Club up for sale

[Beamrider]

Just some thoughts on the sale/investment process. Long and occasionally geeky post so feel free to scroll on if that’s not your thing.

I don’t believe the prospect of FSG considering a full sale would have leaked if this had never been on the table. It was just one part of a detailed story, but from a journalistic perspective it was an important detail and given that the rest of the leak has proven credible, I believe a full sale was part of the mandate and the journalists would have gone out of the way to firm up on the credibility before publishing.

In that context, Henry’s “not for sale” comments this week should probably be read as “we didn’t get a big enough offer”. That’s if they got any offers at all. We know that prospective buyers periodically sniff around the club and to date no-one has offered enough to tempt FSG.

This process launched in the aftermath of the Chelsea sale – a lot of analysts think that Chelsea was massively over-priced (I agree) and that excess valuation came on the back of an auction process in which the bidders likely ended up offering more than they wanted to because of the competitive process – that’s the whole point of that kind of sale process, job done, fair play to the (still massively overpaid) merchant banks. Furthermore, Chelsea was the only major club up for grabs at that time – low supply and high demand driving up the price and all that.

So FSG launch a process in which they’re contemplating a full sale of the club, and they’re rubbing their hands in the light of the Chelsea valuation and telling themselves this proves their sky-high valuation of the club was always correct. But they don’t get anything like the price they want because:

1. Chelsea was overpriced. Everyone, except Todd Boehly and chums, knows that.
2. The Glazers put United up for sale shortly after the process starts, and investors with no emotional attachment will view United as a better prospect – there’s stuff you can do to enhance the value of the club, not least stadium re-furb, not fundamental stuff, just running it better and reversing the impact of laziness / neglect by the Glazers. Furthermore, United is listed on NYSE, so you've got something of a guide price to sense check your valuation (and shit loads of publicly available financial information that you've likely already analysed).
3. LFC “brand” value is on the wane because we’re a bit shit at the moment. Squad needs a re-build. FSG have always spent what we earn, minimal external investment (other than capital projects), essentially self-sustaining. But a buyer knowing they’ll have to put extra money in to fund a re-build will knock that money off the price. This goes against FSG’s expectations because their valuation assumes the club will continue to sustain itself - always has, always will.
4. Prospect for significant growth in future LFC revenues is relatively low – stadium is probably at full capacity now and price increases are difficult due to the likely fanbase reaction, training ground is done, TV revenues are largely uncontrollable due to central negotiations and distributions, Superleague is difficult to say the least, commercial revenue may be close to saturation - the only big money out there now is crypto and you probably won't get paid as it's all bullshit.
5. Cost-cutting – pointless exercise when rising player costs dwarf anything you can save elsewhere. Finance geeks like to refer to cost-cutting as a “haircut” but in football it’s more of a “shave”.
6. Many of the potential bidders have already taken a look in private in the past – they decided against a bid when it was non-competitive, they’re too wise to get involved in a bidding process. They’re not going to suddenly tell themselves that they undervalued the club in the past because some other bidders now think it’s worth more than they do.
7. Sportswashers know that LFC's militant fans are not going to roll out the red carpet like City and, to a lesser extent, Newcastle have done. And they will worry that Klopp will quit. What’s that lads, you’re not big fans of torture and are pissed off that the amazing manager you loved has quit because we’re a bunch of twats? Never mind, we’ve just signed Bellingham so all good, yeah? What do you mean “no”?
8. Finally, and this is the key one I think – they fucked the sale process with an unclear mandate. If you go into a sale process then buyers need to know that you will take the best offer and are committed to the sale. They’re not going to commit time and resources to evaluating a bid (which is a long, time-consuming process, and is expensive even if your bid fails) unless you are committed to selling. So if you send out a vibe that you might not sell after all, the bidders are either going to bail out of the process altogether, or else they won’t commit time and resources to it and will do a quick and dirty job, likely resulting in a low-ball bid which is just a try-on to see if the seller bites. And if the banks didn’t tell them that’s what would happen then they were badly advised. If they pushed on with the process regardless then they are idiots.

And it they do get some minority interest, we’ll need to look carefully at how it is structured to make sure serious money goes into the club, and if that investment is into LFC only (where a relatively small sum could secure you a decent stake, relative to what you’d get for the same money invested into the wider FSG empire) then we will need to prepare for the kind of dysfunctional powerplay behaviour we saw under Hicks and Gillett, probably preceded by some heavy player investment which may get us all excited but with the risk that it will all turn to shit like it looks like it will at Chelsea.


I've said all along that with the Annie Road paid for by the end of this financial year I expect there to be significant money available to spend this summer and I stand by that, but if we don't get Champions League next year then that will take a dent out of that budget.

I hope I'm wrong about the longer term outlook, obviously. It may work in our favour if United goes for a sensible price as that may help FSG to get realistic about their valuation, especially when they find (as they will) that Klopp can only work miracles on a low budget for so long.

 

[dogboy]

Just some thoughts on the sale/investment process. Long and occasionally geeky post so feel free to scroll on if that’s not your thing.

I don’t believe the prospect of FSG considering a full sale would have leaked if this had never been on the table. It was just one part of a detailed story, but from a journalistic perspective it was an important detail and given that the rest of the leak has proven credible, I believe a full sale was part of the mandate and the journalists would have gone out of the way to firm up on the credibility before publishing.

In that context, Henry’s “not for sale” comments this week should probably be read as “we didn’t get a big enough offer”. That’s if they got any offers at all. We know that prospective buyers periodically sniff around the club and to date no-one has offered enough to tempt FSG.

This process launched in the aftermath of the Chelsea sale – a lot of analysts think that Chelsea was massively over-priced (I agree) and that excess valuation came on the back of an auction process in which the bidders likely ended up offering more than they wanted to because of the competitive process – that’s the whole point of that kind of sale process, job done, fair play to the (still massively overpaid) merchant banks. Furthermore, Chelsea was the only major club up for grabs at that time – low supply and high demand driving up the price and all that.

So FSG launch a process in which they’re contemplating a full sale of the club, and they’re rubbing their hands in the light of the Chelsea valuation and telling themselves this proves their sky-high valuation of the club was always correct. But they don’t get anything like the price they want because:

1. Chelsea was overpriced. Everyone, except Todd Boehly and chums, knows that.
2. The Glazers put United up for sale shortly after the process starts, and investors with no emotional attachment will view United as a better prospect – there’s stuff you can do to enhance the value of the club, not least stadium re-furb, not fundamental stuff, just running it better and reversing the impact of laziness / neglect by the Glazers. Furthermore, United is listed on NYSE, so you've got something of a guide price to sense check your valuation (and shit loads of publicly available financial information that you've likely already analysed).
3. LFC “brand” value is on the wane because we’re a bit shit at the moment. Squad needs a re-build. FSG have always spent what we earn, minimal external investment (other than capital projects), essentially self-sustaining. But a buyer knowing they’ll have to put extra money in to fund a re-build will knock that money off the price. This goes against FSG’s expectations because their valuation assumes the club will continue to sustain itself - always has, always will.
4. Prospect for significant growth in future LFC revenues is relatively low – stadium is probably at full capacity now and price increases are difficult due to the likely fanbase reaction, training ground is done, TV revenues are largely uncontrollable due to central negotiations and distributions, Superleague is difficult to say the least, commercial revenue may be close to saturation - the only big money out there now is crypto and you probably won't get paid as it's all bullshit.
5. Cost-cutting – pointless exercise when rising player costs dwarf anything you can save elsewhere. Finance geeks like to refer to cost-cutting as a “haircut” but in football it’s more of a “shave”.
6. Many of the potential bidders have already taken a look in private in the past – they decided against a bid when it was non-competitive, they’re too wise to get involved in a bidding process. They’re not going to suddenly tell themselves that they undervalued the club in the past because some other bidders now think it’s worth more than they do.
7. Sportswashers know that LFC's militant fans are not going to roll out the red carpet like City and, to a lesser extent, Newcastle have done. And they will worry that Klopp will quit. What’s that lads, you’re not big fans of torture and are pissed off that the amazing manager you loved has quit because we’re a bunch of twats? Never mind, we’ve just signed Bellingham so all good, yeah? What do you mean “no”?
8. Finally, and this is the key one I think – they fucked the sale process with an unclear mandate. If you go into a sale process then buyers need to know that you will take the best offer and are committed to the sale. They’re not going to commit time and resources to evaluating a bid (which is a long, time-consuming process, and is expensive even if your bid fails) unless you are committed to selling. So if you send out a vibe that you might not sell after all, the bidders are either going to bail out of the process altogether, or else they won’t commit time and resources to it and will do a quick and dirty job, likely resulting in a low-ball bid which is just a try-on to see if the seller bites. And if the banks didn’t tell them that’s what would happen then they were badly advised. If they pushed on with the process regardless then they are idiots.

And it they do get some minority interest, we’ll need to look carefully at how it is structured to make sure serious money goes into the club, and if that investment is into LFC only (where a relatively small sum could secure you a decent stake, relative to what you’d get for the same money invested into the wider FSG empire) then we will need to prepare for the kind of dysfunctional powerplay behaviour we saw under Hicks and Gillett, probably preceded by some heavy player investment which may get us all excited but with the risk that it will all turn to shit like it looks like it will at Chelsea.


I've said all along that with the Annie Road paid for by the end of this financial year I expect there to be significant money available to spend this summer and I stand by that, but if we don't get Champions League next year then that will take a dent out of that budget.

I hope I'm wrong about the longer term outlook, obviously. It may work in our favour if United goes for a sensible price as that may help FSG to get realistic about their valuation, especially when they find (as they will) that Klopp can only work miracles on a low budget for so long.

@Beamrider the man who makes economics interesting.

 

[Beamrider]

@Beamrider the man who makes economics interesting.

It just feels like it's interesting because it's footy. Thanks all the same.

 

[Fabio]

A question for you @Beamrider regarding the chelsea sale.

was it a condition of the sale that the new owners invested over 1bn in the club? and if so, do you think thats why they've spent stupid money, as it's investing the club, with the potential to sell at a later date a recoup some money back. I've a theory they're going big early, to justify fuck all purchases in a year or 2

 

[StevieM]

A question for you @Beamrider regarding the chelsea sale.

was it a condition of the sale that the new owners invested over 1bn in the club? and if so, do you think thats why they've spent stupid money, as it's investing the club, with the potential to sell at a later date a recoup some money back. I've a theory they're going big early, to justify fuck all purchases in a year or 2

I think it was a condition that spending was spread over team, stadium & training facilities to the tune of £1.5b or something like that.

 

[Fabio]

I think it was a condition that spending was spread over team, stadium & training facilities to the tune of £1.5b or something like that.

Interesting, so it depends on how exact they need to be with the split.

 

[Beamrider]

A question for you @Beamrider regarding the chelsea sale.

was it a condition of the sale that the new owners invested over 1bn in the club? and if so, do you think thats why they've spent stupid money, as it's investing the club, with the potential to sell at a later date a recoup some money back. I've a theory they're going big early, to justify fuck all purchases in a year or 2

The sale was done under a government licence which should be publicly available. I'll see if I can find it / find out what it stipulated.

 

[bluebell]

Just some thoughts on the sale/investment process. Long and occasionally geeky post so feel free to scroll on if that’s not your thing.

I don’t believe the prospect of FSG considering a full sale would have leaked if this had never been on the table. It was just one part of a detailed story, but from a journalistic perspective it was an important detail and given that the rest of the leak has proven credible, I believe a full sale was part of the mandate and the journalists would have gone out of the way to firm up on the credibility before publishing.

In that context, Henry’s “not for sale” comments this week should probably be read as “we didn’t get a big enough offer”. That’s if they got any offers at all. We know that prospective buyers periodically sniff around the club and to date no-one has offered enough to tempt FSG.

This process launched in the aftermath of the Chelsea sale – a lot of analysts think that Chelsea was massively over-priced (I agree) and that excess valuation came on the back of an auction process in which the bidders likely ended up offering more than they wanted to because of the competitive process – that’s the whole point of that kind of sale process, job done, fair play to the (still massively overpaid) merchant banks. Furthermore, Chelsea was the only major club up for grabs at that time – low supply and high demand driving up the price and all that.

So FSG launch a process in which they’re contemplating a full sale of the club, and they’re rubbing their hands in the light of the Chelsea valuation and telling themselves this proves their sky-high valuation of the club was always correct. But they don’t get anything like the price they want because:

1. Chelsea was overpriced. Everyone, except Todd Boehly and chums, knows that.
2. The Glazers put United up for sale shortly after the process starts, and investors with no emotional attachment will view United as a better prospect – there’s stuff you can do to enhance the value of the club, not least stadium re-furb, not fundamental stuff, just running it better and reversing the impact of laziness / neglect by the Glazers. Furthermore, United is listed on NYSE, so you've got something of a guide price to sense check your valuation (and shit loads of publicly available financial information that you've likely already analysed).
3. LFC “brand” value is on the wane because we’re a bit shit at the moment. Squad needs a re-build. FSG have always spent what we earn, minimal external investment (other than capital projects), essentially self-sustaining. But a buyer knowing they’ll have to put extra money in to fund a re-build will knock that money off the price. This goes against FSG’s expectations because their valuation assumes the club will continue to sustain itself - always has, always will.
4. Prospect for significant growth in future LFC revenues is relatively low – stadium is probably at full capacity now and price increases are difficult due to the likely fanbase reaction, training ground is done, TV revenues are largely uncontrollable due to central negotiations and distributions, Superleague is difficult to say the least, commercial revenue may be close to saturation - the only big money out there now is crypto and you probably won't get paid as it's all bullshit.
5. Cost-cutting – pointless exercise when rising player costs dwarf anything you can save elsewhere. Finance geeks like to refer to cost-cutting as a “haircut” but in football it’s more of a “shave”.
6. Many of the potential bidders have already taken a look in private in the past – they decided against a bid when it was non-competitive, they’re too wise to get involved in a bidding process. They’re not going to suddenly tell themselves that they undervalued the club in the past because some other bidders now think it’s worth more than they do.
7. Sportswashers know that LFC's militant fans are not going to roll out the red carpet like City and, to a lesser extent, Newcastle have done. And they will worry that Klopp will quit. What’s that lads, you’re not big fans of torture and are pissed off that the amazing manager you loved has quit because we’re a bunch of twats? Never mind, we’ve just signed Bellingham so all good, yeah? What do you mean “no”?
8. Finally, and this is the key one I think – they fucked the sale process with an unclear mandate. If you go into a sale process then buyers need to know that you will take the best offer and are committed to the sale. They’re not going to commit time and resources to evaluating a bid (which is a long, time-consuming process, and is expensive even if your bid fails) unless you are committed to selling. So if you send out a vibe that you might not sell after all, the bidders are either going to bail out of the process altogether, or else they won’t commit time and resources to it and will do a quick and dirty job, likely resulting in a low-ball bid which is just a try-on to see if the seller bites. And if the banks didn’t tell them that’s what would happen then they were badly advised. If they pushed on with the process regardless then they are idiots.

And it they do get some minority interest, we’ll need to look carefully at how it is structured to make sure serious money goes into the club, and if that investment is into LFC only (where a relatively small sum could secure you a decent stake, relative to what you’d get for the same money invested into the wider FSG empire) then we will need to prepare for the kind of dysfunctional powerplay behaviour we saw under Hicks and Gillett, probably preceded by some heavy player investment which may get us all excited but with the risk that it will all turn to shit like it looks like it will at Chelsea.


I've said all along that with the Annie Road paid for by the end of this financial year I expect there to be significant money available to spend this summer and I stand by that, but if we don't get Champions League next year then that will take a dent out of that budget.

I hope I'm wrong about the longer term outlook, obviously. It may work in our favour if United goes for a sensible price as that may help FSG to get realistic about their valuation, especially when they find (as they will) that Klopp can only work miracles on a low budget for so long.

Great Work.


If I was a billionaire, I look at United, the purchase cost would be say £5.5bn, the debt is £500m so £6bn. The modernisation of Old Trafford £200m. If they want to expand Old Trafford another £200m New training facility £60m same cost as ours. £200m in transfer
So that's a whopping £6.5-6.7bn. The cost of purchasing Liverpool £4bn, stadium done, training facility done, room for expansion in 5-10 years with the KDS mirroring the Main Stand. Purchase of properties on Skerries road few mill. You just have to back the manager which gain titles which inturn garners more fans, sponsors, and merch sales.

 

[peekay]

Interesting, so it depends on how exact they need to be with the split.

Because of the unique nature of the ownership of Stamford Bridge, Chelsea stadium development investments is likely to be on the minimal side. Unless the Chelsea Pitch Owners association agree to sell the land to Boehly which I don't think is happening.

 

[Fabio]

Because of the unique nature of the ownership of Stamford Bridge, Chelsea stadium development investments is likely to be on the minimal side. Unless the Chelsea Pitch Owners association agree to sell the land to Boehly which I don't think is happening.

Thats what i was thinking. They can't redevelop, so they need to move which would be an astronomical expense. thats why i think they'll end up being very frugal in the transfer market

 

[Beamrider]

A question for you @Beamrider regarding the chelsea sale.

was it a condition of the sale that the new owners invested over 1bn in the club? and if so, do you think thats why they've spent stupid money, as it's investing the club, with the potential to sell at a later date a recoup some money back. I've a theory they're going big early, to justify fuck all purchases in a year or 2

Have had a dig around and I can't find the licence. They did publish the licence under which Chelsea operated while Abramovic was under sanctions (prior to the sale) and a statement a week after the sale committing that Abramovic wouldn't get any of the cash, but there's no sign of the sale conditions. I've no reason to doubt @StevieM 's take on it, just can't find an official source.

 

[dogboy]

It just feels like it's interesting because it's footy. Thanks all the same.

Sorry, I should have quantified the post as, the man who makes economics interesting..for an eejit like me.

 

[darkstarexodus]

Great Work.


If I was a billionaire, I look at United, the purchase cost would be say £5.5bn, the debt is £500m so £6bn. The modernisation of Old Trafford £200m. If they want to expand Old Trafford another £200m New training facility £60m same cost as ours. £200m in transfer
So that's a whopping £6.5-6.7bn. The cost of purchasing Liverpool £4bn, stadium done, training facility done, room for expansion in 5-10 years with the KDS mirroring the Main Stand. Purchase of properties on Skerries road few mill. You just have to back the manager which gain titles which inturn garners more fans, sponsors, and merch sales.

The difference is that making those improvements at United further enhance the club's value and a bolster a future sale.

The improvements are done here. How much more will LFC's value inflate? Operating profit on football clubs is slim, so without the capital increase its a less attractive option.

 

[Beamrider]

The difference is that making those improvements at United further enhance the club's value and a bolster a future sale.

The improvements are done here. How much more will LFC's value inflate? Operating profit on football clubs is slim, so without the capital increase its a less attractive option.

I agree that the infrastructure improvements are largely done, all you'd need to do is maintain them.
However, I do think there will still be some capital growth, mostly driven out of media revenues (and club valuations being most closely associated with revenues rather than profits), but those media revenues are largely out of the owner's control. So I kind of agree with both you and @bluebell on principle (although I think Bluebell's headline valuation numbers are a little in the "Henrysphere") - LFC probably represents better value (and an easier / less risky club to manage, beyond the inherent risk of the squad rebuild), United represents better opportunity, and the chance to create more of your own value increase via a little TLC.
I think I've said this on here before, but I also believe, fundamentally, that football clubs are a kind of tangible "NFT" - they mostly generate sod-all return for their owners during their tenure (Glazers have only really had money out of United because they didn't invest funds in capital / squad enhancement when they should have done) and yet somehow they generate huge capital gains - essentially because there's a market of people out there who THINK they are valuable, when on any conventional business valuation basis (i.e. cash return to owners) they should be regarded as basically worthless.

 

[bluebell]

The difference is that making those improvements at United further enhance the club's value and a bolster a future sale.

The improvements are done here. How much more will LFC's value inflate? Operating profit on football clubs is slim, so without the capital increase its a less attractive option.

Spend money on squad, win titles, get greater fan base and media interest, gain more sponsors sell more merch, value increases. The difference between Liverpool and Man U is £1.5bn. Plus another £1bn for stadium, debt, training, and transfers. £6.5bn all in. How much more potential does Man U have when you look at the Dallas Cow boys are worth $9bn?
Chelsea went for £2.7bn, Spurs have an offer of £3.5bn and Man U's current highest offer is £5.5bn, is £4bn asking for too much? I don't think FSG are asking for over the odds amount but unlike Man U we don't have fans bidding. I heard that Jassim is a Man U fan who occasionally goes to games For the Qataris its not about the Money but clout. for Ratcliffe, its probably about fulfilling boyhood dream.
It is what it is...

 

[Beamrider]

One final, tecchy point to make about valuations. In the financial press, valuations are usually expressed in terms of "enterprise value". In simple terms, this means what would you pay to acquire the company if it had no cash and no debt.
So if a company has £1bn of debt (net of any cash on deposit) and is quoted at a value of £5bn in the financial press, that effectively means that someone is prepared to pay £4bn to acquire the shares in the company (and thus inherit the £1bn debt). This is how a normal M&A transaction is priced - the buyer values the business debt / cash free and then deducts the value of the debt at closing to determine the share price.
It's often difficult to know, when reading press articles on the sports pages, whether they understand this distinction, and whether the valuations you see for different clubs are like for like.
So in the example above, an article that says "X values the club at £5bn" is probably a financially-literate, enterprise value based story.
Whereas, "X is understood to be prepared to pay £4bn for the club" is probably a sports journalist talking about the share price.
And when we're dealing with a company like United which has a quoted share price, the papers are more likely to report a price per share (which, assuming market efficiency, would be more or less the same as the listed share price).
But there's a good chance a sports journalist won't appreciate the distinction and will report the enterprise value figure as "prepared to pay £5bn", which is misleading. You can only really get to the bottom of this stuff by doing a proper dig into the accounts after the fact, or by reading an official press release which stipulates the basis of the valuation.
So in short, be careful how you compare reported club valuations as you may not be comparing apples with apples.

 

[Donavan Ried]

Clearly they will have learnt the lesson that you have to invest when you are at the top. They will not make the same mistake twice ...and, to them, it's a situation easily avoided by not being at the top.

How many years before we are in that position again pray tell...?

 

[bluebell]

How many years before we are in that position again pray tell...?

@Donavan Ried, he was being sarcastic, look at the words following what you've highlighted.

 

[StevieM]

Have had a dig around and I can't find the licence. They did publish the licence under which Chelsea operated while Abramovic was under sanctions (prior to the sale) and a statement a week after the sale committing that Abramovic wouldn't get any of the cash, but there's no sign of the sale conditions. I've no reason to doubt @StevieM 's take on it, just can't find an official source.

I’m going off the Swiss Ramble post earlier in the thread which mentioned that the Chelsea sale included a £1.75b commitment to spend on “infrastructure, the academy and women’s football” on top of £2.5b paid for the club.

Not sure whether that was a condition of the deal or Boehly’s offer - and it looks like transfer spending falls outside that.

 

[tombrown]

It is encouraging to see the loons educating each other

 

[Frogfish]

The difference is that making those improvements at United further enhance the club's value and a bolster a future sale.

The improvements are done here. How much more will LFC's value inflate? Operating profit on football clubs is slim, so without the capital increase its a less attractive option.

However a future sale at a much higher value (so fewer buyers) and with a much greater risk (if it all goes tits up over there as it's done for a while and we know is possible).

 

[rurikbird]

I think I've said this on here before, but I also believe, fundamentally, that football clubs are a kind of tangible "NFT" - they mostly generate sod-all return for their owners during their tenure (Glazers have only really had money out of United because they didn't invest funds in capital / squad enhancement when they should have done) and yet somehow they generate huge capital gains - essentially because there's a market of people out there who THINK they are valuable, when on any conventional business valuation basis (i.e. cash return to owners) they should be regarded as basically worthless.

That’s an interesting thought - isn’t a lot of business this way nowadays, not just football clubs? Not making any real-world profit, but depending on hype or dreams of “disrupting”/monopolizing the market to present attractive option to investors who in turn hope to dump it in time to the next batch of suckers… I don’t know much about markets, but in the big picture it seems like a side-effect of too much (mostly fictional) money floating around with not much actually productive investment on offer.

 

[tombrown]

That’s an interesting thought - isn’t a lot of business this way nowadays, not just football clubs? Not making any real-world profit, but depending on hype or dreams of “disrupting”/monopolizing the market to present attractive option to investors who in turn hope to dump it in time to the next batch of suckers… I don’t know much about markets, but in the big picture it seems like a side-effect of too much (mostly fictional) money floating around with not much actually productive investment on offer.

It was called the dot com boom and it burst around the turn of the century. Needs to fucking burst again

 

[Woland]

We missed the boat on this when FSG arrived. I'm sure the fans could have worked with a bank to get the ridiculously undervalued price underwritten and worked from there, when what happened was a gift to some lizards, it was like signing over power of attorney to your mum's will to a hedge fund.

There's no going back. It'll just get progressively worse. I was on the train to London yesterday morning and got talking to two Indian dudes, one who lives in London, one in Joberg, and they had both been at the game, paid through the nose for tickets, the South African based guy comes to Anfield three times a year, sees mates for a few days and fucks off home. He had a bag full of shit that probs cost about five hundred quid from the club shop. So he's spent about a grand with LFC for one night, and probs three times more than that just moving around. Who would the club rather have as a fan? Me? I buy a season ticket for 800 quid and get to the ground about four minutes before kick off, rarely even buy a drink and never buy any of the stupid shit they sell in the shop. The game and the associated price revolves around wealthy people from all corners of the globe, and the future value of the club is modeled on them, the TV deals, the super league, not me.

I'm not pissed off at anyone here, just reporting. I'm glad people from around the world get to enjoy what I've begun to take for granted. I gave my ticket away on Tuesday because someone I know really wanted to go and I wasn't that arsed.

We did our Faustian deal a decade ago, and we've seen some great football and won all the prizes. I hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. I did.

 

[tomasjj]

Can there be some kind of balance and a place for both kinds of fans, to maintain the soul of the club?

 

[rurikbird]

Can there be some kind of balance and a place for both kinds of fans, to maintain the soul of the club?

There HAS to be. Otherwise it will be all sterile and fake and no one will be bothered. Smart owners have to look at “real” fans as an asset, not a problem.

 

[Woland]

I'll take a more cynical stance on that.

 

[Farkmaster]

The real fans are a massive asset, they are the only thing that makes the sport unique for international viewers.

The thing is, they aren't a short term proposition, and they aren't owned, which is why every year that culture atrophies more and more, even as they make little YouTube shorts about it.

When I was last in anfield I was in the basic hospitality seats and it was the shittiest experience I've ever had watching the club. Everyone was there recording the kop, the fucking Norwich supporters seemed really hardcore, which is laughable, and it it was me singing alone around tourists, and yes, I was a tourist too. Big new stand, all the bells and whistles, fucking shit. Not saying the seats in the equivalent location years back were some cauldron either, but it's just a flame slowly flickering out, still capable of raging from time to time.

 

[tomasjj]

Might depend on what kind of temporal perspective the owners have, the more short-term, the more just about the beans.

 

[bluebell]

It is encouraging to see the loons educating each other

Not sure why you're liking the comment @peekay , you are most certainly banded in with us.
Its not a bad thing being categorized as a "loon", we get most things right!