSG = more cash for us.
+ It allows us to boost our profile in the US without even having to kick a ball over there.

FSG's handling James's endorsements won't = more cash for us. It will be dealt with seperately and will = more cash for FSG.

Reading between the lines......
FSG own a company (can't recall their name off the top of my head) that is effectively a marketing agent - they negotiate sponsorship deals and endorsements on behalf of players/clubs (they were in talks to do Fulhams the other year) and like any agent, will get a % of any money they make for their client. What I think has happened is simply LeBron James has been signed up by them and to add a bit of extra value for both of them, James has been given a token gesture of a stake in FSG. This way, like you say, we get the exposure in the USA etc by being linked with him and he gets the exposure in Europe and Asia by being linked to us.

BaZ87 · 6 Apr 2011 at 22:59

Official statement from the club:

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/fsm-official-announcement

Notice how Fenway Sports Group (FSG), who were New England Sports Ventures (NESV), are now Fenway Sports Management (FSM) though :confused:

Tummy · 6 Apr 2011 at 23:05

Tapping that Asian market yo!

BaZ87 · 6 Apr 2011 at 23:06

I think we're bigger in Asia than LeBron James is

Tombstone · 6 Apr 2011 at 23:12

Keisuke Honda please.

Raymond Lin · 7 Apr 2011 at 07:25

It won't mean anything this time next week who the minority shareholders are.

BaZ87 · 7 Apr 2011 at 14:01

Doesn't change a great deal but from what I've read, James has been given a stake directly in LFC and not a stake in the parent company.

Raymond Lin said:
It won't mean anything this time next week who the minority shareholders are.

Maybe not to yourself but to Liverpool supporters it does. I certainly want to know who owns what at my club.