500m debt

just been reading this in the dreadfull news of the world would be intrested to know if anyone out there knows anymore on this or if its a load of crap,  if true would be worrying!

LIVERPOOL face being plunged into a shocking £500m DEBT by the club's American owners.
A massive £698m refinancing plan is being finalised, which threatens to break George Gillett (right) and Tom Hicks' promise NOT to ‘do a Malcolm Glazer'.

The new package will pay off the original £298m Royal Bank of Scotland loan — used by the Americans to buy the Merseyside club in March — and meet the escalating costs of the Reds' new £400m stadium.

Liverpool are in negotiations with US bank Wachovia and Hicks confirmed: "The new financing deal will be completed in the next 30 days."

The Reds are hoping to recoup £100m from stadium naming rights, £20m from a European Community Grant and a further £80m from other sources.

But it would still leave the club around £500m in debt and Liverpool fans are worried the American owners are now securing loans against the club's assets rather than their personal fortune.

It would also mean Champions League football was essential to finance the increased debt.

A spokesman for the Official Liverpool Supporters Club said: "It would be very worrying if this amount of debt is to be put on the club.

So far, we've been impressed by everything Hicks and Gillett have done so I hope if they are planning this course of action they will give the fans a full explanation."

When Gillett arrived at Liverpool, he insisted the club would not be taking on any debt as a consequence of the takeover, in stark contrast to Glazer's Manchester United buy-out, which saddled the Old Trafford giants with a £660m debt.

Any shift from this policy would conflict with verbal understandings made to the previous Anfield board and shareholders. Although nothing has yet been signed, Anfield sources fear the decision has now been taken to saddle the debts on the club.

That means the owners could walk out without being personally liable for any existing repayments

I feel that the delta in the cost to build Stanley Park will be financed by a MIX of securing loans against the club's assets (shock/horror? not really in this day and age is it?) ...AND also againt their respective familiies personal fortunes within sport in the USA/Canada.

Why would they re-finance ONLY against their assets?

It's their club now, we must live with that.

The playing budget has to be sacred and increased year on year - if it isn't then why then why the transition away from Moore's - just for the stadium? hope not.

Well, NOTW have always got their stories right in the past, so it must be true.

F***ing Sunday Sun, don't believe a word it says.

wouldn't believe anything thats printed in that sh*t rag

Well, NOTW have always got their stories right in the past, so it must be true.

f***ing Sunday Sun, don't believe a word it says.

Pity a certain señor who used to write for the Echo now writes for the Sunday Sun.

This news does worry me but I reckon it's been blown way out of proportion, if Gillett and Hicks were the sort of businessmen who got clubs in sh*t how the hell would their bid have been accepted by Moores? I am almost sure he did extensive homework on them prior to signing it over and from what I've read about their successes over the pond I'm impressed and have every confidence in their talents to make successful sports teams work on the business side too.

you shouldnt be reading this in the first place...

This news does worry me but I reckon it's been blown way out of proportion, if Gillett and Hicks were the sort of businessmen who got clubs in sh*t how the hell would their bid have been accepted by Moores? I am almost sure he did extensive homework on them prior to signing it over and from what I've read about their successes over the pond I'm impressed and have every confidence in their talents to make successful sports teams work on the business side too.

Well said.

Anyway, Moores (with all my total respect for him and his family) - could not have generated the kind of money these can... so let's stop moaning.  We are a business enterprise and no pain (loan underwritten by asset-mix) no gain.

It's clear the stadium was always going to be financed with debt.  That's how this sh*t works.

But Anfield's always full and there is no reason to suggest why that won't continue so it's a manageable debt.