[quote author=etchy link=topic=40083.msg1099392#msg1099392 date=1273064467]
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=40083.msg1099221#msg1099221 date=1273019830]
All in all it's pretty easy to justify at least a 500m sale price - particularly considering the price of Man City. Articles written by ignorant, opinionated journalists with little or nothing behind they're bluster denigrating the club as in dire straits is sensationalism designed to exploit the fear of the fans who link the current on field performance with off field success. I expect any new owners to be amortising massive amounts of goodwill for an extended period of time.
[/quote]
Great effort in your response, Wizardry. Point taken on the untapped potential on the heritage of the club.
A couple of things stand out for me though.
1. Article was pulled out by a journalist for sure but quoted word for word from this Bick guy who's in the M&A business. It is opinionated but I fail to see how this is biased i.e. as an agenda against the club. It certainly paints the club in trouble in it's current strategy but did we not know that already?
2. The bit about the 500 mil valuation based on Liverpool's heritage is arguable. What has the current owners contributed in their 'reign' that justifies a 2-3 times increase in the club's value? Actually, they've dragged this heritage down in my eyes. It's in a similar vein to H&G argument now that new owners have to pay a premium for a planned but non-existent stadium.
3. Is it wrong for me to hope the wider media brings some balance so a sale can be made quicker then the new owners can truly contribute to realising the potential of this heritage, contribute the monies saved to players/stadium and not line the pockets of H&G? By all accounts the unrealistic valuations of the club is holding up the sale.
Ok, that's 3 points but who's counting. 😉
[/quote]
There are a couple of points that Bick manages to entirely ignore in his letter.
1. His involvement in trying to find a suitor for the club was entirely engulfed in the greatest global financial crisis for about 50 years. The only action in that market has been from tyre kickers or those desperately searching for an asset that had no where else to turn. To the credit of H&G or, perhaps more correctly, Purslow they didn't waste time on the dead beats nor buckle to ridiculous offers that gave no value to the club and what it stands for. Make no mistake - anyone who came searching for an asset on the brink was in it only for a short term gain to ride it out for a couple of years and then sell it on when the crisis was cleared.
2. Bick makes the point of it being a "rescue package" that is needed - attention grabbing but hardly newsworthy. There is an incredibly fine line between investment and rescue package since, by definition, anyone seeking investment almost always needs some form of rescue. Chelsea "needed" rescuing, Leeds "needed" rescuing, Man City needed investment and so got rescued. The bottom line is that, whether Bick says so or not, nobody in any recorded transactions of note has "rescued" an entity and it won't happen here. The vendor may rightly class it as a rescue because of their position but the purchaser does it purely as an investment because they see the potential and subsequent value to be realized. His OTT comments on Anfield;- nobody cares. If anything it increases the sale price because all this so called delapidation is removed by a new stadium already approved.
If he was giving an honest appraisal of the situation he would have pointed out very strongly that all the club required was one cornerstone investment and the flood to take up an offer from its worldwide audience would be irresistable. The offer would almost certainly be over subscribed and the cornerstone could either take advantage of the subscription by increasing the offer or contract for a % to be withheld for directors - thus ensuring their position.
The point is that anyone looking at Liverpool can see it has the requirements; a worldwide appeal, incredible heritage, remarkable current value, present day validity, amazing potential and, most importantly, essentially all possible obstacles to that potential (fiscally and legally) accounted for by reliabile business plans. The final obstacle was something that G&H absolutely did not count on - a global financial crisis that nearly crippled them.
Ask yourself this question; if there was a major cornerstone signed up for investment in Liverpool - given the current business plans that are in place - would you put your hard earned into the pot. I certainly would and I strongly believe that as the world continues the climb out of it's financial crisis more and more people would happily do the same.
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=40083.msg1099221#msg1099221 date=1273019830]
All in all it's pretty easy to justify at least a 500m sale price - particularly considering the price of Man City. Articles written by ignorant, opinionated journalists with little or nothing behind they're bluster denigrating the club as in dire straits is sensationalism designed to exploit the fear of the fans who link the current on field performance with off field success. I expect any new owners to be amortising massive amounts of goodwill for an extended period of time.
[/quote]
Great effort in your response, Wizardry. Point taken on the untapped potential on the heritage of the club.
A couple of things stand out for me though.
1. Article was pulled out by a journalist for sure but quoted word for word from this Bick guy who's in the M&A business. It is opinionated but I fail to see how this is biased i.e. as an agenda against the club. It certainly paints the club in trouble in it's current strategy but did we not know that already?
2. The bit about the 500 mil valuation based on Liverpool's heritage is arguable. What has the current owners contributed in their 'reign' that justifies a 2-3 times increase in the club's value? Actually, they've dragged this heritage down in my eyes. It's in a similar vein to H&G argument now that new owners have to pay a premium for a planned but non-existent stadium.
3. Is it wrong for me to hope the wider media brings some balance so a sale can be made quicker then the new owners can truly contribute to realising the potential of this heritage, contribute the monies saved to players/stadium and not line the pockets of H&G? By all accounts the unrealistic valuations of the club is holding up the sale.
Ok, that's 3 points but who's counting. 😉
[/quote]
There are a couple of points that Bick manages to entirely ignore in his letter.
1. His involvement in trying to find a suitor for the club was entirely engulfed in the greatest global financial crisis for about 50 years. The only action in that market has been from tyre kickers or those desperately searching for an asset that had no where else to turn. To the credit of H&G or, perhaps more correctly, Purslow they didn't waste time on the dead beats nor buckle to ridiculous offers that gave no value to the club and what it stands for. Make no mistake - anyone who came searching for an asset on the brink was in it only for a short term gain to ride it out for a couple of years and then sell it on when the crisis was cleared.
2. Bick makes the point of it being a "rescue package" that is needed - attention grabbing but hardly newsworthy. There is an incredibly fine line between investment and rescue package since, by definition, anyone seeking investment almost always needs some form of rescue. Chelsea "needed" rescuing, Leeds "needed" rescuing, Man City needed investment and so got rescued. The bottom line is that, whether Bick says so or not, nobody in any recorded transactions of note has "rescued" an entity and it won't happen here. The vendor may rightly class it as a rescue because of their position but the purchaser does it purely as an investment because they see the potential and subsequent value to be realized. His OTT comments on Anfield;- nobody cares. If anything it increases the sale price because all this so called delapidation is removed by a new stadium already approved.
If he was giving an honest appraisal of the situation he would have pointed out very strongly that all the club required was one cornerstone investment and the flood to take up an offer from its worldwide audience would be irresistable. The offer would almost certainly be over subscribed and the cornerstone could either take advantage of the subscription by increasing the offer or contract for a % to be withheld for directors - thus ensuring their position.
The point is that anyone looking at Liverpool can see it has the requirements; a worldwide appeal, incredible heritage, remarkable current value, present day validity, amazing potential and, most importantly, essentially all possible obstacles to that potential (fiscally and legally) accounted for by reliabile business plans. The final obstacle was something that G&H absolutely did not count on - a global financial crisis that nearly crippled them.
Ask yourself this question; if there was a major cornerstone signed up for investment in Liverpool - given the current business plans that are in place - would you put your hard earned into the pot. I certainly would and I strongly believe that as the world continues the climb out of it's financial crisis more and more people would happily do the same.
