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

So FSG is embezzling money?

Nothing as sinister as that mate because when it comes to their own personal accounts the income will be shown in whatever fashion they choose or suits their tax purposes best. What will be happening is that they'll be taking money out of the club, something they suggested they'd never do and every penny we earned would be ploughed back in.

Interesting that the Echo are so quick to try and spin/deflect isn't it? Nothing more than a glorified mouthpiece these days and that Pearce, well I don't know where FSG ends and he starts to be honest.

I'll be perfectly honest, I don't trust anyone on this forum to speak about the club's accounts.

Nothing as sinister as that mate because when it comes to their own personal accounts the income will be shown in whatever fashion they choose or suits their tax purposes best. What will be happening is that they'll be taking money out of the club, something they suggested they'd never do and every penny we earned would be ploughed back in.

Juggling every aspect of the club with the owner's interests a priority.

Interesting that the Echo are so quick to try and spin/deflect isn't it? Nothing more than a glorified mouthpiece these days and that Pearce, well I don't know where FSG ends and he starts to be honest.

Is it any coincidence our 'local' paper is now based in Manchester?

Interesting that the Echo are so quick to try and spin/deflect isn't it? Nothing more than a glorified mouthpiece these days and that Pearce, well I don't know where FSG ends and he starts to be honest.

Considering how James Pearce was originally the one to state how the loan was "interest free" and made them out to be some kind of selfless heros because of it, he's quick to jump to their defence once more.

Just adds further to the popular belief that they are ensuring they get maximum profit for minimum investment.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/loan-new-main-stand-not-12711821

Oh look, again Swab proven to be talking bollocks. First the debt wasn't going up, then of course it was going up.

Next I'm listening to the dumbest person on the planet despite him clearly quoting different sources for his information if anyone wanted to check and now.... ::drumroll::

Interest on the loan!!!

AS F***ing PREDICTED BY ME YEARS AGO.

Now listen to the spin:

"the money will be going to the banks instead"

Yeah the banks that JWH banks with and straight into his personal account no matter how many deviations it takes along the way.

Thank you, I'm here all week

How can JWH take money from a bank that gets paid it's loan back? would you please try to explain? I'm curious to know.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/loan-new-main-stand-not-12711821

Oh look, again Swab proven to be talking bollocks. First the debt wasn't going up, then of course it was going up.

Next I'm listening to the dumbest person on the planet despite him clearly quoting different sources for his information if anyone wanted to check and now.... ::drumroll::

Interest on the loan!!!

AS F***ing PREDICTED BY ME YEARS AGO.

Now listen to the spin:

"the money will be going to the banks instead"

Yeah the banks that JWH banks with and straight into his personal account no matter how many deviations it takes along the way.

Thank you, I'm here all week

Thick as sh*t.

1.24% on a loan with that doesn't mature means 0% until they call the loan back in, which they probably won't as it will be taken as a dividend when the club is sold.

Also failed to answer my question, but that's no surprise.

Still trying to create a narrative, and no surprise you tried to sneak in part of h&g debt by putting Kop Football Holdings Ltd on the same sheet as FSG "debt".

For the people here who aren't chasing an ego driven agenda, debt is a good thing, as long as it is manageable and sustainable.
Our revolving credit facility (which all clubs use) is low, and has a very low rate of interest.

Back to Corbally for some more "1.5% over 5 years" you go.
How much was it last time you posted in faux outrage? 750k a year wasn't it? and also completely and utterly wrong.

How can JWH take money from a bank that gets paid it's loan back? would you please try to explain? I'm curious to know.

I'm going to take it from your username that perhaps English isn't your first language because it's been explained very simply.

1) Owners lend money.
1) Owners lie about there being an interest rate attached to that loan.
2) Owners charge interest on that money.
3) Owners profit.

The path the money takes is irrelevant, the facts are all proven now and if you still don't get it at this stage, when it has been clearly documented and even accepted by the extremely biased James Pearce (check his twitter account for verification) then I can only assume you're being intentionally ignorant to the truth and I've no patience nor will to entertain that kind of attitude.

I'm going to take it from your username that perhaps English isn't your first language because it's been explained very simply.

1) Owners lend money.
1) Owners lie about there being an interest rate attached to that loan.
2) Owners charge interest on that money.
3) Owners profit.

The path the money takes is irrelevant, the facts are all proven now and if you still don't get it at this stage, when it has been clearly documented and even accepted by the extremely biased James Pearce (check his twitter account for verification) then I can only assume you're being intentionally ignorant to the truth and I've no patience nor will to entertain that kind of attitude.

My english is excellent, thank you for your concern. I'm merely asking a question because I'm curious how banks take interest payments to benefit 3rd parties. I'm not sure how it works, so that's why I asked you to explain it to me.

The path of money takes is relevant, you haven't ''proved'' anything, the article you posted stated that the bank charges a rate, and I might be wrong but because FSG used a credit facility with a bank, hence the 1,24% represents a payment to the bank for the use of that credit facility on the loan. It's like a letter of credit, when you pay some sort of commission or interest on the value of the order to the bank. I might be wrong though with my understanding, but I will check.

My english is excellent, thank you for your concern. I'm merely asking a question because I'm curious how banks take interest payments to benefit 3rd parties. I'm not sure how it works, so that's why I asked you to explain it to me.

The path of money takes is relevant, you haven't ''proved'' anything, the article you posted stated that the bank charges a rate, and I might be wrong but because FSG used a credit facility with a bank, hence the 1,24% represents a payment to the bank for the use of that credit facility on the loan. It's like a letter of credit, when you pay some sort of commission or interest on the value of the order to the bank. I might be wrong though with my understanding, but I will check.

It's pointless mate.
It's like the story about the pigeon playing chess; it swoops down, kicks all the pieces around, craps on the board, then struts about like it's won.

I honestly can't be arsed trying to explain things to people who don't want to understand because they are pushing an agenda so they can get more pluses.

My english is excellent, thank you for your concern. I'm merely asking a question because I'm curious how banks take interest payments to benefit 3rd parties. I'm not sure how it works, so that's why I asked you to explain it to me.

The path of money takes is relevant, you haven't ''proved'' anything, the article you posted stated that the bank charges a rate, and I might be wrong but because FSG used a credit facility with a bank, hence the 1,24% represents a payment to the bank for the use of that credit facility on the loan. It's like a letter of credit, when you pay some sort of commission or interest on the value of the order to the bank. I might be wrong though with my understanding, but I will check.

Taken from the article in the Echo:

"A section of supporters have reacted angrily to details in the club’s recently released accounts which show that there is an interest rate of 1.24% payable on the inter-company loan from the club’s holding company UKSV Holdings Company Limited."

What they choose to do with this money once the interest has been paid by the club is up to them and completely separate from the working of our club, do you understand that?

Interest has been charged by the owners. PROVEN FACT
Interest has been paid by our club for the benefit of the owners, not to banks or to anyone else you want to pretend it is going to. PROVEN FACT
They lied. FACT

So in the interest of clarity and to make this simple, are you disputing any of these indisputable facts?

Taken from the article in the Echo:

"A section of supporters have reacted angrily to details in the club’s recently released accounts which show that there is an interest rate of 1.24% payable on the inter-company loan from the club’s holding company UKSV Holdings Company Limited."

What they choose to do with this money once the interest has been paid by the club is up to them and completely separate from the working of our club, do you understand that?

Interest has been charged by the owners. PROVEN FACT
Interest has been paid by our club for the benefit of the owners, not to banks or to anyone else you want to pretend it is going to. PROVEN FACT
They lied. FACT

So in the interest of clarity and to make this simple, are you disputing any of these indisputable facts?

Please point out on the accounts where the interest has been added.

Come on pigeon, you can do it.

Please point out on the accounts where the interest has been added.

Come on pigeon, you can do it.

So sad Swab, you cry all day long about "I want facts, I want proof". You then have a signed confession, a paper trail and clear evidence yet you still carry on with your endless questions.

It's a damning indictment of your character that once presented with such overwhelming evidence that you still cannot accept it. Clearly a futile task discussing it with you any further, so I wont waste any more of my time.

So sad Swab, you cry all day long about "I want facts, I want proof". You then have a signed confession, a paper trail and clear evidence yet you still carry on with your endless questions.

It's a damning indictment of your character that once presented with such overwhelming evidence that you still cannot accept it. Clearly a futile task discussing it with you any further, so I wont waste any more of my time.

And yet even with your so called "paper trail" you can't point out the interest payment in the accounts.
Come on, it should be easy if what you say is true (it's not btw)

Let's take a look at your last offering and hysteria where you cited facts, shall we?

John O Sullivan‏ @Corballyred  4m4 minutes ago
So let that sink in, for giving us 5 year loan, FSG are making about £7.5 million from the club, nice little earner for them isn't it

John O Sullivan‏ @Corballyred  5m5 minutes ago
So FSG lied about the interest free loan for the stand, they are paying themselves over £1.5 million a year interest

So there's absolutely no way that they'd be lying or taking money out of the club, or that's what we were told, and yet just today we're hearing about a 1.5% interest rate.

All completely wrong.

But you keep going fella, this is funny.

Taken from the article in the Echo:

"A section of supporters have reacted angrily to details in the club’s recently released accounts which show that there is an interest rate of 1.24% payable on the inter-company loan from the club’s holding company UKSV Holdings Company Limited."

What they choose to do with this money once the interest has been paid by the club is up to them and completely separate from the working of our club, do you understand that?

Interest has been charged by the owners. PROVEN FACT
Interest has been paid by our club for the benefit of the owners, not to banks or to anyone else you want to pretend it is going to. PROVEN FACT
They lied. FACT

So in the interest of clarity and to make this simple, are you disputing any of these indisputable facts?

I understand perfectly fine, again I appreciate your concern.


Interest has been charged by the owners - according to pearce the bank charges the 1,24%
''However, it was in fact “premium free”. FSG have a credit facility which they used to secure the loan for £109,904,000 on favourable terms.''
Unless FSG own the bank, which is unlikely, then the interest payment will be paid to the bank not FSG.
Interest has been paid by our club for the benefit of the owners, not to banks or to anyone else you want to pretend it is going to - no its not, have you looked into the accounts? loan costs from intercompany loans amounts to 0. even interest payments are only paid on long term debt, this shows on Page 29 and the P/L account in here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00035668/filing-history
They lied - if you believe that, then fair enough, but to my knowledge and opinion I think they haven't taken anything from the club and the 0% is true.

Break it down for a computer geek to understand...if I'm not mistaken then, FSG lied about there being no interest, but the interest is being paid to the bank, not paid back to FSG?

Break it down for a computer geek to understand...if I'm not mistaken then, FSG lied about there being no interest, but the interest is being paid to the bank, not paid back to FSG?

Intercompany loan, with no mature date, means the 1.24% rolls over each year until the loan is repaid, BUT if the money is taken out in the form of an increased dividend, then the 1.24% doesn't matter.
It's only if the loan is repaid in cash.
That's why it's a rolling 1 year loan with no date for it to mature.

This is why I'm puzzled by talk of a bank. There's no evidence for a bank loan, and certainly not one that pays no interest until the loan is called in, and then a paltry 1.24%
I think the echo has it wrong again.
The loan came from UKSV (as listed in accounts), and I think from JH (JH put the money into UKSV then they made the intercompany loan) rather than a bank, because this would allow him a larger dividend when the club is sold, which means greater long term profit for him personally (or any other people who put up a share of the loan).

Hope that makes sense.

It's sad that we all talk so much about accounts these days.

Modern football at its worst and couldn't imagine doing this 20 years ago.

It's sad that we all talk so much about accounts these days.

Modern football at its worst and couldn't imagine doing this 20 years ago.

We wouldn't of done this 11 years ago

But then we had owners who cared to much about the football

It's sad that we all talk so much about accounts these days.

Modern football at its worst and couldn't imagine doing this 20 years ago.

I could, but then I'm one of those oddballs who likes this type of sh*t 

I like doing admin as well.
And yes, I know that's really geeky 

So sad Swab, you cry all day long about "I want facts, I want proof". You then have a signed confession, a paper trail and clear evidence yet you still carry on with your endless questions.

It's a damning indictment of your character that once presented with such overwhelming evidence that you still cannot accept it. Clearly a futile task discussing it with you any further, so I wont waste any more of my time.

The posters concerned do have the same 'get out of jail free' clauses and use the same rhetoric as the JWH&Co team of accountants almost word for word; given our owners have admitted to 'making mistakes' would lead to the question of why these parrot-like posters think they are infallible and incapable of error.

Correction - JWH&Co don't resort to personal comment in an effort to validate their activities.

The posters concerned do have the same 'get out of jail free' clauses and use the same rhetoric as the JWH&Co team of accountants almost word for word; given our owners have admitted to 'making mistakes' would lead to the question of why these parrot-like posters think they are infallible and incapable of error.

Because it's printed in black and white on a legal document for the whole world to see.

The fact you lot don't understand it is your problem, no one elses.

It's sad that we all talk so much about accounts these days.

Modern football at its worst and couldn't imagine doing this 20 years ago.

Well I have a degree in Finance, so I know a little bit about it and read a lot of it

I don't want to get into arguments, and I'm usually wrong on things, but I just want to try to explain some misconceptions that I have read on here for anyone who would like to know more.

Intercompany loan, with no mature date, means the 1.24% rolls over each year until the loan is repaid, BUT if the money is taken out in the form of an increased dividend, then the 1.24% doesn't matter.
It's only if the loan is repaid in cash.
That's why it's a rolling 1 year loan with no date for it to mature.

This is why I'm puzzled by talk of a bank. There's no evidence for a bank loan, and certainly not one that pays no interest until the loan is called in, and then a paltry 1.24%
I think the echo has it wrong again.
The loan came from UKSV (as listed in accounts), and I think from JH (JH put the money into UKSV then they made the intercompany loan) rather than a bank, because this would allow him a larger dividend when the club is sold, which means greater long term profit for him personally (or any other people who put up a share of the loan).

Hope that makes sense.

Cant we also surmise that the money is borrowed from a bank and they will want it all paid back in cash ? They are good capitalist I would not expect them to use there own money

As they have lied once about there being interest on the loan would it be wrong of someone to expect this tiny 1.24 % will suddenly become 5 % or 10 % ?

Is it not also possible that we have already started paying back the loan ?  The last set of accounts ended in May 2016 and since then we have had two transfer windows with a positive spend and we also haven't had to give £16 million for redundancy


Three paragraphs. Half of each is total supposition and half is fact.