Thirty per cent might technically be a minority stake. It doesn't feel like one.

FSG's decision to sell around 30% of Liverpool to 1892 Holdings for roughly £1.65 billion immediately felt significant to me. This isn't somebody taking a small position in the club. The deal values Liverpool at around £5.5 billion and brings some seriously wealthy people into the ownership structure. (The Guardian)

1892 Holdings is led by Amit Bhatia and includes investment connected to the Mittal family, Eduardo Saverin and Jeff Bezos. Bhatia will become Liverpool's vice-chairman, with Elaine Saverin and Bryan Baum also joining an expanded board. Bezos himself won't have a board seat. (Reuters)

FSG still call the shots.

But for how long?

There have already been reports that the agreement contains a mechanism that could allow 1892 Holdings to acquire a controlling stake within the next 12 months. That isn't the same as saying a takeover is definitely happening. Sources on both sides have stressed it is an option rather than a commitment. FSG have said they will remain majority owners and retain operational control, and there is no confirmed agreement that they must sell the rest of the club. (The Athletic)

But even without those reports, I find it difficult to look at the size of this investment and the people behind it without wondering where it eventually leads.

Why buy 30% of Liverpool?

Maybe the answer really is as simple as investment. Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in world football and the value of elite sports teams has exploded. There is an obvious financial reason to want a piece of that.

But we're talking about people accustomed to owning and controlling enormous businesses. Bezos alone is one of the wealthiest people in the world. They are entering Liverpool with a stake worth well over £1 billion.

Maybe 30% is where it stops.

I wouldn't bet on it.

FSG have been good for Liverpool

I don't want this argument to become another debate where you have to decide whether FSG have been brilliant or terrible.

For me, they've been good owners. Not great. Good.

And they deserve enormous credit for where Liverpool are today.

It is easy to forget just how bad things were when they arrived in 2010. Liverpool were carrying huge debts under Tom Hicks and George Gillett, Royal Bank of Scotland was owed hundreds of millions and the club was being sold amid a bitter ownership battle. FSG, then New England Sports Ventures, bought Liverpool in a deal worth about £300 million and removed most of that debt. (The Guardian)

Look at the club now.

Liverpool have won the Champions League, two Premier League titles and other major trophies under FSG. Anfield has been expanded beyond 61,000, the AXA Training Centre was built and the commercial side of Liverpool has been transformed. The club reported record revenue of £703 million for 2024-25. (Liverpool FC)

So this isn't me pretending FSG have failed.

Quite the opposite.

I just wonder whether they've taken Liverpool as far as their model can.

Football has moved again

Liverpool's sustainable model has worked incredibly well.

FSG and the club have repeatedly talked about running Liverpool sustainably, growing revenue streams and doing everything possible off the pitch to help bring success on it. (Liverpool FC)

There is plenty to admire about that.

My problem is that it often feels as though Liverpool need to get almost everything right.

The recruitment has to work. Players have to develop. Sales have to bring money back in. The wage structure has to hold. And when Liverpool want to make enormous moves, there often needs to be money coming the other way.

The obvious example is Philippe Coutinho. Liverpool sold him to Barcelona for an enormous fee and that period then included the transformative signings of Virgil van Dijk and Alisson.

It worked spectacularly.

But why should Liverpool always have to be the cleverest club in the room?

Real Madrid don't build their entire model around needing to sell their best player before buying another one. The biggest clubs expect to be able to keep their best players and still address weaknesses.

Liverpool should be in that category.

Last summer complicates my argument because Liverpool spent an extraordinary amount of money. They signed Florian Wirtz, Alexander Isak, Hugo Ekitike, Milos Kerkez, Jeremie Frimpong, Giovanni Leoni and others. But there was a huge amount going the other way as well: Luis Díaz, Darwin Núñez, Jarell Quansah, Ben Doak, Caoimhín Kelleher, Tyler Morton and others all left permanently, while Harvey Elliott's move contained an obligation to buy. (Liverpool FC)

That is the model working.

But it also illustrates my concern.

Liverpool cannot expect to keep finding a Salah, a Mané or a Robertson at the prices they once did. Transfer fees have moved again. This summer alone, Premier League deals have already reached £100 million and beyond. (Talksport)

Eventually there are fewer edges left to find.

I want Liverpool to have a period of dominance

This is what I mean when I talk about taking Liverpool to the next level.

I don't mean spending £500 million every summer because somebody can.

I mean giving Liverpool the best possible chance of having a genuine period of dominance.

Three league titles in five years. Four in six. Something Liverpool haven't managed since the great sides of the 1970s and 80s.

Other major Premier League clubs have had those periods.

Manchester United won 13 Premier League titles under Alex Ferguson. Roman Abramovich arrived at Chelsea in 2003 and Chelsea won back-to-back titles in 2004-05 and 2005-06, then another in 2009-10. Manchester City have produced the most recent example, including four consecutive titles from 2020-21 to 2023-24. (Premier League)

Money didn't do that on its own.

Manchester United have shown better than anybody that spending enormous amounts of money badly guarantees you absolutely nothing.

But I don't believe money is irrelevant either.

The club with the smallest budget isn't going to dominate the Premier League. You don't necessarily have to spend the most, but over a sustained period you need to be somewhere near the financial heavyweights.

Money gives you opportunities. What you do with those opportunities still matters.

And that is why the idea of much wealthier owners interests me.

I don't want Liverpool to lose what works

There is an obvious danger in all this.

A takeover doesn't automatically make Liverpool better.

You can have the richest owners in the world and still recruit the wrong players, appoint the wrong manager and waste hundreds of millions. More money simply gives you more money to make mistakes with if the people spending it aren't very good.

I wouldn't want Liverpool to throw away everything FSG have built.

Keep the structure. Keep the sensible recruitment. Keep the idea that spending £100 million on a player should be because Liverpool believe he's worth £100 million, not because somebody has £100 million sitting around.

What I would like to lose is the feeling that when an obvious hole appears in the squad, we have to wonder whether Liverpool can afford to fix it now.

That's my biggest frustration with FSG.

If the football side believes Liverpool need another midfielder, defender or whatever it happens to be, I want to know that the resources are there to address it. Not next summer. Not after a major sale. Now.

That doesn't guarantee another league title.

It gives you a better chance.

And ultimately, that's what I'm bothered about.

Good for Liverpool. Good for FSG.

If this really is the beginning of the end for FSG, I won't celebrate their departure as though they've been bad owners.

They haven't.

They bought Liverpool for around £300 million when the club was in a mess. Sixteen years later, a deal for roughly 30% values the whole club at around £5.5 billion. (The Guardian)

FSG have been good for Liverpool.

Liverpool have been very good for FSG.

If they eventually sell the remaining stake anywhere close to today's valuation, they'll leave having made an extraordinary investment and having overseen one of the most important periods in Liverpool's modern history.

I think there will be plenty of supporters who are genuinely sad to see them go if that day comes.

I won't be one of them.

I'll appreciate what they did. I'll recognise how far Liverpool came under their ownership.

But football has moved on again.

If the people who have just bought 30% of Liverpool eventually want the other 70%, and they can combine their financial power with the parts of Liverpool's current structure that already work, I think that gives the club a better chance of doing something it hasn't done for decades.

Not just winning a league title.

Winning them again and again.