24 May 2010

Anyone who sensationalises Liverpool FC's debt level is - quite simply - Anti-LFC

I wouldn't normally waste my time with this, but I feel I have to defend myself today against certain members of the increasingly-tedious Pro-Benitez Cult (PBC). Their insidious agenda to deceive Liverpool fans over the state of the club's finances is not only wrong, it is Anti-LFC.

Due to the nature of my views, there are certain LFC 'fans' online that are hell-bent on trying to discredit me at all costs. They'll twist what I write; deliberately misquote, and just plain lie in their attempts to make it look I'm getting things wrong. You'll see this campaign on LFC message boards; on Twitter; and on certain LFC sites, where deceitful articles about me full of misinformation are posted. (I would dissect the two articles that appeared over the weekend, but anyone with intelligence can just check what's being claimed against what I *actually* wrote, and see how things are being twisted).

With my recent attempts to curb the ridiculous negativity surrounding the club's finances, the campaign to discredit me has moved into overdrive. Last week, I proved that the CLUB (LFCAGL) was not £472m in debt. This irked the PBC because they WANT that false, negative information out there because it furthers their anti-Owner agenda, and takes the focus away from Benitez.

Basically, the goal of the PBC is to exaggerate and amplify *anything* that makes the club look bad. If the club looks bad, H+G look bad. The PBC doesn't care about the facts; they won't give a second thought to sullying the name and reputation of the club. They care *only* about championing their deity - Rafa Benitez - and prioritising the INDIVIDUAL over the club. It should be the other way round.

The PBC will, however, do anything they can to cast doubt on the factual truth, including *continuing* to argue the following:

* The club is £472m in debt
* The club pays £40m interest a year
* The club made a loss of £50m last year
* It's the end of the world, and Liverpool FC is about to sink into the abyss.

It is all LIES. Try and see the obvious agenda!

1. The PBC despise H+G.
2. Anything that makes the club look bad, makes H=G look bad.
3. Strategy? Try and make club's situation look as hopeless as possible by any means necessary, including lying and exaggerating the truth.

If you have the ability to think for yourself then you will NOT believe the lies.

Once again: Here is PROOF that Liverpool FC is NOT 472m in debt:

Liverpool FC's debt: The lies, misinformation and exaggeration exposed

Here is PROOF that the club does not pay 110k interest a day:

LFC Interest: The media myth exposed

Both of these articles contain factual evidence taken directly from the accounts of Liverpool FC, and the two holding companies owned and operated by H+G. Think logically and objectively when you read these articles. If you have any friends/family in the financial industry, ask them to clarify it for you.

The bottom line is Liverpool's debts lie squarely on the shoulders of Hicks and Gillett. If and when RBS take over the club (highly unlikely - the club will be sold before this happens), it is the holding company (i.e Kop Football Ltd) that will be forced into administration, not LFCAGL (i.e. the club). In any event, the possibility of a big point deduction is extremely remote, as the Premier League will (probably) blame H+G, not the club.

I think it's safe to say that we all want H+G to leave the club. However, telling the truth about the real state of LFC's finances does NOT make you pro-H+G. That's what the PBS *wants* people to think.

Defending the club's financial situation make you PRO-LIVERPOOL FC.

Anyone who continues to peddle the inaccurate, sensationalised nonsense about the club's finances after reading the above articles is, quite frankly, ANTI-Liverpool FC.

Why? Twisting the facts and sensationalising debt levels reflects badly on LFC. Just look at the media approach to the club's finances recently! It's all doom, gloom and ceaseless negativity. The worst part of it is that Liverpool fans - both in the media and in online forums/fansites - have been endlessly fanning the flames of discontent. Blinded by their hatred for H+G, these fans are regularly lying and deceiving other fans about the state of the club's finances.

Only people who are anti-LFC would *deliberately* set out to create a negative situation for the club, no? Liverpool fans regularly slam the 'London media' as anti-LFC for the amazing number of negative, sensationlised stories disseminated about the club. Well, what's the difference in this situation?

THINK. Analyse. Question. Try not to fall into the trap of just accepting anything you read on LFC message boards.

DO NOT continue to believe the lies of the Pro-Benitez Cult.

Jaimie Kanwar



87 comments:

  1. £110,000 in interest payment EACH DAY is no joke and cannot be excused. yanks out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not pro-Benitez, and nor am I anti. If he were to be sacked/leave it is very likely that media focus would be on the yanks rather than rafa's "zonal marking", "rotation" and other tiresome stereotypes. The media will not have an agenda against the new manager and so focus will be elsewhere, hopefully on the yanks. That is why I would be quite happy with Rafa leaving...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you read these IRWTers slightly incorrectly.  I don't believe that they really hate the owners as much as they make out.  The owners are just a suitable distraction to take the heat off of Benitez who has somehow earned their unerring loyalty and dedication, over and beyond the club or anybody else that has come before him.

    If the Yanks weren't in charge, there'd be always somebody else to spew their vitriol at, whether that be "the media", opposition managers or even our own legends whether that be past ones who speak out in the press, or current ones like Gerrard (who somehow is less dispensible to these guys than Rafa!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  4. But people still look at the figure the yanks are looking for the club and when Hicks comes out and says £600--£800m.
    And surely you can see the yanks will be looking for a lot more than the market value for the club and this will hold up any possible deals .
    Its easy to see why there's a anti G+H campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  5. <span>I think you read these IRWTers slightly incorrectly.  I don't think that they are "Anti-LFC", it's just that Rafa comes first for them now.  I also honestly don't believe that they really hate the owners as much as we'd be led to believe.  The owners are just a suitable distraction to take the heat off of the man who has somehow earned their unerring loyalty and dedication, over and beyond the club or anybody else that has come before him. 
     
    If the Yanks weren't in charge, there'd be always somebody else to spew their vitriol at, whether that be "the media", the new/previous ownership situation, conspiring opposition managers or even our own legends; whether that be past ones who speak out in the press, or current ones like Gerrard (who somehow is less dispensible to these guys than Rafa!!!)</span>

    ReplyDelete
  6. EXCLUSIVE : Jamie Kanwar writes sensationalised articles backing the Americans just to get hits on his site

    EXCLUSIVE : Jamie Kanwar is not a Liverpool fan and is actually just trying to cause infighting between Liverpool fans

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why is the figure that the club is being sold for relevant?  When the club is sold, the club (i.e. LFCAGL's) debts will be paid off.  So will the debts on the holding companies.  That's the whole point.  That is *exactly* what H=G did when they bought LFC.  They have be slightly overvaluing the club, but it will get sold.  The figure that is relevant is the *actual* level fo debt ON the club at this moment, which is 226m.  As I noted in my first article about the debt level, there is another 30m on the books due in over a year from now, but the debt level today is 226m.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is precisely the kind of brainwashed, blinkered crap that I'm talking about.  The club is NOT liable for 110k interest a day.  Are you incapable fo comprehending simple facts?  The club interest burden to H+G is 9.3m for the financial year 2008-9.  What the media has done is take the interest payments for the two holding companies (40m)  and tried to convince everyone that *that* payment is borne by the club (LFCAGL). 

    As I proved last week with evidence from the accounts, no money from LFC goes toward paying the interest of the two holding companies.  This is fact.  Whether you choose to accept it or now; whether you you like me or not; it is fact.

    If you keep spreading that false rumour, you are Anti-LFC.  It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is precisely the kind of brainwashed, blinkered twisting of the facts that I'm talking about.  The club is NOT liable for 110k interest a day.  Tell me - where did you get that figure from?  The media, perhaps?  An LFC forum?

    Are you incapable fo comprehending simple facts?  The club interest burden to H+G is 9.3m for the financial year 2008-9.  What the media has done is take the interest payments for the two holding companies (40m)  and tried to convince everyone that *that* payment is borne by the club (LFCAGL).   
     
    As I proved last week with evidence from the accounts, no money from LFC goes toward paying the interest of the two holding companies.  This is fact.  Whether you choose to accept it or now; whether you you like me or not; it is fact.  
     
    If you keep spreading that false rumour, you are Anti-LFC.  It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  10. <span><span>I think you read these IRWTers slightly incorrectly.  I don't think that they are "Anti-LFC", it's just that Rafa comes first for them now as for whatever reason they truly believe he is the only man capable of doing a job for the club.  I also honestly don't believe that they really hate the owners as much as we'd be led to believe.  The owners are just a suitable distraction to take the heat off of the man who has somehow earned their unerring loyalty and dedication, over and beyond the club or anybody else that has come before him.   
       
    If the Yanks weren't in charge, there'd be always somebody else to spew their vitriol at; e.g. "the media", the new/previous ownership situation, conspiring opposition managers or even our own legends, whether that be past ones who speak out in the press, or current ones like Gerrard (who somehow is more dispensible to these guys than Rafa!!)</span>


    <span></span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Jay,

    I disagree - there is a section of hardcore IRWTers who are spreading false information about the club's finances.  They are complicit in making the club look bad, and creating the doomsday scenario currently doing the rounds.  They do this to further the Anti-H+G agenda, and to deflect attention away from RB.  They don't care that the club looks bad.  Someone who deliberately spreads false info even though they know it makes the club look bad = Anti-LFC.  They obviously don't think they are, but objectively, the end result is the same. It's no different to some hack in the Daily Mail writing a false article about Torres apparently leaving for X, Y or Z.

    There, of course, moderate IRWTers who are capable of reason.  There's nothing wrong with that; I'm focusing on the hardcore extremists.

    As a result of their campaign, you get people like 'Me' above popping up with stuff like 'but the club is paying 110k a day in interest'.  it's just wrong!  Fans hear that sort of thing and they want to blame someone.  And who do they blame?  The Owners, which is the overall goal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is always a "cult" a "brigade" or somthing else with you to completly dismiss anyone who does not agree with you.  Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to belittle anyone that questions your motives or ideas?   Mabye if you engaged in some intelligent debate instead if resorting to childish name calling your ideas and theories may get more respect

    ReplyDelete
  13. Don't see how its not relevant as it is surely holding up the sale of the club , imo the market value of the club is about £350m and for the yanks to walk away without masking a loss imo were looking at £420m and realistically i d say there looking for £450-£500m.
    And until this figure get realistic imo its relevant to the sale of the club and the future of the club.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  14. RC - who says the market value of the club is 350m?  You?  Some LFC site?  The club itself?  or did you pull that figure out of the air?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've heard though that H+G plan to sell the parent companies along with the Club. If this was true then surely the new owners would take on All the debts?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Egg,

    I think that Jaime IS engaged in intelligent debate, whilst I think that the whole'Anti LFC' thing is a bit strong his financial assesment is spot on.
    Your comments actually reflect the views of a number of posters on here, not Jaime.
    I dont agree with all his says but with regards to the finances its right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So - where did you hear that?  Please reveal your source.  Probably an LFC forum I imagine.

    That is false.  If they sell the club for, say 500m, there's enough money there to pay off all the debts: the club AND the holding companies.

    If there is not enough money to pay everything off, H+G cannot then take money out of the club to pay their debts.  They will be chased by creditors, NOT the club.

    LFC Owes only 100.8m to H+G.

    If no sale can be reached, and H+G cannot pay the debts of the holding companies, the banks will then sell the club to cover the debts. Clearly, it would be in the bank's best interests to get the most money possible, which makes it no different to the situation we're in now, i.e. H+G trying to sell the club.

    Furthermore, if that happened (and it won't), the bank would not destroy LFC, or put it in a negative financial position.  Why would it?  how would that further it's aim of finding a buyer?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hallelujah!  The first time I have ever agree with you Mr Kanwar!!  The amount of dross written about Liverpool's finances is a joke.  We are in far less debt than the Mancs or Arsenal and if Roman ever left Chelsea, they would go under within two years.  The problem we do have is the owners don't want to spend any money.  Those who think Rafa is to blame, think again.  He made a mistake with AA but if he had been given £30m on top of what he received from the XA transfer, he would have bought differently I'm sure.  G&H will not get rid of Rafa - they are business men.  Why pay circa £10m to a manager in compensaton before selling the club??  The new owners might bring in a new manager but not the current owners.  We need new owners to have some spending power and give Rafa the tools.  We have some very good players and some very average ones.  The 2008/09 season shows us that we are not a million miles away from being very good.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Precisely.  It's nowhere near as bad as everyone is making out.  If you beleve everything you read, the apocalypse is nigh at Anfield.  As you say, we are not a million miles away from being very good on the pitch.  I personally feel we need a new manager, but that notwithstanding, we have lots of good players who - when motivated and inspired - can do a lot of damage (Lucas and Kuyt aside, of course ;)

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Q/A person on the other article12:11 pm, May 24, 2010

    Jamie its true what you say that other ppl are sensationalising on the Liverpool fc debts and on what your writing but the thing is your  not doing any better than them. What your doing is an anti Rafa cult!!

     If you take a look at what you have been writing since last december (I think) it's all unti Rafa and whatever you think about him thats just not the Liverpool fans way.

    I hope my wife doesnt read this but being a Liverpool fc fan is like a marriage no matter how bad the times are we have to stick together and be behind he team. Includig the coach. In good and bad thats what we promise remember.

    No matter how much ppl slate the Americans H + G. Moores made it clear that they were here for a long term plan not a short term like Roman Abramovich. and even if I still think it was a mistake from them to come out bullish as they did and promise loads of things. They were unlucky to get the global recesion exactly on there take over.

    Said that Jamie you really have to be blind to facts if you still keep say ing that Rafa was given the Funding to mount a serious title chalenge. Did you here Rafa's latest comments on his budget. It was very clear 220mil spent of which 160 recouped for a net of 10mil a year!!

    The question remains would any one be happy if the new owners once they buy the club would  give the Manager (Who ever that may be) 10mil + player sales money????

    Best Regards

    ReplyDelete
  21. What ive been told by a few people , not saying its gospel but something i find about right , and going by the debt with RBS and the money the yanks have put into the club , i think myself they need to clear £400m+ to break even.

    Whats your market value of the club  and a price they would in your opinion need to break even and third a figure they would want to walk away today .. may have asked befotre ?

    Have been told by a source that their was a offer of £420m on the table a while back before Broughton at the club that was turned straight down.

    ReplyDelete
  22. nails - let's be honest, if you were the American's would you invest any money into the club now??  

    Your employee (Rafa) has criticized and undermined you publicly on a regular basis, so you clearly don't like each other anymore, but you are stuck with him as the fans have clearly joined his side.  You're not enjoying the experience at all but still view the club as a great investment that will make you millions if you just wait long enough, so have decided that you'll move on as soon as a suitable bid arrives. What incentive is there to give more money to a guy that totally disrespects you when you won't be reaping any benefit from it??

    It's not like giving Rafa an extra £30m would see them being viewed in a different light and embraced by the club, so to them that would just be throwing money away needlessly.

    Bottom line, we need Rafa to walk on asap

    ReplyDelete
  23. if its not that bad!
    wheres the investment in the club
    wheres the new ground .
    why the banks deep concerns .
    why the appmnt of MB to sell.
    it may not be that bad yet that dosent make us out to be in a good position.
    money wasted over and over millions outlayed on convaluted so called ground work on the new stadia.

    if this is how we measuring our position then its a sorry state.

    ReplyDelete
  24. When did Hicks come out and talk about his asking price? I think he didn't. If he did, please let me know where to read an actual quote not some made up stuff. As far as I know Mr. Broughton has recently stated in an interview for LFCTV that there is no definite asking price for the club. Until there is further evidence we have to go with that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jaimie

    I don't think you live in Liverpool so its unlikely you'll have seen the front page of the weekend Liverpool Echo?

    Largest Banner Font
    FOR GOD'S SAKE GET OUT NOW
    with picture of G&H underneath

    Not a piece authored by Dominic King but a front page editorial and "voice of the Echo"

    However they use some of the numbers that you say are guilty of "sensationalising" the debt of LFC.  By your logic, this would make the Liverpool Echo both "anti-LFC" and part of the "Pro-Benitez-Cult"

    So what's your opinion on a front page Echo editorial like that?  Good or bad? 

    Full story here
    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/05/22/voice-of-the-echo-liverpool-fc-owners-george-gillett-and-tom-hicks-must-leave-now-100252-26497332/

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree that some of the stories are sensationalised, but that is the way of the world.  When people talk about the debt being 'on the club' and the club being 'responsible' for the interest payments, this is technically not correct.  However, the only assets of the group of companies is the football club, therefore the only revenue that is being generated by the group of companies is by the football club.  So whatever arrangements are made in terms of where the debt sits and how profits are transferred betweeen the companies in the group, the interest has to be paid and the only revenue is earned by the football club, so in effect the football club is paying the full amount of the interest payments.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The_Positive_One1:01 pm, May 24, 2010

    Having read alot of the stuff your put on here I'm a little curious...
    You only seem to answer the questions put to you that have to do with the "facts" that you put on here... And while your facts are correct (I assume), your facts seem to be against Rafa, and Pro H&G so... Which is it????

    It's plainly clear that you want Rafa out, and that's fine... But why try to us H&G to discredit Rafa??? Do you want them here????

    Do you want a total clearout of everyone from Rafa up? or just Rafa out?

    Do you honestly believe that another manager can do better under H&G?

    You'll probably lumb me in with the PBC as you call us and ignore my questions, but I'd really like to know...

    Thanks

    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks for your comments, Ged.

    LFC may be the only asset, but it is not correct to say that the football club is paying the 'full amount of interest'.  I can see why people would think that but in practice, it's just not the case, and the accounts prove this.

    * LFCAGL: owes 9.3m interest to KFL (for the 100m loan)

    * FFL: owes 8.3m to KFHL

    * KFHL: owes 8.1m to KFCL

    The *only* H+G related interest for which LFC is liable is the 9.3m. 

    The group interest payment is 40m - if LFCAGL was paying all of that like you say, do you concede that there would be evidence for this in the accounts?

    *There is no evidence of any such payments!*

    That the key here.

    It's all well and good for people to say 'LFC is paying all the interest, but in practice, it's just not true.

    Furthermore, previous accounts also have no evidence of this apparent interest payment.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bored_of_Kanwar!1:04 pm, May 24, 2010

    I don't think we are in as bad a situation as the press and fan forums have made us out to be. In all fairness to Jamie (who I have knocked in the past) he has done all the leg work on the current state of the clubs finances that the media is happy to blindly ingone and from snippets I've heard over the weekend It would appear that Stevie and Torres will not be leaving which means the spine of the team will still be there next season.

    It appears that Mascherano has shown where his priorities are, although I don't believe for a second he would be sold to pay Rafa's compensation as mooted by the Daily Star!!!

    I think everyone needs to accept a few things though. It doesn't look like Rafa is leaving this summer and it doesn't appear the club will be sold as quickly as we would hope.

    If Rafa is staying then he needs to be supported for the good of the club as constantly sniping the manager is not the preparation the team needs for the coming season.

    If the club is not sold before the start of the season then we also need to accept that funds for new players is going to be tight and we will probably see more of the acquisitions like Jovanovic. Joe Cole would be a decent acquisition but we are not in the CL next season and he is not getting any younger.

    As Carragher said big players have come and gone yet the club continues. Its not the apocalyptic end that a lot of people would have us believe but neither is it a garden of roses. I think the sooner the season starts the better it will be for all the nay sayers instead of dwelling on a season we all need to forget.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Please don't make assumptions.  Of course I've see the Echo's story.  It's their right to post what they like.  However, that story is yet *another* example of how those that are anit-owner are sullying the name of the club to further that agenda.

    The Echo also misrepresents the state of LFC's finances.  In the article, it is also stated that 40m of interest is leaving Anfield each year.  That is a blatant lie, as I have proved.  I understand *why* people who want H+G out twist the truth to make things seem worse, but it's just not the way it should be done.

    ReplyDelete
  31. no Jamie. I got that figure from my friend's dad who has worked with LFC. another figure i picked up is that rafa's net spend over the last 4 transfer windows is -£18.6m.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jamie Kanwar paid by Hicks & Gillett.

    It's an anti Liverpool thing... just ask Jamie.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Just read the Echo article - it makes it sound like LFC is in the midst of the apocalypse.  The article is overwrought, melodramatic, and worst of all, inaccurate when it comes to the financials.

    Whether Liverpool fans like it or not, Football is a business.  Liverpool FC is a business. Hicks and Gillett are businessmen, and they have *acted* like businessmen when dealing with the financial aspects of the club.

    This conflicts with the expectations of the fans, who see LFC in a completely different manner.  However, demonising the Owners and lying about figures to further an agenda is just wrong, and it's not the 'Liverpool Way' if you ask me.

    I want to Owners out too.  Get them out, but do it fairly.  DO it using *correct* facts, not spin and propaganda.  Neither side has condicted itself in a creditable manner so far, and that's regrettable.

    Ultimately, toe doomsday scenarios being painted by LFC fans and the Echo is massively counter-productive.  Just look at the title of another article on the Echo's website: 'Liverpool in Crisis'.

    Go, the club is NOT IN CRISIS.  Having *manageable debt* does not mean the club is in crisis.  The club itself has stated publicly that the debt is manageable (Purslow), but the Echo and the fans just will not have it.  They *want* the debt to be unmanageable; they want the administrators to be called in; if that happened, they would have the ultimate weapon to use against H+G...but the club would be burning at the same time.

    But who cares though, right?  As long as we get H+G

    ReplyDelete
  34. So do you personally think its a good thing that the Echo has come out so strongly against G&H or not?

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Echo article makes it sound like LFC is in the midst of the apocalypse.  The article is overwrought, melodramatic, and worst of all, inaccurate when it comes to the financials.  
     
    Whether Liverpool fans like it or not, Football is a business.  Liverpool FC is a business. Hicks and Gillett are businessmen, and they have *acted* like businessmen when dealing with the financial aspects of the club.  
     
    This conflicts with the expectations of the fans, who see LFC in a completely different manner.  However, demonising the Owners and lying about figures to further an agenda is just wrong, and it's not the 'Liverpool Way' if you ask me.  
     
    I want to Owners out too.  Get them out, but do it fairly.  DO it using *correct* facts, not spin and propaganda.  Neither side has condicted itself in a creditable manner so far, and that's regrettable.  
     
    Ultimately, toe doomsday scenarios being painted by LFC fans and the Echo is massively counter-productive.  Just look at the title of another article on the Echo's website: 'Liverpool in Crisis'.  
     
    Go, the club is NOT IN CRISIS.  Having *manageable debt* does not mean the club is in crisis.  The club itself has stated publicly that the debt is manageable (Purslow), but the Echo and the fans just will not have it.  They *want* the debt to be unmanageable; they want the administrators to be called in; if that happened, they would have the ultimate weapon to use against H+G...but the club would be burning at the same time.  
     
    But who cares though, right?  As long as we get H+G

    ReplyDelete
  36. We all know your position on Benitez and you seem fairly sure that the club's debts aren't that worrying and aren't as bad as reported.As a Liverpool supporter what is your stance on Hicks and Gillett seeing as the stadium hasn't been started(a shovel needs to be in the ground within the next 60 days) and the assurance that no debt will be placed upon the club.These initial statements are the main source of anger from Liverpool supporters who clearly heard all the right things from the two parasites but saw nothing delivered.Does this not worry or annoy you?I won't hold my breath for a reply as you're probably writing the next article that will inform us that the real problem with Liverpool FC is the actual fans who continually misinform and revell in negativity.      

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ultimately, I do not think it is a good thing that the Echo has come out against H+G in that manner.  Tell me, what exactly does it achieve other than creating more negative publicity for the club and further fanning the flames of fan discontent?  Please provide a list of reasons why the article is beneficial.

    It's an irresponsible article in my view; pretty much rabble-rousing, and doing what Benitez does well: manipulating the fans into a frenzied rage against the Owners.  The fans will be plunged further into depression; potential buyers of the club will be further put off; inaccurate figures continue to be perpetuated.

    In the meantime, the Echo almosy completely ignores the problems caused by Benitez over the last years.  The stock answer seems to be 'well, he's had to work under crap owners'. That is a massive cop-out.  The owners had no impact on us finishing 2nd last year, did they?  The same goes for this year.

    I completely understand the thinking behind the Echo article, but like SOS and militant fans pushing the anti-owner agenda, it is counter-productive, and will achieve nothing positive.

    Of course, if I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to hear how the article benefits the image of LFC.

    ReplyDelete
  38. PLEASEEEEEEEEEE just answar one thing, if you want Rafa to leave so much, which is fine, plenty of people do, who REALISTICLY is good enough to replace him and will want to manage a club in our situation?

    Many Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jaimie - I don't see the point of writing all these articles about sensationalising the debt ( Right or wrong) the fact is there is a lot of debt on the club wether it be 226m, 351m or 473m. The debt is there no matter the figure and it's stopping us going about our normal business, so how about you use your column space to write about how the debt is affecting the club rather than worrying about how much it actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks for your comments.

    1. I think Benitez, Hicks and Gillett need to go.  The civil war at the top has been damaging for the club, and I don't have confidence in any of them to take the club forward in the long term.

    2. How am I using H+G to discredit Benitez?  Focusing on the figures has nothing to with Benitez or H+G - it's about the club, and trying to make sure the club's finances are not misrepresented in the media to further an agenda.

    3. Yes, I honestly believe another manager can do better under H+G.

    I think it's incorrect to suggest that the manager's performance is related to the Owners.  if that was the case, how did we finish 2nd last year?  Surely if the owners were such a negative influence, that wouldn't have been possible?

    Contrary to spurious myth, Benitez has had *lots* of money to spend.  Did the owners tell him to spend 20m on Keane?  Did they twist his arm to buy perpetual crock Alberto Aquilani?  Did they force him to wasta combined 15m on Dossena and Riera?  Did they force him to spend 17m on a right back we didn't need? (who has contributed to our worst defensive performance in years).  Did they force him to continually sign players with injury histories (Aurelio/Degen/Aquilani, and to a lesser exten, Agger).

    The club's players were clearl demotivated last season, and that is down to Benitez.  it's not just the fans who are sick of his defensive philosophy, stranmge formations/subs etc - it's clearly affected the players too.

    We need a motivator to come in and inspire the current set of players.  They are capable of a hell of a lot more, and Benitez will never have them playing to the full potential.  We don't need to splash the cash big time, we just need a proven motivator to make a couple of decent signinings and get the best out of our current squad.

    Look at Spurs: Last season, they were flirting with relegation.  Add one motivational manager, and they're in the CL.

    The manager is all important, and Liverpool need a change sooner rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Your comment is the reason why I write these article.  You are *still confusing the issue.

    there is a lot of debt on the club wether it be 226m, 351m or 473m

    NO!  This is just wrong.  The ONLY debt ON the club is 226m (+30m due in over a year. That's it. Nothing else.  Of that figure, only 11m is owed to H+G.  The other debts are on the holding companies, and it cannot hurt LFC, even if H+G are declared bankrupt. 

    Chelsea are in the same situation - Abramovich lent money to Chelsea (the club) through holding companies.  Please read this article to see that what I'm saying is true:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/roman-abramovich-chelsea-loan-debt

    ReplyDelete
  42. Your friend's dad?!  Right.  And the net spend is -18m over the last 4 windows?  Completely inaccurate.  I don't believe it for a second.  I know it's wrong anyone because it's contradicted by the club's own accounts, which do NOT show that 110k a day is being paid on interest.

    ReplyDelete
  43. My point is that regardless of the actual transfer of funds between the group companies, any interest that is generated on the external loans to RBS or whoever else can only be met using the revenue of the football club, because there are no other cash generating assets in the group.  I don't know what the exact levels of interest and debt are on the group, but it is fair to judge the groups interest and debt as in effect being that facing the club, because bascially the club is the group.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi Jay,  
     
    I disagree - there is a section of hardcore IRWTers who are spreading false information about the club's finances.  They are complicit in making the club look bad, and creating the doomsday scenario currently doing the rounds.  They do this to further the Anti-H+G agenda, and to deflect attention away from RB.  They don't care that the club looks bad.  Someone who deliberately spreads false info even though they know it makes the club look bad = Anti-LFC.  They obviously don't think they are, but objectively, the end result is the same. It's no different to some hack in the Daily Mail writing a false article about Torres apparently leaving for X, Y or Z.  
     
    There, of course, moderate IRWTers who are capable of reason.  There's nothing wrong with that; I'm focusing on the hardcore extremists.  
     
    As a result of their campaign, you get people like 'Me' above popping up with stuff like 'but the club is paying 110k a day in interest'.  it's just wrong!  Fans hear that sort of thing and they want to blame someone.  And who do they blame?  The Owners, which is the overall goal.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'm not arguing that. Do you think 226m is too much debt? If so why don't you write about how it is and its affecting us instead of just about how much it is, because debating how much it is gets us nowhere. Where as if you described how the debt is hurting much more people would see the problem and hopefully in future act.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Your name (required)1:57 pm, May 24, 2010

    <span> </span>- "<span>Tell me, what exactly does it achieve other than creating more negative publicity for the club and further fanning the flames of fan discontent"</span>

    Same thing can be said about your anti Rafa stance, can it not?

    - "<span>At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques".</span>

    ReplyDelete
  47. At no point have I stated that the club is in a good position; it's just not as dire as is being made out.  We're nowhere near breaking point at the moment.  Just because the club is for sale doesn't mean it's the end of the world.  It's a positive thing.

    Just because you think money for the new staidum has been wasted doesn't make it so.  Planing a new stadium - and all the intricacies that go with it - is an expensive process, even if you don't understand how.

    And talk about money wasted?  Benitez has wasted the most money.  H+G have actually brought extra revenue to the club. Turnover for the last two years has been at record levels; our new sponsorship deal is a record deal; the commercial side of the club is already more effective than the Moores era.  That's business, and H+G are businessmen.

    Does that excuse the mistakes they've made? No.  They still have to go, but things are not as bad as people make out, and LFC is still an attractive proposition for potential buyers.

    H+G may have stipulated an unrealistic sale fee (we don't actually know), but that's what happens in business: you start high and negotiate from there.

    When the sale actually does take place, it will come like a bolt out of the blue, and everyone will be surprised.  The terms of the deal will also be favourable and will dispell all the lame myths being spread.  You'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Liverpool fans need to get over it. Focusing on sentences that were said more than three years ago?! 

    At the time, Gillett meant what he said about the stadium; things change though, or did you forget about bthe worldwide credit crunch?  This is a very legitimate reason for the stadium to put on hold, or would you prfer to the club to be financially irresponsible and cause the club to heamorrage money?

    The way people cling onto that 'spade in the ground' comment really makes me laugh.  Why are you not latching onto Benitez's comment about 'guaranteeing' 4th place?!  He said that.  He promised it.  it didn't happen.

    Could it be that at the time, Benitez genuinely believe LFC would finish 4th.  He had confidence in that happening.  Same with H+G with the stadium - it is not a lie; it is misplaced optimism.

    And no, it doesn't annoy me. I got over it.  I've seen the good things that have come from their reign (Buying Torres; Standard Chartered Deal; improved commercial prospects etc), and I'm willing to let it go.  There's no utility in flogging this particular dead horse.  It achieves nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I remember the article and almost sure there was a interview with Hicks were he said the club was worth £800m ....

    “I should make four times my money. Liverpool has been the most rewarding in so many ways and the most painful in so many ways. When you feel fans turn against you, it is very frustrating." Hicks ..

    ReplyDelete
  50. Two assumptions here:

    1. That new managers will have a problem working at LFC with the club's current situation.

    2. That there are few managers out there as 'good' as Benitez.

    I refute both assumptions.  LFC is a prestige job; one of the top 5-10 desireable football jobs on the planet.  Irrespective of the finances, there will be a queue of top managers lining up for the opportunity. Furthermore, it's not the Owners who are causing the negativity surrounding the club; it's the fans.

    There are plenty of managers in world football capable of coming in and doing a great job for LFC, or are you suggesting that no one could come in and take us higher than 7th?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thanks Jamie for the insight and I do agree there is much dross written in the press. Have you sent your article to the mainstream press?

    Also, If our finances are not that bad why did the chairman have to reassure the premier league of us fulfilling our commitments?

    In addition, as per the comments made by rafa...he claims to have spent 220mill @ 10 mill per year....if he is lying about club matters then this can be taken as gross misconduct and a sackable offence without the need to pay him compensation. So IF he is lying lets get rid? I am an employment laywer by the way!

    ReplyDelete
  52. JK is quite right on this point.  On a sale the potential new investors will only buy the trading company (ie LFAGL) and as such they will only inherit the much smaller debt, as JK has outlined a number of times, correctly taken from Audited Accounts submitted to Companies House.  This is real information, not from someone's Dad or mate.

    HOWEVER, the real problem continues to be, if we do not sell, H&G are putting the club in a very serious position in being able to afford the interest.  I disagree with JKs view on interest payments.  Although the debt does not belong to the trading company (ie most of it is in the Holding Company), the interest still needs to be paid.  Currently the Holding Company is BORROWING EVEN MORE (interest free) from H&G's Cayman company to pay that interest.  That is clearly unsustainable, and EVENTUALLY the club's profits will have to be used to pay the interest.  This is the real concern.  H&G must leave as soon as posisble to avoid funds being dirrected to pay the debts they borrowed to buy the club.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Gerrardasnails2:25 pm, May 24, 2010

    If I were the Americans I would invest yes.  I think they have been to cautious.  They are both minted (and the press reports to the contrary are just wrong), however, they have no idea how things work in football.  Over in the States, a lot of teams rely on one player.  Perfect example is LeBron James for the Cavaliers.  He got injured and the media announced that it was impossible for the team to get through the play-offs.  The press were right.  I think that H&G have had this idea as well.  They paid a lot for Nando and his goals the season before last almost won us the title.  G&H must have believed that they don't need to invest much more and we would push on.  Now we are not in the CL, selling the club will see a much smaller price.  If they invested £100m on players, lessen the debt to £200m and sold LFC in two years with us back in the CL, the price would be much higher and they would recoup their outlay.

    As for the people asking about the banks having concerns and the stadium not being built.  How many large projects like that have started in the last 2 years?  Who is getting large amounts of credit without any questions and need of proof of stability?  Not many I can tell you.

    G&H obviously want to sell and get out of Dodge as soon as possible.  This is a good thing for us fans and the club I believe.  The new owners are likely to be wealthy and are likely to start the stadium and start giving whoever is manager some funds.  Our rivals are not in this situation.  The Mancs are in debt and they don't have a Sugar Daddy, the stadium is built so there is not some future revenue bonus.  Arsenal ditto.  Spurs are run very well and they are batting above their average.  Chelsea and City are the ones that are healthiest and they are owned by people with silly amounts of money.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Jaimie
    Can you please explain the role of each of the holding companies and why that is structured that way? It might help understand the financial structure of the business.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thanks for your comments.  I think the fact that LFC got a 'going concern' warning from the auditors again is the reason why the Premier League needed 'reassuring'

    I parenthisize that word because it is a typical press slant.  There's no evidence Broughton met with premier League.  And even if he did, there's no evidence that the meeting was about 'reassuring' the PL.

    Good point about lying in public - LFC's own club accounts contradict him on his supposed figures.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Okay - why don't you provide a list of specific, measurable reasons why the 22gm debt is 'hurting' Liverpool.  And by the way, only 100m of that is owed to H+G.

    ReplyDelete
  57. dont you have any other sources do you rely on the guardian for all your articles.
    your site is supposed to provide critical realism well i see the critical but never the realism.
    Which manager who is at least as good as Benitez has had to work under the financial constraints he has whilst expected to finish at least 4th in the premier league and/or win it. Win FA cup and the champions league. Have a look at the net spend of the other top managers at say the top 6 clubs.
    I actually think it is time for Rafa to move on, brilliant european tactician that he is, he has failed to get to grips with the requirements to win the premier league. 
    Who is good enough who would come is a real debate and before anyone starts dont trot out the same old same old with Mourinho O,Neill etc. Nobody wants the arrogance of Jose and O neill has never won anything 

    ReplyDelete
  58. You know the answer to that, Hmmm.  Furthermore, I've covered that in previous articles.

    One thing I will say is this:  Just like with Chelsea, having holding companies actually *protects* the club from huge financial liabilities.

    What would people prefer: All of H+G's debts on LFC's books, or only the 100m that came in loans.

    If the debt of the holding companies was actually on the books of LFCAGL we would be in a dire situation.  That is not the case.

    The club is protected from H+G taking money from it to pay dents (if it would financially affect the club).  Furthermore, it is the very last thing they would do as it would affect the sale of the club.

    ReplyDelete
  59. You say you want the owners out.  So do I.

    Now the Echo do too

    The Liverpool Echo will have more power and influence than either of us or any fans group.   The echo is the 2nd best selling newspaper of all on Merseyside after the Daily Mirror.  It's the newspaper of the city.  Therefore them coming out with an editorial against the owners has to be a good thing - even if it is a bit melodramatic in places. 

    One thing I will say is that I think you consistently give G&H too much credit.  I think you underestimate just how greedy, selfish and ruthless they actually are.  If you "do it fairly" with them then there's only one outcome.  You will get screwed over. 

    ReplyDelete
  60. PS: You comments are not being deleted; they just drop onto a different page as new comments appear (only a certian number on each page etc).

    If you click your name, you'll get a list of your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Nice to see you bring Benitez back into it,what do you think of Hicks and Gillett seeing as the majority of Liverpool supporters despise the two and see them as a pair who bought the club with money they didn't have and saddled the club with the debt,hoping to make a lot of money and blatantly lie about providing a stadium and money for team development.I assume you know the fate Corinthians suffered under Hicks,perhaps they also "got over it".As for the credit crunch that excuse is insulting.   

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thanks for the reply Jamie. Rafa goes on say that he actually made LFC 60million! If the owners were looking to get him out then surely the manager lying in public is great ammo!? What are they waiting for?

    Accounts and balance sheets are easily manipulated (you cite the global credit crunch but that is a great example of balance sheet lies!)

    I do agree with you about the owners were not the problem when we finished 2nd just as rafa was not the problem. No one was calling for his head (ok maybe you!) when we were thrashing europe and uks finest teams.

    I also agree with you about finishing 7th. A total shambles and the manager must take great blame for this. There are mitigting factors of course and if it wasnt for other big teams losing a great number of games too maybe the pressure on rafa would be greater.

    I do think he should get one year to correct the seasons wrongs and must be backed in the transfer market. It is in the owners interest too as a successful LFC is a more valuable asset than now.

    I think the most pressing matter is keeping Gerrard and Torres. If we need to sell then it has to be Javier Mach as much as I would hate to see him go!

    We all have different opinions but as LFC fans we must respect each other. Therefore, even though I do not agree with some of your comments (sometimes you do sound like H+Gs pet!) I do thank you and respect your opinion!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Misconduct , your having a laugh ....

    As Jamie said earlier up to July 2009 the figure is around £14m but if you take the Alonso money into consideration as was after July 2009 the figure is about £10m but there still is 2 months left until July 2010 to get a actuate figure and it could be higher or imo less , so either way Rafa not a mile out with the £10m imo.

    Hope thats correct jamie ...

    ReplyDelete
  64. I think it's pretty obvious that it's hurting us. We spent money and didn't have huge losses before they came, yet in the last two years we've spent next to nothing and have 9m Losses according to you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Saying 'it's pretty obvious it's hurting us' is not going to cut it.  Explain how it's hurting us please, with specific examples.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'll have to disagree again, Ged.  The group is not the club.  That would only be the case if the group's debts were adversely affecting the club, but that's not happening.  I will illustrat this in about an hour.

    ReplyDelete
  67. i just have, no spending and huge losses.

    ReplyDelete
  68. i just have, no spending and huge losses.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I just can't believe your trying to say this debt is OK, how can any debt be OK?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Jordan Boynton3:43 pm, May 24, 2010

    Jaimie,


    Good work with what you've done on all your articles. I've scanned over them all and you are right in regards to the financial situation the club finds itself in.

    However, Rafa isn't a bad manager, his players have been this season and yes, he did buy the majority of them but I think when he has spent substantially the players have been successful. Mascherano, Torres, Alonso, Agger, Skrtel, Reina and Johnson are all good players.

    Now I'm not Pro-Rafa or Anti-Rafa, I have a life outside of Liverpool Football Club and realised long ago that life is too short to get frustrated over things like this. What will happen, will happen and unfortunately we as fans don't really have a say in it.

    A lot of fans are in denial and still believe football clubs aren't a business but in actual fact they are. How else would they run and make money to purchase/pay players? Marketing, advertisements, shirt sales, ticket prices and accessories all pay for our players wages and people seem to be unhappy with the ticket prices but not the crazy wages these guys are earning. Which apparently is the owners' fault.

    To conclude, I have a lot of time for people like yourself who put in a lot of effort to right the clear misinformed rubbish that most of todays papers are full of but I'm afraid you, as I'm sure you've noticed, are fighting a losing battle.

    When people decide what they know is right, there is no changing that. It is down to the intellectual ability of certain individuals. Most of these people who devote their entire lives to Liverpool FC aren't articulate enough to explain why they think what they think due to the lack of an extensive vocabulary.

    Anyway, kudos to you Mr. Kanwar.

    ReplyDelete
  71. ok - thanks about the comment. was wondering where they went.

    re holding companies. Went back to my account to double check. So...

    Holding companies -- they are used to limit the liabilities on certain debt and transfer monies tax free (interest payments do not pay tax, dividends do).

    However (big however), in the club's case, due to the securitisation of the loans against the club's assets, they have some rights over these assets.  Basically, the club itself shows the trading assets and the holding club shows the debt used to 'own' the club. And these two are interlinked.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Fair enough, I can recall reading that, too. Anyway, four times his money still isn't that much if he is talking about the money he has put into the club from his own pocket (when purchasing the club or later). Should he intend to make four times the money banks have granted him/his holdings for the purchase of the club, then we may be in deep shit.

    ReplyDelete
  73. the main reasons liverpool where poor last season is obvious . no settled defence because of injuries , having to play a 20 year old at left back nearly all season dur to aurelio injury . torres missing half the season , gerrard and carragher and skirtel under performing. yossi , dirk and rierra also not performing to last years standard . we over performed last year and should of strenthened , but due to lack of money we couldnt . benitez has also got to take some blame as he should of bought more wisely and done a better job at stoping the rot that set in . maybe trying to manage a small budget and all the in fighting affected his judgement . it might be a weight off the maneger and players shoulders , when the club is eventually sold and the direction its heading in is sorted

    ReplyDelete
  74. <span><span>

    no you haven’t said its good yet your efforts do somewhat put the current owners in a good light shall we say.
    this is the issue many probably dont like and who can blame them
    you colour the way they have let us down
    you atempt to brighten thier undoubted mistakes.
    avoiding the blatant bad debts theve laid on us and hindered our position is a faliure of gross proportion.
    You do seem qiuite happy to skip the paramount matters like the banks setting off alarm bells not to mention the recent super salesman move (quite desperate)
    You say ‘H+G have actually brought extra revenue to the club’ that is just riddiculas Im talking about the transfer cash needed to secure more palyers of the calibre of torress .
    We don’t want any more revenue from them when it costs an arm and 2 feckin legs !
    The figures are bad and whats worse is its been from happening virtually from their 1<sup>st</sup> year ,
    what LFC needs is what was promised, ok the stadium has hit a bad time (point lesss arguing on that just now) it’s the players that’s been a massive let down and its not been enough.
    One of our owners whose company linked to the the Texas Rangers & Dallas Stars is also in bankruptcy, is this how you measure success ?
    They ignore industry advisors, experts predicted they should cut losses in many areas they ignored it and made a worse situation.
    Dealing with these people is a slippery slope requireing 120%+ financing is not good business.
    We have no money for players so removing them and securing new ones is primary funereally essential.
    Please don’t insult more fans by saying H&G are businessmen yes its more a question of what type as they are not well respected just as their record which is heavily blotted with bad moves.
    One of these businessmen told his Texas Rangers supporters...'there'll be plenty of dollars dropping out of Liverpool Football Club'.
    No wonder the banks called a meeting!
    Im sure we all reacll the quip from a few years ago about only selling the family silver once. well it looks like Uri Geller has been touched up. leveraged loans,shady companies , financial manipulation , and now more wool pulling
    It just stinks , these people are no good for us
    The yanks must go as we need to build the team quick
    </span><span><span><span><span>F#@k</span></span></span><span></span></span><span> </span></span>
    <span><span><span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span>

    <span> </span>

    ReplyDelete
  75. <span>

    no you haven’t said its good yet your efforts do somewhat put the current owners in a good light shall we say.
    this is the issue many probably dont like and who can blame them
    you colour the way they have let us down
    you atempt to brighten thier undoubted mistakes.
    avoiding the blatant bad debts theve laid on us and hindered our position is a faliure of gross proportion.
    You do seem qiuite happy to skip the paramount matters like the banks setting off alarm bells not to mention the recent super salesman move (quite desperate)
    You say ‘H+G have actually brought extra revenue to the club’ that is just riddiculas Im talking about the transfer cash needed to secure more palyers of the calibre of torress .
    We don’t want any more revenue from them when it costs an arm and 2 feckin legs !
    The figures are bad and whats worse is its been from happening virtually from their 1<sup>st</sup> year ,
    what LFC needs is what was promised, ok the stadium has hit a bad time (point lesss arguing on that just now) it’s the players that’s been a massive let down and its not been enough.
    One of our owners whose company linked to the the Texas Rangers & Dallas Stars is also in bankruptcy, is this how you measure success ?
    They ignore industry advisors, experts predicted they should cut losses in many areas they ignored it and made a worse situation.
    Dealing with these people is a slippery slope requireing 120%+ financing is not good business.
    We have no money for players so removing them and securing new ones is primary funereally essential.
    Please don’t insult more fans by saying H&G are businessmen yes its more a question of what type as they are not well respected just as their record which is heavily blotted with bad moves.
    One of these businessmen told his Texas Rangers supporters...'there'll be plenty of dollars dropping out of Liverpool Football Club'.
    No wonder the banks called a meeting!
    <span><span><span><span>F#@k</span></span></span><span></span></span>

    <span> </span>
    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  76. Jaimie, Jaimie, Jaimie. I worry about you.

    Anti-Owners.

    Pro-Rafa.

    Mutually exclusive. How much longer must you try to shoehorn and divide us into two camps? Without question our owners have broken promises and prevented us from being competitive against our rivals. Even they have acknowledged that which is why they have put the club up for sale. I too believe that Rafa has made crucial mistakes and his man management in these circumstances have been poor. But I also note that he has had to work under one of the most tumultuous periods in Liverpool's history brought on by the owners.

    I've already told you why the very idea of comparing how much Rafa has cost the club as opposed to the owners is preposterous at its very core. Would that question even make sense at Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City or Tottenham? Teams where money is generated and GIVEN to the club rather that taken out of the club or added to a pile of debt.

    I previously speculated that your rabid stance had more to do with your ego than your love for the club. But your ego deleted that comment even though there was no personal attack. It wad just an attempt at insight at your motivation for creating such clearly divisive posts under the guise of critical realism.

    Your insistence in linking the Americans slightly less than apocalyptic attempts at running the club to Benitez's performance is tenuous at best. If you want to criticise Benitez fair enough. There's plenty to go on without trying to justify your criticism with a more positive look at the owners.

    It's a silly argument to suggest that the better you paint the owners to be the worse light you see Rafa in. Even by the best assessment (the owners' own assessment!!!), they have not enabled us to be financially competitive with the rest of the top six. That why they have put us up for sale and can't even afford to sack Benitez!

    Your arguments, no matter how many stats you use to back them up, are based on a misleading set of factors. You have to realise that even under your best assessments the owners have not financially equipped us for a struggle with the likes of Chelsea, Man City and Man U (although their time is coming too). Once you can truly acknowledge that then you can analyse whether Rafa has done the best as a manager that he could have. Cite the continual choice of Lucas and Kuyt. Cite his failure to improve a player like Babel. Cite his choice of signing Robbie Keane (it may not have been his first choice but it was his choice). Cite his failure to suitably replace Alonso. Cite his failure to bring though young talent. Cite his failure to motivate Gerrard. Cite his failure to sign a credible replacement for Torres. Cite his overly cautious approach to too many drawn games. Cite his ability to turn easy away wins at Sunderland and Bolton into tough grudge matches. Cite his creation of a fear culture at Liverpool prevents players from expressing themselves. Cite his sacking of a popular coach.

    But please don't behave as if you putting up divisive rants labelling people as brainwashed and deluded for exaggerating the already dismal performance of the Americans, somehow justifies your point about Rafa being not good enough to remain as Liverpool. Argue your point like a man instead of aligning it to other divisive issues as if by agreeing with one you automatically disagree with the other. Just a cheap convoluted way to win an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Hi Jordan - thanks for the kind words.  Totally agree with you re the the denial over the club being a business.  That's how H+G see it. They are cold, calculating businessmen with their eye firmly on the bottom line.  That's life, and that's how many businessmess operate.  Of course, that conflicts with the emotional attachment and love fans have for LFC, so there was always going to be some major friction there. And yes, you're right - I am fighting a losing battle, it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Jaimie, Jaimie, Jaimie. I worry about you.

    Anti-Owners.

    Pro-Rafa.

    Mutually exclusive. How much longer must you try to shoehorn and divide us into two camps? Without question our owners have broken promises and prevented us from being competitive against our rivals. Even they have acknowledged that which is why they have put the club up for sale. I too believe that Rafa has made crucial mistakes and his man management in these circumstances have been poor. But I also note that he has had to work under one of the most tumultuous periods in Liverpool's history brought on by the owners.

    I've already told you why the very idea of comparing how much Rafa has cost the club as opposed to the owners is preposterous at its very core. Would that question even make sense at Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City or Tottenham? Teams where money is generated and GIVEN to the club rather that taken out of the club or added to a pile of debt.

    I previously speculated that your rabid stance had more to do with your ego than your love for the club. But your ego deleted that comment even though there was no personal attack. It wad just an attempt at insight at your motivation for creating such clearly divisive posts under the guise of critical realism.

    Your insistence in linking the Americans slightly less than apocalyptic attempts at running the club to Benitez's performance is tenuous at best. If you want to criticise Benitez fair enough. There's plenty to go on without trying to justify your criticism with a more positive look at the owners.

    It's a silly argument to suggest that the better you paint the owners to be the worse light you see Rafa in. Even by the best assessment (the owners' own assessment!!!), they have not enabled us to be financially competitive with the rest of the top six. That why they have put us up for sale and can't even afford to sack Benitez!

    Your arguments, no matter how many stats you use to back them up, are based on a misleading set of factors. You have to realise that even under your best assessments the owners have not financially equipped us for a struggle with the likes of Chelsea, Man City and Man U (although their time is coming too). Once you can truly acknowledge that then you can analyse whether Rafa has done the best as a manager that he could have. Cite the continual choice of Lucas and Kuyt. Cite his failure to improve a player like Babel. Cite his choice of signing Robbie Keane (it may not have been his first choice but it was his choice). Cite his failure to suitably replace Alonso. Cite his failure to bring though young talent. Cite his failure to motivate Gerrard. Cite his failure to sign a credible replacement for Torres. Cite his overly cautious approach to too many drawn games. Cite his ability to turn easy away wins at Sunderland and Bolton into tough grudge matches. Cite his creation of a fear culture at Liverpool prevents players from expressing themselves. Cite his sacking of a popular coach.

    But please don't behave as if you putting up divisive rants labelling people as brainwashed and deluded for exaggerating the already dismal performance of the Americans, somehow justifies your point about Rafa being not good enough to remain as Liverpool. Argue your point like a man instead of aligning it to other divisive issues as if by agreeing with one you automatically disagree with the other. Just a cheap convoluted way to win an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The_Positive_One4:26 am, May 25, 2010

    Thank YOU for replying...

    I completely understand why you want Rafa gone, but your consistant use of facts tnly to your advantage is unfair... You constantly rail against untruths yet you use them your self when it suits your arguments...

    Keane... this transfer was pushed through by Parry... against Rafa's wishes...
    Aqualini took longer to heal than doctors said... (Rafa is not a doctor)
    Johnson has been a good buy, and had nothing to do with our defensive fraities as he was injured most of the season....
    Riera & Dossena have been crap...
    Spurs spent a lot of money the last few years...

    I do agree that something is wrong, and a lot of blame has to fall on Rafa tactics, subs, motivation etc but that is it...

    Our squad depth is linked directly to the fact that for the last 3 years we have had to sell in order to buy players... Squad depth or lack of is our problem... Having a subs bench of Babel, Ngog, El Zhar, Pacheco, Kelly is not exactly game changing is it?

    The bottom line is having to drum up his own funds by selling players and then not getting the money is killing us, and the team...

    Oh, and while we finished 2nd 2 years ago the team went backwards during the summer, and that is linked directly to H&G...

    ReplyDelete
  80. Jamie we know that Hicks & Gillett pay two PR agencies to undermine Benitez with negative press stories.

    Any truth to the rumour that you are funded by them?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Jaimie Kanwarhttp://js-kit.com/moderate/4:09 pm, May 25, 2010

    No.  Such a rumour is cretinous in the extreme.  Tell me: if I was funded by them, would I post the following articles:

    Shut up, Hicks.  You're making a mockery of everything LFC stands for
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2007/12/shut-up-hicks-youre-making-mockery-of.html

    Liverpool hit ny the Texas Hicks-Saw Massacre
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2008/01/anfield-hit-by-texas-hicks-saw-massacre.html

    Hicks raps Rafa in unprofessional public outburst:
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2007/11/tom-hicks-in-unprofessional-public.html

    Yes, as you can see, I'm always very complimentary about the owners.

    ReplyDelete
  82. <span><span>

    We have no money for players so removing them and securing new ones is primary funereally essential.
    Please don’t insult more fans by saying H&G are businessmen yes its more a question of what type as they are not well respected just as their record which is heavily blotted with bad moves.
    One of these businessmen told his Texas Rangers supporters...'there'll be plenty of dollars dropping out of Liverpool Football Club'.
    No wonder the banks called a meeting!
    Im sure we all reacll the quip from a few years ago about only selling the family silver once. well it looks like Uri Geller has been touched up. leveraged loans,shady companies , financial manipulation , and now more wool pulling
    It just stinks , these people are no good for us
    The yanks must go as we need to build the team quick
    </span><span><span><span><span>F#@k</span></span></span><span></span></span><span> </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  83. <span>

    we should not avoid the matter of these oweners
     they have let us down with thier undoubted mistakes.
    avoiding the blatant bad debts theve laid on us and hindered our position is a faliure of gross proportion.
    we seem quite happy to skip the paramount matters like the banks setting off alarm bells not to mention the recent super salesman move (quite desperate)
    You say ‘H+G have actually brought extra revenue to the club’ that is just riddiculas Im talking about the transfer cash needed to secure more players of the calibre of torress .
    We don’t want any more revenue from them when it costs an arm and 2 feckin legs !
    The figures are bad and whats worse is its been from happening virtually from their 1<sup>st</sup> year ,
    what LFC needs is what was promised, ok the stadium has hit a bad time (point lesss arguing on that just now) it’s the players that’s been a massive let down and its not been enough.
    One of our owners whose company linked to the the Texas Rangers & Dallas Stars is  in bankruptcy, is this how you measure success ?
    They ignore industry advisors, experts predicted they should cut losses in many areas they ignored it and made a worse situation.
    Dealing with these people is a slippery slope requireing 120%+ financing is not good business.
    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  84. Who's your Daddies Jamie?

    Hicks & Gillett?

    Who pays your bills?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Hey Jaimie, you will be pleased to hear that some of the press have now smelled the coffee and write "...whose parent company Kop Holdings have debts of £351million with interest payments of £40million a year...". Your work is finally bearing fruit.

    Source:http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/05/28/liverpool-fc-can-ride-the-current-storm-around-the-club-says-anfield-legend-kenny-dalglish-92534-26539034/

    ReplyDelete
  86. Thanks for the link, Anteater :) It's good to see someone else making an effort to provide an accurate statement of the facts.  It might seem like a small distinction to make but the impact of the disinction is huge.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Liverpool FC pay the interest. Your 'proof' is no such thing10:25 pm, June 06, 2010

    It’s true that Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd is a subsidiary of Kop Football Ltd and that Kop Football Ltd is a subsidiary of Kop Football Holdings Ltd. These are the only things this article gets right.

    The premise in the 'proof' article is that because debt payment doesn’t show explicitly on the accounts of LFC&AG Ltd that it isn’t paid by ‘the club’. That is pure ignorance at best and deliberate lies at worst.

    The reality is that the financial situation of Liverpool Football Club is represented by the accounts of Kop Football Holdings Ltd – what are known as ‘consolidated accounts’ – which show the accounts of LFC&AG and Kop Football combined.

    LFC&AG is the accounting vehicle used to show the day–to-day running of the club. Kop Football is the accounting vehicle onto which the owners have placed <span> </span>the debt. Kop Football Holdings shows the full financial picture of what we call ‘Liverpool Football Club’.

    Think of it like making three lists. One shows your income. One shows your bills. One is the combination of both. Separating things out doesn’t change the fact that both income and bills are your responsibility. You can’t pretend that the income list represents ‘you’ and the other lists are someone else’s problem – not even if you call the income list ‘mine’ and the bills list ‘not my problem’. But that’s exactly the con that your article is trying on.

    Kop Football has no turnover. Kop Football Holdings’ has no turnover. The only income in all three sets of accounts (the Group) is from the club, against which the accounts show clear as day that £34m of debt was repaid to the bank and £8.1m was paid to an opaque offshore holding company in the Cayman Islands.

    I’ll say it again. Neither Kop Football Holdings nor Kop Football generate any turnover. The only source of income to repay the debts of Kop Football is money generated by Liverpool FC and Liverpool FC TV. The accounts prove it. You just have to look at them.

    Hicks and Gillett are not ‘paying’ the interest. They can’t. They don’t generate revenue. All they are doing is lending money into the group from the Caymans. The banks charge 4.975 per cent interest. Hicks and Gillett are charging 10 per cent. So any offsetting of bank interest with H&G debt is simply replacing debt with debt at double the interest rate (and to lenders who are happy to tack unpaid interest onto the principle). The key point is that H&G don’t, and can’t, pay down debt or pay interest, because that requires income. And the only source of income? That’s right, genius. LFC.

    So far they are owed £144.1m. Don’t be fooled into thinking that’s what they have put in. That’s just the debt to the Cayman holding company – a<span>  </span>figure which also includes the interest rolled up from not paying previous interest (for example - £8.1m was paid back in 2009 against a debt of £144.1m. That means the debt just went up £6m everything else being equal).

    The banks are owed a further £234m.

    So if you want to believe what’s on this site, fine. But when JK says he has ‘proved’ LFC ‘doesn’t pay interest on H&G’s debts’ it’s complete garbage. Liverpool Football Club has paid £76.5m in interest in two years thanks to the leveraged buyout. It's in the accounts. You just need to understand what each set of accounts represents and how they fit together.

    But please – don’t take my word for it. Download the accounts and look at them for yourself. Every single Red should be doing that as a matter of urgency.

    ReplyDelete