Liverpool report debt increase of £21.8m and 10-month loss of £40.5m

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/04/liverpool-accounts-debt-ian-ayre

Liverpool report debt increase of £21.8m and 10-month loss of £40.5m

Liverpool have reported a £21.8m increase in their debt – now £87.2m overall – and a loss of £40.5m in their annual accounts. A restructuring of their accounting period to align it with the football season means that the figures apply to the 10 months between 1 August 2011 to 31 May 2012.

They show that although commercial revenue increased, so did the club's overall liabilities. However, the club's managing director, Ian Ayre, played down the significance of a rise in debt levels. "It's definitely not something I believe anyone should be worried or concerned about. It is seasonal – our debt goes up and down," he told the Liverpool Echo. "We have money to pay out and money coming in, just like any business.

"The difference in football is some of the swings are significant, so if you look at player-trading, we may need to make investments as we do in the summer before our key revenues come in: big sponsorships cheques, big ticket revenues, all the media revenues etc."

"You come to Christmas when you maybe have less revenue coming in but you have got money that needs to go out, both on playing deals that you are doing at the time but also on historic player deals. Debt has increased but I think it's a factor of doing business in the time and place we are.

"We need to continue to improve our squad and what a lot of people won't relate to perhaps is that when you are improving your squad and making that investment, you have knock-on costs that will create debt in the short term. But hopefully in the long term we'll improve our position and we are very aware of that. We will continue to invest in the squad – I think that is what our fans would expect. But the most important thing is that we do it prudently and in a sustainable way that is affordable."

Other contributing factors to the increase in debt were player instalment payments plus exceptional payments of just over £9.5m – relating to matters such as the stadium project, general restructuring and pay-offs to senior employees who left the club.

"We see a big charge within the accounts for amortisation of players that have been disposed of within the period that perhaps came in on a higher cost," added Ayre. "We've made losses as a result of selling them but at the same time we've improved our longer-term position in terms of our wage bill by reducing the wages for those particular contracts. We've in the same period refinanced our lending facilities, which gives us ability for working capital to operate as a business."

Since the end of the accounts reporting period, the owner, Fenway Sports Group, has injected £46.8m into the club via a non-interest-bearing inter-company loan while credit facilities were also refinanced with three major banks, providing £120m of facilities for three years. The loss of £40.5m for the 10-month period was, however, less than the previous year's £49.3m.

Given that was the 2011-2012 accounts, I'd imagine we are in better shape now given

1. Trimming of the wage bill.
2. New credit facilities.
3. No more senior payoffs. (Hopefully)
4. Stadium write off included in the last two accounts.
5. New sponsorship/kit deals.

I'll be interested in 12 months time.

Swings and roundabouts and anyone involved in the world of finance would agree that spotlighting the comings and goings, the ins and outs over one specific period of the financial year can be very misleading - if not mischievous.

Yeah, I don't really know what to think of it either, that's why I didn't really comment on it. But thought it's worth posting here anyway. We'll see in the years to come how this reform really has taken shape.

Nothing to worry about whatsoever.

That report missed out this bit:

"Turnover, if taken over 12 months, would show a reasonably healthy increase.

"The unaudited turnover, which we shared with Deloitte for their publication this year, was £188.7m - an increase on last year's £183.6m. So we are growing - we continue to grow.

"Our commercial revenues continue to grow and I think that is the key message. A lot has happened since the reporting period. Some new players joined the club during the summer and January transfer window which has added depth and strength to the team on the pitch.

"Off the pitch, we forged new partnerships with Warrior, Garuda and Cheverolet - the revenue from these contracts will show in the 2013-14 financial accounts.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9906989/Liverpool-reveal-increased-debt-as-lack-of-Champions-League-football-leaves-club-playing-catch-up-with-elite.html

Nothing to worry about.

Swings and roundabouts and anyone involved in the world of finance would agree that spotlighting the comings and goings, the ins and outs over one specific period of the financial year can be very misleading - if not mischievous.

Ah Yes Stuey.

Spoken from a Superior Mind    Sir.

Given that was the 2011-2012 accounts, I'd imagine we are in better shape now given

1. Trimming of the wage bill.
2. New credit facilities.
3. No more senior payoffs. (Hopefully)
4. Stadium write off included in the last two accounts.
5. New sponsorship/kit deals.

Also, those 10 months have no European football - not even the much maligned Europa League

Amazed we have found ourselves back towards £100M in debt.

Not surprised that they have written off the value of the squad by £40M either - but amazed that they are still paying out the same in wages.

I can see some of you think there is nothing to worry about, but there's some major discrepancies in that report the way I see it.

(And didn't they tell us last year the figures included writing off money for this big 'stadium project')

Also, those 10 months have no European football - not even the much maligned Europa League

Made little difference overall.  Domestic cup runs that year pretty much made up for the Europa League.   And it'll be vice versa for this year.

With our recent history I am a little concerned but I won't seriously worry until next year

I must admit I was concerned, until I came here for the real story.

"Off the pitch, we forged new partnerships with Warrior, Garuda and Cheverolet - the revenue from these contracts will show in the 2013-14 financial accounts.”

And this is why I come here to check the real facts. Thanks for pointing that our Swabs, I will sleep easier tonight.

(And didn't they tell us last year the figures included writing off money for this big 'stadium project')

It seems this year we repaid a stadium loan of £37.8 million

Given what we've gone through in the last 5 years or so, it's kind of scary how quickly people can say there is "nothing to worry about whatsoever."  Really?  almost 100m in debt and you don't have even the *slightest* concern?  if you don't want to go overboard, and if you think and hope that things are going to turn around soon, okay, but to not even have a tiny ounce of worry seems a bit odd.

 Those accounts are 10 months behind surely they could of given an approximate account of where we stand today.With all the financial whizz kids we employ at the club they should be able to give us figures on a daily basis.No doubt Skip will be able to tell us why the club can or cannot do that.

Amazed we have found ourselves back towards £100M in debt.

Not surprised that they have written off the value of the squad by £40M either - but amazed that they are still paying out the same in wages.

I can see some of you think there is nothing to worry about, but there's some major discrepancies in that report the way I see it.

(And didn't they tell us last year the figures included writing off money for this big 'stadium project')

Made little difference overall.  Domestic cup runs that year pretty much made up for the Europa League.   And it'll be vice versa for this year.

During the period, which covered Liverpool's transfer activity in the August 2011 and January 2012 windows, the club's biggest signings were José Enrique, from Newcastle United, and Sebastián Coates, from Nacional, but the wages still accounted for 70% of the club's total income.

The wage bill, £109m for the 10 months, equating to £131m over a full year, was very close to the £134m Liverpool paid in the previous year, and included the salaries of Andy Carroll, Luis Suárez, Jordan Henderson, Stewart Downing and Charlie Adam, all signed in the early months after FSG's October 2010 takeover.

There's an overlap in the 2 sets of accounts we have seen, leading to some figures being mentioned twice, on a pro rata basis.
This is to bring the clubs accounting period into line with when FSG took over.

That's why I say there is nothing to worry about.
At least not until we see the accounts from the summer after BR took over.
If there isn't a different picture after those accounts, then I will have some concerns.

Given what we've gone through in the last 5 years or so, it's kind of scary how quickly people can say there is "nothing to worry about whatsoever."  Really?  almost 100m in debt and you don't have even the *slightest* concern?  if you don't want to go overboard, and if you think and hope that things are going to turn around soon, okay, but to not even have a tiny ounce of worry seems a bit odd.

If we still had the debt H&G created there would be cause for concern.
If we had the 800m debt the mancs have that also would be cause for concern.

That figure being bandied about is neither here or there in the context of a financiayear.
It is however music to the ears of a wum.

F***ing hell, £100m in debt?!?!

Must admit I'm concerned, but maybe that's because of what has happened in the not so distant past.

Very much concerned about this.
God, please don't take Suarez away from us.

I would like to see what kind of figures we would have all inclusive.

Anyways, IMO these reports don't change much. We know what kind of money we have to spend on players and the wages available.

At least we dont owe the tax man anything. Nice one

That figure being bandied about is neither here or there in the context of a financiayear.
It is however music to the ears of a wum.

You can't be serious.  £100m in debt, given our history, and if, just maybe, you have even an inkling of worry about this, then you're a WUM?!  wow.

Given what we've gone through in the last 5 years or so, it's kind of scary how quickly people can say there is "nothing to worry about whatsoever."  Really?  almost 100m in debt and you don't have even the *slightest* concern?  if you don't want to go overboard, and if you think and hope that things are going to turn around soon, okay, but to not even have a tiny ounce of worry seems a bit odd.

You can always quote me, I don't mind.

Just saying it as I see it - the 2013/14 report should counteract this one. If it doesn't, then I'll ask questions.

Until then, I'm not worried. It's really simple.

You can't be serious.  £100m in debt, given our history, and if, just maybe, you have even an inkling of worry about this, then you're a WUM?!  wow.

The only history we've got regarding financial impropriety is the unfortunate tenure of H&G, to describe that as a part of our illustrious past is unfortunate to say the least and tells a story about the culprit. 

Just saying it as I see it - the 2013/14 report should counteract this one. If it doesn't, then I'll ask questions.  Until then, I'm not worried. It's really simple.

Well.  We had a £40.5m loss over the last 10 months.  So it's not totally irrelevant.  And of course, lest we forget, we are a football club, which means that on the pitch issues have to be taken into account as well, not just merchandising, sponsorships etc.

So it has to be brought up.  The last 10 months includes last summer.  Let's look at our total player outlay for the summer of 2012:

Fees paid to original clubs

£15m - Allen
£10m - Borini
£3m - Assaidi
£3m - Sahin loan fee

= £31m

Then let's add their wages in, and multiply it by 30 weeks starting from August 1:

£45K - Allen = £1.5m
£40K - Borini = £1.2m
£20K - Assaidi = £600K
£115K - Sahin = £2.8m (25 weeks since he left in January)

= about £6m

Joe Allen also got a signing fee of £2m.

total = £39m

If we're honest, none of these players has contributed a single thing at all since they came here in the summer.  In the future?  who knows.  But up to this point, they haven't done a damn thing.  And of course Sahin is already gone.

So out of the £40.5m loss in the last 10 months, if we hadn't purchased these totally useless players, we basically would have broken even.

Reslivo, you say you aren't worried and we'll see what 13/14 has to offer, but the problem is that for the last 3 years we keep digging ourselves in a huge hole by purchasing players who contribute nothing.  Not only do we buy them, but we buy them at exorbitant prices, and we just can't afford to do that anymore.  Literally, we can't afford it.

So the reason why I think you and everyone else should have some worry is because there is very little sign that this is going to end anytime soon.  What if our wonderful 13/14 outlook that you mention is then flushed down the toilet this summer by £20m on Ashley Williams, £15m on another flop, and so on and so forth? 

Nothing to worry about. It's just documenting the major F**k ups of the last two years. Any rise in debt is not good obviously, but there would only be cause for concern if the club were still carrying out such careless manouevres.

Well.  We had a £40.5m loss over the last 10 months.  So it's not totally irrelevant.  And of course, lest we forget, we are a football club, which means that on the pitch issues have to be taken into account as well, not just merchandising, sponsorships etc.

So it has to be brought up.  The last 10 months includes last summer.  Let's look at our total player outlay for the summer of 2012:

Fees paid to original clubs

£15m - Allen
£10m - Borini
£3m - Assaidi
£3m - Sahin loan fee

= £31m

Then let's add their wages in, and multiply it by 30 weeks starting from August 1:

£45K - Allen = £1.5m
£40K - Borini = £1.2m
£20K - Assaidi = £600K
£115K - Sahin = £2.8m (25 weeks since he left in January)

= about £6m

Joe Allen also got a signing fee of £2m.

total = £39m

If we're honest, none of these players has contributed a single thing at all since they came here in the summer.  In the future?  who knows.  But up to this point, they haven't done a damn thing.  And of course Sahin is already gone.

So out of the £40.5m loss in the last 10 months, if we hadn't purchased these totally useless players, we basically would have broken even.

Reslivo, you say you aren't worried and we'll see what 13/14 has to offer, but the problem is that for the last 3 years we keep digging ourselves in a huge hole by purchasing players who contribute nothing.  Not only do we buy them, but we buy them at exorbitant prices, and we just can't afford to do that anymore.  Literally, we can't afford it.

So the reason why I think you and everyone else should have some worry is because there is very little sign that this is going to end anytime soon.  What if our wonderful 13/14 outlook that you mention is then flushed down the toilet this summer by £20m on Ashley Williams, £15m on another flop, and so on and so forth? 

Try reading the article properly mate. 

The 10 months is up to 31st May 2012 so it doesn't include any transfers, in or out, that have been done since Brendan arrived.

Try reading the article properly mate. 

The 10 months is up to 31st May 2012 so it doesn't include any transfers, in or out, that have been done since Brendan arrived.

Wow, put my foot in my mouth there.   Thanks mate.

Although, to be honest, I really don't think we want to switch the numbers up and go from August 2011 - May 2012, because then the numbers would look even worse:

£20m - Downing
£16m - Henderson
£9m - Adam
£7m - Coates

= almost £50m

That's before we even go on their wages.

So basically if we didn't buy those players, we wouldn't have been in debt for those 10 months. 

Simple as that.

Nothing to worry about whatsoever.

Yet.

I agree though. We're 12 months away from knowing our position.

Shows what a shambles H&G left us in (if everything else didn't). Still paying for their incompetence and their sidekick Purslow.

Liverpool Echo

          LFC's Debts rise by £22m

Liverpools debt rose by almost £22m to £87.2m the club's latest set of accounts released today show.
But Anfield directors insist the cost of squad rebuilding in a period without any European football at all played a big part in the £21.8m net increase.
Significant instalments due on the previous transfers of Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson - plus paying off under achieving players in order to get them off the books - are also part of the reason for the rise.
The club insist fans should not be worried by the rise in debt and highlighted an interest-free £46.8m inter company loan, since made by FSG as evidence of an ongoing commitment to return the club to full health both on and off the field.
That FSG loan has now seen the debt figure being reported today reduced.
Liverpool also point to still growing commercial revenues and the club's continued position in the Deloitte list of top 10 European clubs as reasons for optimism over the future - the only side not involved in European competions to male Deloitte's prestigious money league shortlist.
The record breaking Warrior kit deal - worth £25m a year over six years is not included in the financial snapshot just lodged with Companies House .

full story:-
 http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2013/03/04/liverpool-fc-debts-up-by-
22m-to-87-2m-new-club-accounts-show-100252-32916775/

Wow, put my foot in my mouth there.   Thanks mate.

Although, to be honest, I really don't think we want to switch the numbers up and go from August 2011 - May 2012, because then the numbers would look even worse:

£20m - Downing
£16m - Henderson
£9m - Adam
£7m - Coates

= almost £50m

Well it equals £52M. Not that your figures are correct though. Adam was never £9M.

just going to throw in an accounting POV

i also do not think there is a cause of immediate concern.  to me, it looks like the realignment of the fiscal period, the write offs and debt is FSGs way to quickly close that nightmare portion of our history (high spending, stadium, salaries).  I'll be more interested in the following 12 months as it will more accurately reflect our revenues and expenses.  In accounting we look at trends and our past few years vs this current year, I would say LFC has made a material change to its strategy... to be more fiscally responsible. 

to give you guys an analogy, when a company goes into a loss and starts to layoff ppl..  usually the fiscal period right after shows a bleak picture still (lots of severance pay etc)... but once that is passed, the financial position of the company improves.... I see LFC the same.

None of this will be unexpected. Between the stadium write off, sacking and subsequent payoffs for several members of back room staff and a lack of Champion's league football after huge investment in the team, we where never going to make a profit. All of this will have been budgeted for this year hence wage trimmings and reduced team investment. It only becomes a concern if this is a trend and until the next set of accounts are released, we're not going to know if it is.

Wow, really caught surprised and felt downbeat when read we are in serious debt again but after reading our forumers comments and analyst, the pros and cons of it all, feeling a bit relieve now. Guess still reeling from that last debt situation debacle.

just going to throw in an accounting POV

i also do not think there is a cause of immediate concern.  to me, it looks like the realignment of the fiscal period, the write offs and debt is FSGs way to quickly close that nightmare portion of our history (high spending, stadium, salaries).  I'll be more interested in the following 12 months as it will more accurately reflect our revenues and expenses.  In accounting we look at trends and our past few years vs this current year, I would say LFC has made a material change to its strategy... to be more fiscally responsible. 

to give you guys an analogy, when a company goes into a loss and starts to layoff ppl..  usually the fiscal period right after shows a bleak picture still (lots of severance pay etc)... but once that is passed, the financial position of the company improves.... I see LFC the same.

It's amazing how many people didn't actually read the article properly, and failed to notice the dates.

None of this will be unexpected. Between the stadium write off, sacking and subsequent payoffs for several members of back room staff and a lack of Champion's league football after huge investment in the team, we where never going to make a profit. All of this will have been budgeted for this year hence wage trimmings and reduced team investment. It only becomes a concern if this is a trend and until the next set of accounts are released, we're not going to know if it is.

Of course mate these stats would be accounted for and adjustment no doubt applied - illustrated by the interest free loan sorted out by FSG in an inter-company transaction.
For the most part the statement of account consists of extrordinary payments, the declaring of these payments has no doubt been made in a less challenging part of the financial year in an effort to consolidate and strengthen at a later date.
With the full financial term taken into account this is indeed a snapshot of a much bigger picture, fiscal hysterics are certainly not required.

Oh well at least that Guardian report didn't include this classic quote from Ayre in the Liverpool Echo:

“I think there has never been a better time for Liverpool Football Club – ever – to have success than now because we have such a great team of people and depth to the infrastructure. Everything is there to capitalise upon it.”

That's some bullshit they are expecting us to swallow though!!

Remind us again Ian about what positions at the club need filling?

On a related note to our debt, the Independent reported this:

Liverpool spent £10m to sack Kenny Dalglish

Liverpool's dismissal of Kenny Dalglish as manager cost the club nearly £10m, new accounts reveal.

They paid £9.6m in termination payments in the 10 months to June last year. The club also lost a total of £40.5m in that period and net debt rose by £22m to £87m.

However, despite a wage bill that equates to £131m over a full year, the managing director, Ian Ayre, claimed the figures represent a transitional period and "a new transfer strategy" is in place.

He said: "This shows in players like Jose Enrique and Sebastian Coates. We will continue to invest in players and have a better structure in deals with them."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-spent-10m-to-sack-kenny-dalglish-8520082.html

On a related note to our debt, the Independent reported this:

Liverpool spent £10m to sack Kenny Dalglish

Liverpool's dismissal of Kenny Dalglish as manager cost the club nearly £10m, new accounts reveal.

They paid £9.6m in termination payments in the 10 months to June last year. The club also lost a total of £40.5m in that period and net debt rose by £22m to £87m.

However, despite a wage bill that equates to £131m over a full year, the managing director, Ian Ayre, claimed the figures represent a transitional period and "a new transfer strategy" is in place.

He said: "This shows in players like Jose Enrique and Sebastian Coates. We will continue to invest in players and have a better structure in deals with them."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-spent-10m-to-sack-kenny-dalglish-8520082.html

Again a slightly exaggerated headline by the media.  The termination costs will also include Comolli, senior management and other backroom staff that left during this period.

What are Seb and Jose earning?

What are Seb and Jose earning?

Seb - £25k
Jose - £65k

Around that.

Not concerned at all. You can make accounts look as bad as you want for whatever reason, I did the same when in business.

True enough mate and the obvious conclusion is that perspective is to the advantage of the individual/company formulating the information.

Blame Kenny#

 

It's amazing how many people didn't actually read the article properly, and failed to notice the dates.

Not amazing, just par for the course.

Numbers dont lie...on the other hand, people who do the numbers...

Nothing to worry about, its normal, and, from a financial point of view, expected. I would worry if we see more or less the same next year.

 Why do we need a facility to borrow £120 million ?

 The only reason I can see for this is so we (LFC) can pay FSG back there interest free loan.

Why do we need a facility to borrow £120 million ?

 The only reason I can see for this is so we (LFC) can pay FSG back there interest free loan.

Same opinion as this.

Now we have no £40 million interest to pay on loans FSG will pay their own directors/shareholder loans off which they borrwed the company when they purchased us.

Not brilliant numbers and you can never be comfortable being 100 million in debt but hopefully now we have the structure in place after paying numerous one off payments on senior staff and players.

Now our wage bill is a lot easier to control and we have a management team in place to push forward for the future.

The lack of Champions League football and even Europa League football (last season) doesn't help, and we have players on Champions League wages who we need to pay for.

Next seasons figures will be a lot better, just simply down to the fact we'll have additional income from TV rights. I still believe we need a large investment today, to swoop up the fruits of the Champions League in the future.

We also need a 60k stadium today, not tomorrow.

Why do we need a facility to borrow £120 million ?

 The only reason I can see for this is so we (LFC) can pay FSG back there interest free loan.

Could they use that line of credit for Anfield or is that not possible?

Could they use that line of credit for Anfield or is that not possible?

If you are talking about the redevelopment ? they said they had a £100 million for the rebuild/ new stadium when the bought the club

 

If you are talking about the redevelopment ? they said they had a £100 million for the rebuild/ new stadium when the bought the club

 

They had 100m  in cash? (doubt that myself) or 100m+ line of credit avalible to begin the work? as in a facility to borrow 100m (sic 120M?).

Lot's of speculation irregardless on this with very little information to back it up.

Conspiracies abound from the same usual suspects, I suppose when its all over we will see if the innuendos were correct or unfounded fodder.

They had 100m  in cash? (doubt that myself) or 100m+ line of credit avalible to begin the work? as in a facility to borrow 100m (sic 120M?).

Lot's of speculation irregardless on this with very little information to back it up.

No speculation about having a facility to borrow £120 million.

 Why do we need we need to borrow £120 million ?

 

No speculation about having a facility to borrow £120 million.

 Why do we need we need to borrow £120 million ?

 

You don't read well do you?


Do you think the 100m they have available for redevelopment is in cash?

Do you think there is another 100m line of credit + this 120m line of credit?

Is it not feasible that they have 120m line of credit and that 100m of that is earmarked for Anfield and the other 20m for operations?

That seems pretty reasonable to me but I suppose with your expertise in high finanace would say impossible.

You don't read well do you?


Do you think the 100m they have available for redevelopment is in cash?

Do you think there is another 100m line of credit + this 120m line of credit?

Is it not feasible that they have 120m line of credit and that 100m of that is earmarked for Anfield and the other 20m for operations?

That seems pretty reasonable to me but I suppose with your expertise in high finanace would say impossible.

When they bought the club they said they had £100 million, they did not say they would borrow £100 million on the club after the club was sold to them

You don't read well do you?


Do you think the 100m they have available for redevelopment is in cash?

Do you think there is another 100m line of credit + this 120m line of credit?

Is it not feasible that they have 120m line of credit and that 100m of that is earmarked for Anfield and the other 20m for operations?

That seems pretty reasonable to me but I suppose with your expertise in high finanace would say impossible.

When they bought the club they said they had £100 million for the stadium

 Now you seem to think that that £100 million was money that we (LFC) are going to borrow from the bank ?

When they bought the club they said they had £100 million, they did not say they would borrow £100 million on the club after the club was sold to them

Your a fool if you think any football owner is sitting on 100m in cash to work on a stadium,

They said from the outset that the club and the redevelopment of the club would be within its means.

They said the finance problems of building a new stadium and the economic viability of it versus just redeveloping.

FSG said they had the funds available which in the real world means financing in place to do the redevelopment.

2 1/2 years now you have been spouting the same drivel yet have 0 evidence of any misdoings, you take a shred of information and wind it into a grand conspiracy that never happens.

Your either extremely naive, just like winding people up or like to feel self-important.

You don't post on the club or players only about FSG and the grand conspiracy, you are to FSG what Federer is to the Fabio Borini thread.

Your a fool if you think any football owner is sitting on 100m in cash to work on a stadium,

They said from the outset that the club and the redevelopment of the club would be within its means.

They said the finance problems of building a new stadium and the economic viability of it versus just redeveloping.

FSG said they had the funds available which in the real world means financing in place to do the redevelopment.

2 1/2 years now you have been spouting the same drivel yet have 0 evidence of any misdoings, you take a shred of information and wind it into a grand conspiracy that never happens.

Your either extremely naive, just like winding people up or like to feel self-important.

You don't post on the club or players only about FSG and the grand conspiracy, you are to FSG what Federer is to the Fabio Borini thread.

You do not know why they asked the bank to loan them £120 million, I don't know why they asked for the money

 We do know that the interest free loan FSG lent Liverpool FC will have to be payed back in the next 2-5 years

 We do not know when the rebuild will start, if ever

 We know there is a felicity to borrow £120 million. Which is more likely, the money will be used for building work for which there is no planing permission or is it more likely that the money will be used to pay of a debt that has been promised to be paid in the next 2 - 5 years ?

When they bought the club they said they had £100 million for the stadium

Just out of curiosity, can you provide any quotes, articles or evidence to support that claim?

Because I cannot recall any such statement, or anything remotely similar. 

Considering the fact they didn't know if we were moving to a new stadium or re-developing Anfield up until 4 months ago, the suggestion that FSG came out and stated "We have £100 million set aside for the new stadium" seems rather farcical, if you don't mind me saying. However, if you can provide some genuine quotes of this I'll be happy to retract that.

It's amazing how many people didn't actually read the article properly, and failed to notice the dates.

do elaborate.

period was from 1 August 2011 to 31 May 2012.

Just out of curiosity, can you provide any quotes, articles or evidence to support that claim?

Because I cannot recall any such statement, or anything remotely similar. 

Considering the fact they didn't know if we were moving to a new stadium or re-developing Anfield up until 4 months ago, the suggestion that FSG came out and stated "We have £100 million set aside for the new stadium" seems rather farcical, if you don't mind me saying. However, if you can provide some genuine quotes of this I'll be happy to retract that.

I thought it was part of the criteria when they bought the club, I might be wrong

 I find it very hard to believe that this credit facility has anything to do with the new build, if we had got this facility for rebuilding Anfield I think Ian Ayre would of been shouting it from the roof tops.

 After what happened with the last owners I think we should be asking why we need a credit facility of £120 million.

 

do elaborate.

period was from 1 August 2011 to 31 May 2012.

Our accounts where 31st July to 31st July, so would never account for the main transfer splurge in August of any season anyway.

Now they are 31st May to 31st May.

What happened at LFC in June and July 2012 that they don't want showing in this set of results?

Other football clubs' publicised goals are to:

"Get back into the Champions League places"
"Win the league"
"Stay up"

Ours is:

"To continue to improve revenues and manage our cost base effectively"

What the F**k is a "cost base?"

Ours is:

"To continue to improve revenues and manage our cost base effectively"

What the f**k is a "cost base?"

Having a lean summer transfer window 2012 and having to rely on our mega man Luis Suarez not getting injured until " the revenue" was coming in.

We were lucky. Very lucky with that.
We would still be near the relegation area due to "managing our cost base" Aug 12. if Luis had got a knock.

Our accounts where 31st July to 31st July, so would never account for the main transfer splurge in August of any season anyway.

Now they are 31st May to 31st May.

What happened at LFC in June and July 2012 that they don't want showing in this set of results?

Other football clubs' publicised goals are to:

"Get back into the Champions League places"
"Win the league"
"Stay up"

Ours is:

"To continue to improve revenues and manage our cost base effectively"

What the F**k is a "cost base?"

Management bullshit double speak is what it is.

The costs of running a company, especially fixed costs i.e. wages etc, debt/loan servicing for a financial period, usually one year, and used for financial planning and forecasting.

Management bullshit double speak is what it is.

The costs of running a company, especially fixed costs i.e. wages etc, debt/loan servicing for a financial period, usually one year, and used for financial planning and forecasting.

So basically 'outgoings' then!! hahaha - I was being a bit sarcastic with that last point, agree nothing really to worry about just the superb levels of bullshit and propaganda used by Ian 'Hot' Ayre.

So basically 'outgoings' then!! hahaha - I was being a bit sarcastic with that last point, agree nothing really to worry about just the superb levels of bullshit and propaganda used by Ian 'Hot' Ayre.

He has a great line in bullshit, I'll give him that.
You could fill a whole bullshit bingo card in less than 2 minutes.

Management bullshit double speak is what it is.

The costs of running a company, especially fixed costs i.e. wages etc, debt/loan servicing for a financial period, usually one year, and used for financial planning and forecasting.

Just because you don't understand business terminology doesn't make it bullshit. Cost based means the costs involved in operating a company. In our case, what's being referred to is not allowing that cost of running LFC to spiral out of control putting us deep in the brown and stinky we just climbed out of.

I'm no fiscal wizard, in fact i'm a fiscal fuckwit but the article highlights the true cost of chopping and changing the managers at any football club.

Some very good points have been made both for and against our debt, i'm not really that clued up on how businesses are run and i don't pretend to be either.

The fact remains that if we keep on buying substandard players and failing to qualify for Europe, exiting Cup competitions at will and underachieving then we will be fu**ed.

While football Clubs are essentially businesses nowadays the cold hard facts remain the same, the real business is done on that grass pitch, by the eleven players that are selected to spearhead that business.

If you want your business to do well then you try and employ the best candidates for that business.

Now if our players fail to perform over the coming Seasons then that debt will be a massive worry, there is no hiding from that fact.

Just because you don't understand business terminology doesn't make it bullshit. Cost based means the costs involved in operating a company. In our case, what's being referred to is not allowing that cost of running LFC to spiral out of control putting us deep in the brown and stinky we just climbed out of.

I understand it perfectly well thank you, and I still think it's bullshit. Most of it is gobbledygook designed to flummox and exclude those not privy to the latest buzzwords, which change every few months.
I also posted earlier what cost base is, and it's more directly related to fixed costs than anything else.

OK, have we synergied this, got all our ducks in a row so we can pick the low hanging fruit, and move outside the envelope to the bleeding edge?

Management bullshit, as referred to earlier.

I'm no fiscal wizard, in fact i'm a fiscal fuckwit but the article highlights the true cost of chopping and changing the managers at any football club.

Some very good points have been made both for and against our debt, i'm not really that clued up on how businesses are run and i don't pretend to be either.

The fact remains that if we keep on buying substandard players and failing to qualify for Europe, exiting Cup competitions at will and underachieving then we will be fu**ed.

While football Clubs are essentially businesses nowadays the cold hard facts remain the same, the real business is done on that grass pitch, by the eleven players that are selected to spearhead that business.

If you want your business to do well then you try and employ the best candidates for that business.

Now if our players fail to perform over the coming Seasons then that debt will be a massive worry, there is no hiding from that fact.

Can't argue with that mate, the 2 go hand in hand.

I'm no fiscal wizard, in fact i'm a fiscal fuckwit but the article highlights the true cost of chopping and changing the managers at any football club.

Some very good points have been made both for and against our debt, i'm not really that clued up on how businesses are run and i don't pretend to be either.

The fact remains that if we keep on buying substandard players and failing to qualify for Europe, exiting Cup competitions at will and underachieving then we will be fu**ed.

While football Clubs are essentially businesses nowadays the cold hard facts remain the same, the real business is done on that grass pitch, by the eleven players that are selected to spearhead that business.

If you want your business to do well then you try and employ the best candidates for that business.

Now if our players fail to perform over the coming Seasons then that debt will be a massive worry, there is no hiding from that fact.

Spot on mate -  if a farmer cuts the balls off his stud cattle how does he make money at the auction or anything else for that matter?

Can't argue with that mate, the 2 go hand in hand.

Spot on mate -  if a farmer cuts the balls off his stud cattle how does he make money at the auction or anything else for that matter?

Exactly lads. I have a strong feeling that this Summer is when we'll see if NESV/FSG walk the walk.

I'm thinking our final League placing will have an effect on how much investment is made - i.e. qualification for Europe.

This is what worries me though, as i see it, failure to qualify for Europe will warrant more investment than actually qualifying for Europe. I doubt NESV/FSG will see it that way though.

Exactly lads. I have a strong feeling that this Summer is when we'll see if NESV/FSG walk the walk.

I'm thinking our final League placing will have an effect on how much investment is made - i.e. qualification for Europe.

This is what worries me though, as i see it, failure to qualify for Europe will warrant more investment than actually qualifying for Europe. I doubt NESV/FSG will see it that way though.

Let's not forget though that these figures don't include the players taken off the wage bill, despite what the papers would have you think, and nor are the new partnership deals included.
We also have the added benefits of the Warrior deal which we didn't have with Adidas in terms of exclusivity, and that can only bode well in terms of revenue.

The bottom line here is that all other ventures should be undertaken with only one purpose in mind, and that is to bring in the best players we can.

Let's not forget though that these figures don't include the players taken off the wage bill, despite what the papers would have you think, and nor are the new partnership deals included.
We also have the added benefits of the Warrior deal which we didn't have with Adidas in terms of exclusivity, and that can only bode well in terms of revenue.

The bottom line here is that all other ventures should be undertaken with only one purpose in mind, and that is to bring in the best players we can.

With the optimistic projections in the financial sector it is to be hoped that the footballing issues are prioritised ahead of the good business model.

Link to accounts.
Directors Report and Financial Statements.
Liverpool FC accounts 2011-12

Here's the most interesting part:

Notes

9    Taxation

The Company has losses available to be offset against future profits amounting to £99.4m (2011 51.3m)

I don't have time to provide a full analysis of the figures, but reading through them there is the usual creative accounting going on to minimise tax liability against future profits, as well as non interest bearing inter-company loans to do the same.

When I look at this I see a healthy balance sheet. The P/L statement is not as important as the balance sheet, which is what we must concern ourselves with.

All in all, I see a healthy company.

Perhaps RedDebs or someone better versed in accounting than me could give us all a full analysis, but we should remember this is a Directors report rather than a full set of accounts, and as such it is concerned not just with the current financial activity, but is also part of longer term financial planning.

Just to add, this was for the period before BR came in, so decreases in the wage bill are not shown.
The next set of accounts will provide a much clearer picture of where we are in terms of finance, and moving forwards under BR.

"Off the pitch, we forged new partnerships with Warrior, Garuda and Cheverolet - the revenue from these contracts will show in the 2013-14 financial accounts.”

 Ah Garuda.

The airline that flies on rubber bands and the wings fall off.

Another prestige sponsor.

CRASH / HIJACK RECORD

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=Garuda+Indonesia&fulltext=Search


 There is a page named "Garuda Indonesia" on Wikipedia

    Garuda Indonesia
    PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk (GIAA), publicly known as Garuda Indonesia, is the flag carrier of Indonesia . giant bird Garuda of ...
    66 KB (9,134 words) - 23:07, 5 March 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 (section Garuda Indonesia)
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 (GA200) was the scheduled domestic passenger flight of a Boeing 737-497 operated by Garuda Indonesia between ...
    20 KB (2,852 words) - 20:07, 26 February 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 152
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 152 (GA152, GIA152) was a scheduled domestic Indonesia n passenger flight from Jakarta to Medan , North Sumatra , ...
    3 KB (406 words) - 00:23, 28 February 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 206
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 was a domestic Garuda Indonesia flight that was hijacked on 28 March 1981. The incident: The hijackers, a group ...
    4 KB (516 words) - 08:04, 2 February 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 035
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 was a domestic Garuda Indonesia flight that struck a pylon and crashed on approach to Medan-Polonia Airport ...
    3 KB (371 words) - 13:47, 30 January 2013

    ...
    9 KB (819 words) - 14:08, 6 March 2013
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 150
    Garuda Indonesia Airways Flight 150 was a scheduled Indonesia n domestic passenger flight from Kemayoran Airport , Jakarta to Sultan ...

    3 KB (455 words) - 13:44, 30 January 2013
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 421
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 was a scheduled domestic flight operated by Indonesia n flag carrier Garuda Indonesia covering about 625 ...
    4 KB (493 words) - 07:09, 2 March 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 708
    Garuda Indonesia Airways Flight 708 was a scheduled passenger flight on 16 February 1967 which crashed upon landing at Sam Ratulangi ...
    3 KB (382 words) - 17:34, 5 March 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 865
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 865 was a scheduled international flight from Fukuoka city , Japan , to Jakarta , Indonesia that crashed at ...
    4 KB (483 words) - 06:39, 1 March 2013


KWALITEEEE

 Ah Garuda.

The airline that flies on rubber bands and the wings fall off.

Another prestige sponsor.

CRASH / HIJACK RECORD

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=Garuda+Indonesia&fulltext=Search


 There is a page named "Garuda Indonesia" on Wikipedia

    Garuda Indonesia
    PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk (GIAA), publicly known as Garuda Indonesia, is the flag carrier of Indonesia . giant bird Garuda of ...
    66 KB (9,134 words) - 23:07, 5 March 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 (section Garuda Indonesia)
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 (GA200) was the scheduled domestic passenger flight of a Boeing 737-497 operated by Garuda Indonesia between ...
    20 KB (2,852 words) - 20:07, 26 February 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 152
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 152 (GA152, GIA152) was a scheduled domestic Indonesia n passenger flight from Jakarta to Medan , North Sumatra , ...
    3 KB (406 words) - 00:23, 28 February 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 206
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 was a domestic Garuda Indonesia flight that was hijacked on 28 March 1981. The incident: The hijackers, a group ...
    4 KB (516 words) - 08:04, 2 February 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 035
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 was a domestic Garuda Indonesia flight that struck a pylon and crashed on approach to Medan-Polonia Airport ...
    3 KB (371 words) - 13:47, 30 January 2013

    ...
    9 KB (819 words) - 14:08, 6 March 2013
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 150
    Garuda Indonesia Airways Flight 150 was a scheduled Indonesia n domestic passenger flight from Kemayoran Airport , Jakarta to Sultan ...

    3 KB (455 words) - 13:44, 30 January 2013
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 421
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 was a scheduled domestic flight operated by Indonesia n flag carrier Garuda Indonesia covering about 625 ...
    4 KB (493 words) - 07:09, 2 March 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 708
    Garuda Indonesia Airways Flight 708 was a scheduled passenger flight on 16 February 1967 which crashed upon landing at Sam Ratulangi ...
    3 KB (382 words) - 17:34, 5 March 2013

    Garuda Indonesia Flight 865
    Garuda Indonesia Flight 865 was a scheduled international flight from Fukuoka city , Japan , to Jakarta , Indonesia that crashed at ...
    4 KB (483 words) - 06:39, 1 March 2013


KWALITEEEE

If they pay the money, what difference does it make?

I can't see how any of that is relevant, and just seems like another excuse to have a moan.

QPR are in more debt.
Now thats scary.

If they pay the money, what difference does it make?

I can't see how any of that is relevant, and just seems like another excuse to have a moan.

No . Just introducing a bit of useless information.

Perhaps not. Would you fly them ?
Garuda crash planes and Standard Chartered get their hands smacked for naughties in the Middle East.

Ah well . 
Take the money and forget the rest .
None of us are perfect ... eh?

Sponsors demand high standards from the club surely the club should expect high standards from the Sponsors.From the history of Garuda shown by Skip surely Garuda are not worthy of being associated with Liverpool Football Club.

No . Just introducing a bit of useless information.

Perhaps not. Would you fly them ?
Garuda crash planes and Standard Chartered get their hands smacked for naughties in the Middle East.

Ah well . 
Take the money and forget the rest .
None of us are perfect ... eh?

 
Fair enough.

What's worse is that our accounts are done by KPMG, so we're feckin tax dodgers as well.

Hang on hang on hang on.... Were back to £100 Million in debt..? What the hell is going on?!

We have been told for years that the club is moving in the right direction - and for years of not spending big and having to sell before we buy we are told its because we are going to become a viable business. Yet we have moved backwards again... Sell it anyway you want - we are going backwards on the pitch and off the pitch. NESV have hidden behind 'bad debt' at the club and people say 'it was the mess H&G left' - but that was 3 years ago... How long can you blame the previous regime?!

I thought we would be debt free by now - but it appears we are now worse off, inspite of new deals that we are told are the best... Something dosent add up here!

Why would any business want to be debt free? debt is good for owners. I remember I used to say to our accountants to look how we can minimise tax etc...they would come back with proposals and we would implement them, so some years we could make it look really bad, as if we were making a loss (on paper) but if we wanted to borrow money etc..we could quickly make it look good with a healthy profit. I am (was) no expert and relied on the expertise of the accountants, but we did a lot of buying (holding bulk stock, investments, holding contracts back to certain dates) to keep the balance down, and when we wanted to look strong we sold (used bulk stock, release investments and releasing contracts we had held back). I loved nothing more than using the banks money instead of my companies money. These latest figures are nothing to worry about IMO, the owners know how to run a business.

No doubt - but do they know how to run a football club..?

How will this impact the FFP regulations?

No doubt - but do they know how to run a football club..?

How will this impact the FFP regulations?

Not going to affect FFP at all as the lookback period began summer of 2012, this was part of the clean-up and should have been expected to some extent. Moving forward from this we could see a 15m loss per year for the next 3 years without repercussion of FFP, and I suspect we will.

Still, for me I dont like the idea of being in debt... If it has no impact on FFP then that's good - however I still wonder what they will actually do!