11/09/2009 03:28:00 pm

EXCLUSIVE - The REAL level of Liverpool FC's current debt and interest payments

Misinformation and agenda-driven exaggeration are the key factors at play when it comes to reporting the true level of Liverpool FC's debt and interest payments. The anti-Liverpool media and fan's group SOS exaggerate the figures in a bid to whip up anti-Owner sentiment. Well, Liverpool-Kop can now exclusively reveal the true state of the club's current debt/interest level under Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

According to Spirit of Shankly's website:

* Liverpool FC has an overall debt-burden of £350m

* Interest payments for this debt are around £30m each year.

Various inflated figures have also been advanced by the media, with figures of around £300m debt and £40m worth of interest payments being common.

Well, a reliable source close to the club has kindly clarified the situation and provided accurate, up to date figures detailing the current levels of debt/interest.

1. The Owners have reduced the club's debt level to £200m (plus a £37m pound facility for stadium soft costs).

2. Current interst payable per year is less than £20m.

3. EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) was £47m last year and will rise by a further £18m when the Standard Chartered/Carlsberg deals kick in.

4. After the club's equity raise, debt will be less than 3 X EBITDA, which is very conservative, and FAR less than the other top clubs

So - as you can see (and as this site has argued repeatedly over the last few months), things are improving off the pitch. The debt level is decreasing, interest payments are decreasing, and over time both figures will decrease even more.

Forget the spin, forget the tabloid/SOS exaggeration and blatant anti-owner agenda: These are the facts, and in my view, they're very encouraging.

----

Join the site's new Facebook page!


Become a fan on Facebook!





SITE UPDATE: COMMENT POLICY
11 August 2014


Reasoned, adult discussion is the name of the game on this site, so please bear in mind the following when posting comments:

* ALL views are welcome, and if someone's football-related opinion doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what constitutes an LFC 'fan', then tough luck.

* Good-natured banter is fine, but posts containing personal insults, belittlement, sniping, deliberate antagonism etc (directed at fellow posters, players, managers, rival fans etc) will be deleted.


* Attack the argument, not the person. Repeat offenders will be banned.

* Posts moaning about 'negativity' will also be deleted. The aim of this site is 'critical realism about LFC', so please expect a critical/analytical approach, and be prepared to have your opinion challenged.

* Txt spk is outlawed. Please write in proper sentences, and avoid using abbreviations like LOL, PMSL etc.

* The site owner welcomes and encourages disagreement, but only if opposing views are presented in line with the guidelines above.


Ultimately, it's simple: be as vehement and passionate as you like, but please remain civil at all times. Thank you.


110 Comments :

Mcdonaldtaf said...

Hey Jaimie, you have put "forget the facts". Is that a mistake?

As you know the business side of things is where I have a keen interest.

Are these the debts of Kop Football Holdings or just the Club debts? As you say if the figures are right they are indeed encouraging.

Pac said...

SOS = anti propaganda and can't be taken seriously. And why are they talking as if they represent all Liverpool fans?

Guest said...

Thanks for this Jamie. Anyone who comes on here now having a go must be very negatively minded and not actually want what's best for our club.

However, can you clarify who you got the figures from and how recently accurate are they?

Mark said...

How can you say that things are improving?!

Under Moores we had £80m of debt and subsstantially less interest payments.

Things have got worse not better. Even if Moores had invested moor in player purchases we still wouldn't be in as much debt.

Hick and Gillett bought our club with our money. 

They are the facts. 

You are blinded by an alternate reality.

Mark said...

Additionally H & G said they wouldnt put the club in to debt. 

i cannot fathom how you think being £200m in debt is better that being £80m in debt.

Please explain

The only point I grant you is the fact we are in a better position commercially but that is down to Parslow being better than Parry at his job. 

And now the 2 cowboys are waiting for someone to come in so they can make a quick buck. 

Blind Blind Ignorance. 

Guest said...

Jamie i know you support H+G but what is your position on the whole spade in the ground within 60 days issue? I dont think they are as bad as some people make out, but the new stadium issue really bothers me...fair enough were in a bad economic climate, but why make such a statement if they cant stick to it!

Cheers

Guest said...

Please provide your sources of information (links)? to confirm your figures!!

Guest said...

Another fact is Spartan cost a mill or so and Turner was four milli. then ill go on to assume..and say im pretty sure Rafa wanted turner but had to settle for spartan because clearly there were constraints put over him with regards to how much money he can spend. so although the debt has decreased there are blatent constraints in our transfer dealings compared to the likes of manc(s) chelski and  even arsenal as they have also spent deveptivley alot. Maybe you could do a piece on how much some of there youngsters cost and compare the cost of our carling cup team 11 to the cost of there carling cup 11.

matt said...

The fact still remains that the owners defaulted on there loans in the states. this is why they where asked to reduce the debt they had at liverpool. also if the clubs finances where that good, finding investment would not be the problem it appears to be. So either the club is not that sound money wise, or investment companies don't trust the owners.  

Jaimie Kanwar said...

The 'Spade in the ground' comment was not an absolute promise.  That is the way certain anti-owners groups have portrayed it. This is what Gillett said at that time:

<span>George Gillett, Feb 2007: "The first spade will start going into the ground on that [stadium] project by March [2007]."</span>

That is a honest statement of intent.  *At that time*, I fully believe that the owners were sincere about their expectations.  Why would they not be?  What possible motivation is there to lie?  What do they have to gain?

H+G's architects convinced them that the original stadium design it was already obsolete, so it had to be redesigned, and that means starting the approval process all over again.

Factor into that the recession and turmoil in the financial markets, and it becomes very clearly why the stadium has been delayed.

What is the big deal anyway? H+G were perhaps a little optimistic with their original estimate but why should they be labelled 'Liars' for ever more as a result of that? 

Surely that comment just illustrates H+G's unbridled enthusiasm for Liverpool and excitement at the prospect of getting things done?!

Show me one club that has announced and started the stadium building process in 60 days.  it has never been done.

As a comparison, consider Arsenal's new stadium.  The announcement was made in 1999, with a projected completion date of 2003.

Arsenal missed the deadline by THREE YEARS.

Does that mean Arsenal fans were lied to?!

NO.

H+G have been at the club for less than 3 years; Arsenal's stadium took 7 years to complete.

Going on about the 'spade in the ground comment' is like grown adults complaining to their parents that they were lied to about Santa Claus.

burnaldo said...

Are you taking the piss, these two shysters have put the very existence in jepordy. Wake up you foolish american stooge. We cannot afford to outbid Sunderland for an average centre half. Spade in the ground my arse, I live in Anfield and the uncertainty over the ground is having a devastating affect on the area.

Guest said...

You say Purslow's better at his job than Parry. Very true. But be fair, it was Hicks and Gillett that brought him in.

If we still had the £80million of debt and David Moores as Chairman, we wouldn't have the likes of Fernando Torres or Javier Mascherano at the club. Maybe not even Gerrard in the current football climate.

Amir said...

Please provide evidence, otherwise your report is as innacurate as the reports your claiming to be misleading, information from inside source is not evidence unless it's backed up.

Guest said...

I can see the protests such as the ones SOS organise putting off potential investors if anything. It's a selection of Liverpool fans saying that when the going gets a bit tough, it's backlash on the owners. What investor would dream of putting their reputation on the line with the risk of it going the same way as Hicks & Gillett's?

What many fans don't seem to realise is that even if H&G were ousted, what's to say the next investor would be any different? They're investors first and foremost, looking to make money. Confused as to why some fans thought H&G were any different?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Hi there.  The figures are current, and were obtained from a source at the club in a position to know the specifics of Liverpool's finances.

Guest said...

yeah, who though?

Guest said...

It's only as misleading as what's been in the press and SOS have assumed correct, really.

Guest said...

Just check with my sources, your over 50m out, loan renewal in mid July 2010 we'll still owe over 250m, interest payments expected to around 24m, this with sponsorship payments completed on renewal. (including two new sponsors)

KB said...

<span>
<p>Read the extract below about how Private Equity works with LFC in mind. The big issue faced by H&G was the collapse of the banking system during the credit crunch. This wasn't their fault but clearly has put them in a position where debt finance is hard to come by. The business approach is therefore to work the business harder for revenue i.e Standard Charter deals etc, keep costs down, i.e reduce spending on players and see it through until it becomes easier to refinance the business. 
</p><p>Of course as a fan running the club in this way isn't what we want. Our ideal solution is for a complete idiot with Billions to turn up and throw money at it until its gone and then move on. Until then, rightly or wrongly we are owned by private equity.
</p><p>How Private equity works...
</p><p>Suppose a company makes an annual profit of 10 million USD and is acquired by a private equity firm for 100 million USD, that is, at a price earnings ratio of 10, meaning that the private equity firm is willing to pay 10 times the company’s annual profit. To acquire the company the private equity firm invests 30 million USD of its own capital borrowing the remaining 70 million USD.
</p><p>Now suppose that three years later the company still makes a profit of 10 million USD per year. The private equity firm has used the profits to repay 30 million USD of the loan (I’m abstracting from taxes here) and decides to sell the company for the same price as it has bought it, that is, 100 million USD. This may seem like a bad deal, but take a closer look at what happens. The private equity firm uses 40 million USD to repay the remainder of the loan and is left with 60 million USD. Thus, in three years the firm has doubled its initial investment of 30 million USD!
</p><p>If the private equity firm manages to reduce costs and increase the company’s annual profits to 16 million USD, to keep things simple, and sells it again with a price earnings ratio of 10, that is, for 160 million USD, the profit for the private equity firm is 90 million USD (after repaying the 70 million USD loan), three times the initial investment. If, because of the increase in profits, it can convince buyers of a higher price earnings ratio, it will earn even more.
</p><p>So, in this simplified example, regardless of whether the company being acquired is “turned around”, the private equity firm makes a substantial profit on its investment. The reason? Its ability to finance part of acquisition with debt.
</p><p>The low and stable interest rates of the past few years have made it easy for private equity firms to borrow money. The fact that interest payments are tax deductible makes the entire construction even more attractive.
</p></span>

KB said...

Sound familiar?

bob said...

We are currently 300M in debt. It was 350M but 50M was paid off when we re-financed. It was a condition of the re-financing and it is why we operated on a transfer profit in the summer! We are broke and I'm afraid your source is totally wrong!

bob said...

We are currently 300M in debt. It was 350M but 50M was paid off when we re-financed. It was a condition of the re-financing and it is why we operated on a transfer profit in the summer! Non of this is top secret information, so I really can't see why you publish what you have. We are broke and I'm afraid your source (or is that you?) is totally wrong!

bob said...

We are currently 300M in debt. It was 350M but 50M was paid off when we re-financed. It was a condition of the re-financing and it is why we operated on a transfer profit in the summer! Non of this is top secret information, so I really can't see why you've published what you have? We are broke and I'm afraid your source (or is that you?) is totally wrong!

Guest said...

Things will look even more challenging if, as looks almost inevitable, Liverpool don't make the group stages of the champions league, and it will be a bona fide crisis if they fail to qualify for the CL next year.  Long way to go, but they could certainly do without any more injury problems...

Jaimie Kanwar said...

My source is not wrong.  That would be impossible.  How do you know 'we're currently 300m in debt'?  Where did you get that figure from?

You're entitled to your view, but, with respect, you are wrong.

Juan said...

Jamie i think it would be a fair statement to say that you are more pro the H&G led regime than anti. That is fair enough as every Liverpool fan is entitled to make up their own mind.

I on the other hand will never accept one or either of both men as custodians of the club going on nothing else but their behaviour over the last almost 3 years.

There have to be serious concerns for the future prosperity of any organisation when the two people at the top cant even pretend to like each other for the peace harmony prosperity and general well being of the business. And theres no point in trying to argue that both Hicks and Gilette have patched up their differences.

As for SOS and the anti Liverpool tabloids, well more often than not they will provide a source to back up their claims.

If you are to legitimise your claims above you need to provide your source, otherwise going on your own giudelines how are we to tell if the information you are providing us is not misinformation with the purpose of unjustly villifying the Hicks and Gilette detractors like SOS?

Juan said...

Jamie i think it would be a fair statement to say that you are more pro the H&G led regime than anti. That is fair enough as every Liverpool fan is entitled to make up their own mind.

I on the other hand will never accept one or either of both men as custodians of the club going on nothing else but their behaviour over the last almost 3 years.

There have to be serious concerns for the future prosperity of any organisation when the two people at the top cant even pretend to like each other for the peace harmony prosperity and general well being of the business. And theres no point in trying to argue that both Hicks and Gilette have patched up their differences.

As for SOS and the anti Liverpool tabloids, well more often than not they will provide a source to back up their claims.

If you are to legitimise your claims above you need to provide your source, otherwise going on your own giudelines how are we to tell if the information you are providing us is not misinformation with the purpose of unjustly villifying the Hicks and Gilette detractors like SOS?

Juan said...

Jamie i think it would be a fair statement to say that you are more pro the H&G led regime than anti. That is fair enough as every Liverpool fan is entitled to make up their own mind.

I on the other hand will never accept one or either of both men as custodians of the club going on nothing else but their behaviour over the last almost 3 years.

There have to be serious concerns for the future prosperity of any organisation when the two people at the top cant even pretend to like each other for the peace harmony prosperity and general well being of the business. And theres no point in trying to argue that both Hicks and Gilette have patched up their differences.

As for SOS and the anti Liverpool tabloids, well more often than not they will provide a source to back up their claims.

If you are to legitimise your claims above you need to provide your source, otherwise going on your own giudelines how are we to tell if the information you are providing us is not misinformation with the purpose of unjustly villifying the Hicks and Gilette detractors like SOS?

bob said...

We are currently 300M in debt. It was 350M but 50M was paid off when we re-financed. It was a condition of the re-financing and it is why we operated on a transfer profit in the summer! Non of this is top secret information, so I really can't see why you've published what you have? We are broke and I'm afraid your source (or is that you?) is totally wrong!

Oh and do you really think the RBS are going to offer such a low rate of interest? Interest payments are currently at 28/30M a year.

Juan said...

Jamie i think it would be a fair statement to say that you are more pro the H&G led regime than anti. That is fair enough as every Liverpool fan is entitled to make up their own mind.

I on the other hand will never accept one or either of both men as custodians of the club going on nothing else but their behaviour over the last almost 3 years.

There have to be serious concerns for the future prosperity of any organisation when the two people at the top cant even pretend to like each other for the peace harmony prosperity and general well being of the business. And theres no point in trying to argue that both Hicks and Gilette have patched up their differences.

As for SOS and the anti Liverpool tabloids, well more often than not they will provide a source to back up their claims.

If you are to legitimise your claims above you need to provide your source, otherwise going on your own giudelines how are we to tell if the information you are providing us is not misinformation with the purpose of unjustly villifying the Hicks and Gilette detractors like SOS?

Juan said...

Jamie i think it would be a fair statement to say that you are more pro the H&G led regime than anti. That is fair enough as every Liverpool fan is entitled to make up their own mind.

I on the other hand will never accept one or either of both men as custodians of the club going on nothing else but their behaviour over the last almost 3 years.

There have to be serious concerns for the future prosperity of any organisation when the two people at the top cant even pretend to like each other for the peace harmony prosperity and general well being of the business. And theres no point in trying to argue that both Hicks and Gilette have patched up their differences.

As for SOS and the anti Liverpool tabloids, well more often than not they will provide a source to back up their claims.

If you are to legitimise your claims above you need to provide your source, otherwise going on your own giudelines how are we to tell if the information you are providing us is not misinformation with the purpose of unjustly villifying the Hicks and Gilette detractors like SOS?

Juan said...

Jamie i think it would be a fair statement to say that you are more pro the H&G led regime than anti. That is fair enough as every Liverpool fan is entitled to make up their own mind.

I on the other hand will never accept one or either of both men as custodians of the club going on nothing else but their behaviour over the last almost 3 years.

There have to be serious concerns for the future prosperity of any organisation when the two people at the top cant even pretend to like each other for the peace harmony prosperity and general well being of the business. And theres no point in trying to argue that both Hicks and Gilette have patched up their differences.

As for SOS and the anti Liverpool tabloids, well more often than not they will provide a source to back up their claims.

If you are to legitimise your claims above you need to provide your source, otherwise going on your own giudelines how are we to tell if the information you are providing us is not misinformation with the purpose of unjustly villifying the Hicks and Gilette detractors like SOS?

Juan said...

Jamie i think it would be a fair statement to say that you are more pro the H&G led regime than anti. That is fair enough as every Liverpool fan is entitled to make up their own mind.

I on the other hand will never accept one or either of both men as custodians of the club going on nothing else but their behaviour over the last almost 3 years.

There have to be serious concerns for the future prosperity of any organisation when the two people at the top cant even pretend to like each other for the peace harmony prosperity and general well being of the business. And theres no point in trying to argue that both Hicks and Gilette have patched up their differences.

As for SOS and the anti Liverpool tabloids, well more often than not they will provide a source to back up their claims.

If you are to legitimise your claims above you need to provide your source, otherwise going on your own giudelines how are we to tell if the information you are providing us is not misinformation with the purpose of unjustly villifying the Hicks and Gilette detractors like SOS?

Juan said...

Jamie i think it would be a fair statement to say that you are more pro the H&G led regime than anti. That is fair enough as every Liverpool fan is entitled to make up their own mind.

I on the other hand will never accept one or either of both men as custodians of the club going on nothing else but their behaviour over the last almost 3 years.

There have to be serious concerns for the future prosperity of any organisation when the two people at the top cant even pretend to like each other for the peace harmony prosperity and general well being of the business. And theres no point in trying to argue that both Hicks and Gilette have patched up their differences.

As for SOS and the anti Liverpool tabloids, well more often than not they will provide a source to back up their claims.

If you are to legitimise your claims above you need to provide your source, otherwise going on your own giudelines how are we to tell if the information you are providing us is not misinformation with the purpose of unjustly villifying the Hicks and Gilette detractors like SOS?

Juan said...

Apologies for the multi post, computer on the blink, please delete. Cheers

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I am pro-fairness, pro-objectivity and pro-rational thought.  I am anti-ignorance, anti-blind faith and anti-groupthink.

Re the owners; why does it have to be pro or anti anything?  Why can't fans consider things on their merits as they happen instead of dredging up things from the past? 

Same goes for Rafa - I am not pro or Anti-Rafa.  I consider things as and when they occur; If I feel something needs to be criticised, I do.  By the same token, I also offer praise where it is due, and that is evident to any fair-minded person who visits this site.

We don't always have to so rigidly anti-this pro-that.  Such inflexibility is counter productive.

Have H+G made mistakes?  Yes.  Have they conducted themselves in an a inadvisable manner at times?  Yes. 

Let's accept that - no one is trying to deny it.  However, have they done positive things too?  Yes.  Are they attempting to take the club forward in a positive manner?  Yes.  is there evidence of this happening?  Yes.

Exactly the same goes for Rafa.  He's made mistakes; he's made inadvisable public statements BUT he has also done some fantastic things for the club too. 

It is never as simple as an inflexible FOR or AGAINST.  This is why SOS is going down the wrong path.

What are the anti-Owner brigade going to complain about when the new stadium is built; when Liverpool win the league?!  Are you still going to bang on about having a 'spade in the ground within 60 days' or how the debt is so large?!

Bharat said...

jamie,

how u can be so negative one day and full of positives the next is beyond me..but i look forward to every article..keep up the good work :)

Jaimie Kanwar said...

And re your 'source' issue - the difference between me and SOS is I don't take offence if someone accuses me of making it up or not really having a source.  People will make up their own minds.  I know it's true, and others who frequent the site know it's true.  That's good enough for me.

bob said...

Okay - if you can confidently say that I am wrong, as you have just done! Name your source! Can you do that?

Guest said...

And the reliable source is: A friend who had a uncle whose dog who had a ..

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Hi Bharat - that is the up-and-down nature of football for you.  It's a rollercoaster ride :)


It doesn't make sense to me to be rigid in my views.  What I mean by that is I take this as they come - I have certain core beliefs about LFC but I assess each incident on its own merits, instead of having a premeditated agenda.  If Rafa does something positive one week, we should praise it.  if he does something worthy of criticism the next, we should analyse it.

That's the difference in my view.  Just championing the good stuff and glossing over the bad stuff is not my style.  There are many people who do that, and that's their choice, but that's not me, and I know there are many other fans out there who are the same.

Guest said...

Do you know that Hicks used to own corinthian when they became champions in 2002 and won the World Club Cup. After Hicks went in with his ideas and snoop doogy , they got relegated in 2007. 

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I certainly understand your skepticism, but that's your choice.  I'll just leave it up the site's readers to believe what they want to believe.

Brian said...

Any team news for tonight?

Richard said...

Have to say Jaimie you and your source are spot on with the figures. Kop Holdings the finance arm set-up by Hicks and Gillett is bearing the debt, the football is an asset registered against kop holdings. The football club itself is financially healthy even before the recent standard charter sponsorship.  SC would not have invested the sum they've agreed if the football club is nit in good health. When the Glaziers took over Man Utd they burdeoned the Club with £600M worth of debt as they borrowed all the money to buy it. Apart from the early demonstrations by some fans everything turened quite why? because Man U were still winning trophies and commercially they were streets ahead of any other English Club.  One thing I will say which I don't think is common knowledge H&G funded the mascherano deal using their own funds. Also Man Utd received the full amount of Ronaldo's transfer fee from Real Madrid and I can tell you over £40m of that deal has been used to pay off some of the debt in the club which I can tell you is a lot more than Liverpool's

bob said...

I look forward to it, as we all have the best interests of the club at heart. Just at the moment - what you say should not be seen as anymore than that - what you say! As without a named source it is no more than any of the many exclusives that appear on the back pages/internet everyday, and we all know how many of them are actually fact!

Richard said...

Have to say Jaimie you and your source are spot on with the figures. Kop Holdings the finance arm set-up by Hicks and Gillett is bearing the debt, the football club is an asset registered against kop holdings. The football club itself is financially healthy even before the recent standard charter sponsorship.  SC would not have invested the sum they've agreed if the football club wasn't in good health. When the Glaziers took over Man Utd they burdeoned the Club with £600M worth of debt as they borrowed all the money to buy it. Apart from the early demonstrations by some fans everything turned quite,  why? because Man U were still winning trophies and commercially they were streets ahead of any other English Club.  One thing I will say which I don't think is common knowledge H&G funded the mascherano deal using their own money. Also Man Utd received the full amount of Ronaldo's transfer fee from Real Madrid and I can tell you over £40m of that deal has been used to pay off some of the debt in the club which I can tell you is a lot more than Liverpool's

Guest said...

Oh no i definatly agree that calling them liars is over the top, just think that maybe it wasnt the most sesnsible thing to say...

Brian said...

my sources tell me no torres -  Reina, Johnson, Insua, Skrtel, Agger, Mascherano, Lucas, Kuyt, Benayoun, Riera, Ngog. Subs: Cavalieri, Aquilani, Gerrard, Kyrgiakos, Babel, Spearing, Darby. 
;)  
cmon the reds

Guest said...

The real cat out the hat is the link between Hicks and Corinthians

Hicks and his mates snoggy dog bought it in 2002. Sold it to MSI in 2007. They went from being champions in Serie A Brasil in 2002 and World club Cup Champions in 2002 to being relegated. I have written about this a number of times...anyone have any information on this link..........Thanks You

Mikemaniac said...

Well Jaimie I fully expect Rafa to be given a massive transfer kitty in January if the figures are so wonderful. The real figures published a few months ago direct from the accountants and not some mystery source which included the parent company Kop Holdings Ltd showed a figure close to £350 million in debt.
H&G have no excuses not to be backing Rafa with tens of millions for big players not free transfers and bargain basement journey men if these figures are to be believed.

punjabi said...

jamie i dont know what to make of you but your flowery language always makes me laugh ...you sound like a little mad proffessor trying to solve the mysteries of life... i dont care whether its true or false ...your as mad as a bag of weasels but an enjoyable read as you wind up so many people! you really should get out more its like an accountants convention in here... the bottom line is we are in the doo doo on AND off the pitch...but thats just my opinion! looking forward to your next pontification.

Juan said...

I completely agree Jamie things dont have to be as black and white as being pro or anti H&G.

But trust has to be earned and that is something Hicks and Gilette have failed to do in the past. And when it seems they are taking two steps forward they tend to take 4 steps back.

The announcement of the Standard Chartered deal was superb news for the club but that was quickly followed up by the release of an anti Benitez interview with comments attributed to Gilette . Timing was horrendous. Gilette claims what he said was never meant to hit the press but at this stage of the game he should have learned maybe not to say anything at all.

And being anti H&G doesnt necessarily mean being pro SOS. I do agree with their wish to  see the Americans relinquish their ownership of the club but ever since the video posted on youtube of an SOS party mocking the Munich air disaster I would be very slow to listen to anything they have to say.

My wish is to see the best for LFC, off the pitch and on it and I struggle to believe that while the Americans are in control the best is what we will get. That has proven to be the case up to now under the control and I dont envisage that changing in the future.

In relation to your source comment im not suggesting you are making it up but it is clear there are alot of different agendas out there at the moment when it comes to Liverpool Football Club. When a source cannot be identified I struggle to accept the validity of the information that is being provided, to me thats like newspaper a newspaper article claiming someone says something but not being able to provide direct quotes attributed to the person in question, its unsubstansiated.  Its not saying I dont trust you its saying I have no reason to believe or trust your source.

Juan said...

I completely agree Jamie things dont have to be as black and white as being pro or anti H&G.

But trust has to be earned and that is something Hicks and Gilette have failed to do in the past. And when it seems they are taking two steps forward they tend to take 4 steps back.

The announcement of the Standard Chartered deal was superb news for the club but that was quickly followed up by the release of an anti Benitez interview with comments attributed to Gilette . Timing was horrendous. Gilette claims what he said was never meant to hit the press but at this stage of the game he should have learned maybe not to say anything at all.

And being anti H&G doesnt necessarily mean being pro SOS. I do agree with their wish to  see the Americans relinquish their ownership of the club but ever since the video posted on youtube of an SOS party mocking the Munich air disaster I would be very slow to listen to anything they have to say.

My wish is to see the best for LFC, off the pitch and on it and I struggle to believe that while the Americans are in control the best is what we will get. That has proven to be the case up to now under the control and I dont envisage that changing in the future.

In relation to your source comment im not suggesting you are making it up but it is clear there are alot of different agendas out there at the moment when it comes to Liverpool Football Club. When a source cannot be identified I struggle to accept the validity of the information that is being provided, to me thats like newspaper a newspaper article claiming someone says something but not being able to provide direct quotes attributed to the person in question, its unsubstansiated.  Its not saying I dont trust you its saying I have no reason to believe or trust your source.

Juan said...

I completely agree Jamie things dont have to be as black and white as being pro or anti H&G.

But trust has to be earned and that is something Hicks and Gilette have failed to do in the past. And when it seems they are taking two steps forward they tend to take 4 steps back.

The announcement of the Standard Chartered deal was superb news for the club but that was quickly followed up by the release of an anti Benitez interview with comments attributed to Gilette . Timing was horrendous. Gilette claims what he said was never meant to hit the press but at this stage of the game he should have learned maybe not to say anything at all.

And being anti H&G doesnt necessarily mean being pro SOS. I do agree with their wish to  see the Americans relinquish their ownership of the club but ever since the video posted on youtube of an SOS party mocking the Munich air disaster I would be very slow to listen to anything they have to say.

My wish is to see the best for LFC, off the pitch and on it and I struggle to believe that while the Americans are in control the best is what we will get. That has proven to be the case up to now under the control and I dont envisage that changing in the future.

In relation to your source comment im not suggesting you are making it up but it is clear there are alot of different agendas out there at the moment when it comes to Liverpool Football Club. When a source cannot be identified I struggle to accept the validity of the information that is being provided, to me thats like newspaper a newspaper article claiming someone says something but not being able to provide direct quotes attributed to the person in question, its unsubstansiated.  Its not saying I dont trust you its saying I have no reason to believe or trust your source.

spyinthecamp said...

That debt will grow when you are knocked out of the CL.

Guest said...

for all we know you made this up we need proof of who you got this from

Guest said...

From someone associated with the club.

As for your request to know who it's come from, that is not going to happen mate. Just as it would be silly for Jaimie to name where his info came from, this is the same.

It is certainly not made up. Why not level that accusation at Jaimie as well?

PBJ said...

Jaimie. I didn't know we were in such a healthy state. Glad you put this right at last.

Guest said...

Sorry Jaimie but I don't think we are in as healthy position financially as you suggest.

Rafa has admitted that he didn't have the funds available to buy either Upson or Turner in the summer, and they were two of his targets straight from the horses mouth. He was publically promised investment in the summer irrelivant of player sales and that promise wasn't fulfilled, this is why was have Krygiakos instead of Turner as a back-up.

We've had some terrible luck with injuries and perhaps that has increased the pressure on both Rafa and the Owners but I firmly believe our situation wouldn't be as bad as it is if we had a couple more players at Rafa's disposal.  Hopefully Rafa will be given some much needed investment funds in January, if not I don't think we'll make the top 4.

sussed said...

do they pay well jaimie;or should i call you smithers.

sussed said...

am i being xenophobic jaimie.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I prefer Homer or Krusty actually ;)

I don't receive payment for anything on this site and never will.  I'm interested only in the truth.

sussed said...

but homer and crusty are not sycophants jaimie.

Guest said...

I am an accountant. Let me explain to you how things work. Kop Holdings is owing the debt not LFC. LFC is the asset of Kop Holdings. Kops Holdings is to bear the interest not LFC. However, profits made in LFC need to be channelled to Kops Holdings  as dividend in order to pay the interest. That's why not much money left for Rafa to buy top player. The worst scenario, if Kop Holdings can't affort to settle the debt, the banker, RBS,  will takeover LFC and become owner of LFC. I doubt RBS will sell the players in LFC as the CEO of RBS is a Liverpool fan.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Grow up!

You clearly have no idea what the word even means. Please provide 1 example of me being a 'sycophant'.

As I said, I am interested only in the truth, whether it's about the owners, the players, the manager or whatever.

You are the one with the problem here, not me. 

sussed said...

am i being xenophobic jaimie

sussed said...

a person who curries favour by flattery jaimie. whats wrong jaimie its just a bit of banter between two lfc fans,or does your agenda not allow for that.

sussed said...

truth hurts jaimie.does the silver feel good in your hand .

redhed said...

oh yeah ? take a good look

Mokolpop said...

Jamie,

I love reading your articles I love the reaction they get, your articles generally fly in the face of day to day sensationalism.

I like it, I dont agree with you all the time, but felt the need to comment on your work.

people dont like change or things that are different from the norm and your site is both these things. Thus you spark a lot of reaction.

If what you say is true in this article then happy days, but there are far to many different values put onto the clubs debts and finances so unless a source can be revealed im remain a sceptic

Keep up the good work

Steve Pike said...

Jamie you talk about only being in £200M of debt as if its a good thing!!  Whilst its obviously better than being £350M in debt, the real point is when G&H took control they promised to not saddle the club with any debt at all (I watched the press conference - they definatley said that)

And your source?  Unless it Hicks, Gillette or Purslow (which I doubt) then I can't see how you take that as an absolute fact. 

AND I love the way you declare....

"Forget the spin, forget the tabloid/SOS exaggeration and blatant anti-owner agenda: These are the facts, and in my view, they're very encouraging"

This is only encouraging if they are indeed the facts, but as you wont reveal your source, I will reserve my judgement. 

I am not going to apoligise for being part of the "blatant anti-owner agenda" because its human nature to not trust people who lie to you all the time, something that the owners have done consistantly.  They have undermined the manager, and most tellingly of all they undermine each other - and made the club a lauging stock

What you have to keep in mind is that some of the wealthiest people in the world have been looking to buy into LFC, and they havent yet - they have been put off by the owners constant bickering and the overall level of debt, which suggests the opposite of what you are saying (baring in mind they have access to the books, Im sure they have a better understanding of the true figure than you or your source).


Having said all that - I hope you're right

Jaimie Kanwar said...

When are people going to change the record?  Buying a club outright is the exception NOT the rule.  the way the Owners bought Liverpool is standard business practice.  Debt is the be expected such a transaction.

It is encouraging because the debt is decreasing rapidly, which makes the club more attractive to potential investors.  The name of the game here is accuracy and truth - it is not good for the club to have wildly exaggerated figures perpetuated by the likes of SOS to further their anti-owner agenda.

Christian Purslow has confirmed that some very wealthy people have ben looking at investing in the club, but this is not going to happen in 5 minutes flat!  It will take (as Purslow stated), 3-6 months.

There is no quick fix, and just because investment is not happening tomorrow doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

And you say the owners 'lie all the time'.  When?  List the lies?  And please don't start with cliched 'spade in the ground' nonsense.  That was not a lie, and there are very good business reasons why that statement of intent was not achieved in the stated timeframe.

And Klinnsman?  There was no lying there.  Given the situation at the time, it was not beyond the realm of possibility that Rafa might walk.  In such a situation, a prudent owner engages in damage control and planning for the future, does he not? 

As H+G stated, they spoke to Klinnsman as an insurance policy in case Rafa left.

That is perfectly reasonable.

Furthermore, it was not the Owners who released that information to the press.

And all this nonsese about undermining Rafa's position - the owners had every right to look into an insurance policy, or would you rather everything was left flailing and disorganised in the event of Rafa leaving?!

Everything I am arguing is based only on fairness and being rational.  I have no specific allegiance to anybody - I care only about the club and ensuring the right information is out there.

I have criticised the owners in the past, and previous articles prove that.  However, this is not the past, it is the present.  Things change; things improve.  Mistakes have been made, yes, but should they be a millstone around the club's neck forever more?!

And re my source - believe me, it is a person who is in the best position possible to know the internal finances of the club.

People don't have to believe me, and that is their choice, but why would I lie?  What do I have to gain?  Why would I risk being forever labelled a liar?

The answer is I wouldn't. The figures are accurate.

Snowraven said...

The club is still in debt,something the new lying owners promised wouldn't happen under their stewardship a fact you conveniently  forgot to mention in your article.

Jack said...

I find it suspicious that the majority of the articles from this site are either about  why Benitez is not good enough or why the americans are good for LFC. Look at other sites regarding LFC and the varied articles they have and compare it to the propaganda type writing that exists on this site.  

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I find it suspicious how an increasing number of ill-informed visitors to this site persist in lying about how this site treats  Benitez.

Stop being so blinkered.

Click the POSITIVE ARTICLES link in the label cloud and you will see LOTS of pro-Benitez articles. 

Propoganda?! Don't make me laugh.  You are just another person who has irrational dislike for the owners, and as a result, refuses to be fair and objective.

Your contention that the 'majority of articles from this site are about wy Benitez is not good enough' is absolutely 100% false.

If it's true, prove it.

Criticism is necessary.  Deal with it.

Jack said...

Look at how many articles you have written about the buying of players costing more than stated. These are veiled shots at Benitez. You make excuses for the debt but the americans clearly stated there would be NO debt- FACT. Now your making excuses for the Klinsman issue. You are so naieve its untrue. Even it were true that he was an insurance policy, that fact alone would be seen as traiterous in any other club or walk of life. You talk about the debt being some how ok. You mean so ok that potential investors will not touch us with a barge pole until the debt becomes manageable -FACT. You keeep saying like the journos that gross/net spend doesn't matter which I find unbelievable. You seem to be a mouth piece for the americans.

Guest said...

How much is G and H paying you to run this site?? Its blatantly obvious to me

Guest said...

<span><span><span>Jaimie Kanwar</span></span></span>
<span><span><span></span></span></span>
<span><span><span>How can you post us having a much healthier fiance outlook when we had a negative net spend this Summer and still could only mustard up £1.5m for a centre half</span></span></span>

Guest said...

One might summise that you'd tell fibs in order to generate interest in your website?

My question is Jaimie, why would anyone with the inside track on our finances give you the information for free when they could quite easily sell that information to ANY of the redtops from the same position of anonymity? What you're saying is that somebody within the Club has risked their job to provide you with currently confidential financial information, why?

Considering also that an article published on your site by Taf McDonald refutes the figures you've given here and gives different information, which one is accurate? If it is this article why did you allow McDonald to publish his "accurate" account of the Clubs financial position?


" Well, a reliable source close to the club has kindly clarified the situation..."

"And re my source - believe me, it is a person who is in the best position possible to know the internal finances of the club."


Which is it Jaimie? Is your source someone "close" to the Club or somebody within the Club? Someone who's in "the best position" to know what the internal finances are would be somebody who works within the Club, possibly an accountant or similar from KOP Holdings perhaps.

You're right though, we don't have to believe you and I for one do not. I really don't see the difference between your style as Editor and that of other Liverpool fansites like RAWK, TIS or Kop Talk.

A few weeks ago the Editor of Kop Talk "Big Dunc" printed an article saying Rafa had lost the dressing room and it was a matter of days before Dalglish replaced him, even went on to say his inside source (a player currently at the Club!) had said several big name players had fallen out with Rafa and it was just a matter of time before Rafa got the sack. He gave the same speech as you are now, refused to name his source, and  gave very similar assurances "my source is in the best position..." "these are the facts" etc. 

Has Rafa been sacked? NO. Is Kenny in charge? NO. Have the players revolted against Rafa? NO.

I'm not attacking the site, there are some reasoned debators here, the only problem is it seems to be the members rather than the writers!

I'll wait until April 2010 before I judge what our debt position is like, that way I can read it in the Report for 2009.

Peace.

Guest said...

One might summise that you'd tell fibs in order to generate interest in your website?

My question is Jaimie, why would anyone with the inside track on our finances give you the information for free when they could quite easily sell that information to ANY of the redtops from the same position of anonymity? What you're saying is that somebody within the Club has risked their job to provide you with currently confidential financial information, why?

Considering also that an article published on your site by Taf McDonald refutes the figures you've given here and gives different information, which one is accurate? If it is this article why did you allow McDonald to publish his "accurate" account of the Clubs financial position?


" Well, a reliable source close to the club has kindly clarified the situation..."

"And re my source - believe me, it is a person who is in the best position possible to know the internal finances of the club."


Which is it Jaimie? Is your source someone "close" to the Club or somebody within the Club? Someone who's in "the best position" to know what the internal finances are would be somebody who works within the Club, possibly an accountant or similar from KOP Holdings perhaps.

You're right though, we don't have to believe you and I for one do not. I really don't see the difference between your style as Editor and that of other Liverpool fansites like RAWK, TIS or Kop Talk.

A few weeks ago the Editor of Kop Talk "Big Dunc" printed an article saying Rafa had lost the dressing room and it was a matter of days before Dalglish replaced him, even went on to say his inside source (a player currently at the Club!) had said several big name players had fallen out with Rafa and it was just a matter of time before Rafa got the sack. He gave the same speech as you are now, refused to name his source, and  gave very similar assurances "my source is in the best position..." "these are the facts" etc. 

Has Rafa been sacked? NO. Is Kenny in charge? NO. Have the players revolted against Rafa? NO.

I'm not attacking the site, there are some reasoned debators here, the only problem is it seems to be the members rather than the writers!

I'll wait until April 2010 before I judge what our debt position is like, that way I can read it in the Report for 2009.

Peace.

Guest said...

One might summise that you'd tell fibs in order to generate interest in your website?

My question is Jaimie, why would anyone with the inside track on our finances give you the information for free when they could quite easily sell that information to ANY of the redtops from the same position of anonymity? What you're saying is that somebody within the Club has risked their job to provide you with currently confidential financial information, why?

Considering also that an article published on your site by Taf McDonald refutes the figures you've given here and gives different information, which one is accurate? If it is this article why did you allow McDonald to publish his "accurate" account of the Clubs financial position?


" Well, a reliable source close to the club has kindly clarified the situation..."

"And re my source - believe me, it is a person who is in the best position possible to know the internal finances of the club."


Which is it Jaimie? Is your source someone "close" to the Club or somebody within the Club? Someone who's in "the best position" to know what the internal finances are would be somebody who works within the Club, possibly an accountant or similar from KOP Holdings perhaps.

You're right though, we don't have to believe you and I for one do not. I really don't see the difference between your style as Editor and that of other Liverpool fansites like RAWK, TIS or Kop Talk.

A few weeks ago the Editor of Kop Talk "Big Dunc" printed an article saying Rafa had lost the dressing room and it was a matter of days before Dalglish replaced him, even went on to say his inside source (a player currently at the Club!) had said several big name players had fallen out with Rafa and it was just a matter of time before Rafa got the sack. He gave the same speech as you are now, refused to name his source, and  gave very similar assurances "my source is in the best position..." "these are the facts" etc. 

Has Rafa been sacked? NO. Is Kenny in charge? NO. Have the players revolted against Rafa? NO.

I'm not attacking the site, there are some reasoned debators here, the only problem is it seems to be the members rather than the writers!

I'll wait until April 2010 before I judge what our debt position is like, that way I can read it in the Report for 2009.

Peace.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

1. No one has risked the their job.  That would not be possible.  My source is concerned that deliberately inaccurate figures are being bandied about by the media.  This site has always attempted to be fair on the issue of the Owners, and does not have an anti/pro stance, which is why the information was passed to me.  Plus, this site reaches a significant number of Liverpool fans, some of whom buy into the anti-Owner agenda.

2. Re source close to/inside the club - You are being just being pedantic.  Both apply.

3. The article by Taf McDonald was written using the figures avaialable in the public domain *at that time*.  Thus, the information was correct when the article was written.  Liverpool's accounts for 2008 were the main basis for the article.  Alot has changed since those accounts were published.  Time doesn't just stand still.

Guest said...

Jaimie, he wrote the article less than a fortnight ago, I don't think things have changed that much in two weeks.

Nobody has risked their job?

I'm sorry Jaimie but if someone has provided you financial information from within LFC they have broken the ethical policies within that Company and ergo have risked their position.

I work in the compliance area for a very large mutli-national, the information you have been provided with is not publically accessible (currently) and you refer to the figures you provide as "facts".  If so, they have been provided without the knowledge of Liverpool FC and again, for this reason the person who has given you these details has broken rules pertaining to (a violation of) that company's Code of Ethics.


I had a thought earlier, would the person who's given you these details do so just do get their words published on a website? Does it mean the details they've provided are factual? They could be pulling your leg simply as an exercise to see if you'll bite and write an article on the strength of what they've told you - it's quite possible.

It makes me laugh when I see various fansites claim they have the inside track, they're no better than the very media they set out to vilify for being inaccurate.

Guest said...

Jaimie, he wrote the article less than a fortnight ago, I don't think things have changed that much in two weeks.

Nobody has risked their job?

I'm sorry Jaimie but if someone has provided you financial information from within LFC they have broken the ethical policies within that Company and ergo have risked their position.

I work in the compliance area for a very large mutli-national, the information you have been provided with is not publically accessible (currently) and you refer to the figures you provide as "facts".  If so, they have been provided without the knowledge of Liverpool FC and again, for this reason the person who has given you these details has broken rules pertaining to (a violation of) that company's Code of Ethics.


I had a thought earlier, would the person who's given you these details do so just do get their words published on a website? Does it mean the details they've provided are factual? They could be pulling your leg simply as an exercise to see if you'll bite and write an article on the strength of what they've told you - it's quite possible.

It makes me laugh when I see various fansites claim they have the inside track, they're no better than the very media they set out to vilify for being inaccurate.

Guest said...

Jaimie, he wrote the article less than a fortnight ago, I don't think things have changed that much in two weeks.

Nobody has risked their job?

I'm sorry Jaimie but if someone has provided you financial information from within LFC they have broken the ethical policies within that Company and ergo have risked their position.

I work in the compliance area for a very large mutli-national, the information you have been provided with is not publically accessible (currently) and you refer to the figures you provide as "facts".  If so, they have been provided without the knowledge of Liverpool FC and again, for this reason the person who has given you these details has broken rules pertaining to (a violation of) that company's Code of Ethics.


I had a thought earlier, would the person who's given you these details do so just do get their words published on a website? Does it mean the details they've provided are factual? They could be pulling your leg simply as an exercise to see if you'll bite and write an article on the strength of what they've told you - it's quite possible.

It makes me laugh when I see various fansites claim they have the inside track, they're no better than the very media they set out to vilify for being inaccurate.

Mcdonaldtaf said...

I worte the article two weeks ago but the data collected was from the year ending financial accounts for 31/07/08. I used the latest accounts from each club to compare like for like. This is the most up to date formal data available in the public arena.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Taf's article was written 2 weeks ago *based upon* figures that were published in the 2008 club accounts, which go up to 31 July 2008.  Alot of time has passed since then.  Furthermore, since that tiume, the media has been speculating about inaccurate debt/interest figures.

The reason your last point about me being duped is nonsense is that my source cares about the club and would not deliberately do anything to harm its reputation, and that includes advancing false figures.

On the contrary, my source cares about the club, and is concerned that false and deliberately misleading information is being used by the media and certain other Anti LFC/owner entities to whip fans into a frenzy.

I'm not going to debate the veracity of my source.  You've made your position clear on what you believe, and that's fine.  Let's just leave it at that.

As I've said all along, people will believe what they want to believe.

garry23b said...

All this debate is meaningless. The truth probably lies somewhere between the figures quoted by the anti LFC brigade, figures quoted by SOS and figures quoted by jaimie from his Scource at the club.
The bigger picture is irrespective of the level of commitment financially to the club, Mr Gillett and Mr Hicks have and this is factual, Lied to the Fan Base and continually dragged the good name of our club into disrepute (the klinsman affair etc etc etc) Massive mistakes have been made and a game of brinkmanship has been played with the UK management team including Rafa.
Whilst I fully support our Manager he has made massive costly mistakes in the transfer market, has on occasion emplyed baffling and negative tactics and has played a game in public with the owners and ex CEO Mr Parry together with his Bizarre attack last season on other Prem Managers. 
The fans havent got it right neither particularly with the SOS support group airing all our dirty linen in public Mr Shankly would be turning in his grave. This is only my opinion but they should never have been allowed to use his name.
Maybe just Maybe its time to say Thanks Tom and George you have taken us as far as possible sell up get your money back take a small profit for your trouble (because they will) and lets move forward with owners who are good business men, are prepared to invest a bit and probably most importantly Love the Club like we do, unassuming and in the background. Maybe just Maybe its time to say goodbye to Rafa and say thanks for all the brilliant european nights and finals go now whilst you retain the legend status you richly deserve and whilst your dignity is intact. Lets get someone in who can change things around a bit and move forward to challenge for that elusive premier league title. Lets not go backwards a la Kenny Dalglish, lets move forward not with a loudmouth to play our fortunes out in the media (mourinho) but with someone like Riikard or Hiddink or Mancini. Someone who will keep the seat warm for Carra who must manage the club one day. Lets get back to the core values Shankly set in stone. and lets Keep what goes on in the club in the club like we always used to.
if anyone has read this far thanks I hope I havent bored you too much

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Bored?  Not at all.  Very interesting post :)

Guest said...

Did you not read the meeting minutes between SOS and Purslow where he openly admitted that the debt level was £245M? Did you not read the statement made by LFC's own accountants that the debt level put the clubs future at stake? Did you not see the document produced to bring in new investment that showed the debt level would actually increase over the next 5 years regardless of a new stadium?

Guest said...

Jaimie why did you edit my post?

I didn't break any of the rules within your comments section yet you deleted a specific segment of my comment in order to better suit your argument?

Please explain how this breaks your comments rules:

"<span>If so, they (financial figures) have been provided without the knowledge of Liverpool FC and again, for this reason the person who has given you these details has broken rules pertaining to (a violation of) that company's Code of Ethics."</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>I don't understand why you deleted this comment? So much for reasoned balanced debate, it appears you delete anything you (personally) don't like. What I've said is completely accurate and trust me, in this instance I know exactly what I'm talking about, the information provided is private under information security laws.</span>
<span></span>
<span>I'd be very careful with these articles, you're passing these details off as facts and if so you could be reported for breaching the same information security laws that pertain to your "source", fortunately for you it's likely these details are incorrect however given your certainty I'll be passing this article to a friend for a look.</span>

Guest said...

Jaimie why did you edit my post?

I didn't break any of the rules within your comments section yet you deleted a specific segment of my comment in order to better suit your argument?

Please explain how this breaks your comments rules:

"<span>If so, they (financial figures) have been provided without the knowledge of Liverpool FC and again, for this reason the person who has given you these details has broken rules pertaining to (a violation of) that company's Code of Ethics."</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>I don't understand why you deleted this comment? So much for reasoned balanced debate, it appears you delete anything you (personally) don't like. What I've said is completely accurate and trust me, in this instance I know exactly what I'm talking about, the information provided is private under information security laws.</span>
<span></span>
<span>I'd be very careful with these articles, you're passing these details off as facts and if so you could be reported for breaching the same information security laws that pertain to your "source", fortunately for you it's likely these details are incorrect however given your certainty I'll be passing this article to a friend for a look.</span>

Guest said...

Jaimie why did you edit my post?

I didn't break any of the rules within your comments section yet you deleted a specific segment of my comment in order to better suit your argument?

Please explain how this breaks your comments rules:

"<span>If so, they (financial figures) have been provided without the knowledge of Liverpool FC and again, for this reason the person who has given you these details has broken rules pertaining to (a violation of) that company's Code of Ethics."</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>I don't understand why you deleted this comment? So much for reasoned balanced debate, it appears you delete anything you (personally) don't like. What I've said is completely accurate and trust me, in this instance I know exactly what I'm talking about, the information provided is private under information security laws.</span>
<span></span>
<span>I'd be very careful with these articles, you're passing these details off as facts and if so you could be reported for breaching the same information security laws that pertain to your "source", fortunately for you it's likely these details are incorrect however given your certainty I'll be passing this article to a friend for a look.</span>

Guest said...

Say what you want but i don't believe you anymore...you say 'real' but what's to say your source even told you the truth? if you didn't make these things up from random sources found on the net (that may or may not be accurate) that you averaged out.  Just because you say it doesn't mean it's true.
I take into account things you say and things from other sources, be them web based, TV based, magazine/newspaper based or just word of mouth - and i make my own decisions about Liverpool's REAL problems

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Good - that's what you should be doing.

Guest said...

AGREED

Guest said...

Dont agree we will make it cause we are gonna get third place

jay said...

you have always got to be optimistic i think end of the season we will get third place come on you reds we need a descent striker that playes like torres. ;)

Guest said...

this is laughable, liverpool are in 750 million debt FACT. a guy who works at the club told me so. so there you disgusting scouse knackers

Phil Eel said...

The club is in debt because Parry and Moores sold to the highest bidder - they forced us into debt to pay off shareholders. Gillett and hicks made the right decision not to proceed with the sub standard design we originally had for the stadium and we have spent more than ever on players. They didn't put debt on the club originally (they put it on Kop Holdings) and the credit crunch intervened at the wrong time although hopefully if we build the stadium soon, the depressed cost of steel / construction will mean we dleiver it much cheaper than the last estimate of £400m or thereabouts. There is no doubt about it, with Purslow at the helm the commercial side of the club has imporved significantly. They may not be perfect (which to SOS means Abramovich style benefactors) but the owners are business savvy and off pitch, we've never been in better hands.

Guest said...

Duncan ........ is that you "Jaimie" ?

Phil Eel said...

The original stadium was a 55,000 seater of sub standard design not capable of expansion. Parry approached a housing developer to develop the swite and the guy I know at the developer was gobsmacked Parry and Ms Titterington (American Director of Regeneration at LFC) didn't get that you require a specialist contractor to build it. Let me tell you honestly and truthfully - they made the 'spade in the ground' comment in good faith but when they looked in detail at the design, made absolutely the correct call in re-designing it.

Guest said...

that's it just edit posts to suit yourself...

sir bill said...

The only source he knows at LFC is are the 2 bottles in the canteen!

m kop said...

I dont know about the club's debt, but I did expect the club to spend a litle more on signings than they earned by selling players. I belive that most of the fans were expecting signing of Dvaid Silva if not Villa, but looking back I would be happy if Liverpool bought Negredo, and left Voronin in Bundesliga.
He wanted to come, and as I have seen him in action I belive he would be a good addition to the team. Unfortunatly, I have also seen Voronin in action to many times... But David Silva signing most of the fans were hoping to see!

fed up said...

if we are in such a great financial position,why do our grubby little owners make us sell players before we can buy players. Jamie you are either a liar or stupid {or both}. Is Kanwar an alias. could it be Hicks or Gilette. there is somthing verry strange about your articles. Who are you and what are you up to.

Chris said...

No Jaimie, the difference between the SOS and you is that you libelled them, and they haven't.

You claim to have a source within the club, well publish and be damned.  Good luck to you.

Unlike you, I'll never claim that your source material does not exist.  I do not, however, believe that your source is accurate.  My reason for this is that it would be unhelpful for anyone directly attached to the financial management of the club to have the actual state of finances at LFC to be known.

The actual debt is around the £250 Million mark.  Or about £200 million more than our lying owners told us it would be.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

No, Chris - you're wrong.  The actual debt level is around the 200m mark, and I know this for a fact.

And I libelled SOS? So sue me then.  You'd be laughed out of court.

I don't care whether people question whether my source is accurate.  I know it's true, and that's good enough for me.  People will believe what they want to believe, and there are thousands of people who will believe me over the pitiful SOS Agenda.

Chris said...

SOS didn't need to sue you.  You changed your article when you realised quite how shaky the ground you were on was.  I know for a fact that the debt level is about £250 Million.

Still - what is 50 Mil between Liars eh? 

Pitiful SOS agenda?  Thousands of people believing you?  Careful with the Messiah complex there Jaimie!

As it happens Rafa is in the press today agreeing that the commercial side is running a hell of a lot better these days.  That is undeniable.  However it is also undeniable that the two owners have lied.  A lot.  250 Million times in fact.

Post a Comment