kev61 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 On 01/02/2024 at 13:56, Sciatika said: They were the better side, but not 4-1 better. Also, someone needs to tell the BBC that 4-1 is not a "thrashing" even when it's Liverpool. They were 4-1 better and we were "thrashed" in every sense of the word. We were embarrassing and barely laid a glove.I hope Poch doesn't have your assessment that was honestly given I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd25 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 (edited) 3 hours ago, kev61 said: They were 4-1 better and we were "thrashed" in every sense of the word. We were embarrassing and barely laid a glove. Agreed, we were all over the place and torn apart, although Paul Tierney and co were on a mission to redeem themselves with Klopp and refused to be impartial, either that or I just don’t understand modern officiating at all. Edited February 4 by Floyd25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTG Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 7 hours ago, Dwmh said: Not if they are expecting 30% returns annually. Even with a lot of fresh debt. How long would EC take from financial commitment to being ready to play there? And how much longer to re-build and cash in on the Bridge? As you well know you don't become a 40bln company without personnel who are top of the class in the investment game. e.g. One would assume somewhere in there portfolio there are real estate development companies, alternatively it could be a partnership. One would assume EC2 would be the priority to move the club into a spanking new ground and who knows, that might be the appropriate time to sell blueco. Leaving them with SB and the highest bidder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTG Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 7 hours ago, Ham said: They're not property developers though. They don't have to be - its the best way of reaping rewards from there investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwmh Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, ROTG said: They don't have to be - its the best way of reaping rewards from there investment. I get the property angle as being an inducement to the next owner. I don't think anyone has caught onto the high level of risk Clearlake wants to invest in though. Or their confidence that if they can cash out for half their initial investment they can then make back the loss with other investments. Clearlake presume massive opportunity costs from any use of money that doesn't make 30%. It is not taking a 50% haircut that will worry Clearlake - that is to be expected from time to time. It is seeing only 10% pa upside for the next 5 years that is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTG Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 22 minutes ago, Dwmh said: It is seeing only 10% pa upside for the next 5 years that is the problem. they will certainly see at least a minimum of 10% pa uprise in the land value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now