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

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.

I could be wrong on this, but don't intercompany loans now have to charge interest at an 'arms-length' I.e. What would be considered a reasonable rate by an external lender in order to avoid just filtering money through different companies to cook the books?

I'm sure it's applied in Luxembourg and would assume its the same across the EU. No idea what accounting standards we apply though and I can't be arsed to look either

I could be wrong on this, but don't intercompany loans now have to charge interest at an 'arms-length' I.e. What would be considered a reasonable rate by an external lender in order to avoid just filtering money through different companies to cook the books?

I'm sure it's applied in Luxembourg and would assume its the same across the EU. No idea what accounting standards we apply though and I can't be arsed to look either

It depends, I think.
There's no date for this loan to mature, and no requirement to pay it back, so if FSG take it in the form of increased dividends at the time of sale, there's no requirement for interest.

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.
 

The money hasn't come from a bank.
I have no idea where the Echo got that from, but it's not the first thing they've got wrong regarding this.

UKSV Holdings (LFC parent company) accounts show quite clearly it is intercompany and hasn't come from a bank, and nor have we paid interest on it.
As stated previously, the 1.24% is pro forma and doesn't have to be paid until the loan matures. There is no date for the loan to mature, as it is a demand loan (payable on demand) that just keeps rolling over i.e. it just sits on the books each year.
To repeat that, we haven't paid any interest on the loan, and won't until the loan is called in, if it ever is. This is shown quite clearly in the accounts.

It's highly likely that the loan will be taken as increased dividend when they eventually sell up.

And no, we haven't started paying back the loan, neither LFC nor UKSV accounts show any repayments.

It's all on the internet in black and white, audited by KPMG and complete, for anyone to look at.

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'm just trying to figure out if I'm supposed to get angry or not Si.

The money hasn't come from a bank.
I have no idea where the Echo got that from, but it's not the first thing they've got wrong regarding this.

UKSV Holdings (LFC parent company) accounts show quite clearly it is intercompany and hasn't come from a bank, and nor have we paid interest on it.
As stated previously, the 1.24% is pro forma and doesn't have to be paid until the loan matures. There is no date for the loan to mature, as it is a demand loan (payable on demand) that just keeps rolling over i.e. it just sits on the books each year.
To repeat that, we haven't paid any interest on the loan, and won't until the loan is called in, if it ever is. This is shown quite clearly in the accounts.

It's highly likely that the loan will be taken as increased dividend when they eventually sell up.

And no, we haven't started paying back the loan, neither LFC nor UKSV accounts show any repayments.

It's all on the internet in black and white, audited by KPMG and complete, for anyone to look at.

There is absolutely nothing I said that you can prove is wrong

I have dressed up a few facts with a bit of guess work, it is exactly the same as you are doing.

How can you know what we have spent money on after May 2016
 

There is absolutely nothing I said that you can prove is wrong

I have dressed up a few facts with a bit of guess work, it is exactly the same as you are doing.

How can you know what we have spent money on after May 2016

There's no guesswork involved.
These are legal documents, audited by KPMG and HMRC.
They show very clearly what I'm saying is correct in every way.
Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

But you crack on "being right" fella 
That tells me exactly what you're about; no interest in facts, just interested in trying to be "right" which is funny when you're so clearly wrong.

Honestly, you lot crack me up.
Talk about grasping at straws.

Poor old 'luke had to do a runner rather than provide evidence from the accounts 

Swab I have no doubt that you are an expert on these bloody things.

Looking at these latest set of accounts any indication they are preparing for sale in the short/medium term?

Swab I have no doubt that you are an expert on these bloody things.

Looking at these latest set of accounts any indication they are preparing for sale in the short/medium term?

I'm no expert.
I have an Accounts and Finance qualification, but more importantly, I spent over 30 years looking at and working with accounts and accountants, plus I actually like this sh*t.

I wouldn't expect any sale plans to show in these accounts, or in any future accounts.
The only indication could possibly be a consolidation of finance, and of subsidiary company activity, as far as I know.

I'm looking at 2 sets here, UKSV accounts (which is the holding company that owns LFC) and LFC accounts.
If I could get a look at the parent company accounts (which we refer to as FSG) it might tell me more, although I doubt it

So the bottom line is, I simply don't know, and if there's any indication, I'm not seeing it.

There's no guesswork involved.
These are legal documents, audited by KPMG and HMRC.
They show very clearly what I'm saying is correct in every way.
Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

But you crack on "being right" fella 
That tells me exactly what you're about; no interest in facts, just interested in trying to be "right" which is funny when you're so clearly wrong.

Honestly, you lot crack me up.
Talk about grasping at straws.

Poor old 'luke had to do a runner rather than provide evidence from the accounts 

How do you know where they got the loan from ?

How do you know if they have paid any of the loan of since May 2016 ?

You demand high standards from others. Show me evidence !

Why the emoji ?

How do you know where they got the loan from ?

How do you know if they have paid any of the loan of since May 2016 ?

You demand high standards from others. Show me evidence !

Why the emoji ?

It's in the accounts of both companies as an intercompany loan.
A bank loan has to be documented, showing interest rates, length of the loan period, what type of interest, and type of finance.
Our overdraft facilities are listed as "rolling" and are now charged interest at 2.24% down from 2.74%

The evidence is in the F***ing accounts, go read them, then get back to me.
oh, and please stop talking sh*t.
If you don't have any training you don't know what you're talking about, and I have better things to do than type explanations for people who not only don't understand them, but refuse to believe the facts, which are not dependent on your opinion or anything else.

Everything I say is backed up by the accounts.
These are real facts, not the fake bullshit others try to spread.
No, the accounts can't be faked or spoofed, we don't have "2 sets of books" or any other F***ing nonsense.
They've been audited by KPMG and are HMRC compliant, which is about as good as it gets in accounting.
KPMG are one of the largest accountancy firms in the world.
HMRC is the governments accountancy department, who employ forensic accountants to track down any malfeasance.

Is it becoming clear yet, that all this F***ing nonsense about "fiddling the books" is next to impossible?

It's in the accounts of both companies as an intercompany loan.
A bank loan has to be documented, showing interest rates, length of the loan period, what type of interest, and type of finance.
Our overdraft facilities are listed as "rolling" and are now charged interest at 2.24% down from 2.74%

The evidence is in the f**king accounts, go read them, then get back to me.
oh, and please stop talking sh*t.
If you don't have any training you don't know what you're talking about, and I have better things to do than type explanations for people who not only don't understand them, but refuse to believe the facts, which are not dependent on your opinion or anything else.

Everything I say is backed up by the accounts.
These are real facts, not the fake bullshit others try to spread.
No, the accounts can't be faked or spoofed, we don't have "2 sets of books" or any other f**king nonsense.
They've been audited by KPMG and are HMRC compliant, which is about as good as it gets in accounting.
KPMG are one of the largest accountancy firms in the world.
HMRC is the governments accountancy department, who employ forensic accountants to track down any malfeasance.

Is it becoming clear yet, that all this f**king nonsense about "fiddling the books" is next to impossible?

Unless you have access to FSGs books (which you have just said you don't) You have no idea where the money comes from !

You said it is JH proof !

Wait...

I may be confused here...

Is CorballyRed being used as a credible source?

Unless you have access to FSGs books (which you have just said you don't) You have no idea where the money comes from !

You said it is JH proof !

oh do grow up fella.
I just told you it's listed in the accounts and the reasons why I know it hasn't come from a bank.

I'm not replying again to this tedious sh*te where you refuse to believe facts.

Wait...

I may be confused here...

Is CorballyRed being used as a credible source?

CorballyRed quoting Pearce (the journo), then being used as a credible source with quotes from his twitter account.
Page 6 or 7, quoted by KopiteLuke

Needless to say, he got it hopelessly wrong (as did Pearce)
And I'm still laughing.

oh do grow up fella.
I just told you it's listed in the accounts and the reasons why I know it hasn't come from a bank.

I'm not replying again to this tedious sh*te where you refuse to believe facts.

You have no idea where FSG got the money !

You are full of sh*t

You have no idea where FSG got the money !

You are full of sh*t

UKSV got the money, and it didn't come from a bank.
What part of that do you not understand?
What part of "intercompany loan" from UKSV to LFC do you not understand?

What part of "a bank loan has to be properly documented and accounted for" do you not understand?

Yet again, you're just ignoring facts and posting nonsense, and it's hardly the first time.

You can't even read the accounts, but you're sitting there trying to lecture those of us who can read and interpret them.

I've explained all this, and yet you persist in posting bullshit.
Jog on fella.

UKSV got the money, and it didn't come from a bank.
What part of that do you not understand?
What part of "intercompany loan" from UKSV to LFC do you not understand?

What part of "a bank loan has to be properly documented and accounted for" do you not understand?

Yet again, you're just ignoring facts and posting nonsense, and it's hardly the first time.

You can't even read the accounts, but you're sitting there trying to lecture those of us who can read and interpret them.

I've explained all this, and yet you persist in posting bullshit.
Jog on fella.

USKV got the money from FSG !

Unless you have access to FSG books you don't know where the loan came from

Last year you spent ages telling me the loan for the stadium wasn't a loan

Before that you told me a football teams accounts weren't worth the paper they are written on

Good night Swab

USKV got the money from FSG !

Unless you have access to FSG books you don't know where the loan came from

Last year you spent ages telling me the loan for the stadium wasn't a loan

Before that you told me a football teams accounts weren't worth the paper they are written on

Good night Swab

Did they?

You can't read the accounts, then you say they got the money from FSG, then in the next sentence say no one can know where the money came from.

And what I said was, it's not a loan if they take it as a dividend when they sell the club.

The money came from"parent company undertaking" but I didn't want to put it down because that would mean another load of wasted time trying to explain it to people who have no intention of trying to understand.

Fenway Sports Group (NESV I, Delaware registered company)

own

UKSV I LLC (Delaware registered company)

own

UKSV Holdings Company Ltd

own

The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd ('the club')

As long as the loan is structured the way it is, we pay no interest until they demand repayment of the loan, which is open ended for all intents and purposes.

Wait...

I may be confused here...

Is CorballyRed being used as a credible source?

No Mags, he quoted it from somewhere else and had responses from James Pearce which therefore added weight to it. The problem is that Swab missed the important part and tried to ridicule the facts based on who presented them which is just pathetic, and frankly again a measure of the man.

Personally I think Corbs is a decent guy and I enjoy his tweets but he wouldn't claim to be the source of that information anymore than I would. He has harassed the death out of James Pearce about it and personally I commend him for that, he's at least looking out for the club in that respect and our interests too.

It'll also show you the mentality of the discussion above that people have to be as petty as to home in on a simple misquote of the interest rate rather than the important part that there was an interest rate which has been proven to exist and FSG have gone into full PR spin mode on the back of it.

As for the latest, Swab now seems to think that he knows where all sources of money originates, now get this:

He is claiming that the money didn't come from a bank.
FSG are charging interest on the money but will never take it.
When they sell the club they'll take a dividend but not take any of the money owed.
If the money is repaid it will go to the banks.

This is from a man that demands absolute, demonstrable proof when you question even the slightest detail with your own opinion. I'd challeng him for proof of any of the above but I know he wont be able to produce it and will dance a merry dance swearing, insulting and flinging out questions out of his arse before he ever actually backs up his statements so, as said I'm done with pulling teeth but if you want to hone in the person quoted or the content of what was said go right ahead. They're two different discussions but on both I'd defend Corbs for his tenacity and persistence and on the other it has been irrefutably proven.

Anyone with the time to monitor these things it would worth noting how many times we 'restructure' this debt again. We've done it already as noted early and I'm sure we'll do it again sometime in the future when FSG feel the heat is off on this particular issue, lots of money to be added in those 'restructuring' plans I'm sure.

I don't think anyone should be dick swinging about proof because I havent seen irrefutable proof presented from anyone at this point.

I don't think anyone should be dick swinging about proof because I havent seen irrefutable proof presented from anyone at this point.

I posted the accounts.
The irrefutable proof is in there.
It shows money being paid from UKSV to LFC as a non maturing intercompany loan, with no interest paid.

If that's not proof, I don't know what is.

No Mags, he quoted it from somewhere else and had responses from James Pearce which therefore added weight to it. The problem is that Swab missed the important part and tried to ridicule the facts based on who presented them which is just pathetic, and frankly again a measure of the man.

Personally I think Corbs is a decent guy and I enjoy his tweets but he wouldn't claim to be the source of that information anymore than I would. He has harassed the death out of James Pearce about it and personally I commend him for that, he's at least looking out for the club in that respect and our interests too.

It'll also show you the mentality of the discussion above that people have to be as petty as to home in on a simple misquote of the interest rate rather than the important part that there was an interest rate which has been proven to exist and FSG have gone into full PR spin mode on the back of it.

As for the latest, Swab now seems to think that he knows where all sources of money originates, now get this:

He is claiming that the money didn't come from a bank.
FSG are charging interest on the money but will never take it.
When they sell the club they'll take a dividend but not take any of the money owed.
If the money is repaid it will go to the banks.

This is from a man that demands absolute, demonstrable proof when you question even the slightest detail with your own opinion. I'd challeng him for proof of any of the above but I know he wont be able to produce it and will dance a merry dance swearing, insulting and flinging out questions out of his arse before he ever actually backs up his statements so, as said I'm done with pulling teeth but if you want to hone in the person quoted or the content of what was said go right ahead. They're two different discussions but on both I'd defend Corbs for his tenacity and persistence and on the other it has been irrefutably proven.

Anyone with the time to monitor these things it would worth noting how many times we 'restructure' this debt again. We've done it already as noted early and I'm sure we'll do it again sometime in the future when FSG feel the heat is off on this particular issue, lots of money to be added in those 'restructuring' plans I'm sure.

 


The fact is, you posted up Corbally's tweets as a source then went on and on about how we were being lied to and ripped off, banging on about 1.5% over 5 years, which has been shown to be complete nonsense.

The intercompany loan is shown going from UKSV (Parent Company Undertaking) to LFC and is carried on both sets of accounts as not having interest paid on it.

So it's either one of 2 things;
You can't actually read the accounts

You can read the accounts but continue to bullshit anyway because you're ego is so tied into an online forum you find it impossible to back down.

So, stop trying to get your tongue up Mags' arse, I'm sure he's perfectly capable of reading for himself and making his own mind up, without you trying to "direct" him.

The loan hasn't been "restructured" either.
More sh*te coming out of you.
Just face the fact that you are completely wrong.

Nice waffling though, Stuey will be proud of his padawan.

No Mags, he quoted it from somewhere else and had responses from James Pearce which therefore added weight to it. The problem is that Swab missed the important part and tried to ridicule the facts based on who presented them which is just pathetic, and frankly again a measure of the man.

Personally I think Corbs is a decent guy and I enjoy his tweets but he wouldn't claim to be the source of that information anymore than I would. He has harassed the death out of James Pearce about it and personally I commend him for that, he's at least looking out for the club in that respect and our interests too.

It'll also show you the mentality of the discussion above that people have to be as petty as to home in on a simple misquote of the interest rate rather than the important part that there was an interest rate which has been proven to exist and FSG have gone into full PR spin mode on the back of it.

As for the latest, Swab now seems to think that he knows where all sources of money originates, now get this:

He is claiming that the money didn't come from a bank.
FSG are charging interest on the money but will never take it.
When they sell the club they'll take a dividend but not take any of the money owed.
If the money is repaid it will go to the banks.

This is from a man that demands absolute, demonstrable proof when you question even the slightest detail with your own opinion. I'd challeng him for proof of any of the above but I know he wont be able to produce it and will dance a merry dance swearing, insulting and flinging out questions out of his arse before he ever actually backs up his statements so, as said I'm done with pulling teeth but if you want to hone in the person quoted or the content of what was said go right ahead. They're two different discussions but on both I'd defend Corbs for his tenacity and persistence and on the other it has been irrefutably proven.

Anyone with the time to monitor these things it would worth noting how many times we 'restructure' this debt again. We've done it already as noted early and I'm sure we'll do it again sometime in the future when FSG feel the heat is off on this particular issue, lots of money to be added in those 'restructuring' plans I'm sure.

Christ on a bike this story is a weird one, I've read up a bit more now and done some research.

So we owe interest to this UKSV Holding company correct? After I did some digging I found out that company is owned by the Fenway Sports Group, who own us. So although we technically are paying interest, it's all coming out of our owners pocket so it wouldn't be worth their while to bleed one company to float another.

It's an odd one, I imagine the interest paid would be balanced out through investment? Hard to tell at this stage, not willing to back or bury until further statements have been made... Or if they have made a statement, I've missed it.