FSG to sell Red Sox to fund Liverpool?
- Thread starter OLD_Lewy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Well, FSG part-own NESN to be exact, but that's pretty much it.
It's estimated to be worth about as much as the team.
I wouldn't be surprised if FSG want to keep rights to be shown on LFC TV ultimately. Kroenke has made moves with Arsenal that would suggest he thinks it's the way forward too.
This report comes on the heels of the podcast that was mentioned earlier. There is logic in them selling the Red Sox - the market for MLB clubs is better than previously thought based on the Dodgers sale, they've got nothing left to gain by keeping it, and the club is a mess right now.
As for funding us - they can't because of FFP which they are committed to, so the logic falls down there .... unless they want to finance a stadium but everything they've said on that issue previously hints to an Anfield redevelopment.
Who knows.
No, fans & the media just dont understand it.
They dont have to be worried, as they're complying.
Well, Chelsea & City are, PSG dont give a shit cos it doesnt apply to them yet, what with being a UEFA rule only.
Not sure about Chelsea, but can't possibly see how City are complying, from what I remember of the rules.
By Peter Abraham, Globe Staff
Here is what John Henry said just now about the report that the Red Sox are up for sale:
"A sale of any kind is so far from our thinking it hasn't even come up apart from technical planning issues involving death or disability. This report is completely without foundation.
"Regarding unnamed sources: Any sale discussions that may have taken place were missing three key people — Larry [Lucchino], Tom [Werner] and me. The Sox and any of the other components of FSG are not for sale and will not be for the foreseeable future."
Here is what John Henry said just now about the report that the Red Sox are up for sale:
"A sale of any kind is so far from our thinking it hasn't even come up apart from technical planning issues involving death or disability. This report is completely without foundation.
"Regarding unnamed sources: Any sale discussions that may have taken place were missing three key people — Larry [Lucchino], Tom [Werner] and me. The Sox and any of the other components of FSG are not for sale and will not be for the foreseeable future."
They increased their turnover & reduced the wage bill, as well as spending less on transfers.
Too little too late, surely? Their inbuilt expenses from the past 3 years of transfers (and the wage bill going forward) surely guarantee substantial losses for the forseeable future. I'd have thought the best they can hope for is to be 'showing willing' as it were, by having a pattern of reducing losses.
Chelsea spent 79 mill net this season after reporting a loss of 68 mill, City spent 31 mill net after reporting a loss of 194 mill (not including CL revenue or the Ethiad sponsor deal).
Breaking even over a 3 year period or not, these clubs looks like they couldnt give a toss about FFP.
The shady Ethiad deal is the lifelines City will have to use seeing as Yaya Toure earns more pr year than their match day income.
Breaking even over a 3 year period or not, these clubs looks like they couldnt give a toss about FFP.
The shady Ethiad deal is the lifelines City will have to use seeing as Yaya Toure earns more pr year than their match day income.
That's all you need though, if your turnover is increasing year or year & spending reducing you are showing willing.
These clubs aren't doing this without legal & financial advice, they know they're doing it by the book & can't be done, or they wouldn't be risking it.
I can't remember the exact rules, although I do remember some guff about moving in the right direction. Surely they're not going to place absolute emphasis on that, though, to the total exclusion of the spending limits? Otherwise it'll just make a complete mockery of the whole thing.
Having said that, I did always think that the presence of any discretion in the rules was pretty telling, together with the lack of proscribed punishments for various levels of infraction. That was always likely to lead to fudging and abuse.
Its basically designed to stop anyone in uefa competition already from getting new wealthy owners & spending billions, & stopping those club's overspending year on year & getting in debt.
As for existing clubs, if they've spent a lot to get the top recently they're pretty good to go but in a couple of years they'll not be able to change all 11 players for superstars as they may have done in the past.
- Status