You’re totally right @Sithbare that a majority takeover doesn’t automatically mean a 100% total exit for FSG.The critical thing to understand is that the contract gives the Bezos consortium a unilateral call option to purchase up to 100% of the club at that locked-in $8 billion valuation. Because the option is unilateral, the decision rests entirely with Bezos, not FSG. If and when they pull that trigger in 12 months, Bezos basically chooses between two paths:
• The 100% Clean Break: Bezos deploys the full $5.6 billion in cash, buys out all remaining shares, and FSG exits completely.
• The 70-80% Controlling Majority: Bezos buys just enough shares to give the consortium absolute boardroom and operational control, while letting FSG retain a passive 30% minority stake to smooth the transition.
So the power rests with the Bezos consortium (not FSG) to either make it a 100% purchase or less.
The best analogy I can think of here is a transfer fee. LFC buys Barcola: Ornstein says it was £120m total, Romano says £125m including add-ons, Jacobs comes in and says £119m minus add-ons. Chances are, they’re all correct; the information is just coming from different parties involved in the deal, and each side wants to make sure they come out looking like they won it. To back this up with the actual corporate mechanics of the deal, consider the leverage dynamic: Ratcliffe spent £1.3bn ($1.65bn total, including infrastructure cash) to acquire 25% of United, plus operational control. Do you really think Bezos would invest $1.4bn+ of his personal cash just to get a seat on the board, without any option to purchase more and without FSG giving up any leverage? It defies the basic rules of high finance.
Your analogy with Ratcliffe certainly points in the direction of Bezos and friends buying all or most of the club 12 months from now. But I would be very disappointed with FSG if they have agreed to sell to 1892 Holdings and are not being open about it now.
Like I said, it’s just sports journalist speculation. All it takes is one outlet to come up with this option story and the others just follow suit like lemmings. I don’t think FSG have any notion to give up control of something they obviously enjoy owning.
No, but once football clubs end up valued in the billions of pounds, the pool of people who could own them becomes a very small pool of almost exclusively cunts.
It’s not an oil rich despot though is it. Thats where the line is for me.
FSG are odd ones out because they look relatively controversy free owners. None of the other major clubs have that anymore.
Likes of Everton have had usmanov (Russian money) propping them up.
,
Aston Villa, Newcastle , Chelsea , United , arsenal, city.. all have had cases of either oil money or despots backing them up.
And it’s a shit product for all the money spewing round in it. But if you like the distraction feel free to keep watching and throwing your money into that pit.
no, its not just speculation, i dont agree there. You are completely misinterpreting how institutional business journalism works. Bloomberg, CNBC, and the Sports Business Journal are not low-tier clickbait sites copy-pasting each other. They are the literal gold standard of global financial reporting. If they publish that a contract contains a unilateral call option.They are verifying it directly through corporate M&A databases, investment banking syndicates, and investor disclosures. They don’t follow anyone like 'lemmings. CNBC’s Alex Sherman, whose specific beat is sports and media deals, reported the option independently; Bloomberg separately reported the consortium is “planning to eventually obtain a controlling stake”; Sports Business Journal covered it with its own sourcing. That’s three separate outlets with three separate reporting chains, not one outlet’s guess getting copy-pasted around.
I think what might be the best for Liverpool is that FSG continue on with a minority stake. Enough to ensure that Bhatia is protected from hostile takeovers by Bezos.
That really depends on how the internal structure of the group is and Bhatia probably does need to keep more money from his or his wife’s family trust.
3 people on 19% each and FSG on 43% or so would provide that much more confidence that an erstwhile good guy in Bhatia (which the qpr fans do speak highly about) isn’t upstaged.
Also , you’ve got to consider the age of the top FSG guys. Henry is what in the 70s now , surely thats time for him to be just watching his holdings grow and not take a more active role.
that would be nice but unfortunately its not going to happen. looking at the current transaction that has taken place, Bezos has already fronted the most (over a billion) via the k5 sport vehicle. the more even split is probably between saverin and bhatia/mittal family
Bhatia’s father in law is a very rich man mind. Bezos won’t ever run the club anyhow, he won’t want to be the figurehead hence why this exists, his group of the consortium isn’t even being fronted by him.
unfortunately its not going to happen like that @Sithbare. Because this transaction is legally structured as a pure-cash buy with zero debt (THANK YOU THANK YOU FSG), the mechanics for the next takeover round completely favor Jeff Bezos, not the minority partners:
• The Cash Requirement: To buy out the remaining 70% of the club from FSG at that $8 billion valuation, 1892 Holdings will need to deploy roughly $5.6 billion in pure, liquid cash.
• The Liquidity Filter: This is exactly why Bezos is highly likely to increase his stake rather than dilute. For the Mittal and Saverin families, matching their proportional share of that next phase would require writing immediate checks for over $1 billion each in pure liquid capital. Most of their wealth is tied up in long-term industrial steel assets and venture funds, which are incredibly difficult to liquidate in a tight 12-month window without severe tax penalties.
• The Dilution Reality: Bezos has unparalleled routine liquidity backed by Amazon asset metrics. If Saverin and Bhatia choose not to commit that massive level of liquid cash which is highly likely considering they didn’t even match Bezos in this much smaller initial transaction, Bezos will simply fund the shortfall himself. Legally, the partner who cuts the check absorbs the new shares.
Amit Bhatia is the active frontman because of his excellent football pedigree, but his boardroom protection will come from Shareholders’ Agreement veto clauses, not because he is going to magically out-fund the third richest man in the world. The next phase will see Bezos increase his percentage simply because he is the only one who can comfortably write a $5 billion cash check.
It is rather worrying. I hope that the case is that Bezos funded the initial amount more because the other two weren’t able to raise the necessary liquid amount in time with an understanding that the other two would pay him back by some months or so to get the ownership stakes into a much more manageable equation. I’ve seen it happen in business before. And I’ve seen what you’ve mentioned happen more
I used to do this shit for a living (non standard assets/alternative investments mergers acquisitions) years ago. and what i can say right now and you can quote me on it. Unless something drastic happens, Jeff Bezos will be the new majority owner of LFC in 12 months time.