01 Sep 2016 22:03:18
Everbright want complete ownership of LFC and now some members of FSG are trying to push John W Henry towards selling the club,1billion pounds is being offered, perhaps when I posted a while back that big Jan Molby told me that there will be some exciting news regarding FSG he might have been right
(Info all of tomorrow's newspapers)

1.) 01 Sep 2016
01 Sep 2016 22:35:07
They have denied it.

2.) 02 Sep 2016
01 Sep 2016 23:20:55
This everbright lot make the city lot look poor. Exactly what we need!

3.) 02 Sep 2016
02 Sep 2016 00:47:53
Dats awesome news. Cash rich owners will want nothing less than Griezmann / suarez class of signings.

4.) 02 Sep 2016
02 Sep 2016 04:33:30
Everbright have stated categorically that they have no interest in sports investment - there are multiple news artciles that confirm this - it would be a surprise if they had made a u-turn on such a statement in only a couple of days.

5.) 02 Sep 2016
02 Sep 2016 06:15:56
FFP - stands for Financial Fair Play 😉.

6.) 02 Sep 2016
02 Sep 2016 08:38:13
It's my understanding of FFP that it's not how rich your owners are, it's measured against your commercial incoming. Is this right ed?

{Ed002's Note - Yes.}

7.) 02 Sep 2016
02 Sep 2016 08:39:44
Except they're state owned. Will the Chinese government really waste tax payers cash on lfc?

8.) 02 Sep 2016
02 Sep 2016 12:20:15
That's why I mentioned FFP, it doesn't matter how rich your owners are anymore.

9.) 02 Sep 2016
02 Sep 2016 14:00:09
Curious then but does FFP really make the footballing world financially fair? What I mean is there are a number of established teams, with well established income streams, that smaller clubs could not hope to equal (n. b. I'm not suggesting money = on field success - Leicester a case in point - merely that it helps) . The only way for a "smaller" club to break into that monopoly of the rich would surely to receive investment from a wealthy owner/ organisation via takeover. Does the FFP not, in someway, actually maintain the balance of wealthy clubs/ non-wealthy clubs? Or is it actually a fairer way? I understand they help protect clubs from going out of business, and that is a good thing, but I just wondered about the aspect of 'fairness'.