I think you are making an awful lot of assumptions and hype here.
1) Amanda Staveley is simply not credible. See how Simon Jordan completely bounces her on talksport recently. He completely laughed her off. She was shown to be neo-fraudulent in a UK court.
2) The websites given are not really massively credible. The Daily Mirror. It's not serious. We are told Manchester City's owners looked at Everton too. The reality is, if they felt there was a viable project they would have made the bid. That is what serious people too. They obviously looked at Liverpool, and thought.
3) The owners have already stated that no bids were forthcoming. They said a scammer made themselves available. I'm inclined to take FSG's word on that. I think they were the people connected to Staveley to be honest. So There was simply no interest in 2018/2020
4) People may have looked at them. China looked at Everton too. People scout out opportunities all the time. But if you are serious about bidding, you just bid. It would appear, if any interest was shown then they looked in other directions 10+ years ago.
5) I'm not even sure where to comment on the "clubs named after a city" thing. I have yet to meet a single investment person who would use that as a factor. Chelsea found investment and are not linked to a city in their name. The people buying Newcastle have no funds (unlike who bought Chelsea). Peter Lynch a famous investor essentially states the opposite of what you say, he looks for boring, unimaginative names.
6) These are people who will look at price and growth opportunities. They will want a project in a lot of cases (as opposed to an established name), probably a 1 club city where possible and a new stadium. They are the key differentiators. Liverpool have precisely 0 of those.
7) FSG would not turn down 2bn. If that offer came in, it would have been accepted. It didn't and it wouldn't.
8) Nobody is paying 2bn for a football club these days. They may have got someone in around the time of H&G when they weresomething of an undervalued asset. They are now an enormously overvalued asset. You are paying the price of approaching Manchester United, for a commercial operation and club that is just not at their potential level.
8) FSG are very unlikely to want to sell. Their preference has been to sell equity in the entire business stake. That is their outlined approach. On no platform would it make sense to sell the most recognisable part of their portfolio. Likewise, money from the middle east is not going to be massively interested in buying a sports franchise with lots of American sports teams they don't understand.
9) If there were this interest you claim (which have already been rejected by FSG, but hey how do they compare to The Daily Mirror and a reporter on Sky) why didn't they buy an equity stake when it opened up? You know who actually bought it? Another American company. On the proviso of in all likelihood dividends/cash being generated over a long term basis (which was re-enforced by FSG themselves).
10) A new stand, in a stadium tat is not set up for commercial development, in an area of a city that is not a tourist trap is going to make zero difference to the ask price.
11) You talked about their players being tied down to deals. This is a bad thing. TMhey have tied down players, who essentially hold 0 or close to value,on long term expensive contracts. It makes them a worse investment, not better and indicates FSG are committed in the medium term.
I mean I could go on. But your cute story is based almost entirely on interconnected fabrication and dreams. FSG's actions and words have said they want to say, and no Middle Eastern investor have gone near Liverpool. A couple may have looked 15 years ago and ultimately decided it was not a great value play. That was at around 20% of the cost being quoted now.
Even individuals reliant on oil wealth are starting to reign in now. Oil prices over the next 10 years are going to plummet as the world goes electric. The joy of Leeds to buy into or Forest (look how well that is going) is you pay a fraction of the cost, for a club who are the only team in the city/region. Liverpool are already competing against 3 teams in the region. Even the one they hold an advantage over is building a stadium. If there was any serious interest (which I doubt there is) and it can get past the PL (which post the Saudi escapade it now won't) it will come towards Everton.
I don't think FSG will want to sell, and if they do it will be the entire portfolio (which has always been their indication). However like with Burnley the most likely outcome will be some sort of leveraged buy out. They won't get 2bn either way, if City are valued at 2.5bn Liverpool are not worth a penny more than 1.5bn. That will likely be loaded back onto the club, at a rate circa 3% above base. The club will pay back the 80m or so per year + capital repayments to service it, which an American owner will know can probably just about be met if they maintain commercial performance. I don't think FSG sell, but given the figures involved, that's the likeliest outcome. Not many are coming in and throwing 2bn at a club that needs a new ground.
