‘FSG don’t put money into Liverpool’ – James Pearce provides John Henry update

‘FSG don’t put money into Liverpool’ – James Pearce provides John Henry update

Recent figures that were published suggested that FSG’s net owner funding was the ‘second lowest in the division’ and that had led to huge criticism from many Liverpool supporters but there have now been further updates.

Writing for The Athletic, James Pearce said: ‘It’s no secret that FSG don’t put money into Liverpool — but neither do they take cash out of the club.

‘The fact Liverpool’s net-owner funding over the past five years stands at negative £37million is down to the money that’s been repaid to the owners for the low-interest loan they took out to finance the new £110million Main Stand in 2016. The most recent accounts showed that the balance now stands at £71.4million.

‘My frustration with the debate over the ownership is that there seems to be so little middle ground, especially on social media. The idea that you’re either “FSG Out” or an “FSG apologist” is ridiculous. It is possible to believe the owners have done a lot of good things and made some mistakes along the way while questioning whether their self-sustaining business model for Liverpool can really bring more glory given the financial muscle of rivals’.

This update shows that, whilst John Henry may not be injecting large sums of money into the club, he is also not withdrawing any funds.

The negative net-owner funding of £37 million over the past five years can be attributed to the repayment of a low-interest loan taken out by the owners to finance the construction of the impressive £110 million Main Stand in 2016 – the most recent accounts show a remaining balance of £71.4 million on the loan.

The journalist has highlighted the importance of finding a middle ground in the discussions about ownership.

It is possible to acknowledge the positive contributions FSG have made to the club while also recognising their occasional missteps, we should all question whether the current self-sustaining business model can compete with the financial might of rival clubs and lead to further success on the field.

The debate surrounding ownership remains a contentious topic among supporters, especially in the realm of social media, a nuanced perspective is necessary and we should acknowledge both the achievements and the challenges faced by the Americans during their tenure.

As we all look ahead to the upcoming season and whatever new faces may arrive at Anfield, we all hope that the club can maintain its competitive edge and challenge for honours – regardless of the financial constraints.

Whilst FSG’s approach may differ from some of our counterparts, the ultimate goal remains the same — to bring glory and success to Merseyside.

In the ever-evolving landscape of football ownership, finding a balance between financial prudence and on-pitch ambitions will continue to be a challenge.

We can take solace in the fact that the main focus remains on sustaining the club’s long-term stability and nurturing its rich heritage, even if their approach may differ from those who advocate significant owner investment.

EOTK Insider with Neil Jones: TWO midfielders at the front of the queue, truth about Tchouameni interest, Trent’s impact on transfers, and much more!

Pearce is a hypocrite. This is the same man who tweeted “where the net spend boys now?”
He’s slaughtered people online for questioning these owners.
He’s also stated that FSG have not taken money out of Liverpool. According to the highly reputable football finance blog Swiss Ramble, Fenway Sports Group have invested just £136 million into Liverpool Football Club since their takeover in 2010.
Between 2017 and 2021, £37 million was in fact extracted from the club to help repay a loan sanctioned to build the new Main Stand.

A lot of these journalists, YouTubers and podcasters who profit from exclusives with the club, all spin the FSG PR wheel. All selling their loyalties to a club they supposedly support and pushing pro FSG rubbish. Pearce wouldn’t dare interview someone opposed to this ownership yet he thinks him and the likes of them can speak for them. His reporting is dishonest and sugarcoated