So, Liverpool supporters must accept John W Henry on trust when he assures them he will not make the football club pay his takeover costs, as his countrymen, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, so notoriously did before him.

Henry has revealed that Martin Broughton, Liverpool's chairman, and Christian Purslow, the club's former managing director, did not ask New England Sports Ventures for a "contractual commitment" not to load their own costs on to the club. A spokesman for Broughton and Purslow said they did not believe such a commitment would be legally enforceable, and were reassured because NESV was paying off the £200m "acquisition debt" with which Hicks and Gillett saddled Liverpool.

Henry, in a detailed email to the Guardian answering questions about the takeover, emphasised that he has paid off that debt, leaving the club with only £37m owed to Royal Bank of Scotland for development work on a proposed new stadium in Stanley Park, which NESV is now reviewing.



"The simplest thing to say is that we removed all debt but the stadium debt," Henry wrote. "LFC is not servicing debt other than stadium debt."

RBS confirmed to the Guardian that the £200m has been paid off – £150m of it was owed to RBS, £50m to Wachovia – and NESV has not saddled Liverpool with any new debt to replace it.

Henry, who is in Liverpool this week for fact-finding meetings with Roy Hodgson, players and club staff, wrote in his email that NESV does not intend to extract money from the club to pay its own costs. Rather, he said, they plan to put money in, as they have at the Boston Red Sox, where they have taken no dividend in nine seasons of ownership of the baseball club.

"The fact is, LFC is going to require substantial investment, as did the Red Sox," Henry wrote. "All of NESV profits thus far have been poured into improving our business units and their facilities. There have been no profit distributions to partners since the inception [of NESV in 2001]."

Henry has said his approach to Liverpool is to listen – to Hodgson, to whom he has promised some patience, players, staff and supporters – before formulating the plans to restore the club to health on and off the field. In his email, he confessed to feeling tired after his transatlantic flight, and said of his scheduled meetings at the club: "Big day tomorrow, big challenges ahead."

Henry wrote that NESV is not looking to take money out of Liverpool in the short term – pointing to investment in the Red Sox as evidence – but to increase the club's value by building it up. "This is the wrong business to get into for profit," he argued. "Some day [hopefully a long time from now] these clubs and businesses will probably be worth more than we paid for them, but only if we do the right things day-to-day for the long term."

He explained that among Premier League clubs, he most approves of the financial methods at Arsenal. They borrowed to build the Emirates Stadium, and despite instability among the major shareholders, none has taken a dividend and the club's substantial profits are available for investment in the club. "I admire Arsenal very much," Henry said, "and part of that is that they are profitable. To me, the word profitable means sustainable – able to sustain a business that has a high degree of excellence. Again I would refer to Arsenal."

Yet, despite Henry setting out this philosophy of investment, rather than "leveraged" debt, it is significant that Henry was not asked by Broughton and Purslow to give a written, contractual commitment not to load NESV's costs of taking over Liverpool on to the club.

Of that idea, Henry said: "It wasn't asked for. I don't remember anything being discussed along these lines except that there was a desire for all of the debt to be removed except stadium debt."

The spokesman for Broughton and Purslow explained that they did not ask NESV for such a written commitment because, as a promise not to do something in the future, it would not strictly be legally enforceable. The spokesman pointed to the assurance which Hicks and Gillett famously gave when they took over Liverpool in February 2007, in their own offer document. It detailed the £298m borrowing facilities they had arranged with Royal Bank of Scotland to finance their takeover and subsequent investment in Liverpool – the club itself cost £174m – and they stated: "The payment of interest on … the facilities will not depend to any significant extent on the business of Liverpool."

As it turned out, Hicks and Gillett did pay the interest on those bank loans, approximately £35m in each year they owned the club, from Liverpool's earnings, which helped push the club into a £53m loss last year despite record income of £185m.

Broughton and Purslow point to the worthlessness of that written assurance as part of the reasoning for not seeking a similar assurance from NESV now.

Instead, they say, NESV has a track record at the Red Sox, which was not a leveraged buyout, and of investing successfully in the baseball club rather than taking money out. The spokesman pointed to the fact that Henry has made good on his promise at Liverpool to pay off the £200m Hicks and Gillett "acquisition debt" and not replace it with NESV's own takeover costs. "The proof of NESV's commitment not to put acquisition finance on the club is in their actions," the spokesman said, "not in written commitments which ultimately would not be legally enforceable."

Legal experts the Guardian has spoken to, including one QC, agreed it was probably true that a future commitment not to load takeover costs on to the club would be difficult to enforce. However, they expressed surprise that no written commitments were asked for. They argued that clauses could have been included in the sale, or a "letter of comfort" signed, which would have had symbolic value, placed obstacles in the way of loading acquisition costs on to the club, and made it extremely embarrassing for NESV ever to do so.

One lawyer also argued that the club could be protected by involving a supporters' trust in its constitution, whose approval would be required if the club were ever to be made to service acquisition debt.

Henry did meet the Spirit of Shankly and Share Liverpool fans groups immediately after his takeover; and he has spoken positively about engaging with supporters, although he has yet to decide his preferred way to do so.

Both groups, which campaigned vociferously against Hicks and Gillett, are asking NESV for a partnership, in which a supporters' trust would hold a meaningful stake in Liverpool and be represented on the board.

For an American owner, feeling his way into English football culture and seeking to right the wrongs to the club he has bought, that would be a hugely progressive initiative. Henry, reading, thinking, listening, must find ways to cement a constructive relationship with Liverpool supporters, who at present must take him on trust.