what i expect in the next few months. Bhatia to be Mike Gordon’s shadow, every major administrative decision Gordon makes over the next several months will be shared transparently with Amit Bhatia. This allows Bhatia to study Gordon’s exact executive blueprint in real-time. Bhatia will have a direct seat at the table in selecting and interviewing the next sporting director. Anyone Liverpool hires as the new sporting director this autumn will be fully aware that Bezos group is preparing to activate the majority buyout framework. Therefore, the new executive will essentially be interviewed and approved by Bhatia and the Bezos group, ensuring the new footballing boss aligns with the incoming owners’ long-term vision. I also see the Bezos consortium aggressively fast-tracking the integration of AWS (Amazon Web Services) data infrastructure directly into Liverpool’s recruitment and performance analysis departments. Bhatia’s presence ensures the new technical department will be completely aligned with the Bezos consortium’s tech-heavy, data-integrated vision.Can see Bhatia gradually assuming those exact day-to-day responsibilities that Gordon is currently shouldering…
Regardless of how people might feel about FSG, i believe they have been great custodians of the club and are notoriously guarded about who they let into the inner sanctum of Liverpool F.C. They have spent over a decade turning down massive, highly lucrative offers from aggressive private equity funds and Gulf state-backed entities because they refused to hand the club over to what they viewed as corporate raiders or political sportswashing vehicles. This deal does not happen without Bhatia. For FSG, Bhatia was the vital bridge that made the entire deal palatable, serving as the ultimate guarantee of authenticity and trustworthy custodianship.
Thought this had already been debunked
which part?
That they can just basically buy the club if they want, some guy who knew business more than football earlier in the thread was posted.
like i said earlier, i go with what alex sherman posted yesterday, and bloomberg and sports business journal said the same.. who debunked this?
Whatever
On shirts. I am not sure Amazon needs to sponsor anyone. They are universally recognised.
But.
Amazon sponsors major sports leagues and tournaments rather than individual club teams. Their biggest sports sponsorships are with UEFA Women’s Football and the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), acting as an official retail and tournament partner. [1, 2]
Major Sport and League Partnerships
-
UEFA Women’s Football: Official online retail sponsor for competitions like the Women’s Champions League and Women’s EURO through 2030.
-
National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL): Exclusive retail and cloud technology sponsor, plus presenting partner for the Best XI awards.
-
NHLPA (Canada): Collaborates on community hockey inclusion and accessibility funding programs. [1, 2, 3]
Broadcasting and Media Rights
Instead of traditional jersey or team sponsorships, Amazon heavily invests in broadcasting rights and corporate partnerships that tie into major leagues: [1]
The PL is an interesting one, they have one game on a Tuesday in the CL but didn’t bid anywhere near enough (or at all) when they came up last time.
Look, all this stuff about options to buy outright are completely speculative and there has been nothing released by the club to this extent. The full detials of the contract are confidential and only the fundamental details have been released which do NOT mention any options to buy outright. These accounts that 1892 Holdings have a 12 month period in which to purchase the club outright for £8bn are being pumped out by sports journalists and sports business analysts who are ‘in the know’. We all kniw exactly how invariably wrong these guys are, so unless the club releases a statement confirming the ‘option’ then I think we should all just treat it circumspectly.
We could also ask why Mike Gordon would talki about FSG taking a long terms view of the club’s future and emphasising the new investment is a ‘minority shareholding’ if FSG is thinking of coughing up ownership to Bezos and friends. It all doesn’t make sense unless you figure it’s great clickbait and news churn.
slight pushback here if i may: The core claim checks out across independent outlets: Sports Business Journal, citing Bloomberg, confirms the Bezos consortium is “planning to eventually obtain a controlling stake” in Liverpool, and CNBC reports the same underlying arrangement. That’s not two guys speculating on a podcast, that’s Bloomberg, CNBC, and SBJ, separately, each independently reporting: this deal was built with a future path to full ownership in mind, not just a passive 30% stake.
I don’t know how reliable the total figure of 8 billion is.
Especially when the club is currently valued at 4.5b.
From the way it looks like the club is deciding to give Bhatia Bezos and co a taste of what it means to own Liverpool and they have one year to decide on whether they want to take controlling ownership. At which point they’ll start slowly buying the shares of FSG to a total overall price of 8 billion.
8 billion might sound excessive but if you compare that to the sale of United where there’s still the debt that glazers loaded onto the club (which is unpaid) , Liverpool have a working stadium and United are stuck with the rat infested traffford (that counts for another billion or so if not more if the United owners do decide on building a new stadium).
Think both the clubs are valued at the same price point with respect to the overall value of them in terms of global reach etc. It’s just United’s debt , new stadium requirement and overall being rather shite at football post Fergy which gets their value down.
If the end valuation for FSG is to have the club valued at 8 billion. All that really means for Bhatia,Bezos and Severin is to buy another 30% of the club at approximately 3b.
That values their 60% of the club at 4.5b and puts the total valuation of the club at 8b.
FSG can then choose to stay on as background partners or they can choose to sell their stake of the club knowing that they’ve increased the valuation of the club to 8b.
is your valuation based on $ or pounds?
"You’re mixing up British Pounds (£) and US Dollars ($), which completely throws off your math:
- The Math Error: The initial 30% stake actually cost £1.65 billion ($2.1 billion). That means the club is valued at $7.1 billion (£5.5 billion) today, not $4.5 billion.
- The Option Cost: To step up to a majority takeover at the locked-in $8 billion valuation, the Bezos consortium will have to pay an extra $5.6 billion (£4.3 billion) in cash not the $3 billion you guessed. It’s a single, massive ‘call option’ trigger, not a slow chip-away at minor shares.
However, you are 100% spot on about Manchester United. Liverpool is a significantly cleaner and lower-risk asset for Jeff Bezos because FSG already expanded Anfield entirely debt-free. United is heavily penalized by over £1 billion in unpaid Glazer debt and a decaying Old Trafford stadium that will cost Sir Jim Ratcliffe billions to rebuild or fix.
Tl/dr: We’re better than Man U (again).
A lot of this is because we have many UK migrants who bring their existing small club support with them and this has shaped the football culture. Interestingly amongst young Aussie kids, the support for Ronaldo and Messi and their teams, followed by the likes of PSG trumps the usual expected PL order.
Here the option is given that the the Bezos consortium has the option to make a majority takeover. There’s nothing which says that FSG needs to exit totally.
I can really see FSG retaining around 30% of the club and waiting for one more valuation day in 4-5 years time before doing a final exit. They don’t really need to sell the entire shares now.
There’s nothing which says that FSG are exiting the club fully.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that those kids (present in India as well) need to be taken in hand.
I really don’t understand why there is such a difference of opinion / interpretation of the deal between British and American media outlets.
An article in the Guardian dated 8/14 says:
FSG insist the deal is not part of an exit strategy from a club they acquired in 2010 for £300m after the near-ruinous ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett. The transaction does not compel FSG to sell more of the club to 1892 at a future date, or include obligations for 1892 to increase their stake, but it does give Bhatia’s consortium options to purchase more of Liverpool should the majority owners eventually decide to sell.
So either FSG are being less than honest about this, or the American understanding is simply wrong.
The Guardian makes no mention of a “locked-in” valuation of 8 billion USD and it too gives a valuation of 5.5 billion GBP, which xe.com tells me is 7.44 billion USD.
Do the American business media outlets claim to have actually seen the agreement between FSG and 1896 Holdings?