He's the opposite of that Indy guy who claims we're interested in everyone.
Saying we're buying no one ever, is a smarter way to fake itk status because knowing us, it's true 90% of the time.
Club up for sale
- Thread starter dmishra
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
He's the opposite of that Indy guy who claims we're interested in everyone.
Saying we're buying no one ever, is a smarter way to fake itk status because knowing us, it's true 90% of the time.
Well, maybe I'm misinterpreting the tweets / articles that have been posted here... but... I gather that people think Qatar are going to ditch PSG - the one with Mbappe, Neymar and Messi - to buy LFC because LFC will give them more reach or some shit.
So, I'm waiting on that with baited breath.
Last edited:
And who the fuck would stop them exactly?
Sweet lord, that sounds like the Qatari's are taking FSG for fools.
Anything over 30% as a 'majority' shareholder and they could trigger a full take over from memory. Therefore sounds like this rules the Qatari's out.
I'm pretty sure the Qataris have no intention of hanging around as minority investors for long, and FSG know that. It's all about the money aint it.
Let's fucking hope so Nomad.
My prediction is they will take as large of a shareholding as they can. Agree a set price for remaining shares. Get rid of PSG when that “project” is over. Then take full control of LFC.
Okay pardon my ignorance in advance, but isn't Liverpool FC a 100% owned subsidiary of FSG?
Why would willingly selling 30% trigger a full takeover? They could sell any percentage they wanted, surely?
Would Love FSG to sell Liverpool, but I can see any of the Middle East concerns buying a minor percent in Liverpool.
Just can't see it
Just can't see it
Its close to 100% yes. From what I understand there are a few minority shareholders directly, I.e. LeBron James, Mike Gordon etc, I could be wrong and I don't know the exact split, so below is for simplicity.
However, the Qatari is saying that the consortium wants to be a Majority partner. Not a minority partner.
The only way to do this is to give them in your scenario 50.01%.
By doing this FSG have effectively handed the keys to the Qataris, like you saw at Arsenal. As soon as you have a majority shareholder with over 30% of the business, they can trigger a hostile takeover.
Hence the Qatari is talking out of his proverbial arse.
With respect, I don't think that is correct. The takeover regime applies only to public companies, like Arsenal Holdings plc, or companies which have been publicly trading their shares.
Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited is a private limited company so the 'takeover' requirements do not apply.
In any event, the 30% does not operate in the way you have described. Acquiring 30% of a public company obliges you to make a general offer to the remaining shareholders to buy their shares. It does not oblige the remaining shareholders to sell their shares to you, although minor shareholders may certainly like to cash in.
FSG could agree to sell any number of shares to the consortium. If it retains more than 50%, then it effectively retains control of the club. If it sells more than 50%, then it cedes control, which means that the price would be significantly higher (as good as selling the club) The dispute over the exact percentage would be important mostly because it affects the valuation of the remaining shares, assuming that FSG intends to sell the remaining shares as well, at some point. In addition, a party with more than 75% would be able to pass a special resolution unilaterally.
Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited is a private limited company so the 'takeover' requirements do not apply.
In any event, the 30% does not operate in the way you have described. Acquiring 30% of a public company obliges you to make a general offer to the remaining shareholders to buy their shares. It does not oblige the remaining shareholders to sell their shares to you, although minor shareholders may certainly like to cash in.
FSG could agree to sell any number of shares to the consortium. If it retains more than 50%, then it effectively retains control of the club. If it sells more than 50%, then it cedes control, which means that the price would be significantly higher (as good as selling the club) The dispute over the exact percentage would be important mostly because it affects the valuation of the remaining shares, assuming that FSG intends to sell the remaining shares as well, at some point. In addition, a party with more than 75% would be able to pass a special resolution unilaterally.
Also fairly confident anyone making plans to invest 1 to 4 billion, will not be announcing details on Twitter. Well, i guess, outside of Elon.
I believe the 30% also applies to private companies, its been a long time since I covered it in my studies. However you are correct in that the target company (FSG) doesn't have to accept the mandatory bid.
The PSG project was leverage for the World Cup 2022. Now that's done they can ditch PSG because they know Ligue 1 is a farmers league and nobody will ever watch it even if you put Messi Neymar and Mbappe in the same team.
The City Code only applies to listed companies. Private companies can make their own rules, within the parameters of UK company law. I believe you could even be a plc, but not listed, and the City Code would not apply.
Also bear in mind that private companies can make their own rules about passing resolutions etc, and it would be common in a situation where you have consortium ownership (ie 2 or more major shareholders exercising control between them) for there to be some form of shareholders’ agreement (SHA) governing the conduct of votes, and how shares are bought/sold - eg the SHA would usually provide that anyone wishing to sell has to offer their shares to the other parties to the SHA before being able to sell to anyone else (right of first refusal).
As for minority shareholdings (eg Red Bird) it’s my understanding they don’t have shares in LFC itself (nor the UK holding company) so their investment will be higher up the chain. If FSG were to sell, it’s likely they would sell the UK holding company (UKSV Holdings) so those minority shareholders will probably be subject to an SHA at whatever level they’ve invested in and will likely have to go along with whatever FSG decides. I doubt they will have sufficient shareholdings to stop FSG doing whatever they want.
That’s one big tin hat.
It seems we believe what ever is most recent. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and most people outside the club don't either.
Anfield Edition or Paul Joyce have got it wrong a few times too.
Paul Joyce of the Athletic gets info the club wants people to hear
We as a public will flip-flop, going from one extreme to the next with in hours.
Anfield Edition or Paul Joyce have got it wrong a few times too.
Paul Joyce of the Athletic gets info the club wants people to hear
We as a public will flip-flop, going from one extreme to the next with in hours.
Aren't there only three big clubs that could be described as State-owned?
PSG - is wholly owned by QSI, a subsidiary of Qatar's sovereign wealth fund QIA
Newcastle - owned by a consortium which includes the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund
City - owned by the City Football Group, of which 81% is owned by one of Sheikh Mansour's company. City Football Group. There are a large number of other clubs also owned by the Group. Sheik Mansour is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and the brother of the current President of the UAE.
So there's plenty of scope yet for middle eastern ownership
PSG - is wholly owned by QSI, a subsidiary of Qatar's sovereign wealth fund QIA
Newcastle - owned by a consortium which includes the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund
City - owned by the City Football Group, of which 81% is owned by one of Sheikh Mansour's company. City Football Group. There are a large number of other clubs also owned by the Group. Sheik Mansour is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and the brother of the current President of the UAE.
So there's plenty of scope yet for middle eastern ownership
You can’t have significant control over more than one club. You can have a minority stake.
*Red Bull enters the chat* the rules have been bent a number of times. It used to be that you couldn't own two teams in the Champions league. Even that's been circumvented.
Also, with Ratcliffe.. doesn't he own Nice?
Football is entering its final throes as we know it. Hence you are seeing Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juve hemorrhaging cash, and banging the drum for a super league.. because even they are struggling to keep pace with the EPL.
Agnelli even admitted as much the other day. Its a do or die situation in their minds.
You’ll always see arguments about states v businesses resident there v funds etc. City argue that they are not owned by the state, Newcastle the same, but there are those who think the ties are too close for comfort (eg although Newcastle is owned by the PIF, most people think MBS de facto controls it so it’s equivalent to state ownership).
The prohibition on owning two clubs, I think, is a Premiership rule, albeit one that might be mirrored in other national leagues, hence Red Bill can own two clubs in different leagues (also City with investments across the globe, including Europe).
It all comes down to sporting integrity - the Premier League won’t accept any half measures (hence also loan players can’t play against their parent clubs, but Spain, for example, allow that). UEFA seem to be more relaxed but I’m pretty sure there was some investigation when the Red Bull clubs played each other to ensure there would be no collusion / match fixing.
EDIT
UEFA ruled that the Red Bull clubs were not under common control so OK to both play in CL. They played each other in the Europa League in 2018.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40348340.amp
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
