yep thats their paper
1 Like
Iām not sure how well clued-up Tariq Panja is on finance, and strong caveat, Iām not an M&A professional, but GS and MS often handle deals that are smaller in scale.
Maybe @Arminius or someone with more relevant experience can comment, but Iām fairly certain that whether they went with a boutique or a bulge bracket big-name is not really going to be predicated on the size of the deal.
2 Likes
Itās owned by one of Henryās companies, but it is independent from FSG.
I dont think this difference is explained by the size of the deal (an investment vs purchase), but more how the deal came to us. We seem to be responding to the interest in the chelsea deal by tasking these large companies to scope the landscape, which is not only what theyāre good at but what they corner the market in doing. You dont need one of the major players to manage the transaction of a deal that came to you the way the RedBird one did.
4 Likes
Thanks, I thought this might be the case but wasnāt sure.
Just to be sure though, have you watched 10 complete M&A deals yet? Canāt trust you otherwiseā¦
1 Like
Disagree. However thatās another discussion altogether.
So exactly the point we made, something serious is being felt out. Personally reckon itās beyond that and we are in talks with someone.
He works for the New York Times in Finance.
2 Likes
You mean in Sports.
There MAY be more to the story. But the story is also able to be fully explained by what FSG have gone on record saying, which is a position they have long been clear on.
To me, their ownership has always been based on vertical integration that makes the overall value of the FSG company more valuable than the sum of its parts. If they have decided that the landscape is changing the efficiencies those integrations bring (and I always felt one was control over tv rights, which ESL might have given them) then you can see them seeing this as the high point of their investment and piggy backing off the chelsea interest to cash out now. Itās entirely believable. It just doesnt HAVE to be the explanation for what weāre seeing.
5 Likes
It could be either, personally think a sale is on the cards. Reports like today out of nowhere, arent a stab in the dark click bait thing. The banks being used would lend weight to this view.
1 Like
As would the statement from FSG. They never deny the club is for sale, or say they are going to keep a majority stake in the club. It would be a very easy story to kill if they wanted to.
2 Likes
Heās written multiple finance related pieces. Iād take his stance on this over a pedantic twat on a forum.
Mr contrary pipes up guess where his stance is the opposite of others hahaha. Has Keita given you your reach around yet?
not to get all political, but there are no good fucking billionaires.
Iād rather we donāt get taken over by a nation state with a dodgy human rights record but other than that Iām six or half a dozen. Main thing is that the fans - via Spirit of Shankly Iād suspect - are very involved in overseeing the process in their new board role, given fan ownership (their raison detre) is beyond a pipe dream at this stage.
4 Likes
What an odious little child.
Do you think āfinanceā is a single field where someone who has written about some aspects automatically knows about others?
Educate yourself, then speak.
1 Like
What about that guy who owns/owned Patagonia?
correct
I dont think anyone is seriously suggesting it is. The reporting is clearly based on something legitimate. But reporting that major banks have been tasked with proactively finding the investment the club has long been prepared for and open about being interested in does not mean necessarily it is a move to sell out.
6 Likes
heās not as bad as most.
But seriously, itās hard to stress what an astronomical amount of money a billion quid is. As someone else said in this thread said, itās a policy failure. That amount of wealth should be taxed out of existence - we shouldnāt just expect them to be good people and give 99% of it to charity/combating climate change or whatever.
6 Likes
What do you know? Youāve posted fuck all actual information like normal, just troll comments. You add nothing to the debate bar contrary rubbish.
It adds weight thatās the point. When Fsg sold a share tk red bird they used a small firm, why not the same? What is different?