Topic: Mike Gordon Comments

[fcsantos]

Not sure if any of you are TAW podcast listeners but Jay McKenna and the rest of the crew had the same thoughts as me regarding Mike Gordon's comments.  The thread was quickly closed:

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=322234.0

"under the right conditions, even to outright investment"

Some strong words used here, could easily be translated as they are looking to sell the club.

Given FFP has let our owners down, could their plan be to look for a full or part exit?

I'd be genuinely interested in what some of ours posters have to say, if they don't think its about a potential exit or part-exit, what is it they are looking for outright-investment for?

[TepidT2O]

They've mentioned an equity investment instead of sponsorship for a couple of years ... I think Werner mentioned it first,,

[CraigDS]

Your other thread was locked because it was wildly speculative, so you open another?

[fcsantos]

Really?  Have you got a source?  I've searched the web and can't find anything, I'd be really interested to read his comments, I usually pick up on those things.

We've previously done a deal with Granada, I think we got £40m for some equity before Moore's sold, but, apart from the nonsense with LeBron I'm not aware of a more recent equity investment?

I think this is quite a deliberate comment by Mike Gordon especially in the wake of the breakdown of FFP and the costs of the new stadium.  It could be a very sensible thing for the club to do, a part investment could help fund the majority of the expansion and they still get the benefits of match-day revenue.

[fcsantos]

@CraigDS its not wildly speculative mate, its a very clear comment.  How do you translate the comment about outright-investment?

[Peter McGurk]

@CraigDS its not wildly speculative mate, its a very clear comment.  How do you translate the comment about outright-investment?

As buying a share in the club for naming rights. That's it. Nothing more.

[CraigDS]

@CraigDS its not wildly speculative mate, its a very clear comment.  How do you translate the comment about outright-investment?

In no way what so ever do they say they are looking to sell the club. That's the wildly speculative part of it.

Will they sell of a small % as part of a commercial deal! well the LeBron deal already shows this is a yes. That is very different to selling the whole club though.

[fcsantos]

In no way what so ever do they say they are looking to sell the club. That's the wildly speculative part of it.

Will they sell of a small % as part of a commercial deal! well the LeBron deal already shows this is a yes. That is very different to selling the whole club though.

Fair enough CraigDS, this is why I wanted to ask the question, interesting to hear that you think it's a throw-away comment.  People I have spoken to, the lads on TAW Player (Jay McKenna - Chairman of SOS) and my personal feelings aren't as certain.

I'm not sure if you remember, they said when they bought the club that FFP was key to their decision to buy:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/nov/05/damien-comolli-john-henry-liverpool

Henry said UEFA’s impending financial fair play rules, which will be introduced in 2012-13 and eventually require clubs to break even on football operations, had been a key factor in persuading NESV [now FSG] to buy the club. He said they would leave Liverpool much better-placed to compete with such clubs as Manchester City and Chelsea: “They are operating under the current rules. The rules are going to change.”

Why wouldn't it affect their decision to look for potential options or even an outright exit?  Say you bought some shares in a company who has nearly doubled in value and your deep rooted belief in the success of the company was anchored on an external factor that has disappeared...I know what I would be doing without any emotional attachment.  Let's not forget they are an investment group.

For me(and many others) Mike Gordon's comments are open to translation.

[TepidT2O]

Not open to translation.  They are entirely consistent with what they've always said about rights for the main stand...

However, if they were offered a stack of cash for the club, then they might well sell... Makes sense..

[CraigDS]

If they were looking to sell he wouldn't be making comments like that in an interview concerning the naming rights to a stadium.

It's exactly what it says, that they'd be willing to see a % of the club sold in order to gain a closer relationship with a commercial partner.

[fcsantos]

Not open to translation.  They are entirely consistent with what they've always said about rights for the main stand...

However, if they were offered a stack of cash for the club, then they might well sell... Makes sense..

I agree with you Tepid, I think it would be more along the lines of equity to help the funding of a stand. Say £100m investment - 10% of the club?  What does this mean for the future decisions around our club?  Future player investments?

I'm not against our current ownership at all, but, I can't see anything positive about a diluted ownership and as a supporter I would hope they would communicate their plans more clearly.  I wouldn't feel comfortable about waking up to a consortium with 10% ownership of our club.  Wouldn't it be great if an offer like that was made available to fans willing to make an investment.

[CraigDS]

I agree with you Tepid, I think it would be more along the lines of equity to help the funding of a stand. Say £100m investment - 10% of the club?  What does this mean for the future decisions around our club?  Future player investments?

I'm not against our current ownership at all, but, I can't see anything positive about a diluted ownership and as a supporter I would hope they would communicate their plans more clearly.  I wouldn't feel comfortable about waking up to a consortium with 10% ownership of our club.  Wouldn't it be great if an offer like that was made available to fans willing to make an investment.

A minority commercial partner would have zero impact on the running of the club, the deal would be set up in such a way.

This is very different to a fan ownership group having 10%.

[fcsantos]

Sorry CraigDS, let me rephrase that, wouldn't a 10% commercial investment have an impact on the owners long-term commitment to the club?

How would a £100m, for example, short-term injection strengthen the long-term?  Do you think they would use it to cover expansion costs and players investment short-term for a 10% commercial/exit loss long-term?

Also, I respect your posts in the accountancy threads, do you think a 10% fan based investment could work in some form?

[CraigDS]

Sorry CraigDS, let me rephrase that, wouldn't a 10% commercial investment have an impact on the owners long-term commitment to the club?

It has as much impact as giving a couple of % to LeBron had - none.

How would a £100m, for example, short-term injection strengthen the long-term?  Do you think they would use it to cover expansion costs and players investment short-term for a 10% commercial loss long-term?

He specifically mentioned it with regards to a naming rights partner, so I'd assume it would be used to pay for the expansion, which in turn allows all the added revenue to be spent on players/wages sooner.

It's impossible to say if its worth it for them without knowing the figures, but there are obviously situations where it is because that's why they're seeing it as an option.

Also, I respect your posts in the accountancy threads, do you think a 10% fan based investment could work in some form?

I don't see a minority fan ownership having much chance of working, I think there would be a hell of a lot of friction between what a minority fan ownership wants and what a business owner wants. I'm not sure that friction would be beneficial to anyone in the long run.

Could fan ownership work fully? Yeah sure. It could work along the lines of Bayern with a mix of fan and commercial partners. I think we had the chance of that though and the fans couldn't make it happen even at a critical time.

[Peter McGurk]

People I have spoken to, the lads on TAW Player (Jay McKenna - Chairman of SOS) and my personal feelings...

For me(and many others) Mike Gordon's comments are open to translation.

No fan ownership agendas in play there then... A gross distortion to take it from naming rights to selling the club. What little chance the fans had for ownership, they blew it. Get over it.

The fans have shown precious little knowledge, expertise or outlook to run this football club.

.

[Motty]

Fair enough CraigDS, this is why I wanted to ask the question, interesting to hear that you think it's a throw-away comment.  People I have spoken to, the lads on TAW Player (Jay McKenna - Chairman of SOS) and my personal feelings aren't as certain.

The Chairman of SOS wasn't called Graham was he ?

[Jake]

Why do people take what is said on TAW as Gospel?

I'm sure they're good reds but it's as if what is said on that particular podcast is the truth over all else.