Topic: RedBird Capital to buy stake in FSG

[killer-heels]

$3.3 billion, 3rd highest in MLB

Amazing for a rounders team.

[Eeyore]

This is crazy talk.

You’re genuinely trying to make the argument that in 3 seasons, where we got to two CL finals, winning 1 and also winning the PL...at a canter, and finishing 2nd only by a point on a record high of 97pts for runners up... has not been competing with City?

I’d call that pretty insulting to Klopp and the squad.

We have competed on the pitch but certainly haven't competed financially in the transfer market. Man united have and we could but we there has to be a will to kick on and compete. This investment has the potential to do that. So now it is up to FSG.

[El Lobo]

[JackWard33]

This is crazy talk.

You’re genuinely trying to make the argument that in 3 seasons, where we got to two CL finals, winning 1 and also winning the PL...at a canter, and finishing 2nd only by a point on a record high of 97pts for runners up... has not been competing with City?

I’d call that pretty insulting to Klopp and the squad.

I think it’s pretty clearly anomalous though the argument is to what extent
What’s the sustainable model to suggest otherwise without Klopp and without several of our signings developing into world class talents that we can effectively compete ?

It’s not binary it’s not that competing is impossible clearly ... but if you’re conceeding a resources advantage that’s extremely difficult to buck in the medium and long term as you’re constantly having to find a bigger edge in the way you operate
I think the way to over come this was much clearer 5, 6 years ago when analytics was less embraced generally. Harder to see where it lies over the next 5+ years

[Trendisnotdestiny]

The Redball SPAC only came to nothing because they couldn't raise the money from investors. That was for a 20% stake and would have meant going public, which was always going to be a problem because of how secretive MLB owners are.

This is for a 10% stake and FSG will stay private.

And SPAC's are being used more and more --- as a vehicle so as not having to disclose what the underlying investment is --- Here is a primer from one of America's best independent journalists

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/financial-devils-dictionary-spac



"SPAC (n) acronym for Special Purpose Acquisition Company: a way to pay millions today, for the exciting investment idea someone promises to have tomorrow.

After the dot-com bubble exploded, Americans were forced to take a master class in the initial public offering, or IPO. When Enron blew up, we sifted through Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) found in the wreckage. With the 2008 crash, the job was finding ways to explain Collateralized Debt Obligations, Credit Default Swaps, and other acronymic nightmares, under cover of which a fair portion of the world’s wealth vanished.

In the Fed-fueled Covid-19 economy, there’s one acronym worth knowing now, in case of bust later: the SPAC, or Special Purpose Acquisition Company.

The SPAC is an IPO-for-IPOs. In essence, it’s a shell company, put together for the express purpose of raising money to acquire private companies that will eventually be taken public. Pick any absurd empty-package metaphor, and it’ll probably fit: investing in the plate one picks up on the way to a salad bar, in the tortilla you’ve been told will eventually contain the world’s best burrito, in the plain white paper and finger-paints you hope to dump in the crib of the next Rembrandt, etc.

Often called “Blank Check Companies,” the SPAC isn’t all new, but the mania has reached once-unimaginable heights. In 2021 already, 160 SPACs have raised over $50 billion, nearly matching last year’s record of $83.4 billion. An increasingly common element in SPAC announcements is the name of a celebrity, who’s enlisted to join a group that announces a plan to raise a massive sum of money for… something. It could be anyone, from A-Rod (asking for $540 million), Shaq (twice asked for $300 million), Grammy winner Ciara ($200 million), etc., etc.

The SPAC’s cash requests are often wrapped in altruistic verbiage, an example being former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick joining Phoenix Suns part-owner Jahm Najafi to form Mission Advancement. The group believes “purchasing decisions can act as instruments of change,” and therefore wants to build brands to create “meaningful financial and societal value.” In their SEC filing, they figure this will only cost $287 million:


On the opposite political end lay former House Speaker Paul Ryan’s Executive Network Partnering Corporation, launched last August. Reports humorously noted that Ryan and his partner, Solamere Capital founder Alex Dunn, had “not selected a target industry” for their SPAC, which essentially meant they were asking for $300 million without knowing what for yet. The SEC filing for ENPC was inspired vagueness:

We have not selected any company to partner with and we have not, nor has anyone on our behalf, engaged in any substantive discussions, directly or indirectly, with any company to partner with regarding a partnering transaction. We may pursue a partnering transaction with any company in any industry.

If you invest in a SPAC, your money goes in an interest-bearing account that can only be used to acquire properties or be returned to you, should the SPAC management team (called “sponsors”) fail to acquire properties in the allotted time, usually 18 to 24 months. Sponsors are paid in “founder shares,” bought at a discount and usually amounting to 20% of the common stock of the future company, a nice relatively risk-free chunk of change framed as the sponsors’ reward for not paying themselves exorbitant salaries during the brief shopping period.

In the nineties, investors jumped en masse into a tulipomania of stock-buying in companies that in many cases were little more than loose business plans scrawled on the backs of napkins. Crowds poured billions into names like Webvan, eToys, and DrKoop.com, which often barely had income, let alone profits.

The SPAC boom takes the last IPO bubble and moves the speculative mania back a regulatory step or two, allowing money to be raised before any irritating disclosures have to be made about any concrete business plans. After all, the businesses don’t exist yet. When you invest in a SPAC, you’re investing in the reputations of its sponsors, i.e. names, not businesses.

Although the money hasn’t abated, investors are said finally to be grumbling over the lusciousness of the arrangement for SPAC directors. As Yahoo! noted, the “intense competition for deals is beginning to erode returns,” triggering a “backlash from some investors over what they say has become a ‘get-super-rich-quick’ scheme.” Of course, they say that like it’s a bad thing. What’s not to admire, about a country that sells ideas it doesn’t even have yet?

Next: the “K-shaped recovery”

[CraigDS]

We have competed on the pitch

I snipped it there as this was all we were on about.

Glad we agree on that.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

We have competed on the pitch but certainly haven't competed financially in the transfer market. Man united have and we could but we there has to be a will to kick on and compete. This investment has the potential to do that. So now it is up to FSG.

Nobody can compete with Man City financially and absolutely none of our fans should be asking us too. We could probably do it for a season or two but then what? City can spend £200 million every year and if it doesn’t work out carry on until it does. If we do that and it doesn’t work out we’re fucked - and rightly so, that’s how it should be.

Asking for FSG to spend more is one thing. Asking them to compete with the oil clubs and break every rule going is another thing completely.

[CraigDS]

I think it’s pretty clearly anomalous though the argument is to what extent
What’s the sustainable model to suggest otherwise without Klopp and without several of our signings developing into world class talents that we can effectively compete ?

It’s not binary it’s not that competing is impossible clearly ... but if you’re conceeding a resources advantage that’s extremely difficult to buck in the medium and long term as you’re constantly having to find a bigger edge in the way you operate
I think the way to over come this was much clearer 5, 6 years ago when analytics was less embraced generally. Harder to see where it lies over the next 5+ years

Possibly, but then for years now it's not like the richest club has always beaten the other (rich but not equally rich) clubs.

Whilst having money is a huge factor in the equation, there are so many other moving parts that it doesn't automatically mean you have a massive advantage over the others.

[JackWard33]

Possibly, but then for years now it's not like the richest club has always beaten the other (rich but not equally rich) clubs.

Whilst having money is a huge factor in the equation, there are so many other moving parts that it doesn't automatically mean you have a massive advantage over the others.

Yes but there’s ‘automatic’ and there’s an inbuilt advantage to the point that it’s pretty bloody close to automatic
The French league is competitive this season ish, sort of .... hasn’t been for years ... probably won’t be next year 
Without the existence of our incredible - over resource achieving - team City would be going for their 5th in a row next year
They had a defensive problem last year but spent 200 plus million on defensive midfielders and defenders and presto-chango-Guardiolas-a genius no more defensive problem

It’s depressing to be honest but if football doesn’t change how the market operates it’s going to become an increasingly uncompetitive sport

[cdav]

Perhaps some of the funds could be used for the Annie Road redevelopment in the form of a capital injection rather than a loan which would free up perhaps £15-20m in cash each year?

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Yes but there’s ‘automatic’ and there’s an inbuilt advantage to the point that it’s pretty bloody close to automatic
The French league is competitive this season ish, sort of .... hasn’t been for years ... probably won’t be next year 
Without the existence of our incredible - over resource achieving - team City would be going for their 5th in a row next year
They had a defensive problem last year but spent 200 plus million on defensive midfielders and defenders and presto-chango-Guardiolas-a genius no more defensive problem

It’s depressing to be honest but if football doesn’t change how the market operates it’s going to become an increasingly uncompetitive sport

You’re talking about a Liverpool without Klopp, but take Guardiola from City and do you think theyre achieving what they have with him?

[CraigDS]

Yes but there’s ‘automatic’ and there’s an inbuilt advantage to the point that it’s pretty bloody close to automatic
The French league is competitive this season ish, sort of .... hasn’t been for years ... probably won’t be next year 

Yeah but the gap between PSG and the rest is massive. The average player at PSG earns around 3x the next highest paying side (Monaco).

There isn't such an advantage for City in the PL.

Without the existence of our incredible - over resource achieving - team City would be going for their 5th in a row next year
They had a defensive problem last year but spent 200 plus million on defensive midfielders and defenders and presto-chango-Guardiolas-a genius no more defensive problem

It’s depressing to be honest but if football doesn’t change how the market operates it’s going to become an increasingly uncompetitive sport

But they, almost certainly, wouldn't be running away with it if we hadn't so many long term injuries to key players. If City had had just as many, to their key players, then they'd not perform at anything like their level either.

[JackWard33]

You’re talking about a Liverpool without Klopp, but take Guardiola from City and do you think theyre achieving what they have with him?

Something close yeah on the assumption that they’d have a competent (at top level) coach.
(There’s a decent amount of evidence that pellegrini is a pretty bad coach at top level or at best mediocre for example)
They were amassing trophies before he arrived and their financial advantage has increased since he came (they’ve spent more but also the cumulative effect of years of investment)

Budget also extends to managers - unless a club makes a miss hire like Lampard - the default is they’ll have a world class coach

Football is fundamentally about the players  you can put on the pitch and that’s largely, though not absolutely of course, dictated by budget

In this the season where anything can happen it’s still taken an unprecedented injury crisis for us to be in danger of not top 4 - the other 3 biggest budgets in the league will probably end up there, one of them has fired a coach and ones managed by a supply teacher

[PeterTheRed ...]

I'd put money on us not actually getting anything

Well, if this deal goes through, it could mean anything. The new investment might encourage FSG into not calling in their loan for the Main Stand upgrade and the training complex. Also, it might encourage them into directly financing the Anfield Road stand upgrade. This won't be a direct investment in transfers, but will effectively increase the available transfer funds.

Also, the fact that RedBird own a share in Wasserman might influence our transfer policy. James Pallotta being a shareholder in both FSG and AS Roma has certainly helped us get Salah and Alisson. And with Wasserman representing the likes of Houssem Aouar, Giovanni Reyna and Harvey Barnes (as well as our own Joe Gomez and Neco Williams), we might see deals for these players being done easier than usual ...

[LFCobsessive]

Since say Brendan Rodgers and now Klopp, there is something I don't get, maybe someone who has looked into how it works could give me info.
Record amount/new sponsorships, Nike deal.
Stadium expansion and Kirkby training facility interest freeish loans?
Winnings because of the past few years.
Brilliant deals done for our players getting sold.
The net spend thing right, where does all this new above stuff factor in to available money covid crap aside? (it's always player sales we seem to use I know)
If we gain 3 sponsors and the fans are forced to see veggie nugget adverts etc, does that advertising using our badge not have a percentage that should go to player purchasing?
So basically can veggie nuggets buy an Mbappe, lol nah. Hope I made sense in what I'm trying to ask.
Also, so in summer we should have this years Nike money? the percentage thing with kit sales etc. This summer is going to be totally loony season transfer rumour following, I predict it lol.
Totally never mentioned this redbird thing, I don't know what to make of it right now. So, sorry for being a bit off topic.

[Eeyore]

Nobody can compete with Man City financially and absolutely none of our fans should be asking us too. We could probably do it for a season or two but then what? City can spend £200 million every year and if it doesn’t work out carry on until it does. If we do that and it doesn’t work out we’re fucked - and rightly so, that’s how it should be.

Asking for FSG to spend more is one thing. Asking them to compete with the oil clubs and break every rule going is another thing completely.

United have competed with City, they have spent over a billion since Ferguson retired in 2013. That is despite the Glazers taking money out of the Club as well as United having a large debt to finance.

United can compete because they had a sustained period of success and went on to the next level commercially. We have the chance to do that, for that to happen FSG need to show ambition to smash through that glass ceiling.

[killer-heels]

Since say Brendan Rodgers and now Klopp, there is something I don't get, maybe someone who has looked into how it works could give me info.
Record amount/new sponsorships, Nike deal.
Stadium expansion and Kirkby training facility interest freeish loans?
Winnings because of the past few years.
Brilliant deals done for our players getting sold.
The net spend thing right, where does all this new above stuff factor in to available money covid crap aside? (it's always player sales we seem to use I know)
If we gain 3 sponsors and the fans are forced to see veggie nugget adverts etc, does that advertising using our badge not have a percentage that should go to player purchasing?
So basically can veggie nuggets buy an Mbappe, lol nah. Hope I made sense in what I'm trying to ask.
Also, so in summer we should have this years Nike money? the percentage thing with kit sales etc. This summer is going to be totally loony season transfer rumour following, I predict it lol.
Totally never mentioned this redbird thing, I don't know what to make of it right now. So, sorry for being a bit off topic.

If you are trying to ask what I think you are asking then no, we are not signing Mbappe.

[Eeyore]

If you are trying to ask what I think you are asking then no, we are not signing Mbappe.

I thought he was hungry and fancied a veggie nugget bap.

[Chris~]

United have competed with City, they have spent over a billion since Ferguson retired in 2013. That is despite the Glazers taking money out of the Club as well as United having a large debt to finance.

United can compete because they had a sustained period of success and went on to the next level commercially. We have the chance to do that, for that to happen FSG need to show ambition to smash through that glass ceiling.

Football and the league looks a bit different to the 90s

[Eeyore]

Well, if this deal goes through, it could mean anything. The new investment might encourage FSG into not calling in their loan for the Main Stand upgrade and the training complex. Also, it might encourage them into directly financing the the Anfield Road stand upgrade. This won't be a direct investment in transfers, but will effectively increase the available transfer funds.

Also, the fact that RedBird own a share in Wasserman might influence our transfer policy. James Pallotta being a shareholder in both FSG and AS Roma has certainly helped us get Salah and Alisson. And with Wasserman representing the likes of Houssem Aouar, Giovanni Reyna and Harvey Barnes (as well as our own Joe Gomez and Neco Williams), we might see deals for these players being done easier than usual ...

Henderson and Van Dijk are clients of Wasserman as well.

[PeterTheRed ...]

Henderson and Van Dijk are clients of Wasserman as well.

I wasn't sure about that. Wasserman are certainly big players in the football market, and being associated with them will only help us ...

[Samie]

So is Gio Reyna. FSG need a yank for this team. 

[Trendisnotdestiny]

So is Gio Reyna. FSG need a yank for this team. 

We all need y(wank) now and then.  Put a little yank in your life.  Come back Samie

[Eeyore]

I wasn't sure about that. Wasserman are certainly big players in the football market, and being associated with them will only help us ...

Clients of WMG (SFX) who have played for us Hansen, Dalglish, Lawrenson, Mateo, Hignett, Carragher, Owen, Murphy, Gary Mac, Barmby, Heskey, Riise, Gerrard, Keane, Enrique, Downing, Van Dijk, Brewster, Williams, Gomez.

[PeterTheRed ...]

So is Gio Reyna. FSG need a yank for this team. 

I am really curious if Reyna has a release clause in his Dortmund contract. He is such an awesome talent. Klopp could turn him into a perfect successor of Firmino in our system, and into a World class player ...

[PeterTheRed ...]

Clients of WMG (SFX) who have played for us Hansen, Dalglish, Lawrenson, Mateo, Hignett, Carragher, Owen, Murphy, Gary Mac, Barmby, Heskey, Riise, Gerrard, Keane, Enrique, Downing, Van Dijk, Brewster, Williams, Gomez.

So, the connection is already there, and having a joint owner would only make it stronger ...

[keyop]

So here we are again folks - another discussion about finances and FSG.

Will we see John Henry's shadow and have another 6 weeks of winter, and more tiresome posts about net spend and transfers?

Stay tuned to this compelling thread to find out.

[Eeyore]

So, the connection is already there, and having a joint owner would only make it stronger ...

It also has the possibility for some pretty huge conflicts of interest.

[PeterTheRed ...]

It also has the possibility for some pretty huge conflicts of interest.

Not really, since RedBird won't be the majority owner at either FSG or WMG ...

[Eeyore]

Not really, since RedBird won't be the majority owner at either FSG or WMG ...

Gestifute aren't the majority owners of Wolves but it hasn't stopped them having a pretty huge influence over transfers.

[Eeyore]

Well, if this deal goes through, it could mean anything. The new investment might encourage FSG into not calling in their loan for the Main Stand upgrade and the training complex. Also, it might encourage them into directly financing the Anfield Road stand upgrade. This won't be a direct investment in transfers, but will effectively increase the available transfer funds.

Also, the fact that RedBird own a share in Wasserman might influence our transfer policy. James Pallotta being a shareholder in both FSG and AS Roma has certainly helped us get Salah and Alisson. And with Wasserman representing the likes of Houssem Aouar, Giovanni Reyna and Harvey Barnes (as well as our own Joe Gomez and Neco Williams), we might see deals for these players being done easier than usual ...

Just to clear something up here. James Palotta has never been a shareholder in FSG and doesn't own Roma anymore, the person who had an interest in both FSG and Roma is Thomas DiBenedetto. Palotta is a friend of Henry's.

[redbyrdz]

Oh, I didn't know about this. When did I get rich?

[Eeyore]

Oh, I didn't know about this. When did I get rich?

  .

[PeterTheRed ...]

Just to clear something up here. James Palotta has never been a shareholder in FSG and doesn't own Roma anymore, the person who had an interest in both FSG and Roma is Thomas DiBenedetto. Palotta is a friend of Henry's.

Al, I am really not familiar with the FSG details as you are, but I am sure that even you would agree that the ownership link has helped us to get Salah and Alisson, no matter if it was Palotta or DiBenedetto to credit for it ...

[PeterTheRed ...]

Gestifute aren't the majority owners of Wolves but it hasn't stopped them having a pretty huge influence over transfers.

Probably due to the fact that Mendes also owns part of the economic rights of many players represented by Gestifute ...

[Dim Glas]

FSG Craig back in action. 

this place could do with a Al and Craig forum, so they can both go round in circles together, love now there is just no middle ground at all 

[Dim Glas]

You’re talking about a Liverpool without Klopp, but take Guardiola from City and do you think theyre achieving what they have with him?

they win leagues with average managers.

It doesn’t take a Guardiola, they can easilu get a very good mananger next, not up there with Guardiola sure, but better than past managers they had who won leagues and got to CL semi finals regardless. 

So yeah, it really doestn’ take a Guardiola for them to be dominant with their ridiculous riches and systematic cheating.

[B0151?]

they win leagues with average managers.

It doesn’t take a Guardiola, they can easilu get a very good mananger next, not up there with Guardiola sure, but better than past managers they had who won leagues and got to CL semi finals regardless. 

So yeah, it really doestn’ take a Guardiola for them to be dominant with their ridiculous riches and systematic cheating.

I don't agree. They've won it twice aside from Pep with all the riches. Mancini won a title in extra time of the final day. Pellegrini won by 2 points and a slip. Pep is the only one who has had them dominating.

[CraigDS]

this place could do with a Al and Craig forum, so they can both go round in circles together, love now there is just no middle ground at all 

to be honest I’ve stayed away from most threads regarding finances because I just can’t be arsed, and my only comments in here have had nothing to do with the owners.

[Dim Glas]

I don't agree. They've won it twice aside from Pep with all the riches. Mancini won a title in extra time of the final day. Pellegrini won by 2 points and a slip. Pep is the only one who has had them dominating.

And I think they will dominate with other coaches. Mancini and Pellegrini are average managers, yet they won the league, and Pellegrini even got to a CL semi final. After Guradiola, they can get a really good coach who will far exceed the likes of Mancini and Pellegrini in terms of ability and talent. There is such a gap in levels between Guardiola and those 2, there won’t be such a gap next time.

So yes, they will continue to dominate. It’s like PSG and Bayern, they too win league with average managers. But with a very good manager they can dominate - Flick is a good example, he isn’t a genius coach, but with what is probably alongside Man City, the best squad in Europe at his disposal, they dominate.