Author Topic: Financial Results these are a year old  (Read 66557 times)

Offline incredibleL4ever

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,627
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #200 on: May 9, 2010, 12:06:17 am »
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.


I havent seem the accounts yet.....what is the EBITDA for LFC ltd

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 #201 on: May 9, 2010, 12:20:00 am »
Hey, I didn't write it, I just posted it.  I thought it was something fans might just be interested in.

Yes, but you were not forced to post such a shite article were you.  Brief lock while I tidy up.
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'

Online TSC

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,483
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #202 on: May 9, 2010, 12:35:41 am »
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.

While this may all be true it's irrelevant if there are  no buyers.  I don't mean that there are no buyers obviously, because there are bound to be.  But not at the price that it would cost to satisfy our owners.

But then this has been the 'sticking point' from when it became clear that the two of them could never take us forward.

The one thing which pisses me off is the fact nothing much if anything gets mentioned re Gillet.  This wee cnut stated about 2 yrs ago he wanted to get rid.  Yet he's still here.  Gets no stick.  It's all for Hicks (who deserves it like) but the wee weasel appears to get off relatively easily.

We need to pressure this turd - he may break before Hicks.

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 #203 on: May 9, 2010, 12:39:37 am »
moyes is having a go in the mirror now, and he has half a point for once
"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 Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #204 on: May 9, 2010, 04:09:05 am »
It would seem like the RBS loans have been refinanced for another 12 months:

Quote
From The Sunday Times
May 9, 2010
Liverpool win extra time
Ben Marlow

LIVERPOOL football club has negotiated a crucial extension on its debt pile amid mounting concern over the financial position of one of England’s most successful teams.

A minimum 12-month extension has been granted on £237m of loans from Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), giving Liverpool until the end of next season to pay.

It is the third time since last season that Liverpool have asked for the repayment date to be pushed back. In January, the club was given just six weeks to find the funds.

Liverpool’s financial malaise was underlined last week when the parent company filed its 2009 accounts. KPMG, the auditor, included a going concern warning, saying the business is dependent on short-term facility extensions. It is thought the latest extension was brokered by Martin Broughton, the new chairman, as part of the terms for accepting the post.

Broughton, also chairman of BA, was parachuted in by RBS last month to find a buyer for the club after it lost patience with the financial position.

The accounts showed a 17% jump in pre-tax losses to £54m and a 17% rise in net debt to £351m. Interest charges rose to £40m. Club losses over the past two seasons stand at £95m, of which interest charges make up £76m.

The accounts also revealed that £144m is owed to a Cayman Islands company belonging to the co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

The club faces at least a £20m shortfall in income next season after failing to qualify for the Champions League.

Source
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline LiverBirdKop

  • A moron. Twice. No flies on their nullshit
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,393
  • 51,077 Deleted
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #205 on: May 9, 2010, 07:28:40 am »
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?

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.

I hope you're wrong, but your concerns are shared. As much as I fantasize about someone or entity comes out of nowhere and buys us within the next month and provides Rafa enough funds for the signings that Rafa wants for 10-11, it's just that. A fantasy.

My gut tells me interested parties will wait until the last second possible to try to buy us at fire sale price (assuming official bids will be made public). I pray that whoever buys us will come in at a price below debt and those 2 cnuts get f-ck all and lose whatever personal guarantees they put up. If any.

Offline adamski

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,813
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #206 on: May 9, 2010, 07:42:06 am »
Perhaps someone with a strong financial background might be able to answer this for me...it's unlikely we'll have lots of competition to buy the club, certainly not at the ridiculous asking prices being discussed, so why wouldn't a potential buyer just wait for the club to collapse, go into administration then come in at the last minute to rescue us?  They'd get the club for very little and in a perverse way, it would mean they had more money to invest in the stadium and the squad. 

Why would anyone consider the club to be a good investment opportunity now, it's a financial black hole and it could take £1bn to get the club to where it should be including cost to buy out, new stadium and steady squad investment over a few years.       

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 these are a year old
« Reply #207 on: May 9, 2010, 08:09:24 am »
Perhaps someone with a strong financial background might be able to answer this for me...it's unlikely we'll have lots of competition to buy the club, certainly not at the ridiculous asking prices being discussed, so why wouldn't a potential buyer just wait for the club to collapse, go into administration then come in at the last minute to rescue us?  They'd get the club for very little and in a perverse way, it would mean they had more money to invest in the stadium and the squad. 

Why would anyone consider the club to be a good investment opportunity now, it's a financial black hole and it could take £1bn to get the club to where it should be including cost to buy out, new stadium and steady squad investment over a few years.       

It's a fair question Adamski. Two seperate positions appear to be hardening.

Firstly, G&H do not appear to be under the pressure to sell which some hope. Brroughton himself on LFCTV said the bank was not forcing a sale.

Secondly,there is little incentive for any serious buyer to buy until the Bank forces a sale, through Administration.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,384
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #208 on: May 9, 2010, 08:16:15 am »
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.

Sorry but that's been said for years and it's meaningless. Yes we are a  popular worldwide 'brand' but it's a brand that is very difficult to turn into profit. People don't often buy brands fro the sake of it - they buy brands to make money.

Football clubs are tiny minnows when it comes to brands - Apple is a brand... it has profits in the billions and turnover in the tens of billions, LVMH Group (Vuitton and Hermes Group) turned over 18 billion in 2009, Adidas are a bit small time with turnover of 10 billion and profits of less than a billion.

Our turnover is £120 million (not billion)... and we have a million "supporters"... err, big deal, that isn't a global brand, it's a minority interest with a tiny turnover and minimal profit in global terms.

The "brand" is football in general, and the World Cup, the Premier League and the Champions League in particular.
« Last Edit: May 9, 2010, 08:18:00 am by Alan_F »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline No666

  • Married to Macca.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,767
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #209 on: May 9, 2010, 08:52:06 am »
Quote
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.

The one ray of sunshine - surely they can't have done that of their own volition.

royhendo

  • Guest
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #210 on: May 9, 2010, 09:00:14 am »
Lynds - chin up.  Nothing to do now but knuckle down and hope that Broughton finds a buyer. 

Sad but very true Kev, isn't it?

Surely we have to do something though, however futile it might seem.

Offline OohCampione

  • RAWK Scribbler
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,749
  • SOS Convert
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #211 on: May 9, 2010, 09:07:59 am »
Secondly,there is little incentive for any serious buyer to buy until the Bank forces a sale, through Administration.

That point is debatable. As asking price reduces the closer we get to 'end game', the interest in the club will increase. It may be cheaper in 6 months but prospective purchasers will risk losing out to a competitor.
Quote from: Peter Griffin, Yesterday
"You'd better watch who you're calling a child, Lois. Because if I'm a child, you know what that makes you? A Pedophile. And I'll be damned if I'm gonna be lectured by a pervert."

Offline LiamG

  • He's loving angels instead. Cos through it all they offer him protection.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,158
  • Y.N.W.A
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #212 on: May 9, 2010, 09:17:29 am »
I wonder if the dubai lot will be intrested now that the yanks cant price them out or do you think they are still pissed off from when they lost the bid to them?

Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #213 on: May 9, 2010, 09:19:06 am »

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.

Doesn't tell the whole story that, that figure only takes into account the profit made on players sold.  Over those two financial years I calculate net transfer expenditure to be £53m, knocked down to £44m when the post balance sheet events are taken into account.  However I think this figure also includes signing on fees, but don't quote me on that as it's not entirely clear.
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 Coady

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,615
  • ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #214 on: May 9, 2010, 09:22:52 am »
It would seem like the RBS loans have been refinanced for another 12 months:

Source

Says the Times, they also said that BarCap have refinanced us with a 3 year deal only two weeks ago, personally I dont think they have a clue. Except TB of course.
"When you hear the noise of the Bill Shankly boys,
We'll be coming down the road"

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 #215 on: May 9, 2010, 09:24:19 am »
... why wouldn't a potential buyer just wait for the club to collapse, go into administration then come in at the last minute to rescue us?  They'd get the club for very little and in a perverse way, it would mean they had more money to invest in the stadium and the squad. 

If someone has a price in mind, then there's no reason for them not to put that offer on the table now.  If we eventually go into administration, then that, in itself is a costly process.  The reason that companies which are in administration have low "sale" prices is because the buyer is often having to fork out on various things other than the company's shares themselves. 

So compare buying a company not in administration for £200m to buying the same company, in adminstration for £100m.  It is - by no means - £100m 'cheaper' overall.   

Besides, buying the club in administration means a 9 point penalty.  Furthermore, there is a huge stigma effect:  dont expect qaulity coaches or players to be rushing to sign up.


Why would anyone consider the club to be a good investment opportunity now, it's a financial black hole and it could take £1bn to get the club to where it should be including cost to buy out, new stadium and steady squad investment over a few years.       

I dont realistically see how LFC will ever get a new stadium of its own,  on the scale previously discussed.

My preference, ever since the early 90s, has been that we share with EFC.  I realise I'm in a small minority on that.

Alternatives:
a) do nothing.  Fall further behind the likes of Arsenal and MU and - maybe - Spurs.

b) extend Anfield.  I'd always wanted this to be done.  However, I've always been told it is impossible.  I'd b even angrier with Moores if it now turned out that it could be done after all.  Dont underestimate the financial consequences though, including either playing with a much reduced capacity, or sharing with someone else for a season or two.



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 #216 on: May 9, 2010, 09:35:03 am »
Firstly, G&H do not appear to be under the pressure to sell which some hope. Brroughton himself on LFCTV said the bank was not forcing a sale.

On the second point, he didnt say the banks werent forcing a sale.  He said that the decision to sell was made by G&H. 

On the first point, in your favour is the Sunday Times article by someone called "Ben Marlow" which asserts a formal 12 month extension of the loans. 

Against that, T Barret said something pretty different in Saturday's Times.  He claimed that RBS had only given non-binding assurances to the PL that it would, if necessary, prop up LFC until the end of 2010/11. 

Furthermore, the FT is saying that the club is reliant on short term arrangements.  I accept that may be out of date by now if Mr Marlow is correct.  However, it chimes very easily with Broughton's own comments about a sale being concluded in "months" and certainly before the end of 2010.




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 #217 on: May 9, 2010, 09:40:56 am »
... surely they can't have done that of their own volition.

That's definitely my view too.

However, in fairness to the "G&H could still do an Ashley" people, it could, at a stretch, be something which they had done voluntarily.  It would therefore be something that they could jointly agree to tear up.

Also, of course, giving Brougton a casting vote still implies that at least one of the owners has to be in favour of the sale.  In itself, it isnt evidence that the sale could happen if the 2 owners were against it, but the banks were in favour.  (My view is that that is the reality, but the FT article doesnt expressly say so).



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 #218 on: May 9, 2010, 09:49:21 am »
Net profit on transfers of £31 million in the last two years... direct from the accounts. 

Doesn't tell the whole story that, that figure only takes into account the profit made on players sold.  Over those two financial years I calculate net transfer expenditure to be  ...

Do you mean that £31m is simply the excess of the sale price of those players compared to their own theoretical book value?  And is  not profit on actual money spent/received either (a) on those same players originally or (b) on different players bought within the relevant period.


However I think this figure also includes signing on fees, but don't quote me on that as it's not entirely clear.

Do they appear to have done anything different this year in relation to the cost of new deals for existing players?



Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #219 on: May 9, 2010, 09:53:00 am »
Do you mean that £31m is simply the excess of the sale price of those players compared to their own theoretical book value?  And is  not profit on actual money spent/received either (a) on those same players originally or (b) on different players bought within the relevant period.

Yeah


Quote
Do they appear to have done anything different this year in relation to the cost of new deals for existing players?




I don't think so, I think it's treated the same as new signings.  Not entriely clear but I suspect they capitalize the signing on fees to the balance sheet and then amortize over the life of the contract.
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 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 #220 on: May 9, 2010, 09:54:37 am »
Yeah


I don't think so, I think it's treated the same as new signings.  Not entriely clear but I suspect they capitalize the signing on fees to the balance sheet and then amortize over the life of the contract.


Thanks.


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 these are a year old
« Reply #221 on: May 9, 2010, 10:30:31 am »
On the second point, he didnt say the banks werent forcing a sale.  He said that the decision to sell was made by G&H.
On the first point, in your favour is the Sunday Times article by someone called "Ben Marlow" which asserts a formal 12 month extension of the loans. 
Against that, T Barret said something pretty different in Saturday's Times.  He claimed that RBS had only given non-binding assurances to the PL that it would, if necessary, prop up LFC until the end of 2010/11. 
Furthermore, the FT is saying that the club is reliant on short term arrangements.  I accept that may be out of date by now if Mr Marlow is correct.  However, it chimes very easily with Broughton's own comments about a sale being concluded in "months" and certainly before the end of 2010.
On the first point I have heard Broughton say that the banks were not forcing a sale, but agree that it is down to semantics. Of course it is possible, and probable.

I think that the Tony Barrett article was misleading. Pompey were able to satisfy the PL at the start of this season.

The "dischordant" element in this is the extent to which G&H are prepared to take a "market" offer, which is probably between £250-£300m.
Broughton is talking a sale "in months", G&H are still talking prices £500-£800m, and press reports suggest they have finance for another year.

It doesn't fit.

"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Coady

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,615
  • ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #222 on: May 9, 2010, 10:35:34 am »
The Times have printed so many outcomes they will be right eventually I am sure. Someone on YNWA.tv thinks we are close to be taking over by a Indian called Mukesh Ambani.
"When you hear the noise of the Bill Shankly boys,
We'll be coming down the road"

Offline red_by_dawn

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Main Stander
  • ******
  • Posts: 68
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #223 on: May 9, 2010, 10:39:41 am »
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. 

For me this is the best summary so far. So, the football "business", our bread and butter, is not breaking even even with record turnover and income and the custodians leveraged buy-out has pretty much screwed us for the long term...

Offline scouse29

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,821
  • Koppite
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #224 on: May 9, 2010, 10:46:53 am »
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 fukcers like me are stupid obvioulsy! Fully aware the results are from 2009, but one way or another as pointed out in another post. The debt in which ever parent company will be against the club so unless the fairy godmother has wiped it off why are we not been given the full picture?
The Liverpool way!!!

Offline robb95

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #225 on: May 9, 2010, 10:55:17 am »
The Times have printed so many outcomes they will be right eventually I am sure. Someone on YNWA.tv thinks we are close to be taking over by a Indian called Mukesh Ambani.

would love Ambani, bt it isn't going to happen! 2nd/3rd richest man in the world? I know he's shown intrest but think it's someone glory hunting for attention, well who ever posted it.

As for the Times and TB, always liked Readin what he says. But he's either full of shit or someone is giving him the runna around big time, I'm stating to think full of shit
Not a shred of evidence exists in favour of the idea that life is serious.
The purpose of life is to fight maturity.
The supreme irony of life is that no one gets out of it alive

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 #226 on: May 9, 2010, 11:12:30 am »
Yeah


I don't think so, I think it's treated the same as new signings.  Not entriely clear but I suspect they capitalize the signing on fees to the balance sheet and then amortize over the life of the contract.


The only other complicating factor is that where a contract extension takes place the unamortized balance is then spread over the new contract period potentially reducing the annual cost reflected in the accounts. This could be significant on a player such as Torres.

royhendo

  • Guest
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #227 on: May 9, 2010, 11:17:39 am »
The Times have printed so many outcomes they will be right eventually I am sure. Someone on YNWA.tv thinks we are close to be taking over by a Indian called Mukesh Ambani.

Our old friend Phoenix06 eh? ;D

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=230023.msg4889369#msg4889369

Offline JP-65

  • FA/UEFA/FIFA are not fit for purpose
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,774
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #228 on: May 9, 2010, 11:24:32 am »
If someone has a price in mind, then there's no reason for them not to put that offer on the table now.  If we eventually go into administration, then that, in itself is a costly process.  The reason that companies which are in administration have low "sale" prices is because the buyer is often having to fork out on various things other than the company's shares themselves. 

So compare buying a company not in administration for £200m to buying the same company, in adminstration for £100m.  It is - by no means - £100m 'cheaper' overall.   

Besides, buying the club in administration means a 9 point penalty.  Furthermore, there is a huge stigma effect:  dont expect qaulity coaches or players to be rushing to sign up.


I dont realistically see how LFC will ever get a new stadium of its own,  on the scale previously discussed.

My preference, ever since the early 90s, has been that we share with EFC.  I realise I'm in a small minority on that.

Alternatives:
a) do nothing.  Fall further behind the likes of Arsenal and MU and - maybe - Spurs.

b) extend Anfield.  I'd always wanted this to be done.  However, I've always been told it is impossible.  I'd b even angrier with Moores if it now turned out that it could be done after all.  Dont underestimate the financial consequences though, including either playing with a much reduced capacity, or sharing with someone else for a season or two.




A tweak on that Jack, may be to share Woodison while Anfield is rebuilt, then share Anfield while Woodison is rebuilt.

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 #229 on: May 9, 2010, 11:46:23 am »
A tweak on that Jack, may be to share Woodison while Anfield is rebuilt, then share Anfield while Woodison is rebuilt.

Thats a great idea. It effectively provides a viable redevelopment option and both sides get something out it. Good old fashioned bartering! 

Offline No666

  • Married to Macca.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,767
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #230 on: May 9, 2010, 11:59:00 am »
Rumours of Sheikh Mo/Ambani etc etc - the one thing Broughton said I have absolute confidence in is to disregard all the names that are going to be bandied about because any serious bidder will want to keep it quiet.

Offline HarryLabrador

  • went broke, so had to get the retrievers in.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,263
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #231 on: May 9, 2010, 12:17:10 pm »
Rumours of Sheikh Mo/Ambani etc etc - the one thing Broughton said I have absolute confidence in is to disregard all the names that are going to be bandied about because any serious bidder will want to keep it quiet.

Well, after this week's court ruling, Mukesh should have a few more billions to spend.
======================================================================
May 7, 2010

Ambani family quarrel ends in $17bn court rulingRhys Blakely in Mumbai
 
Mukesh Ambani, India’s richest man, claimed victory in an epic $17 billion legal battle over his estranged brother Anil yesterday after winning a crucial verdict over the country’s largest gas find. The Supreme Court ruled that Mukesh’s Reliance Industries will not have to honour an agreement that would have forced it to sell gas to Reliance Natural Resources (RNR), a power company owned by Anil, at an estimated $5.4billion loss.

Mukesh stands to profit by $11.5 billion from the giant D6 block of the Krishna-Godavari basin after being given the go-ahead to sell its gas at a higher price set by the Government. The ruling is a massive blow to RNR. Anil admitted last year that the disputed gas supply contract was the “company’s primary asset and contributes most of its value”. Its shares slumped by a quarter yesterday in Mumbai, wiping £400 million off its value. The court battle had been at the heart of one of the business world’s most intense feuds. The Ambani brothers, worth more than $30 billion between them, are notorious for their mutual animosity. Such is their wealth and influence that together they account for more than 5 per cent of India’s annual GDP, and some fear that the bad blood between them poses a risk to the country’s stability.

They fell out after the death in 2002 of their father, Dhirubhai Ambani, who left no will after rising from rags to riches by creating Reliance, an empire of petrochemicals and telecoms. For years the brothers have shared the same Mumbai apartment building, but they are said to use separate lifts to avoid each other. In 2005, the group was split between the feuding siblings under terms hammered out by their mother, Kokilaben, the only person who has had any measure of success in mediating between them. Since then the relationship has been peppered by tit-for-tat legal actions. In 2008 the elder Mukesh, 52, looked to block a potential £35 billion deal that would have allowed Anil, 50, to create a new colossus in the global mobile telephone industry.

Months later, a furious Anil sued Mukesh for more than $1 billion for alleged defamation in an American newspaper. Their biggest disagreement by far, however, had been over vast gas deposits discovered off the east coast of India after Reliance, which was unified at the time, snapped up the exploration rights of the D6 block of the Krishna-Godavari basin in 1999.

Under the corporate split terms brokered by their mother, Mukesh’s Reliance Industries, agreed to supply gas to Anil’s RNR at a fixed price of $2.34 per million British thermal units (MBtu) for 17 years. In 2006 Mukesh claimed that the deal needed the approval of the Indian Government, which set a higher price of $4.20 per MBtu, putting into motion an epic legal battle.

Yesterday the court, which had earlier lamented the brothers’ failure to settle their differences man to man, ruled that because the gas belongs to the Indian people, the Government is able to set prices. It asked the brothers to renegotiate the deal accordingly.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7119440.ece
SoS Membership Number: 387

Offline pjc1

  • owner of a wanker stick
  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #232 on: May 9, 2010, 12:20:41 pm »
As depressing as this whole situation is, it is coming to an end one way or another. We will be sold or we will go bust. G&h can ask for £500m, but they'll be lucky to come out of this break even due to their liabilities. We've now lost 90m in 2 years-no company can continue like that given the turnover. Plus no champions league revenue will have a huge impact.

G&h have no choice-sell up or lfc to go bust as per Leeds or Pompey. It's that serious in my opinion as an accountant. 

Thanks DM-your silence speaks volumes about your love for lfc! 


Offline rocco

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 37,303
  • ⭐️⭐️⭐️6 Times Baby ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #233 on: May 9, 2010, 01:08:44 pm »
Very worried about us going into Administration..... what effect would this have on us ...


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/389487-liverpool-fc-on-the-verge-of-administration-after-massive-rise-in-debt

Over dramatic ?

Offline Kopout

  • Should really just Logout......
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,412
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #234 on: May 9, 2010, 02:51:12 pm »
Somebody tell me how £230m debt rise to £351m? does this include £60M yanks re-payed for extending loan period?

Offline Keens

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanks for the memories Rafa!
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #235 on: May 9, 2010, 03:04:13 pm »
The club is technically insolvent and is only trading as a solvent entity due to "sub-ordination" agreements by the holding company otherwise we would have to be reported and go into administration. Even with this agreement in place, unless Hicks and Gillet introduce equity capital in by diluting shareS (Not additional loans) or sell the club, LIVERPOOL WILL GO INTO ADMINISTRATION!
"I think I have said it before, but there is no one anywhere in the world at any stage who is any bigger or any better than this football club....." - Kenny Dalglish

Offline Keens

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanks for the memories Rafa!
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #236 on: May 9, 2010, 03:06:27 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.
The accounts state the facts and whoever blames Benitez for transfers needs their head read.
« Last Edit: May 9, 2010, 03:09:12 pm by Keens »
"I think I have said it before, but there is no one anywhere in the world at any stage who is any bigger or any better than this football club....." - Kenny Dalglish

Offline adamski

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,813
Re: Financial Results these are a year old
« Reply #237 on: May 9, 2010, 03:43:53 pm »
The club is technically insolvent and is only trading as a solvent entity due to "sub-ordination" agreements by the holding company otherwise we would have to be reported and go into administration. Even with this agreement in place, unless Hicks and Gillet introduce equity capital in by diluting shareS (Not additional loans) or sell the club, LIVERPOOL WILL GO INTO ADMINISTRATION!

Based on some of the answers from the finiancial experts, G&H will surely not let the club go into administration if it means they'll get so much less for it than theyre hoping.  It's not like they haven't got cash to put in should the worst come to the worst.  They are just avoiding putting any money in for as long as they can. 

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 these are a year old
« Reply #238 on: May 9, 2010, 03:58:59 pm »
The club is technically insolvent and is only trading as a solvent entity due to "sub-ordination" agreements by the holding company otherwise we would have to be reported and go into administration. Even with this agreement in place, unless Hicks and Gillet introduce equity capital in by diluting shareS (Not additional loans) or sell the club, LIVERPOOL WILL GO INTO ADMINISTRATION!

If the banks loan and credit agreements are being met how can we be technically insolvent? IF a sub-ordination agreement is working, it works, and we are solvent. It doesnt matter how you do it.

However I agree that if G&H remain, and there is no fresh cash, Administration is the inevitable consequence in time.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

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 these are a year old
« Reply #239 on: May 9, 2010, 04:22:10 pm »
If someone has a price in mind, then there's no reason for them not to put that offer on the table now.  If we eventually go into administration, then that, in itself is a costly process.  The reason that companies which are in administration have low "sale" prices is because the buyer is often having to fork out on various things other than the company's shares themselves.  So compare buying a company not in administration for £200m to buying the same company, in adminstration for £100m.  It is - by no means - £100m 'cheaper' overall.Besides, buying the club in administration means a 9 point penalty.  Furthermore, there is a huge stigma effect:  dont expect quality coaches or players to be rushing to sign up.

You make some good points, although I think that any buyer will be forced to consider the long game with us, so a 9 point penalty is unlikley to be a deal breaker. A deal which saves the Club from Administartion seems to be the best answer.

Quote
I dont realistically see how LFC will ever get a new stadium of its own,  on the scale previously discussed.My preference, ever since the early 90s, has been that we share with EFC.  I realise I'm in a small minority on that.Alternatives:a) do nothing.  Fall further behind the likes of Arsenal and MU and - maybe - Spurs.b) extend Anfield.  I'd always wanted this to be done.  However, I've always been told it is impossible.  I'd be even angrier with Moores if it now turned out that it could be done after all.  Dont underestimate the financial consequences though, including either playing with a much reduced capacity, or sharing with someone else for a season or two.

I agree with that too .The costings on the consented 60,000 seater scheme are four years old. No-one knows what it would cost today.The value of the existing Anfield site has never been established.The cost of a 70,000 seater is unknown. A redeveloped Anfield has never been costed. No feasibilty study on the reduced capital commitment of a shared stadium, or the reduced running costs, or the shared sponsorship/ revenue problems, has ever been conducted. That is no way to consider the stadium future of our great club.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"