LFC Accounts 2019/20 - £46M loss

Liverpool has released financial results ending May 31,2020

Pandemic impacts final three months of accounts

Media revenue down by £59m to £202m (PL games extended past reporting period)
Matchday revenue down by £13m to £71m
Commercial revenue up by £29m to £217m
Overall revenue down by £43m to £490m
Loss before tax was £46m


https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/432375-lfc-announces-financial-results-for-year-to-may-31-2020

Liverpool has released financial results ending May 31,2020

Pandemic impacts final three months of accounts

Media revenue down by £59m to £202m (PL games extended past reporting period)
Matchday revenue down by £13m to £71m
Commercial revenue up by £29m to £217m
Overall revenue down by £43m to £490m
Loss before tax was £46m


https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/432375-lfc-announces-financial-results-for-year-to-may-31-2020

Cue all the amateur accountants

Cue all the amateur accountants

Wouldn’t attempt to get involved in all that but only thing that jumps out to me is those loses are only the first 3 months of this pandemic 

Wow,now the biggest irrelevant person on this forum,your all coming out of the woodwork now,a sado Manc who has no life that he trolls people on the Liverpool fc forum,GET A LIFE YOU SAD LITTLE MAN.

You post like Heimdall...just saying...

Wouldn’t attempt to get involved in all that but only thing that jumps out to me is those loses are only the first 3 months of this pandemic 

Yea, my initial reaction was "F**k, 46M loss and only 3 months of the pandemic are included". However, while we'll have the remaining impact from matchday revenue, it looks like it would be offset by media revenue that pushed out of this reporting period due to date extension of the PL. Still expect another loss in the following reporting period, though.

Yea, my initial reaction was "f**k, 46M loss and only 3 months of the pandemic are included". However, while we'll have the remaining impact from matchday revenue, it looks like it would be offset by media revenue that pushed out of this reporting period due to date extension of the PL. Still expect another loss in the following reporting period, though.

Pearce has been saying the total hit is around 120m.

Which really shouldn't be that big a deal since we are now worth about 10x what FSG paid for us...so I'd suggest they suck up the loss and back the boss and Edwards to get us some new players this summer. No excuses.

Pearce has been saying the total hit is around 120m.

Which really shouldn't be that big a deal since we are now worth about 10x what FSG paid for us...so I'd suggest they suck up the loss and back the boss and Edwards to get us some new players this summer. No excuses.

Value does not equal to revenues.

You can have debt + assets that contribute massively to value and worth but it doesn't mean you are liquid enough or you carry enough cash to buy players. You need revenue to contribute.

You can't expect us to go buy 50 or 60m players in the summer when our losses are around 120m, unless you are ok with the club increasing their debt to finance new players.

Pearce has been saying the total hit is around 120m.

Which really shouldn't be that big a deal since we are now worth about 10x what FSG paid for us...so I'd suggest they suck up the loss and back the boss and Edwards to get us some new players this summer. No excuses.

Don’t think it’s as easy as that - maybe an inter club loan etc but the club may well suck up the losses but then have to look at the spend that can be made during the summer

Value does not equal to revenues.

You can have debt + assets that contribute massively to value and worth but it doesn't mean you are liquid enough or you carry enough cash to buy players. You need revenue to contribute.

You can't expect us to go buy 50 or 60m players in the summer when our losses are around 120m, unless you are ok with the club increasing their debt to finance new players.

I’m ok with our owners eating the debt, they can finance it with a loan to the club that never gets paid back for all I care.

Liverpool have made a pre-tax loss of £46m for the year ending 31 May, 2020.

Having made a pre-tax profit of £42m for the previous year, it represents a swing of £88m for the Reds.

The figures cover the start of the coronavirus pandemic, which caused the Premier League to be halted between March and June 2020.

When the campaign did resume, it did so behind closed doors as Liverpool went on to win the top-flight title for the first time since 1990.

The club said the results showed the "initial impact of the pandemic" and that "matchday revenue was down by £13m to £71m as a result of four fewer Premier League home games during this period".

Media revenue was down by £59m to £202m and, while commercial income rose by £29m to £217m, overall revenue reduced by £43m to £490m.

The results have been published nine days after it was announced that Liverpool, along with five top-flight rivals, had signed up to join the European Super League - although all six clubs then withdrew.

In October 2020, Manchester United announced a net £23.2m loss, while Manchester City reported a loss of £126m for the 2019-20 season in April 2021.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56902405

Cue all the amateur accountants

That's exactly what i was thinking! 

You post like Heimdall...just saying...

One is enough

I am not a financial expert but having looked at lfc's accounts I reckon if we stick all the players on minimum wage and sell the ground we can afford haaland and mbappe.  I believe the phrase no brainer is appropriate

Likely out of the CL next year too, so not great news there for the pencil pushers.

Likely out of the CL next year too, so not great news there for the pencil pushers.

Somewhere between 70 to 90M depending on how far you go.

No CL is about the same amount as no fans in Anfield all season.

Let's hope the owners are forced to sell...

Let's hope the owners are forced to sell...

Who would your preferred bidders be?

Someone who could enable us to compete with City of Chelsea

Someone who could enable us to compete with City of Chelsea

Even Everton spend more than these minges, and with the losses and no Europe we will be spending even less

Let's hope the owners are forced to sell...

Why would they be forced to sell 

Someone who could enable us to compete with City of Chelsea

Have we not competed with City over the last 3/4 years and certainly out competed Chelsea

Why would they be forced to sell 

Well maybe want to sell then the skinflints, wait till the summer no Europe no signings

Have we not competed with City over the last 3/4 years and certainly out competed Chelsea

Yes we have at least been on par with these teams, but no investment in January when we were desperate will set us back Two seasons in which time will we recover

Every club will be the same.

Might actually see reductions in the stupid prices clubs want for players now.

Losses made = we need money

All other clubs made losses = less money to buy our players.

Maybe not

Every club will be the same.

Might actually see reductions in the stupid prices clubs want for players now.

Losses made = we need money

All other clubs made losses = less money to buy our players.

Maybe not

Or it will see the idea of £77 a ticket again to make up the costs.

Or it will see the idea of £77 a ticket again to make up the costs.

Haha

Let’s hope you aren’t their advisor

I don’t even think these would be as thick to try his again, but even if they did, right now? 

We now have the second highest wage bill only 20m behind City and well in front of Chelsea. So we are competing with them a crying shame we’ve had the like of Naby and Ox hitting 6 figures a week. Was masked by our success on field last year but this season everything’s out in the wash.

We now have the second highest wage bill only 20m behind City and well in front of Chelsea. So we are competing with them a crying shame we’ve had the like of Naby and Ox hitting 6 figures a week. Was masked by our success on field last year but this season everything’s out in the wash.

We're paying a lot of wages to either sit on the bench or the treatment room.

You can bet this is being looked at I'm great detail and a plan to start to reverse this during the summer.

We're paying a lot of wages to either sit on the bench or the treatment room.

You can bet this is being looked at I'm great detail and a plan to start to reverse this during the summer.

I would expect any club will regularly look at it's wage bill to see what value they are getting for what they are paying. The decision-making over whether to continue on with an under-performing player or cut him loose can be trickier than simply declaring on a message board yea or nay. It did feel in that Champions League game like Naby had maybe crossed a threshold on his way out. We'll see

I would expect any club will regularly look at it's wage bill to see what value they are getting for what they are paying. The decision-making over whether to continue on with an under-performing player or cut him loose can be trickier than simply declaring on a message board yea or nay. It did feel in that Champions League game like Naby had maybe crossed a threshold on his way out. We'll see

Of course mate and I think one or two of our players have made that decision easier, or at least the reluctance of the manager to pick them has as well.

I'm surprised the wage bill hasn't been trimmed by reducing the amount of non football related staff.
No surprise the losses are so high,  covid has screwed every club financially.

When we make a loss, the wage bill comes up. When we don’t win enough, the we should recruit better players comes up. Recruiting/attracting better players will cause deeper losses.

If the owners do not plug the losses or finance player recruitment, they’re damned. We all expect the owners to find money from elsewhere (don’t care how and no idea from where) to bankroll our player recruitment. We stay positive by saying sell to someone better. How much will the owners offer and who will buy at their valuation and bankroll our player recruitment thereafter?

I’ve learnt that saying sell out, get out, bankroll us, is so easy. But thinking deeper about the possibilities and the other moving parts, these at the end of the day are just wishes. We can look and stare at fairy tale Man City and compare. We will never get there. Just walk on with lots of hope in our hearts we get a man City type of owner eventually.

We're paying a lot of wages to either sit on the bench or the treatment room.

I'm assuming the club have some form of insurance in place for longer term injuries, or maybe just career ending ones?

Or it will see the idea of £77 a ticket again to make up the costs.

They dare not

Surprised our wage bill is what it is. I remember a time when Chelsea’s wage bill was astronomical compared to ours but seems to be a bit more even these days. I wonder how much of that is down to bonuses and performance related pay from us winning the CL? How many players can you say are actually worth their wage?

Surprised our wage bill is what it is. I remember a time when Chelsea’s wage bill was astronomical compared to ours but seems to be a bit more even these days. I wonder how much of that is down to bonuses and performance related pay from us winning the CL? How many players can you say are actually worth their wage?

Despite people bitching and moaning and crying crocodile tears this team has world class players all over the squad.

Alisson, Van Dijk, Salah, Mane, Fabinho, Thiago, etc etc are not here playing at a bargain out of their kindness of their heart.

Someone who could enable us to compete with City of Chelsea

So you have absolutely no idea. You just want someone to spend the same as the £2billion ADFC have to assemble a squad even although we won the the CL and the League without doing that. Hmmm.

Or it will see the idea of £77 a ticket again to make up the costs.

More likely

Despite people bitching and moaning and crying crocodile tears this team has world class players all over the squad.

Alisson, Van Dijk, Salah, Mane, Fabinho, Thiago, etc etc are not here playing at a bargain out of their kindness of their heart.

Yes but seems to have happened fairly recently with some of it accounted for in performance related bonuses from winning the CL.

I think I’m right in saying City (& the Munts) have spent a good deal more than we have on wages since Klopp’s arrival and that their top earners will be on quite a bit more than ours.

People wanting Man City owners

Same owners who wanted Man City in the super league but their supporters don't go crazy on them because they are ultra rich and they cheat their way into spending more than what the club earns and excuses of  "how they care about Man City" or they are "protecting their legacy" BS (What legacy?!?!) when the owners themselves are into making more money.

Yet when it comes to our owners who aren't as rich it's different. Fans complain about "not spending enough", How can we spend when the club is barely breaking even with no fans and no match day revenue during 2 years of the pandemic.

People wanting Man City owners

Same owners who wanted Man City in the super league but their supporters don't go crazy on them because they are ultra rich and they cheat their way into spending more than what the club earns and excuses of  "how they care about Man City" or they are "protecting their legacy" BS (What legacy?!?!) when the owners themselves are into making more money.

Yet when it comes to our owners who aren't as rich it's different. Fans complain about "not spending enough", How can we spend when the club is barely breaking even with no fans and no match day revenue during 2 years of the pandemic.

We didn't spend on the back of winning the Champion's League either so I don't think it has anything to do with revenue...I think it's just that the owners won't spend anything they don't make off of sales. Which I guess is what they always said they would...but that doesn't mean people have to like it.

We didn't spend on the back of winning the Champion's League either so I don't think it has anything to do with revenue...I think it's just that the owners won't spend anything they don't make off of sales. Which I guess is what they always said they would...but that doesn't mean people have to like it.

If that was the case our net spend would be zero, which is not, therefore this is obviously false.

If that was the case our net spend would be zero, which is not, therefore this is obviously false.

Don't be a pedant.

Something like 75m over Klopp's first four seasons? That's not even 20m per year.

Chump change.

Don't be a pedant.

Something like 75m over Klopp's first four seasons? That's not even 20m per year.

Chump change.

Where else do people expect the money to come from ?


The club spends the money it makes from all avenues


I have no idea when the fascination started about net bloody spend


Will always ask - imagine it’s 1987 , Liverpool sell Ian Rush and use the funds to buy players like Beardsley and Barnes - did we cry about net spend then or using a player being sold to help finance a player arriving - or even when we sold Keegan and Kenny arrived - it just happened and we moved on.


Right now far too much focus on net F***ing spend and using player sales to help fund players arriving - so what 🤷‍♂️ It’s what we have always done

Club gets money from multiple sources
Club uses money to spend on multiple areas

Simple

Yes but seems to have happened fairly recently with some of it accounted for in performance related bonuses from winning the CL.

I think I’m right in saying City (& the Munts) have spent a good deal more than we have on wages since Klopp’s arrival and that their top earners will be on quite a bit more than ours.

According to the Swiss Ramble analysis of the accounts; "Despite the revenue fall, #LFC wage bill rose £16m (5%) from £310m to £326m. Highly incentivized bonus scheme for winning the Premier League, Champions League, etc. Wages have increased by £117m (56%) in the last 3 years, the highest growth of the Big Six.".

Following this growth, #LFC £326m wages are now second highest in the Premier League, only below #MCFC £351m. They overtook #MUFC £284m last season and are also ahead of #CFC £283m, #AFC £225m, #THFC £181m and #EFC £165m. Should fall this season, due to lower performance bonuses.

Wages to turnover ratio has also increased (although not as much as others in the PL apparently): #LFC wages to turnover ratio worsened from 58% to 66%, the club’s highest since 2016, though this was still one of the better results in the Premier League. If we adjust for the estimated COVID revenue loss, it would have been a highly respectable 59%.

There's lots of other interesting graphs and numbers you can look at here: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1387289812282101760

Don't be a pedant.

Something like 75m over Klopp's first four seasons? That's not even 20m per year.

Chump change.

Pedant? you're the one making absolute statements such as "won't spend anything they don't make off of sales" which is clearly false.

The past 5 years Klopp has had a net spend in excess of 150M GBP.

If you want them to spend like City, Chelsea and United and are unhappy with our total spend, fine, but at least present facts.

Pedant? you're the one making absolute statements such as "won't spend anything they don't make off of sales" which is clearly false.

The past 5 years Klopp has had a net spend in excess of 150M GBP.

If you want them to spend like City, Chelsea and United and are unhappy with our total spend, fine, but at least present facts.

Actually the last 5 years has been about 107m net

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/the-20-premier-league-clubs-ranked-by-net-spend-over-last-five-years/

About 2/3s of the clubs in the league have a higher net spend

Makes Jurgens achievements even more the impressive

According to the Swiss Ramble analysis of the accounts; "Despite the revenue fall, #LFC wage bill rose £16m (5%) from £310m to £326m. Highly incentivized bonus scheme for winning the Premier League, Champions League, etc. Wages have increased by £117m (56%) in the last 3 years, the highest growth of the Big Six.".

Following this growth, #LFC £326m wages are now second highest in the Premier League, only below #MCFC £351m. They overtook #MUFC £284m last season and are also ahead of #CFC £283m, #AFC £225m, #THFC £181m and #EFC £165m. Should fall this season, due to lower performance bonuses.

Wages to turnover ratio has also increased (although not as much as others in the PL apparently): #LFC wages to turnover ratio worsened from 58% to 66%, the club’s highest since 2016, though this was still one of the better results in the Premier League. If we adjust for the estimated COVID revenue loss, it would have been a highly respectable 59%.

There's lots of other interesting graphs and numbers you can look at here: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1387289812282101760

The only truly expensive player we've added the past couple of years is Thiago, who i assume makes big wages. Even Jota i imagine isn't making all that much compared to our big names.

Wonder who's gotten new contracts recently?

Actually the last 5 years has been about 107m net

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/the-20-premier-league-clubs-ranked-by-net-spend-over-last-five-years/

About 2/3s of the clubs in the league have a higher net spend

Makes Jurgens achievements even more the impressive

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-liverpool/alletransfers/verein/31

150M from here.

But the takeaway should be that higher spend does not equal better outcome. It's how you buy not how much you pay for it that truly matters.

That doesn't go well with the net spenders, though. Same hypocrites crying crocodile tears days earlier calling the owners greedy yet all they care about is higher spend.

The only truly expensive player we've added the past couple of years is Thiago, who i assume makes big wages. Even Jota i imagine isn't making all that much compared to our big names.

Wonder who's gotten new contracts recently?

Alot of the contracts we have are apparently incentive based on winning things, the success the last couple of years has likely driven the wage bill up

That doesn't go well with the net spenders, though. Same hypocrites crying crocodile tears days earlier calling the owners greedy yet all they care about is higher spend.

I'm not sure how you are comparing the two? Greedy owners can still spend money. Just like owners that aren't greedy (would there be any like that?) can also not spend money. I think you need to go back to the drawing board for an analogy that makes more sense.

I don't think it's wrong for people to want us to spend (wisely) on new players. And I don't know that there's anyone that's asking for us to spend like drunken sailors...but after Virgil and Allison (funded by Coutinho's sale by the way) we've not really made any big purchases. An occasional outlay on a quality player would be nice. It would be nice to be able to actually consider buying a Haaland or an Mbappe should the opportunity arise. 

I'm not sure why there are people that still don't get that we sell to spend. It's been pretty much beat into the ground and proven to an inch of it's life. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that...but people that cling to that like the gospel also shouldn't complain so much when we can't compete year in and year out with teams that don't necessarily hold to that.

I'm not sure how you are comparing the two? Greedy owners can still spend money. Just like owners that aren't greedy (would there be any like that?) can also not spend money. I think you need to go back to the drawing board for an analogy that makes more sense.

I don't think it's wrong for people to want us to spend (wisely) on new players. And I don't know that there's anyone that's asking for us to spend like drunken sailors...but after Virgil and Allison (funded by Coutinho's sale by the way) we've not really made any big purchases. An occasional outlay on a quality player would be nice. It would be nice to be able to actually consider buying a Haaland or an Mbappe should the opportunity arise. 

I'm not sure why there are people that still don't get that we sell to spend. It's been pretty much beat into the ground and proven to an inch of it's life. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that...but people that cling to that like the gospel also shouldn't complain so much when we can't compete year in and year out with teams that don't necessarily hold to that.

I'm not sure it's a sell to buy but it's certainly we wouldn't buy if we didn't sell

It’s simple


The club spends money than it earns


It’s a self sufficient model that the club has always followed , it’s why the owners looked to increase the level of commercial income to allow further money to be spent on players


The transfer budget will be included in the outgoings - player sales will help increase the level of money the manager can spend


It’s all part of the model the owners work to and that the manager knows we work too


Players like Mbappe and Haaland are just not in scope for us - we won’t have £200mil to spend on one single player unless a big player leaves - that’s just a fact hence why the club looks to get the £200mil player before he develops into one - Mané etc show that

I'm not sure it's a sell to buy but it's certainly we wouldn't buy if we didn't sell

Isn't that the same as all clubs?

It’s simple


The club spends money than it earns


It’s a self sufficient model that the club has always followed

Yes but it's now a broken model

Abramovitch broke it

Humpty Dumpty UEFA tried to put it back together again with FFP

Manchester City broke the model again, swept up all the broken bits, and put them in an atom crusher just to make sure UEFA couldn't put it back together again

Hence the aborted (for-the-moment) Super League

Nobody can reasonably blame FSG (and other owners) for exploring the Super League option as Manchester City's lawyers have smashed up the business models of LFC, Manchester United, Arsenal, Spurs (and even in more recent times, Chelsea) when they took on UEFA and won. OK Super League was badly handled from a PR point of view, and had design flaws, but there is a clear rationale for exploring it.

FSG now have 3 options:

1) Sit down with Perez et al and get a better version of Super League thrashed out, one with promotion and relegation to keep the natives happy. What about play-offs? Fancy some play-offs? Imagine all that lovely TV money when Borussia Dortmund play Forest Green in the final.

2) Sit back and accept that LFC cannot compete with clubs whose owners have a bottomless pit of cash.

3) Sell the club to such an owner, who let's face it is hardly likely to be everyone's favourite cup of tea, and the UK gov may even possibly take steps to shut down this 3rd option going forward anyway.

If that leaves us with option 1, LFC fans will protest

If that leaves us with option 2, LFC fans will protest

And if option 3 isn't shut down and comes to pass, LFC fans will protest

Once FFP got put in the atom crusher, there is now no outcome for this club that won't cause large parts of the fanbase to be up in arms, possibly permanently.

Living in me own fantasy world, the owners should bankroll player acquisitions. Buy up all the best players while getting rid of useless players - perpetual net spend deficit, the larger the deficit the better, till they become broke. No we should not have owners who will go broke. These would be deemed unsuitable owners for us. They lack ambition if that's the case.

Me fantasy! Me still searching for the perfect owner.

Living in me own fantasy world, the owners should bankroll player acquisitions. Buy up all the best players while getting rid of useless players - perpetual net spend deficit, the larger the deficit the better, till they become broke. No we should not have owners who will go broke. These would be deemed unsuitable owners for us. They lack ambition if that's the case.

Me fantasy! Me still searching for the perfect owner.

Or have the worst defensive crisis remembered for any club and respond by signing Kabak from a team that one once all season and a guy from League Two that can't get near a start at Liverpool FC because he's clearly not good enough

Yes but it's now a broken model

Abramovitch broke it

Humpty Dumpty UEFA tried to put it back together again with FFP

Manchester City broke the model again, swept up all the broken bits, and put them in an atom crusher just to make sure UEFA couldn't put it back together again

Hence the aborted (for-the-moment) Super League

Nobody can reasonably blame FSG (and other owners) for exploring the Super League option as Manchester City's lawyers have smashed up the business models of LFC, Manchester United, Arsenal, Spurs (and even in more recent times, Chelsea) when they took on UEFA and won. OK Super League was badly handled from a PR point of view, and had design flaws, but there is a clear rationale for exploring it.

FSG now have 3 options:

1) Sit down with Perez et al and get a better version of Super League thrashed out, one with promotion and relegation to keep the natives happy. What about play-offs? Fancy some play-offs? Imagine all that lovely TV money when Borussia Dortmund play Forest Green in the final.

2) Sit back and accept that LFC cannot compete with clubs whose owners have a bottomless pit of cash.

3) Sell the club to such an owner, who let's face it is hardly likely to be everyone's favourite cup of tea, and the UK gov may even possibly take steps to shut down this 3rd option going forward anyway.

If that leaves us with option 1, LFC fans will protest

If that leaves us with option 2, LFC fans will protest

And if option 3 isn't shut down and comes to pass, LFC fans will protest

Once FFP got put in the atom crusher, there is now no outcome for this club that won't cause large parts of the fanbase to be up in arms, possibly permanently.

Option 2 means trying to compete with them how we have done so, so far. No protests over that option, cos we can still challenge them manc tw*ts.

Option 2 means trying to compete with them how we have done so, so far. No protests over that option, cos we can still challenge them manc tw*ts.

Depends what you call a protest.

OK, nobody's organising marches from Jarrow to the Pier Head to moan about LFC's uncompetitiveness in the league this year but you can already hear Gary Neville speaking out of the mouths of Liverpool supporters: "Klopp's lost it", "He's taken us as far as he can" etc etc, and that's not from some gloryhunting kids from Singapore, that's from lads who would put themselves forward as hardcore Reds. It's embarrassing.

A couple or so seasons ago, LFC accounts showed around £50 million set aside "to offset against future losses" (for tax purposes).

Last years accounts show a £50 million revolving facility, which I took to be a credit facility being rolled over, but might actually be the £50m set aside.

I need to go back and have another look and maybe get a mate who is a corporate accountant on the case, if he has time.

A couple or so seasons ago, LFC accounts showed around £50 million set aside "to offset against future losses" (for tax purposes).

Last years accounts show a £50 million revolving facility, which I took to be a credit facility being rolled over, but might actually be the £50m set aside.

I need to go back and have another look and maybe get a mate who is a corporate accountant on the case, if he has time.

'Set aside'? Meaning a provision?

You can't book provisions against future operating losses. It's not allowed.

A credit facility wouldn't even get booked in the accounts. It's a sort of opportunity for a loan if we fancied taking out a loan. It'd just be a note in the accounts somewhere: "If we need to borrow £50m, Huyton Red is our man"

Depends what you call a protest.

OK, nobody's organising marches from Jarrow to the Pier Head to moan about LFC's uncompetitiveness in the league this year but you can already hear Gary Neville speaking out of the mouths of Liverpool supporters: "Klopp's lost it", "He's taken us as far as he can" etc etc, and that's not from some gloryhunting kids from Singapore, that's from lads who would put themselves forward as hardcore Reds. It's embarrassing.

Those type of outbursts are more to with performances than actually meaning it. If everything was hunky dory, like the past two seasons, non of the above gets mentioned. Have to remember the past 30 years of constant getting so close to the league but ultimately failing has created a pessimistic and doom-mongering mentality in our support. Watching us give up the title so meekly and having to watch it on the box has led to a lot of people feeling pissed off. Look at the apathy for the game on Sunday.

'Set aside'? Meaning a provision?

You can't book provisions against future operating losses. It's not allowed.

A credit facility wouldn't even get booked in the accounts. It's a sort of opportunity for a loan if we fancied taking out a loan. It'd just be a note in the accounts somewhere: "If we need to borrow £50m, Huyton Red is our man"

And yet that's exactly what it said in the accounts, and the notes.

Since KPMG  use special exemptions and instruments, including foreign currency hedging, and the holding company is registered in Delaware, you can take it up with them.

Here you go, both the revolving credit facility and unused tax losses are in this set for starters, along with deferred taxes
I'm sure there are others, but I don't have time to go through them now.

https://d3j2s6hdd6a7rg.cloudfront.net/uploads/Annual_report_for_the_period_ended_31_May_2018.pdf

Yes but it's now a broken model

Abramovitch broke it

Humpty Dumpty UEFA tried to put it back together again with FFP

Manchester City broke the model again, swept up all the broken bits, and put them in an atom crusher just to make sure UEFA couldn't put it back together again

Hence the aborted (for-the-moment) Super League

Nobody can reasonably blame FSG (and other owners) for exploring the Super League option as Manchester City's lawyers have smashed up the business models of LFC, Manchester United, Arsenal, Spurs (and even in more recent times, Chelsea) when they took on UEFA and won.

Once FFP got put in the atom crusher, there is now no outcome for this club that won't cause large parts of the fanbase to be up in arms, possibly permanently.

FFP is alive and kicking. City have been found guilty twice, and punished twice. You may not consider it a strong enough punishment, (and you would be right) but they have been punished twice. If UEFA didn't botch up their own investigation, they would now be halfway through their European ban.

The Super League is torn up and in a crusher instead. It had no chance of ever seeing the field of play.

FFP is alive and kicking. City have been found guilty twice, and punished twice. You may not consider it a strong enough punishment, (and you would be right) but they have been punished twice. If UEFA didn't botch up their own investigation, they would now be halfway through their European ban.

The Super League is torn up and in a crusher instead. It had no chance of ever seeing the field of play.

City about to win the competition that they should be banned from playing in this season, tells you all you need to know about FFP!

City about to win the competition that they should be banned from playing in this season, tells you all you need to know about FFP!

Was the issue not FFP but UEFA processes and time lines


City were shown to have broken FFP

Was the issue not FFP but UEFA processes and time lines


City were shown to have broken FFP

Well we all know how much is a joke UEFA are.

Well we all know how much is a joke UEFA are.

Most certainly is the truth

Was the issue not FFP but UEFA processes and time lines

City were shown to have broken FFP

I hate UEFA, have done since staging a certain final at an unfit-for-purpose Heysel, but in this instance I'm not sure there was much they could have done

UEFA aren't the fraud squad, they don't have a warrant to search the world's email servers looking for Manchester-City-related financial shenanigans

It's actually impossible to prove City circumvented FFP by legal means. The only way to do it is to hack into their emails illegally.

The only person who has been punished for all this is the whistleblower, who I believe is still rotting in a Portuguese jail. So much for justice.