Author Topic: Financial Results these are a year old  (Read 66521 times)

Offline itsgunnabebarnes!

  • Neghead. hard and gagging. Will never be Barnes
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,684
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #160 on: May 8, 2010, 01:12:34 pm »
why is Broughton repeating this 'matter of months' comment? Does he really believe that?
'Tramps like us, baby we were born to run!'

Offline redprodigal

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,450
  • I miss you Digger, even more than Peter Thommo
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #161 on: May 8, 2010, 01:16:57 pm »
Good explantion.  Can we all bear 2 things in mind as well.

1. The club was not £382m (or whatever) in debt because of money the club had spent.  It wasnt even that amount in debt because of the purchase price.  At the time of the purchase, the debt was about £45m.  The purchase price of the shares was about £175m.  So an outlay of £220m by G&H.  So where does the £368m come from.  Why an extra £162m 'unaccounted' for? 


One thing could be all the money spent on planning etc. of the new stadium.

Online west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,859
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #162 on: May 8, 2010, 01:23:32 pm »
One thing could be all the money spent on planning etc. of the new stadium.

Unlikely. The club spent £20 million I believe on the pretty pictures of a stadium in G&H's first year, and planning work wouldnt cost much money.
Thinking is overrated.
The mind is a tool, it's not meant to be used that much.
Rest, love, observe. Laugh.

Offline DonkeyWan

  • ker. Football Genius, Generously gives Young Jürgen pointers to help him improve.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,427
  • I never met a man who wasn't...
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #163 on: May 8, 2010, 01:25:05 pm »
to be honest I find Broughton's approach perfectly valid. He is new and wants the manager to supply him details on the squad and where it needs strengthening, rather than offering a big pot of money and saying 'have fun'. If Benitez can't work within those boundaries I would regard him as being the unreasonable one.

As to the debt issue, horrendous. The club is on the verge of bankruptcy purely because it is totally tied up in servicing the debts put on it by the owners. It's a heinous act, an illegal one I would warrant. Instead of the papers focusing on this aspect of events they prefer to take the cheap, easy option and bang on about the manager.

However, the real fault lies with the two idiots who sold the club to these robber-barons. Seriously, they are in the media weeping and rending cloth but not actually doing anything. Did they lie to you, Moores and Parry? Have you proof? Challenge them then. If you don't and were stitched up by snake oil merchants you should be taking an active role in chucking them out, not sitting at home drinking brandy, an occasional tear welling at the corner of your eye as you take succor from the massive fucking severance packages you stupid c*nts allowed yourselves to be blinded by.
Beatings will continue until morale improves...

Online west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,859
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #164 on: May 8, 2010, 01:26:39 pm »
Jack,

what makes you think that the interest wasnt being rolled up? How else would the losses be dealt with?
Thinking is overrated.
The mind is a tool, it's not meant to be used that much.
Rest, love, observe. Laugh.

Offline redprodigal

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,450
  • I miss you Digger, even more than Peter Thommo
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #165 on: May 8, 2010, 01:28:25 pm »
Unlikely. The club spent £20 million I believe on the pretty pictures of a stadium in G&H's first year, and planning work wouldnt cost much money.

Agree, but that could be part of it

Offline Ronnie1932

  • Feels like John Holmes.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Kopite
  • ******
  • Posts: 867
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #166 on: May 8, 2010, 01:46:05 pm »
To any of the financial bods on here, is there anyway that we as fans go down some route where we can demand that some outside body can look at the books and the going on at the club. I know it probably sounds stupid but i'm clueless about stuff like this.

Online FiSh77

  • LoAves0. Is completely hooked on RAWK. Dead ringer for Amos Taylor. Burns, baby, burns.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,918
  • We all live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #167 on: May 8, 2010, 02:01:55 pm »
"....as well as £144.4m owed to the club’s American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, via their Kop Football (Cayman) Limited company."

so does this mean the club OWE the Americans money? fuckin' hell how the hell does that work.

it was mentioned in the accounts published last year so it's not really new news that they're charging 10% on inter company loans from kop football (cayman)

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=243416.0
it's mentioned under Kop Football (Holdings) Limited

those who know, know ;)

Offline Dave_the_Red

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #168 on: May 8, 2010, 02:13:54 pm »
While we have been busy supporting ther team, off the field the cows being milked.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #169 on: May 8, 2010, 02:35:01 pm »
No matter how much G&H say that debt to them has to be cleared as well as bank debt, there is no reason that that has to happen.  The only debt which has to be taken care of is the bank debt.  Even that doesnt necessarily have to be cleared fully.  If the best bid is £200m, then the banks could  (after following the proper process) accept that.  They have personal guarantees from G&H which can take care of the rest.  [In practice, I think a bid of £250m to £300m will be made.]

Again Jack, I agree with that.

The question which none of us quite understand the answer to is, what will force G&H to take such an offer?
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline scouse29

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,821
  • Koppite
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #170 on: May 8, 2010, 04:44:12 pm »
What i cant get my head round is Purslow said a few months back in the SOS meeting is that the debt was 237M. Well what the fuck has happened over the last few months where we have wopped another 120 odd M on the debt???

Either Purslow is talking shit, lying or as MD of the club has no idea what the true debt level really is?

Were in the shit big style here so strap your selves in for a bumpy ride of rumours. Fear the worst for Stevie and Torres!
The Liverpool way!!!

Offline Lee-Block105

  • Still refuses to sleep with the moderators to get a custom title
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,453
  • Liverpool 14
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #171 on: May 8, 2010, 04:47:44 pm »
It is understood that the Premier League last month sought detailed reassurances from Liverpool that it does have the backing from the banks to fulfil its fixtures next season and not go bust.

Full article here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/07/liverpool-record-losses

Ticket Exchange Trade Count 300+

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #172 on: May 8, 2010, 04:51:19 pm »
What i cant get my head round is Purslow said a few months back in the SOS meeting is that the debt was 237M. Well what the fuck has happened over the last few months where we have wopped another 120 odd M on the debt???

Either Purslow is talking shit, lying or as MD of the club has no idea what the true debt level really is?

Were in the shit big style here so strap your selves in for a bumpy ride of rumours. Fear the worst for Stevie and Torres!

I am fucking tired of saying this. I wish you fuckers would try reading threads before posting.

THESE ACCOUNTS ARE A YEAR OLD. THEY ARE UNTIL JULY 2009
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline RJH

  • doesn't know his alphabet
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,323
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #173 on: May 8, 2010, 04:51:51 pm »
What i cant get my head round is Purslow said a few months back in the SOS meeting is that the debt was 237M. Well what the fuck has happened over the last few months where we have wopped another 120 odd M on the debt???

Either Purslow is talking shit, lying or as MD of the club has no idea what the true debt level really is?

Were in the shit big style here so strap your selves in for a bumpy ride of rumours. Fear the worst for Stevie and Torres!

These accounts are to June 2009 though. so the question is really the other way round - what has happened to the rest of the debt?
Have the owners really reduced it, has it simply been transferred somewhere else and Purslow was being devious and speaking in technicalities, or was he outright lying and the debt is still right there?

Offline Paul Gardner

  • Terrace Artist
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,980
  • SOS Secretary
    • Spirit of Shankly
Re: Financial Results
« Reply #174 on: May 8, 2010, 04:54:30 pm »
These accounts are to June 2009 though. so the question is really the other way round - what has happened to the rest of the debt?
Have the owners really reduced it, has it simply been transferred somewhere else and Purslow was being devious and speaking in technicalities, or was he outright lying and the debt is still right there?

Purslow said there was £237m and that the owners had put in £130m. Its £237m on the accounts with £145m via Kop Cayman i.e. Owners.

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #175 on: May 8, 2010, 04:54:49 pm »
Cheers Tim, should have thought of that myself.  Nice edit.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline redprodigal

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,450
  • I miss you Digger, even more than Peter Thommo
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #176 on: May 8, 2010, 05:03:58 pm »
I am fucking tired of saying this. I wish you fuckers would try reading threads before posting.

THESE ACCOUNTS ARE A YEAR OLD. THEY ARE UNTIL JULY 2009

So no need to worry then. All the articles from the rags, including TB's in the Times, are meaningless. Am I correct in saying this?
Having thought about it there is no way that RBS would have allowed the debt to stay that high anyway. If I'm not wrong the debt had to be reduced recently to allow the re-financing to continue so this must have been done. Where the money came from is another matter but that's for the new owners and the Yanks to sort out during the sale.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2010, 05:21:11 pm by redprodigal »

Online TSC

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,445
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #177 on: May 8, 2010, 05:47:20 pm »
Cheers Tim, should have thought of that myself.  Nice edit.

Preferred the caps lock response myself.  Straight to the point.

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #178 on: May 8, 2010, 05:49:00 pm »
So no need to worry then. All the articles from the rags, including TB's in the Times, are meaningless. Am I correct in saying this?
Having thought about it there is no way that RBS would have allowed the debt to stay that high anyway. If I'm not wrong the debt had to be reduced recently to allow the re-financing to continue so this must have been done. Where the money came from is another matter but that's for the new owners and the Yanks to sort out during the sale.

Plenty of reasons to worry mate...
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Jack Slater

  • The hard hitting Detective with a drink problem and an eye for the ladies
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,469
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #179 on: May 8, 2010, 05:51:00 pm »
Jack, what makes you think that the interest wasnt being rolled up? How else would the losses be dealt with?

My argument has always been that the interest IS being rolled up.  However, the experts say that's wrong.  They say it has always been paid.  Indeed some (not all) of them go further, and defend G&H's ownership model, on the basis that, since the interest is being paid, the debt doesnt hurt us.  They compare it to if we'd been bought for cash by someone who paid themselves a hefty annual dividend.




Offline In the Name of Klopp

  • smann. Talks as if he/she/they single handedly saw off H&G in 2010.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #180 on: May 8, 2010, 06:34:36 pm »
There’s a play by Ionesco called “Le Roi Se Meurt” (usually translated as “Exit the King”). It’s allegorical about how you should accept the inevitability of death. The King is told at the start of the play that he will die by the end. He goes through stages of denial, anger, futile revolt, powerlessness and depression as everything around him crumbles. Finally, be bows to the inevitable.

This whole tragi-farce has had the same stages of development and inevitability. The latest figures bear that out. EBITDA comes a poor second to common sense.

We knew as soon as the debt was transferred onto the club that we were screwed. As I recall, Timbo’s Goals was the first person to highlight the futility of our position in this (now amalgamated) thread of over two years ago (Does Liverpool FC have a Future?) http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=213798.0. Since then we’ve had all the stages of denial. The debt is on the holding company, the transfer fund is separate, Parry and Moores can block them, they can’t asset strip as players will refuse to leave (still believe that?), we’re LFC, we couldn’t become another Leeds… Well, now we’re talking about our ability to complete next season’s fixture list. It was obvious then that we stood every chance of becoming a charitable case, needing someone to rescue us.

A club breaking even with a turnover of £120M can’t suddenly pay 40M in interest. Even if you get your revenues up by £40M it’s profit that pays the bills. Every football club finds ways of spending its extra cash and quickly getting back to breakeven again. This can usually be achieved through normal football expenditure – transfer fees, improved contracts, agents fees and, in our case, the up-front costs of developing a new commercial structure. We’ve also managed to fritter it away on bank fees, additional directors, travel expenses, pay-offs and a fictional stadium. Even if the fictional stadium had become reality it is not certain that it would have done much more than pay for itself.

We set off like a boxer with a cut eye, knowing we needed a quick knock-out or defeat was inevitable. The initial euphoria of cash spent on Torres, Mascherano and others got us close but finished by increasing our debt and draining our energy. Now we’re on the ropes and getting battered.

The only benefit to owning LFC (or any club) is to be able to say “I’m the owner of LFC” and to get a free ticket for every match. And the only person who seemed to know what he was getting into was Abramovich. He’s enhanced his personal reputation, bought a level of political immunity, shown he can manage (who else had poached an MD?) and, yes, he even appears to enjoy his free ticket…

Hicks has made the error of becoming fixated with revenue, not profit. He believes that revenue has a direct link with perceived value of the club. Well, revenue’s gone up but I can’t see people rushing in. Why should they? They’ll get a much better price if they allow us to decline that bit more – or walk away if we’re on our last legs. Hicks and Gillett have been in a desperate position for a long time, despite their bravado. Their main tactic seems to be “Anyone moves and the kid gets it…”

It’s difficult to see a way out, other than one that involves destruction and pain. If Gillett and Hicks were to sell at a profit then the problem perpetuates. Someone else is left wondering how to get his money back. We may need to wipe the slate clean and start again. We may actually find that Rafa’s transfer dealings help the club in ways we hadn’t imagined. The profit on an Alonso or a Torres may yet keep the wolf from the door. Could anyone have seen him becoming the Dario Grady of the Premier League?

Like all good tragedies, most of the audience could see it coming from the start. We’ve had the denial, calls to revolt, powerlessness and many have now reached the stage of depression. The ancient Greeks solved the problem in these dramas by using a Deus ex Machina, a god who descends from the rafters and sorts everything out. We're now reduced to hoping for the same.

Take a bow mate! That's one of the best post I've read here.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Remembers
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,496
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #181 on: May 8, 2010, 06:39:53 pm »
Take a bow mate! That's one of the best post I've read here.

Yes, truly a little erudite gem of an observation that certainly beautifully articulates many of my own feelings of inevitability and helplessness on the matter, and also makes RAWK what it is.
I don't do polite so fuck yoursalf with your stupid accusations...

Right you fuckwit I will show you why you are talking out of your fat arse...

Mutton Geoff (Obviously a real nice guy)

Offline redprodigal

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,450
  • I miss you Digger, even more than Peter Thommo
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #182 on: May 8, 2010, 06:40:11 pm »

 The ancient Greeks solved the problem in these dramas by using a Deus ex Machina, a god who descends from the rafters and sorts everything out. We're now reduced to hoping for the same.


Could our god be a billionaire Arabian Prince? Seems like that could well be our only chance.
Excellent post by the way  :wellin

Offline Dave D

  • Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,673
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #183 on: May 8, 2010, 07:30:55 pm »
For example:
The club owes 382m which is too high, the bank want it reduced so the Yanks borrow 145m from somewhere at 8% interest. They give this to the bank meaning that the club only now owe the bank 237m.
The Yanks then charge the club 10% interest on the 145m (14.5m) thus earning 2% profit on 145m (2.9m per year) off the club. So although the official debt to the bank is 237m, when the club is sold, the Yanks will add the 145m to the 237m debt and then want profit on top of that.
Our wonderful custodians eh?

It's a win-win situation for them. They're sitting on their yachts laughing their heads off at how good they have it.

Is there a breakdown anywhere of how much Hicks & Gillett take out of the club through loans like the one above and "expenses"?

Offline Lady OOT

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #184 on: May 8, 2010, 07:35:00 pm »
Brilliant post by Manila Vanilla, I imagined it as the narrative on a You Tube anti G&H video, spoken by a gravelly-voiced scouser.

Offline Gedo

  • Tube Blower.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,181
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #185 on: May 8, 2010, 09:11:51 pm »
Brilliant post by Manila Vanilla, I imagined it as the narrative on a You Tube anti G&H video, spoken by a gravelly-voiced scouser.
Brian Jacques?

Offline John Nolan

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #186 on: May 8, 2010, 09:13:48 pm »
The underlying problem in the 2009 accounts is that the financial performance of the footballing side of the club was dire as it lost some 10 million.

The rest of the loss is the 40 million in financing costs on the debt.

So one element is operational which we should be able to control and influence.

The other is structural and emanates in the main from the way the owners financed the original purchase price and subsequent squad investment and the very significant additional sums spent on stadium development.

Its very interesting to try and reconcile the statement by the auditors about dependence on short term financing for the business of Liverpool FC and taking the view that the 40 million odd sunk into the new stadium project will be realised. The bank gave a six week extension on its loans for christ sake. Thats not a vote of confidence in how the business is being managed. How on that basis can you have any confidence of securing finance on a long term basis for the operation of the club and THEN getting an additional whack of cash to build a stadium. The implication of the auditors report is that they agree that both sources of finance will materialise.

In my opinion in by hiding behing the general issue of the going concern assumption they have failed to separate the two financing issues.   

These accounts are a con. They have been signed off in a six week window of a bank extension and during a period of time when new investment was being sought. They were signed by KPMG on 26th Feb with bank facilities expiring on 3rd March. So the answer to the auditors queries on future finance was "well we are progressing with our plan for new investment and have a number of interested parties". The CON was that the auditors did not see or seek evidence that the owners were obliged to accept the dilution of their ownership that a new investment offer would result in. I am referring to CPs meeting with SOS stating that his job was to get investment and it was of no concern to him what the dilution effect on G&H would be. That was naieve of him as it was obviously not binding on G&H to accept the  Rhone offer.

We now have to wonder whether Martin B is a smarter man than CP and got a binding written commitment from  G&H as to what constituted, in money terms, a reasonable minimum offer that they would accept. Without this, Hicks will do what Hicks does best and take everyone to the edge of the cliff without blinking in the interest of getting the maximum return for HIMSELF.
 

So we should all be very worried that in what was a good year on the pitch and which would have delivered a strong revenue stream to the club we could not cover our operating costs. Part of the loss was the Parry pay off which is non recurring but at best the club lost 5+ million on a recurring basis in 2009 and will not have the same CL revenues or Barclays performance money or performance related sponsorship in 2010.

Thats before INTEREST.

The owners need to clear a minimum 350 million to cover themselves. Whoever buys the club has to make it generate AN EXTRA 40 odd million per year just to stand still.

This just does not add up anymore. If the Sky bubble bursts this club is doomed. As it is we are a Zombie - The Living Dead.
 

Offline TLT

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,370
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #187 on: May 8, 2010, 09:25:20 pm »
I'd love to get my hands on a hard copy. Would be very tough though.

Guess it will have to be a company house job ;)

Online west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,859
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #188 on: May 8, 2010, 09:29:25 pm »

The owners need to clear a minimum 350 million to cover themselves. Whoever buys the club has to make it generate AN EXTRA 40 odd million per year just to stand still.

This just does not add up anymore. If the Sky bubble bursts this club is doomed. As it is we are a Zombie - The Living Dead.
 

What do you mean by the extra 40 million? if someone buys the club without loans why would they need an extra 40 million?

If the Sky bubble bursts, every club bar City and Chelsea will be doomed not just us.
Thinking is overrated.
The mind is a tool, it's not meant to be used that much.
Rest, love, observe. Laugh.

Offline John Nolan

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #189 on: May 8, 2010, 09:38:45 pm »
What do you mean by the extra 40 million? if someone buys the club without loans why would they need an extra 40 million?

If the Sky bubble bursts, every club bar City and Chelsea will be doomed not just us.

What I mean is that normally if you paid 350 million for a business you would do so on the basis that there was a predictable return on your money.  A benchmark for that return is the interest that would be charged on a loan of that size. Currently Liverpools footballing activities are losing approximately 5 million per annum and applying an interest rate of 10% as currently being charged by our owners would give a notional interest charge of 35 million. The sum of these is 40 million.

If they needed to invest extra money above the 350 million that they pay for the club the 40 million figure increases.

I should point out that some investors may be happy with a lower return.

I fully accept your point on the Sky bubble applying to all. However if you are profitable you have a cushion to absorb some reduction in revenues. We have none.
 

Online west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,859
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #190 on: May 8, 2010, 09:44:22 pm »
What I mean is that normally if you paid 350 million for a business you would do so on the basis that there was a predictable return on your money.  A benchmark for that return is the interest that would be charged on a loan of that size. Currently Liverpools footballing activities are losing approximately 5 million per annum and applying an interest rate of 10% as currently being charged by our owners would give a notional interest charge of 35 million. The sum of these is 40 million.

If they needed to invest extra money above the 350 million that they pay for the club the 40 million figure increases.

I should point out that some investors may be happy with a lower return.

I fully accept your point on the Sky bubble applying to all. However if you are profitable you have a cushion to absorb some reduction in revenues. We have none.
 

We will realistically need somone not in it for the money. Theres safer ways to invest £400 million plus then buying Liverpool FC.

And how many clubs generate any kind of profit? Most break even at best.
Thinking is overrated.
The mind is a tool, it's not meant to be used that much.
Rest, love, observe. Laugh.

Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #191 on: May 8, 2010, 09:45:36 pm »
I'd love to get my hands on a hard copy. Would be very tough though.

Guess it will have to be a company house job ;)

All you have to do is ask, as per opening post.
So all say thanks to the Shanks

He never walked alone

Lets sing our song for all the world

From this his Liverpool home

Offline redprodigal

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,450
  • I miss you Digger, even more than Peter Thommo
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #192 on: May 8, 2010, 09:57:15 pm »
What I mean is that normally if you paid 350 million for a business you would do so on the basis that there was a predictable return on your money.  A benchmark for that return is the interest that would be charged on a loan of that size. Currently Liverpools footballing activities are losing approximately 5 million per annum and applying an interest rate of 10% as currently being charged by our owners would give a notional interest charge of 35 million. The sum of these is 40 million.


This would normally apply in such an investment but I think most of us are hoping that the new owner would not want to see a profit in the short term, like an Abravomich or the City owners. Maybe someone from Dubai or Saudi, but maybe that opportunity has long gone, we shall have to wait and see.

Offline John Nolan

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #193 on: May 8, 2010, 10:00:14 pm »
We will realistically need somone not in it for the money. Theres safer ways to invest £400 million plus then buying Liverpool FC.

And how many clubs generate any kind of profit? Most break even at best.

Like Mike Ashley?

Ultimately its all about money. Your assumption about Chesea survival post a Sky bubble burst also  misses the point that the business model there has changed. Man city are the only current exception.

There will not be many more.

Offline redprodigal

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,450
  • I miss you Digger, even more than Peter Thommo
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #194 on: May 8, 2010, 10:09:54 pm »

There will not be many more.


Very true, maybe only one or two, and we are one of the few clubs in the world who would attract them. Probably wishful thinking, but all I've got left.

Offline redrockydennis

  • Annie Wilkes
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,666
  • gonna paint me jarg wheelie bin purple
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #195 on: May 8, 2010, 10:29:13 pm »
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b123a7d8-5a38-11df-acdc-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Kop Football loses £54.9m

By Roger Blitz

Published: May 8 2010 03:00 | Last updated: May 8 2010 03:00

The reason why Liverpool's US owners have put the Premier League club up for sale became clearer yesterday following the publication of full-year results for its parent company showing a spiralling wage bill, crippling interest payments and a huge pre-tax loss, writes Roger Blitz .

The accounts filed in Companies House also revealed that Kop Football's financial arrangements expired on March 3, and that the club was dependent on "short-term facility extensions".

Independent auditors KPMG said there was "a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt on the group's and parent company's ability to continue as a going concern".


Tom Hicks and George Gillett last month appointed Martin Broughton, the British Airways chairman and Chelsea fan, to oversee the sale of their club.

The owners, whose tenure has been plagued by rows and disputes, are understood to have signed a legal document giving Mr Broughton a casting vote on all board issues, including the planned sale.

Kop Football raised turnover in the year to July 31 last year from £161.8m to £184.8m, thanks to increased broadcasting revenues and prize money.

However, interest payments rose from £36.5m to £40.1m.

That led to pre-tax losses swelling from £40.9m to £54.9m.

Kop Football sought to offset these losses by making a profit on player acquisitions of £3.4m, following a £14.3m profit the previous season, though some fans believe that this has weakened the playing squad and led to Liverpool's poor performances this season. A further £13.4m of profit was made on sales following the end of the year.

The parent company also made severance payments of £4.3m. Among the beneficiaries was Rick Parry, its former chief executive.
"Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes,
of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass.
It is terribly simple."

Offline Liverbird 2010

  • but you can call me....likes to giggle a lot but only if it's about fellatio
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,427
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #196 on: May 8, 2010, 11:09:25 pm »
If no one buys us within the next six months we will be in administration wont we? I just cannot see a way out of this for anyone the club is in so much debt much more than the club is worth, why have the banks aloud this to happen?
We where all under the impression the debt was 237 million Purslow told us it was that amount and even thought the accounts are from last year everyone knows deep down inside they have doubled and we are being lied to by everyone.
How can Hicks & Gillett remain so calm and say no need to worry about the debt? Our club could potentially go out of buisness within the next year, through two greedy American twats if it happens they better sleep with one eye open.
FOOTBALL IS A LIE! RAFAEL BENITEZ :-)

Offline silver 5 star

  • Mistter Gramatticle. Heell corecct you're spelinng mistaikes
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,882
  • BUILD A NEW STADIUM - NO GROUNDSHARE!!!
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #197 on: May 8, 2010, 11:28:31 pm »
What we have to remember is that there are very few "brands" like ours just available to buy ofvthe shelf.

LFC is a global brand. Millions of supporters worldwide. Countless other millions, ie All of our rival's supporters know us too.

Yes we require work and investment but our potential is huge.

We are one of the few global clubs and compared to the potential price man u might go for we still might prove an attractive investment.
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate; "To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the  ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his gods. " FENWAY - Do not let us down! RAWK is boss lid

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #198 on: May 8, 2010, 11:29:12 pm »
Lynds - chin up.  Nothing to do now but knuckle down and hope that Broughton finds a buyer.  There is a clue in that FT piece that the owners are not in control of the situation quite to the extent that they would like us to think.

Net profit on transfers of £31 million in the last two years... direct from the accounts.  Should shut a lot of the "Rafa has spent the money" c*nts up at least.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline John Nolan

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #199 on: May 8, 2010, 11:46:54 pm »
Lynds - chin up.  Nothing to do now but knuckle down and hope that Broughton finds a buyer.  There is a clue in that FT piece that the owners are not in control of the situation quite to the extent that they would like us to think.

Net profit on transfers of £31 million in the last two years... direct from the accounts.  Should shut a lot of the "Rafa has spent the money" c*nts up at least.

Absolutely. Back Broughtons nose. An experienced operator, and probably someone who  has the measure of our owners.