by smithy » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:00 pm
by JK » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:08 pm
by smithy » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:29 am
Constance_Perm wrote:Good work fella, they're the type of article I like to read
by devilsadvocate » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:10 am
smithy wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Good work fella, they're the type of article I like to read
It was only interest on money owed as to why the bottom line looks bad, the club itself made a profit.
Man Utd and Arsenal owe much more money than us yet it never gets mentioned in the papers.
You got to wonder sometimes if certain journalists have agendas behind their allegiances.
The NOTW is 1 paper that I dont believe a word that is printed, only because it's the weekend version of the S*N, which for obvious reasons isn't read in the north west, but is also completely full of tripe when it comes to reporting on Liverpool "news".
by Bully » Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:07 am
smithy wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Good work fella, they're the type of article I like to read
It was only interest on money owed as to why the bottom line looks bad, the club itself made a profit.
Man Utd and Arsenal owe much more money than us yet it never gets mentioned in the papers.
You got to wonder sometimes if certain journalists have agendas behind their allegiances.
The NOTW is 1 paper that I dont believe a word that is printed, only because it's the weekend version of the S*N, which for obvious reasons isn't read in the north west, but is also completely full of tripe when it comes to reporting on Liverpool "news".
by devilsadvocate » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:38 am
Bulldog wrote:smithy wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Good work fella, they're the type of article I like to read
It was only interest on money owed as to why the bottom line looks bad, the club itself made a profit.
Man Utd and Arsenal owe much more money than us yet it never gets mentioned in the papers.
You got to wonder sometimes if certain journalists have agendas behind their allegiances.
The NOTW is 1 paper that I dont believe a word that is printed, only because it's the weekend version of the S*N, which for obvious reasons isn't read in the north west, but is also completely full of tripe when it comes to reporting on Liverpool "news".
yes i agree arsenal are in debt, but not for transfer fees or match payments. Arsenal are in debt for a recent stadium move as i have explained before.
by JK » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:27 am
devilsadvocate wrote:smithy wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Good work fella, they're the type of article I like to read
It was only interest on money owed as to why the bottom line looks bad, the club itself made a profit.
Man Utd and Arsenal owe much more money than us yet it never gets mentioned in the papers.
You got to wonder sometimes if certain journalists have agendas behind their allegiances.
The NOTW is 1 paper that I dont believe a word that is printed, only because it's the weekend version of the S*N, which for obvious reasons isn't read in the north west, but is also completely full of tripe when it comes to reporting on Liverpool "news".
While I agree with you on the Manure and Arse debt levels, they have the ability to fulfil their interest commitments and also re-finance when the debts become due. With all the in fighting between Hicks and Gillet, I can't see LFC having the ability to do the same unless they stop the handbags.
And while the club made a profit, if the parent entity is insolvent and has going concern issues, it's illegal for any part of the group to continue trading. That's the bit I'd be worried about.
by devilsadvocate » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:54 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:devilsadvocate wrote:smithy wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Good work fella, they're the type of article I like to read
It was only interest on money owed as to why the bottom line looks bad, the club itself made a profit.
Man Utd and Arsenal owe much more money than us yet it never gets mentioned in the papers.
You got to wonder sometimes if certain journalists have agendas behind their allegiances.
The NOTW is 1 paper that I dont believe a word that is printed, only because it's the weekend version of the S*N, which for obvious reasons isn't read in the north west, but is also completely full of tripe when it comes to reporting on Liverpool "news".
While I agree with you on the Manure and Arse debt levels, they have the ability to fulfil their interest commitments and also re-finance when the debts become due. With all the in fighting between Hicks and Gillet, I can't see LFC having the ability to do the same unless they stop the handbags.
And while the club made a profit, if the parent entity is insolvent and has going concern issues, it's illegal for any part of the group to continue trading. That's the bit I'd be worried about.
Yeah that was always my understanding, that in the current climate H & G didn't have the capacity to gain re-financing ... I can't see DIC coming on board as a 3rd partner either, I'd suggest if they were to get involved they would want %100 control.
by Bully » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:24 pm
by devilsadvocate » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:37 am
Bulldog wrote:i think every club is in debt in some way these days...
except chelski with a russian that bails them out all the time.
by johntheclaret » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:18 am
devilsadvocate wrote:
The problem for their owners is not so much the interest payments, but that they face real issues in being able to refinance their debt on similar terms to the current loans due to the credit crunch.
by JK » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:37 am
johntheclaret wrote:devilsadvocate wrote:
The problem for their owners is not so much the interest payments, but that they face real issues in being able to refinance their debt on similar terms to the current loans due to the credit crunch.
I guess the real problem for the likes of Pool and Man U is like that of West Ham's Icelandic owner (name escapes me).
They have financed the purchase on the back of loans, which have been taken out against their current asset book. Now if their current assets take a dive, will the banks be comfortable with such huge outstanding debts?
It may not be too long before one of the big boys has to hand over the club to the bankers who will be forced to either run it (excecutively) or sell it on to someone else. Fortunately, with interest rates so low at the moment, it is likely that the loan interest wil have reduced by a significant amount (assuming they didn't take out some kind of cap & floor agreement), and like DA says, in a forced sale situation, Pool or Man U might l;ook attractive to someone who has substantial resources.
by devilsadvocate » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:36 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:If a club goes into administration Johnny, whats the penalty - It's a pretty significant loss of points isnt it?
by Bully » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:38 pm
devilsadvocate wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:If a club goes into administration Johnny, whats the penalty - It's a pretty significant loss of points isnt it?
In Liverpool's case, it's not the club going into administration, but it's parent entity. The football club itself is still very profitable. The worry for LFC fans is if the current owners sell their most valuable assets (Mascherano, Garrard, Alonso, Torres etc) to refinance the parent entity.
There are some pretty heft penalties handed down though. Leeds was 30 points if I'm not mistaken?
by RoosterMarty » Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:38 pm
by Il Duce » Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:09 am
RoosterMarty wrote:I looked it up and it seems that Leeds only started 15 points in arrears, Luton copped a 30 point deduction though. They got bent over bad. Still won the Johnstone Paint Trophy or whatever it's called this season.
by johntheclaret » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:41 am
by johntheclaret » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:44 am
Bulldog wrote:smithy wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Good work fella, they're the type of article I like to read
It was only interest on money owed as to why the bottom line looks bad, the club itself made a profit.
Man Utd and Arsenal owe much more money than us yet it never gets mentioned in the papers.
You got to wonder sometimes if certain journalists have agendas behind their allegiances.
The NOTW is 1 paper that I dont believe a word that is printed, only because it's the weekend version of the S*N, which for obvious reasons isn't read in the north west, but is also completely full of tripe when it comes to reporting on Liverpool "news".
yes i agree arsenal are in debt, but not for transfer fees or match payments. Arsenal are in debt for a recent stadium move as i have explained before.
by johntheclaret » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:13 am
by johntheclaret » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:17 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |