SA Footy

With all the "talk" lately of the so called financial meltdown at Anfield, here is an article suggesting it may not be the case.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6446668.ece

Good work fella, they're the type of article I like to read

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".

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.

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.

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.

Both Liverpool and Manure's debts are a result of the purchase price paid by their current owners. While you could argue that indirectly, this translates to transfer fees and match payments, it's a bit of a long bow IMO.

LFC as a seperate entity (if you disregard the price paid for the initial purchase and the interest costs related to that) made a profit as outlined about. This profit is AFTER transfers and match fees etc. Man U is in the same position.

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.

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.

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.

And I guess that's the thing that LFC fans can cling to. Dumb and dumber will realistically have to sell and they can do so at a reasonable market price soon, or in an administration fire sale not too far down the track. So the most likely outcome would have to be that H&G won't be screwing up the club for too much longer.

If DIC do buy the club, their patience will have been rewarded as they'll surely pay less now than previously.

i think every club is in debt in some way these days...

except chelski with a russian that bails them out all the time.

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.

The money Roman has put into the Chav's is still considered a debt. It's just that his loan is a personal loan rather than from a bank or other financier.

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.

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.

If a club goes into administration Johnny, whats the penalty - It's a pretty significant loss of points isnt it?

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?

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?

yeah thats right leeds had to start with minus 30 points wasnt it ?

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.

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.

when leeds first went in to administration the deducted 30 points then when they went into administration again they got deducted 15 points

Agree DA. That's what happened to Southampton this year. their parent company went belly up and forced them into administration so the Saints will start with a 15 point deficit next year.

Connine, the standard penalty is 15 points deducted.

Luton and Leeds were exceptional circumstances. Luton had 30 points deducted, but this was because they not only went into administration, but the subsequent investigation turned up some serious irregularities in their transfer dealings. Former manager (ex b4st4rd) Mike Newell blew the whislte when after he was fired, and following the investigation some of the Hatters directors were struck off and prohibited from directorships in any club ever again.

Sorry fella's but Leeds only suffered a 15 point deduction. They did suffer a 10 point deduction at the end of the previous year, but as it happened with only one game left and they were already relegated it had no effect on the outcome. The incompetant FA eventually sussed that Leeds were pulling a fast one by declaring insolvency with one game left, that they decided to impose a further 15 points at the start of the following season (and quite right too) I think the shenannigans that went on at Leeds during and after the administratinon saga is well documented on a thread already.

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.

The development and sale of the land that was once Highbury went along way to wards paying for the Emirates. You just wouldn't believe the value of land and property in London. Asl DA, he'll tell you.

Is Rafa's car boot sale about to kick off?

Thanks to The Sporting life

MASCHERANO WANTS BARCA MOVE - AGENT

Javier Mascherano's agent has made it clear that the Liverpool midfielder would jump at the chance to join Barcelona.

Mascherano has been linked with a move to the European champions, and agent Walter Tamer claims his client would be very keen.

"If a club like Barcelona want to bring you into their ranks after having completed such a brilliant season and having won everything, obviously as a player, you are going to say, 'Yes, I want to play there,'" he told RAC-1 programme 'Tu Diras'.

"It is an honour for Javier that a club like Barca pay such close attention to him, especially after the incredible season they had. I believe that a transfer would be feasible. If Barca really want him, he will sign for them.

"He would have a very easy job at Barca. Sometimes we talk and joke that the only thing he has to do is run, rob the ball, and pass it on to all the superstars in front of him."

But Tamer does admit that the move could be made more difficult if Liverpool agree to sell Xabi Alonso to Real Madrid.

"What if Xabi Alonso also leaves? Surely, Rafael Benitez would not want to have both his central midfielders go. It will be difficult, although Xabi's future does not depend on Mascherano and vice-versa.

"The transaction would certainly happen, but the first to leave will have more options."

Let's hope things improve for Liverpool. I can't stand Chavski and it would be a bit boring to see United have it all thier own way for another season.

Also thanks to The Sporting life

BENITEZ - I HAVE ENOUGH CASH

Liverpool boss Rafael Benitez has revealed he was fully aware of the club's financial problems before he signed his new five-year contract in March.

And a defiant Benitez insists he is happy with his transfer budget and still aims to bring in "one or two" top signings ahead of next season.

The Liverpool boss was speaking in the wake of the release of the club's worrying financial figures last week, underlining the need for prudence in the transfer market.

The damaging financial reality hit home when accounts, for the season 2007-08, showed Kop Holdings lost £42.6million on the year.

Kop Holdings is the company set up by under-fire American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett to run Liverpool.

Although the football club made a £10million profit, that money was swallowed up in paying the interest on the loans taken out by the Americans to buy the club.