Liverpool record revenue but £19M loss for 2015-16

Times I wish H&G were still in charge.

a 0% interest loan does just sit there at 0% that's the point of it.

Nope.
Any additions have to be shown, including fees pertaining to the administration of the loan.

You have to show where the money came from, you also have to show where the money from the loan went, you have to show schedules of payment, one way or another, you have to show who got paid for administering the loan (if anyone) any and all fees connected to the loan.

Man City seems to be doing ok with their Sheikh. 

Makes me laugh this financially irresponsible nonsense.

Every club with these filthy rich owners we keep getting told it will all end in tears...in spite of the fact it's yet to happen.

Abramovich at the chavs is actually the best owner around imo (think someone else said the same on here the other day actually) and I would much rather a guy like that who is there to win that our current 'custodians'.

No fella, that's the mirror you're looking at.

Typical of this place; someone doesn't agree with the latest bullshit and jump on the bandwagon and the sheep turn and throw abuse out.

I've removed the comment as I instantly realised it was incorrect of me to say that. However, just because something may appear to be innocent, doesn't mean it is. I wouldn't be so hasty or naive with your judgements...

Nope.
Any additions have to be shown, including fees pertaining to the administration of the loan.

You have to show where the money came from, you also have to show where the money from the loan went, you have to show schedules of payment, one way or another, you have to show who got paid for administering the loan (if anyone) any and all fees connected to the loan.

No you don't because you're not the one generating them. Only what is paid have to be shown, if the above is correct show me our original loan agreement with FSG and I'll believe you because you wont be able to show me any schedule of payment or who is administrating the loan. All fees connected with the loan will only need to be shown at the originators end, they can simply put a bill in  and that bill can be paid under any header we see fit.

So show me all our receipts for administration costs, debt and I'll happily trawl through them and show you where these fees are incurred.

Hey, there can't be any wrong doing with the figures, or they'd show up in the reports 😆

I'm sure every multi billionaire or conglomerate were always honest to the core...

No you don't because you're not the one generating them. Only what is paid have to be shown, if the above is correct show me our original loan agreement with FSG and I'll believe you because you wont be able to show me any schedule of payment or who is administrating the loan. All fees connected with the loan will only need to be shown at the originators end, they can simply put a bill in  and that bill can be paid under any header we see fit.

So show me all our receipts for administration costs, debt and I'll happily trawl through them and show you where these fees are incurred.

Luke, I've told you I'm not wasting my time with this fantasy nonsense.

You crack on, I don't care, but I'm not getting involved any more.
It's ridiculous nonsense, and I can't be arsed with it.

Yes quite simple:

I loan you £100,000 at 0%

It has a 5% arrangement fee = £5000 doesn't affect the interest rate.

It has a 5% exit fee paid on settlement of the loan = £5000 doesn't affect the interest rate.

There's a consultancy fee with the lender for applying for the loan of 5% = £5000 doesn't affect the interest rate.

There's then an annual management fee of 5% = £5000 doesn't affect the interest rate.

Then there's a draw down feature that in case we want to borrow £1 more we have to pay 5% to access it = £5000 doesn't affect the interest rate.

All of these juicy fees can then be rolled up for the next year because the interest on them is calculated on the outstanding balance, so our original £100000 loan is actually incurring compound interest and that adds up incredibly quickly and before you know it you're paying back your loan plus 40% or more on a 0% loan. The easiest way to then hide this is to pay off a much larger portion of debt than the original loan then the inflated costs can be hidden under debt repayment and perhaps just suggest we were paying for the "cost of stadium development" which none of us truly know and in so doing the illusion of the 0% loan is complete and the profit is shown only on the parent company of that loan.

Yes,
but compounded interest on loans (or your fees as you suggested) paid are shown at each fiscal year end and not when the loan is over. This is why firms calculate present value of cash flows and why it's important to be in the profit/loss account for tax purposes.  Plus those fees could be dressed up as operating expenses not necessarily as ''debt repayment'' as you are stating depending on how the finance is restructured at the club.

Yes,
but compounded interest on loans (or your fees as you suggested) paid are shown at each fiscal year end and not when the loan is over. This is why firms calculate present value of cash flows and why it's important to be in the profit/loss account for tax purposes.  Plus those fees could be dressed up as operating expenses not necessarily as ''debt repayment'' as you are stating depending on how the finance is restructured at the club.

I never said where they would appear that's the advantage they have, they can slip them in any header of terms they pretty much choose and can dress them up as any outgoing cost really.

As for appearing on the balance sheet, not in relation to the debt, that's the point. We could have paid "operating expenses" as you suggest for such things without it ever being mentioned under debt, that's my whole point.

Without seeing the invoices for all transactions we wont be able to know and hence why I asked Swab to either point me in the direction of these invoices or show me them himself. Unfortunately he backed out at this point, not surprising because they wont be there, they'll be tucked up in the accounts office never to be seen by us we'll just get the very basic description of what we're paying.

Same as with the agent fees, how do we know who the consultation fee was paid to, we're not privy to that much information, we're just told we paid X for agent fees and consultation fees, administration fees and we're just meant to believe that all this is going to the correct sources without any being siphoned off to JWH or his cronies. I don't buy it for one second and the proof is in the pudding as they say.

We can't have grown commercially in the manner we have year on year and have net spends which we have. It's the same equation as most things in life, what goes in must come out and if what is going out doesn't accurately reflect what is going in then there's something missing in the middle. Some of the very best professions in the world are middle men and I get a feeling if our books were audited we'd find that the same name under different umbrellas would pop up regularly as the middle men in a lot of our transactions.

Now some bright spark will claim that JWH or whoever will still pay income tax on this no matter if he took it from the club directly or from a subsidiary and that is correct but the illusion that they take nothing would then be lost. Turnover is up, cost of wages is down in % terms, revenues are up from commercial, tv, even european football in these accounts and they claim we're losing money and some swallow that information because the books 'add up', to say that view is naive would be complimentary.

I never said where they would appear that's the advantage they have, they can slip them in any header of terms they pretty much choose and can dress them up as any outgoing cost really.

As for appearing on the balance sheet, not in relation to the debt, that's the point. We could have paid "operating expenses" as you suggest for such things without it ever being mentioned under debt, that's my whole point.

Without seeing the invoices for all transactions we wont be able to know and hence why I asked Swab to either point me in the direction of these invoices or show me them himself. Unfortunately he backed out at this point, not surprising because they wont be there, they'll be tucked up in the accounts office never to be seen by us we'll just get the very basic description of what we're paying.

Same as with the agent fees, how do we know who the consultation fee was paid to, we're not privy to that much information, we're just told we paid X for agent fees and consultation fees, administration fees and we're just meant to believe that all this is going to the correct sources without any being siphoned off to JWH or his cronies. I don't buy it for one second and the proof is in the pudding as they say.

We can't have grown commercially in the manner we have year on year and have net spends which we have. It's the same equation as most things in life, what goes in must come out and if what is going out doesn't accurately reflect what is going in then there's something missing in the middle. Some of the very best professions in the world are middle men and I get a feeling if our books were audited we'd find that the same name under different umbrellas would pop up regularly as the middle men in a lot of our transactions.

Now some bright spark will claim that JWH or whoever will still pay income tax on this no matter if he took it from the club directly or from a subsidiary and that is correct but the illusion that they take nothing would then be lost. Turnover is up, cost of wages is down in % terms, revenues are up from commercial, tv, even european football in these accounts and they claim we're losing money and some swallow that information because the books 'add up', to say that view is naive would be complimentary.

I didn't "back out" of anything.

I told you, these silly fairy stories are boring the arse off me, and I simply can't be arsed with them.

Oh, and BTW, when you make an assertion about what money is going where, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

If you want to examine all those documents, pay for a copy and peruse them at your leisure.
I still won't be arsed, because I'm not wasting my time on nonsense.

I didn't "back out" of anything.

I told you, these silly fairy stories are boring the arse off me, and I simply can't be arsed with them.

Oh, and BTW, when you make an assertion about what money is going where, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

If you want to examine all those documents, pay for a copy and peruse them at your leisure.
I still won't be arsed, because I'm not wasting my time on nonsense.

Swab you asked me if I understood balance sheets and profit and loss accounts and then you're asking me to pay for copies which wont actually show who we paid what to, so I'll reverse the question do you understand them?

I need to see invoices, terms and conditions of loans, not head of terms and amalgamated figures.

Can you provide them, no, neither can I. Hence why the illusion is safe because as I've said all along we are not privy to that information.

So beyond that you only need to look at Income and Expenditure as compared to your competitors to see if things 'add up'. Do we pay comparable wages, relatively we do. Do we pay comparable transfer fees in terms of net spend, no we don't. Do we pay comparable agent fees, yes we do, if not even higher again this should't add up, we pay less for players but pay more in agent fees. Now granted this can be calculated on the gross figure but even then we must be either seeking out the most expensive agents in the business or paying the most exorbitant signing on fees or things don't 'add up' again.

Do we have a 0% interest loan, yes, does our debt keep rising, yes... ?!?!

Do we have owners who are motivated by one clear and over-riding motive supported by evidence of recently released emails which as I recall "you would have been astonished if they were real", were in actual fact  real and their motive was revealed quite clearly.

So in my opinion all the evidence is stacked in the camp that they'll take us for every single penny they can. Drain us both operationally, and in final sale. We're nothing more to them than a cash cow and that makes me sick that every one of the loyal fans who have loved this club and give their heart and soul to supporting something they treasure much more than a 'brand' or 'asset' are being milked, manipulated and used to fill the pockets of greedy bas**rds.

Where have we "cut back"?

You understand this is for 2015/16, yes?
Single biggest cost outside of player wages was paying off BR and hiring Klopp.

You lads are funny.
Can't read a balance sheet or accounts, but something nefarious must be going on, but none of you can point to it.

There it is then.... We are all stupid... Ask you a question... Did you/FSG pay Klopp his salary all up front?... One way or another, FSG are taking money out of the Club

Yes I understand this is for 15/16 Swab.

As for reading a balance sheet or accounts I can read them perfectly fine and understand that it's very easy to hide costs in accounts and balance sheets without having to write ******this is where we take our money from ****** beside it.

How do I know exactly what each player's wage truly is, how do I know what we pay agents in terms of transfers, I'm not privvy to the exact information but I tell you what we pay an extraordinary amount of money to agents when we're not dealing with superstars. It's always looked a bit suspicious to me that when the agent bill is released and it's shown just what we pay that we're right at the top or close to every year. 

Even without that Swab I'm also convinced that we have never paid 0% interest on the loan from FSG. Even though that is exactly what is listed in the account because a loan can appear to have 0% interest but miraculously grow in size due to management fees, restructuring fees etc etc which don't need to be handled anywhere near our accounts because they can be handled by the originator of that loan and when we pay a fee to them that is then hidden in adminstration costs which again isn't broken down for us, there's just a nice header and footer for each section and in doing so the brush is swept and the rug is laid down.

To put it in the simplest terms though Swab imagine our income and outgoing as 2 kids on a see-saw, the incoming side has been gorging himself on mcdonalds, dunkin doughnuts, and getting bigger and bigger every single year to the point we're one of the 10 fattest children in the entire world and then on the outgoing side the poor lad is suffering from malnutrition yet in the middle we have the counter weight of FSG telling us that everything adds up and both receive equal. In other words there's a lying greedy b***ard on one side and just because I can't prove it my instincts tell me I'm right and I'm happy enough after 7 years to believe what I can see to be true rather than what I'm asked to believe.

absolutely brilliant analogy Luke....Clever b***ard 

Just ask Philip Green what he thinks he can and can't get away with...

Money talks. Have enough of it and you can practically do what you like. So don't be too quick to dismiss "conspiracy theories"...

Think he should be asking just how they made there Billions Mark

Man there is some stupid people commenting in this thread

Swab you asked me if I understood balance sheets and profit and loss accounts and then you're asking me to pay for copies which wont actually show who we paid what to, so I'll reverse the question do you understand them?

I need to see invoices, terms and conditions of loans, not head of terms and amalgamated figures.

Can you provide them, no, neither can I. Hence why the illusion is safe because as I've said all along we are not privy to that information.

So beyond that you only need to look at Income and Expenditure as compared to your competitors to see if things 'add up'. Do we pay comparable wages, relatively we do. Do we pay comparable transfer fees in terms of net spend, no we don't. Do we pay comparable agent fees, yes we do, if not even higher again this should't add up, we pay less for players but pay more in agent fees. Now granted this can be calculated on the gross figure but even then we must be either seeking out the most expensive agents in the business or paying the most exorbitant signing on fees or things don't 'add up' again.

Do we have a 0% interest loan, yes, does our debt keep rising, yes... ?!?!

Do we have owners who are motivated by one clear and over-riding motive supported by evidence of recently released emails which as I recall "you would have been astonished if they were real", were in actual fact  real and their motive was revealed quite clearly.

So in my opinion all the evidence is stacked in the camp that they'll take us for every single penny they can. Drain us both operationally, and in final sale. We're nothing more to them than a cash cow and that makes me sick that every one of the loyal fans who have loved this club and give their heart and soul to supporting something they treasure much more than a 'brand' or 'asset' are being milked, manipulated and used to fill the pockets of greedy bas**rds.

Nah, what you've done is produce a convoluted scenario involving fronts, bag men and probably fairies that has absolutely no bearing on reality.

Listen, if you think a billionaire wants to go through all that to skim a few quid, then fine, waste your time, but the very simple fact is that it's their money and they can do whatever they want with it.
If they wanted to "bleed us dry" they would have just added interest to any loans, plus fees, plus management, plus whatever they wanted because ultimately it's their money.
If they didn't give a F**k about what we think, they wouldn't bother spending huge amounts of time (in your "scenario" ) hiding small amounts of money.
It's like you winning the lottery then scamming the newsagent out of a fiver., and no, our debt doesn't keep F***ing rising, as a quick look would show you.
It's not like H&G; FSG own us outright, and if they really did decide to asset strip us, there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it.

The only interesting part is less commercial revenue with more partners (I think 0.7m), and even that isn't very interesting.

It's the same sh*t, all the time, every time there's a loss or we don't spend loads on players in January.

Like I said, as far as I'm concerned it's nonsense and I can't be arsed with it, but if it makes you happy, carry on, just stop F***ing involving me because I'm bored as F**k with all this conspiracy sh*te.

Nah, what you've done is produce a convoluted scenario involving fronts, bag men and probably fairies that has absolutely no bearing on reality.

Listen, if you think a billionaire wants to go through all that to skim a few quid, then fine, waste your time, but the very simple fact is that it's their money and they can do whatever they want with it.
If they wanted to "bleed us dry" they would have just added interest to any loans, plus fees, plus management, plus whatever they wanted because ultimately it's their money.
If they didn't give a f**k about what we think, they wouldn't bother spending huge amounts of time (in your "scenario" ) hiding small amounts of money.
It's like you winning the lottery then scamming the newsagent out of a fiver., and no, our debt doesn't keep f**king rising, as a quick look would show you.
It's not like H&G; FSG own us outright, and if they really did decide to asset strip us, there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it.

The only interesting part is less commercial revenue with more partners (I think 0.7m), and even that isn't very interesting.

It's the same sh*t, all the time, every time there's a loss or we don't spend loads on players in January.

Like I said, as far as I'm concerned it's nonsense and I can't be arsed with it, but if it makes you happy, carry on, just stop f**king involving me because I'm bored as f**k with all this conspiracy sh*te.

You're the one who asked me the question to begin with, I didn't engage with you initially so "stop F***ing involving me" seems a strange thing to say Swab for starters.

As for your analogy the similarities are not even close. Don't forget the loan was introduced when we had no equity, so the strategy would have been developed then when they knew, with evidence provided, that they were getting us for a steal.

We're dealing with hedge fund managers, they're not content with only eating their cake at the end or even at the start and the end, they want their piece at every stage of the process. They're the cream of the crop of middle men, they take other people's money,  invest it and make money out of it and end up richer than any of the investors, it's a good gig if you can get it but you don't forget the practises that got you there in the first place just because you stand to earn a fortune on the sale of the asset.

In terms of debt, perhaps you're not understanding this part completely because we recently rebranded part of our debt, £69m in fact, from debt to an equitable loan, only to be repaid on the sale of the club. Interesting isn't it, this was part of the 0% loan, so theoretically it wasn't incurring charges, wasn't actually costing the club anything but we thought we'd rebrand it, restructure it, you know the kind of thing that incurs percentage fees that when looked at only as a percentage don't sound too much but when you look at 5% of £69m it suddenly becomes eye watering how much can be paid for such restructuring and of course that's just my guess.

Further to that we have recently paid back more debt and even after that's been paid then our debt is still standing at that £40m original figure, like we're manufacturing debt almost, who'd have thought that?? £69m equitable loan, more paid this year and yet still £40m but you're telling me our debt isn't going up, again look beyond the simple figure that is put under that header, there's more to it than that. Now we're told of course FSG put in the first £50m of the stadium building, you know out of their pure generosity , no doubt again incurring 0% that we'll restructure in the future for no apparent reason because when it comes to dealing with these large sums of money greedy people will always be greedy and hedge fund managers are the epitome of greed.

Listen Swab you can pretend that I involved you in this discussion, you can pretend that FSG are as straight and proper as their accounts pretend to be but all the evidence is there that they're in this for one thing and one thing only and if you wish to believe that at this point they've taken nothing out of this club then that's fine with me but I think you're being incredibly naive and are basically eating everything you're spoon fed.

You're the one who asked me the question to begin with, I didn't engage with you initially so "stop F***ing involving me" seems a strange thing to say Swab for starters.

As for your analogy the similarities are not even close. Don't forget the loan was introduced when we had no equity, so the strategy would have been developed then when they knew, with evidence provided, that they were getting us for a steal.

We're dealing with hedge fund managers, they're not content with only eating their cake at the end or even at the start and the end, they want their piece at every stage of the process. They're the cream of the crop of middle men, they take other people's money,  invest it and make money out of it and end up richer than any of the investors, it's a good gig if you can get it but you don't forget the practises that got you there in the first place just because you stand to earn a fortune on the sale of the asset.

In terms of debt, perhaps you're not understanding this part completely because we recently rebranded part of our debt, £69m in fact, from debt to an equitable loan, only to be repaid on the sale of the club. Interesting isn't it, this was part of the 0% loan, so theoretically it wasn't incurring charges, wasn't actually costing the club anything but we thought we'd rebrand it, restructure it, you know the kind of thing that incurs percentage fees that when looked at only as a percentage don't sound too much but when you look at 5% of £69m it suddenly becomes eye watering how much can be paid for such restructuring and of course that's just my guess.

Further to that we have recently paid back more debt and even after that's been paid then our debt is still standing at that £40m original figure, like we're manufacturing debt almost, who'd have thought that?? £69m equitable loan, more paid this year and yet still £40m but you're telling me our debt isn't going up, again look beyond the simple figure that is put under that header, there's more to it than that. Now we're told of course FSG put in the first £50m of the stadium building, you know out of their pure generosity , no doubt again incurring 0% that we'll restructure in the future for no apparent reason because when it comes to dealing with these large sums of money greedy people will always be greedy and hedge fund managers are the epitome of greed.

Listen Swab you can pretend that I involved you in this discussion, you can pretend that FSG are as straight and proper as their accounts pretend to be but all the evidence is there that they're in this for one thing and one thing only and if you wish to believe that at this point they've taken nothing out of this club then that's fine with me but I think you're being incredibly naive and are basically eating everything you're spoon fed.

No, I asked what we'd "cut back" then you went off into fantasy land about hiding figures under other headers in invoices to scam the supporters out of money, not to mention somehow hiding other money that's due to agents, and a whole host of other nonsense.

I'll say again, it's absolute, unadulterated nonsense, but you'd argue black was white just for the sake of it.

This is your "body language" diatribe all over again.

In case you really are having this much difficulty understanding me, I'll say it once more; I have no interest in ridiculous conspiracy theories

Is that clear enough for you, or do you need to read my "body language"?

No, I asked what we'd "cut back" then you went off into fantasy land about hiding figures under other headers in invoices to scam the supporters out of money, not to mention somehow hiding other money that's due to agents, and a whole host of other nonsense.

I'll say again, it's absolute, unadulterated nonsense, but you'd argue black was white just for the sake of it.

This is your "body language" diatribe all over again.

In case you really are having this much difficulty understanding me, I'll say it once more; I have no interest in ridiculous conspiracy theories

Is that clear enough for you, or do you need to read my "body language"?

I was right there too Swab, just look at the relationship with Jürgen and Buvac the Brain and compare the two, it was obvious. Also interesting how Colin took the fall and has subsequently not found gainful employment in another assistant role but the most interesting fact is that you have to try to use this as a swipe and that just shows how flimsy your argument is though and gives everyone an interesting insight to your mentality.

Not to worry I'll leave you alone after you've asked your questions, received your answers but offered no substance to your opinion other than stand there with your fingers in your ears singing "lalalala" and of course the odd expletive thrown in for good measure, nice chatting with you, have a lovely evening!

 

I was right there too Swab, just look at the relationship with Jürgen and Buvac the Brain and compare the two, it was obvious. Also interesting how Colin took the fall and has subsequently not found gainful employment in another assistant role but the most interesting fact is that you have to try to use this as a swipe and that just shows how flimsy your argument is though and gives everyone an interesting insight to your mentality.

Not to worry I'll leave you alone after you've asked your questions, received your answers but offered no substance to your opinion other than stand there with your fingers in your ears singing "lalalala" and of course the odd expletive thrown in for good measure, nice chatting with you, have a lovely evening!

 

Right?
No, you made a complete fool of yourself just like you're doing now.

Prove what you say.
It's your assertion, so the burden of proof is on you.
If you can't prove it, that makes it "a theory", which in turn makes it "not a fact" and no more than your opinion, which is the biggest heap of convoluted sh*te I've read in a long time.
Still, it's about time Stuey had some competition in the waffle department.

My head hurts with all this amateur accountancy going on (queue swab to call me thick)

Anyway who cares, buy us a striker and a left back Fenway!

Much rather see a bit of debt on the accounts and a trophy in the cabinet over selling off more of our high earners, making  net profit on transfers and with no silverware to show for it.

I'm sure FSG agree that the most important thing next season is some on field success, not the bottom line of the accounts.

Three pieces of silverware over three pieces of silver right Fenners?

My head hurts with all this amateur accountancy going on (queue swab to call me thick)

Anyway who cares, buy us a striker and a left back Fenway!

Much rather see a bit of debt on the accounts and a trophy in the cabinet over selling off more of our high earners, making  net profit on transfers and with no silverware to show for it.

I'm sure FSG agree that the most important thing next season is some on field success, not the bottom line of the accounts.

Three pieces of silverware over three pieces of silver right Fenners?

The accounts apparently say it is beyond us, as is success while last years shackles are resurrected.

Where have we "cut back"?

Building trophy cabinets.