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

My proof is that over the last three transfer windows we've made a profit. I don't think any team in England has ever prospered doing that, even Leicester wouldn't have made a profit on three consecutive windows I shouldn't think.

If we're serious about winning trophies (which surely is the whole point), the owners need to properly back the manager. By "properly" and what that actually means (and I did ask this question a week or so ago and got very few replies) I'm talking about a NET spend in the Summer in excess of 100 million pounds sterling (which would make it 25mill a window for the last four on average). That's not "including wages" or "taking into account amortization" or any of that bollocks, it's spending the money on first team, ready to go, BIG players that can make a difference. If it means we simply buy the players Jürgen has previously been interested in (aside from the very unlucky Goetze obviously) then that'll do for me.

I'm NOT saying we ought to break the British transfer record, I'm not saying we should buy Gareth Bale, Ronaldo, Messi, Suarez or any of that. What I AM saying though is that we buy proper players, ready to go first teamers. If we sell Sturridge, Sakho and Can for a combined 50 million quid or so, that's 150 mill in the "war chest", THEN I'll take these owners and their intentions seriously.   

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.

No the point I was making referred to interest being added to the loan, the rate was irrelevant to my point.

Unfortunately, like an absolute child, you hone in on the irrelevant points in an attempt to mock; namely the rate and the person who was quoted. The attack on him was unjustified considering it was proving you wrong, clearly your first form of defence and secondly the rate, considering you only claimed last week that I was living in a fantasy land to even suggest there could be any interest rate on that loan sitting at a parent company (my exact term) really does show how you're squirming looking for a new position in the argument.

Are you willing to admit you were 100% wrong as proven on this point... no I didn't think so and wont wait for you to do so, you're tiresome and predictable.

It reminds me of the emails just the other week, where you actually tried to suggest reasons why they wouldn't be true, coming up with all kinds of rubbish like how they were written poorly etc etc and then still didn't accept you were wrong on that matter. It's embarrassing how even in the face of irrefutable evidence you still squirm from position to position without admitting you were wrong.

Now you're moving on to questioning "restructuring". Well considering we've already done this numerous times Swab, documented by the Echo, I really can't be bothered presenting you with the evidence because it is patently useless when having a debate with you. Even if I said to you Liverpool have a liverbird on their crest and pointed you to all available sources you couldn't admit it if you started on the opposing side of that debate, it's sad but thankfully it's your problem and not mine.

As for crawling up Mags' arse, really Swab? Again pathetic and embarrassing. For a man of your mature age, you let yourself down.

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.

Kind of Mags.

First things first, FSG own (via subsidiary) UKSV, which in turn is the holding company for LFC.
FSG raised capital via equity, on a Parent Company Undertaking, which they loaned to UKSV. (actually shown on 2014/15 accounts)
UKSV then loaned the money to LFC at a nominal interest rate of 1.24%, but (and this is the important part) LFC are only required to pay the 1.24% when the loan is repaid (because companies have to charge interest on intercompany loans now), and it doesn't get paid every year. The 1.24% can also be used to offset currency fluctuations, so it's a safeguard rather than a profit, which would be set much higher.
FSG when they sell, have the option to take an increased dividend instead of asking for loan repayment, which makes sense, as it would actually give them more profit.

That's it, in essence.
The roundabout way it's been done is a consequence of multi-jursdictional operations.

For anyone who knows how to read the accounts, it's all there, clear as day.
I just needed time to go through them, and it was clear.

No the point I was making referred to interest being added to the loan, the rate was irrelevant to my point.

Unfortunately, like an absolute child, you hone in on the irrelevant points in an attempt to mock; namely the rate and the person who was quoted. The attack on him was unjustified considering it was proving you wrong, clearly your first form of defence and secondly the rate, considering you only claimed last week that I was living in a fantasy land to even suggest there could be any interest rate on that loan sitting at a parent company (my exact term) really does show how you're squirming looking for a new position in the argument.

Are you willing to admit you were 100% wrong as proven on this point... no I didn't think so and wont wait for you to do so, you're tiresome and predictable.

It reminds me of the emails just the other week, where you actually tried to suggest reasons why they wouldn't be true, coming up with all kinds of rubbish like how they were written poorly etc etc and then still didn't accept you were wrong on that matter. It's embarrassing how even in the face of irrefutable evidence you still squirm from position to position without admitting you were wrong.

Now you're moving on to questioning "restructuring". Well considering we've already done this numerous times Swab, documented by the Echo, I really can't be bothered presenting you with the evidence because it is patently useless when having a debate with you. Even if I said to you Liverpool have a liverbird on their crest and pointed you to all available sources you couldn't admit it if you started on the opposing side of that debate, it's sad but thankfully it's your problem and not mine.

As for crawling up Mags' arse, really Swab? Again pathetic and embarrassing. For a man of your mature age, you let yourself down.

F**k the Echo.

Post the relevant pages from the accounts or pipe down/stop waffling.

You know you can't, which is why you're in "full waffle mode".

It took me maybe an hour to find all the info, and another hour to check, so with your famous accounting skills it should take you no time at all.

F**k the Echo.

Post the relevant pages from the accounts or pipe down/stop waffling.

You know you can't, which is why you're in "full waffle mode".

It took me maybe an hour to find all the info, and another hour to check, so with your famous accounting skills it should take you no time at all.

What a surprising and enlightening response.

Who'd have thought you'd resort to expletives and insults... not like you that

It's all there Swab, documented clearly, you enjoy admin, knock yourself out.

Kind of Mags.

First things first, FSG own (via subsidiary) UKSV, which in turn is the holding company for LFC.
FSG raised capital via equity, on a Parent Company Undertaking, which they loaned to UKSV. (actually shown on 2014/15 accounts)
UKSV then loaned the money to LFC at a nominal interest rate of 1.24%, but (and this is the important part) LFC are only required to pay the 1.24% when the loan is repaid (because companies have to charge interest on intercompany loans now), and it doesn't get paid every year. The 1.24% can also be used to offset currency fluctuations, so it's a safeguard rather than a profit, which would be set much higher.
FSG when they sell, have the option to take an increased dividend instead of asking for loan repayment, which makes sense, as it would actually give them more profit.

That's it, in essence.
The roundabout way it's been done is a consequence of multi-jursdictional operations.

For anyone who knows how to read the accounts, it's all there, clear as day.
I just needed time to go through them, and it was clear.

1.24% on an overall sum is pretty much peanuts though right? Even if the sum is £500,000,000 we only owe £5,000,000 which won't even buy you a league 1 player these days.

Don't see why it's a big deal if that's the case.

1.24% on an overall sum is pretty much peanuts though right? Even if the sum is £500,000,000 we only owe £5,000,000 which won't even buy you a league 1 player these days.

Don't see why it's a big deal if that's the case.

Yes, it is peanuts.
I forgot until someone posted earlier that intercompany loans have to have interest on them now, and it has to be "competitive" so we're lucky the interest rate is so low.

Personally (and this is just my opinion) I expect them to take repayment in the form of an increased dividend when they sell, in which case the 1.24% isn't charged (the intercompany loan has no mature date, so the 1.24% becomes moot unless they ask for repayment).
My reasoning is simply that they wouldn't have raised the money via equity if they weren't going to do it that way, plus an increased dividend should mean a bigger profit when they sell.

You're also right that it's not a big deal, but it forms the basis of a strange conspiracy where FSG are lying and taking money out, so people are clinging to it.
The reality of course, and it's a painful one, is that FSG could bleed us dry if they wanted to, but the fact is they're not.
Even Director payments are fairly modest by todays standards.

I look at the accounts every year in detail; I got into the habit because of h&g, plus I enjoy that kind of thing.

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.

Luke, I disagree with your analysis, you've stated before that these ''interest payments'' will increase gradually and it will only benefit FSG and the 1,24% goes into FSG's pocket.

Let's for argument's sake take your word, let's say the 1,24% is charged on Liverpool for the stadium loan as it mentioned on page 29 of the LFC accounts and that FSG did not charge any extra premium. The 1,24% in this case is from the credit facility that FSG used to loan LFC the money. Please note that credit facilities have no maturity and no timeline on interest payments so FSG only pays 1,24% on the money used not on the money taken. Then the bank would ask FSG to pay the 1,24% interest rate for using the credit facility (remember that credit facilities are not exactly loans, they are a lot cheaper). So FSG pays that interest rate then charges Liverpool, hence in the end the money only goes to the bank & not FSG as the payment cancel each other out between FSG & LFC. It is a lot cheaper to go down that route instead of going through a bank and asking for a loan and it will save us huge amount of money, so there won't be any extra ''costs'' or ''restructuring'' or ''creative accounting'' as you have mentioned before. You will see this in the next year's financial statement. Hence, FSG hasn't charged any premium or interest rate of their own to LFC, but because FSG needed the money to give out a loan to LFC, FSG asked their bank to use a credit facility that has no maturity date or timeline to fund LFC's stadium expansion with a 1,24% charge that has to be paid to FSG's bank. The money won't wiggle around into FSG's bank account as this would be totally illegal and will have grave consequences.