The Gutter descends into the depths of tabloid transfer tittle-tattle and website waffle. It can be murky down here, but we look to give you our assessment of what might be the flaming torch of truth in the darkness – and what could just be flaming nonsense.
Rob Gutmann was joined by Josh Sexton, Andy Heaton and Paul Cope for the latest instalment of this summer’s ‘Gutter’ to talk about a potential Liverpool takeover bid from China Everbright, a company reportedly backed by the Chinese government.
Also on the show, John Gibbons speaks to Jonathan Northcroft of The Sunday Times who has the inside track on his potentially huge story.
– The Gutter will be running all the way through the summer, keeping you right up to date with all the latest gossip and rumours. Subscribe – it’s only a fiver a month. Minimum sign up is only one month. For more information on a subscription, click here.
Some people, including Jonathan Northcroft in his contribution here, see to be conflating the wealth of a clubs owners with the wealth or revenue levels of the club.
Fans might want FSG to spend more, but it has always been clear that they would only authorise expenditure covered by revenue. Some people might want it to be different, but FFP enforces it and our rivals now have the same approach. Abramovich might be a billionaire, but he gave up funding transfer long ago. The same goes for the owners of Arsenal and Utd and even City, they all fund transfers from revenue not from their owners pocket. They spend more because they earn more.
It does sound like this Chinese takeover link has a bit more behind than the last one Jonathan was peddling, and certainly more than the one Simon Hughes ran with, but it is still pretty thin gruel.
If surprises me that people don’t put a bit more weight behind the only clearly sourced, on the record accounts that are available on this story. FSG have given the clearest possible message that the club is not for sale, even saying that any offer letter would find it’s way to the “garbage” bin. Some accounts are stressing that FSG have expressed interest in minority investment, ignoring that FSG have talked only about a small minority holding, in the context of a broader commercial deal, perhaps around a naming rights deal.
My guess is that this will unfold like this in the coming weeks…
Firstly FSG will be in Liverpool next week for the first home game, to mark the opening of the new stand. They will be asked again about the rumoured deal and will take the opportunity to repeat their stance that the club is not for sale and that they are not in any discussions.
A week later nothing will have happened and the news agenda will have moved on, although people will continue to speculate on social media etc.
Another week later nothing will have happened.
A month will go by still nothing. People will wonder what’s happening.
Two months will go by still nothing.. but what’s this? Another takeover story… could be the arabs again this time, or maybe the malaysians, or more Chinese. Whoever they are they are wealthier than the City owners… rinse and repeat.
You clearly haven’t listened to FSG properly they’ve said they absolutely want more investment in the club which is what this Chinese group is offering read the information better
“At the same time we’ve been clear that we actively pursue commercial opportunities which in turn helps us invest in the squad and win football matches,” he said.
“These commercial discussions can be complex and we’ve said in the past, under the right conditions and absolutely with the right partner, we could look at some small investment stake in the club.
“But only in the framework of doing what would be in the club’s long-term best interests. I want to reiterate that the club is not for sale.” – Tom Werner Interview 19-Aug
I don’t think there is anything wrong with my reading.
I like Jonathan but he’s a journo not a value expert. The idea that every (public) source published annually including Forbes and the Deloitte list show Liverpool as the 8th highest European Football Club with a value in excess of over $1 billion; Forbes in May 2016 had L4 at more than $1.5 billion.
The idea that FSG would sell the club for £700 or £800 million is, even for a journalist, stupid since the math just doesn’t work. The negotiations are very complex (been there, done that) because the steps must include a valuation acceptable to both sides. And that would take months by itself. Yes, FSG have junior partners but the deal has to be commercially reasonable.
As to the Chinese doing a Wiz and just movin on down the road, look at the commercial revenue for each of the competitors Rob mentions. The Chinese could be interested in Liverpool b/c Asian fans are numerous and they could damn well use the goodwill they might get. How many Spurs kits sell in Asia? West Ham? Okay, Newcastle?
It’s funny how normal Joe blow people knock down journalist who do this for a living and expect people to listen their point of view why should people listen to Joe blow off the street? What more would they know if anything over journos who do this for a living? Their is absolutely something in this if FSG don’t accept a deal they are contradicting themselves you can’t say on one hand yes we want investment and then when the opportunity arises you turn around say no thanks and by the way the figures of the worth of this group is around £620bn that is not made up its a publicly know company so anyone can search up their wealth this would change Liverpool FC big time we would go from perennial 6th-8th in the PL to title contenders I don’t know how fans wouldn’t want that
From the International Business Times today. Looks like FSG is telling the truth? But, but The Times! Jonathon?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-everbright-limited-refutes-reports-liverpool-takeover-bid-1577494
In regard to FSG selling up, just be careful what you wish for. If a Chinese company does purchase LFC they will want a return on it. Can’t imagine it’s a vanity purchase like Man City was for Mansoor. I could easily see them taking 50-100m out of the club annually as a dividend.