I apologise for belabouring this issue, but the myths and misinformation over Liverpool FC's interest payments continue to mushroom in the media, and on LFC forums/websites. The aim of this post is to briefly illustrate the truth of the matter.
THE MYTH
LFC pays up to £40m a year in interest on debts incurred by Tom Hicks and George Gillett. That translates to the oft-quoted figure of 110k interest a day (£40m divided by 365 days).
THE TRUTH
* The £40m interest burden lies with H+G's holding company, Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd. It does NOT lie with the Club, which is run by the Liverpool FC and Athletic Ground Limited, a company that obviously existed BEFORE H+G arrived on the scene.
WHY DOES THE DISTINCTION MATTER?
The irrefutable truth is that LFC does NOT pay £40m interest a year! Since H+G took over, the club has paid been liable for a TOTAL of £15.7m in interest payments to H+G's holding company (KFL) for loans made *from* KFL *to* LFCAGL. The £15.7m figure equates to:
* £9.3m for 2008-9
* £6.2m for 2007-8
* £286k for 2006-7
Here is the proof straight from LFCAGL's accounts:
Any other figure is WRONG. And any newspaper/LFC Forum/Media outlet claiming that LFC:
a) Pays the interest on H+G bank loans and/or:
b) Pays £40m a year/110k a day in interest
...is deliberately spreading misinformation to make the club's financial situation look as bad as possible.
HOW WAS THIS INTEREST BURDEN INCURRED?
The interest arises as a result of loans worth £100m received from KFL.
WHY ARE THESE FIGURES ACCURATE?
The figures are taken from the club's own accounts! If the club had to pay so much interest, there would be evidence in the accounts, would there not? As you can see above, there is no such evidence.
WHY AM I POSTING ABOUT THIS
I want to clear up the deliberate lies being spouted in the media as part of the anti-Owner agenda. The goal is to make the club seem in as bad a state as possible because, by extension, this reflects badly on H+G. To do this, the media (and some Liverpool fans):
1. Focus on KFHL's interest burden (40m);
2. Argue that te CLUB owes that money (it doesn't, as I illustrated above).
It seems that the standing and reputation of the club is acceptable collateral damage as part of this cheap ploy. I want H+G out too, but not by plunging the fans into depression and making the club look like its in on the verge of the apocalypse.
If you see/hear anyone spouting rubbish about LFC paying £40m/£110k a day interest, please correct them and direct them to this article.
Anyone who believes LFC *does* pay that level of interest (!), please make your case - with evidence - in the comments section below.
Jaimie Kanwar
THE MYTH
LFC pays up to £40m a year in interest on debts incurred by Tom Hicks and George Gillett. That translates to the oft-quoted figure of 110k interest a day (£40m divided by 365 days).
THE TRUTH
* The £40m interest burden lies with H+G's holding company, Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd. It does NOT lie with the Club, which is run by the Liverpool FC and Athletic Ground Limited, a company that obviously existed BEFORE H+G arrived on the scene.
WHY DOES THE DISTINCTION MATTER?
The irrefutable truth is that LFC does NOT pay £40m interest a year! Since H+G took over, the club has paid been liable for a TOTAL of £15.7m in interest payments to H+G's holding company (KFL) for loans made *from* KFL *to* LFCAGL. The £15.7m figure equates to:
* £9.3m for 2008-9
* £6.2m for 2007-8
* £286k for 2006-7
Here is the proof straight from LFCAGL's accounts:
Any other figure is WRONG. And any newspaper/LFC Forum/Media outlet claiming that LFC:
a) Pays the interest on H+G bank loans and/or:
b) Pays £40m a year/110k a day in interest
...is deliberately spreading misinformation to make the club's financial situation look as bad as possible.
HOW WAS THIS INTEREST BURDEN INCURRED?
The interest arises as a result of loans worth £100m received from KFL.
WHY ARE THESE FIGURES ACCURATE?
The figures are taken from the club's own accounts! If the club had to pay so much interest, there would be evidence in the accounts, would there not? As you can see above, there is no such evidence.
WHY AM I POSTING ABOUT THIS
I want to clear up the deliberate lies being spouted in the media as part of the anti-Owner agenda. The goal is to make the club seem in as bad a state as possible because, by extension, this reflects badly on H+G. To do this, the media (and some Liverpool fans):
1. Focus on KFHL's interest burden (40m);
2. Argue that te CLUB owes that money (it doesn't, as I illustrated above).
It seems that the standing and reputation of the club is acceptable collateral damage as part of this cheap ploy. I want H+G out too, but not by plunging the fans into depression and making the club look like its in on the verge of the apocalypse.
If you see/hear anyone spouting rubbish about LFC paying £40m/£110k a day interest, please correct them and direct them to this article.
Anyone who believes LFC *does* pay that level of interest (!), please make your case - with evidence - in the comments section below.
Jaimie Kanwar
Kanwar u really are on a mission here, take a break and do one about Tom and Gillette, they are the one`s who have lied to the supporters again and again! if u care about Liverpool football club u should focus on the pair of parasites. No matter how small or big the debt is it wasn't suppose to be there in the first place. I agree that Benitez hasn't been good this last season, but there is bigger issue such ass the ownership and the stadium who needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteWhether its paid or accumulated by rthe holding company the facts are it is ulimately preventing a sale of the club as H&G will not sell at a price that does not cover any outstanding debts, which currently appears to price any propoesed investor out of the market.
ReplyDeleteLiverpool football club is Kop Holdings only asset, therefore their problems are our problems. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteIt is also a MYTH that Kanwar is a Liverpool FC fan, in FACT he is just a Manc WUM.
ReplyDeleteThat might be the case, (it's more likely a negotiation tactic). but that has nothing to do with whether LFC pays interest on holding company debts. My aim was to show that the club does not *and has not* paid the ridiculous levels of interest being thrown about in the media.
ReplyDeleteNo. That's the simplistic way of looking at it. That's not the reality.
ReplyDeleteAre you on H&G's payroll Mr Kanwar? I have read 'whispers' about them taking a step out of the lime light and letting a PR firm insigate a campaign against rafa, whilst also paintng them in a better light.
ReplyDeleteI intially dimissed it as bull@%$T, but your articles are making a conspiracy nut out of me.....
Why is that not the case? If you borrow money to buy a car its your debt so why is it any different to buy a football club? So if I borrow a load of money, buy my local team and spend the rest of the sum I have borrowed on transfers and mount up a bit more debt along the way, can I pile up huge debts without any worries?
ReplyDeleteKop Holdings do they do any other business than own our club ... and as just said there problems is our problems in a simplistic way of looking at it , especially when it comes to them selling the club , as anybody buying the club who wants the debts cleared at RBS will also have to give enough cash to the yanks for the yanks to clear kop holdings debts as well , plus a profit on top before the yanks sale .
ReplyDeleteHi all
ReplyDeleteI am completely disgusted by the negative thinking and the atitudes of some LFC fans. Liverpool was , is and will remain one of the biggest clubs in the world. By being such a huge club some people including 90% of the media (which we know for sure are biased) are envious and so speculate and try to manipulate figures (and people including LFC supporters). They try to make us see this situation as apocalyptic. That is thier aim and that is only thier desire but surely not reality. This season's results were just a one off. So what I am trying to say is that every LFC fan must support and be close to the club as much as possible because its in difficult times that true fans show thier character. So forget about te doom and gloom and support your beloved club. Have faith and YNWA
What a cretin
ReplyDelete<span>Jaimie</span>
ReplyDelete<span> </span>
<span>a part of your point that there is too much hysteria/sensationalism/misguidance in media (on which I agree), I have to state my concern about your journalism. In all your previous article (Exclusive:The truth about Xabi Alonso’s alleged £30M Transfer fee; Exclusive: Proof that Liverpool FC does NOT pay interest on H+G’s parent company debts; and this late article) you provide documents that conferm your articles, yet all of this documents are unrealiable. The fact is, moast companies (at least serious ones) put their documents on memorandum, yet all documents you provide (and which are supposed to be gnuine) dont have not even one peace of their authenticity. This can be interpreted either as pour journalism or awul misguidance (which you supposed be against). Journalism is about truht, and I’m not anty-owner, anty-Rafa, anty-anything, but you have to start giving authentic documents (with referenc). For example: in article ’’The truth about Xabi Alonso’s ...’’ you give refernce (www.liverpoolfc.tv) for fee which Liverpool FC receive for Voronin and Dossena (because this suit your claim), and then you give scan peace of paper containing datat which also suit your claim. This cast doubt on your article, and any serious journal (and their editor) would reject your article as unreliable. So, this is realy frendly recommendation, start using reliable documents and thata, and I do believe every common sense Liverpool FC supporter would aknwoladge your effort as a journalist.</span>
MaltaRed
ReplyDeleteWe all still support the club and hold it close to our heart why do you think the yanks are causing us so much pain?
Jamie,
time to bang a different drum for a change we DONT care who owes what your yank friends lied to US and they need to go NOW, more so than benitez that is a completely different issue
Ooooo Only 9.5 Mil... That's alright then isn't it?
ReplyDeleteThis also is incorrect. The quoted balance sheet does indeed show 9,340 (x1000) BUT also it shows an interest, to others , of 6,338 (x1000).
ReplyDeleteA total of 15,678.000 interest paid by LFCAGL for the accountable year. This equates to only £35,446.575 per day nonetheless still a sizeable debt. I agree it would look and be better not to have the 9,340 to the cowboys.
Mike is spot on.
ReplyDeleteJaimie - if I was to buy the 'club', which company would i buy?
ReplyDeleteGorcin - the documents are the companies accounts as filed to Companies House. They have been audited by KPMG who have stated in their audit opinion that they are a true and fair representation of the financial status of the company/ies
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. The Mancs want Rafa to stay forever, because we're going nowhere and fast with him at the helm. Jaimie wants Rafa to go because of that.
ReplyDeleteSo in effect they are paying interest unless you expect the holding company to write off interest incurred on the intercompany loan. Given what we know about the Yanks we can be assured that they will definitely enforce that debt.
ReplyDeleteYou are taking a silo'd based view of thsi Jamie. I am a qualified accountant and yes you are correct in your assertions based on the legal set up of the group of comanies. However, the reality is that the Yanks will expect every penny to be paid and hence LFC will end up paying the interest that is quoted.
ps Can I ask where you are from and do you actually attend the games?
<span>"Liverpool was , is and will remain one of the biggest clubs in the world."
ReplyDeleteDo you think you just say that and so it's true? It's lamost as bad as those who think we have some divine right to win things. LFC is as strong as its on the pitch success, especially compared to clubs around them and financial stability.</span>
Don't just make comments like that, don't just say Rafa is taking us down, tell us why another manager would be better, tell us who we can realistically get and then say comments like that. Anyone in the world can look at something that is not perfect and criticise all the bad and say it could be done better - and don't now say you were simply justifying someone's comments cause you always do that. Tell us who would do better and justify your reasons. Tell us why the negative play was always bad - tell me how you know it never saved us games, points and goals scored against. All the idiots who want Mourinho don't even realise that he plays the same way (or more negatively) than Rafa, and neglect to remember he has always succeeded with/because of quality squads - I'm not taking anything away from him by the way. There isn't an LFC supporter in the world who would not back replacing Rafa - if we were replacing him with someone who will take us forward in a way that Rafa couldn't - but you have to justify it. Don't just be critical.
ReplyDeleteGood God, learn how to spell. Don't criticise someone's journalistic skills if you can't even construct coherent sentences.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. If the banks step in because the owners can't pay their £110,000 a day they'll take over Kop Holding but H&G will still own LFC?
ReplyDeleteDanny. Do you want lfc to be one of the biggest clubs in the world? If yes, you agree that lfc need a foreign fanbase? If yes, dont insult foreign fans trying their best to write english.
ReplyDeleteThis is what puzzles me.
ReplyDeleteIf KFL defaults on its massive debt burden and goes into administration then the financing bank will seize KFL's assets, which I imagine is equity in LFC. The only thing that could prevent the bank from breaking up the club and selling players (as per Portsmouth) would be that they would not have a controlling equity stake in the club (i.e. less than or equal to 50% stake).
Key thing to establish: how much equity in LFC does each of the holding company have?
Also, if a holding company goes into administration does the football club suffer a points reduction?
You would buy LFCAGL, just like H+G did when they bought the Liverpool. I'm currently investigating *exactly* waht would happen to eac company when the club is sold. Once I have confirmation on this, I will post something about it.
ReplyDeleteGorcin - thanks for your comments.
ReplyDelete1. as Hmmm states, the documents I provide are from official club accounts filed with UK's Companies House. Whether you think they are reliable is irrelevant - they are reliable. End of story.
2. Re the Alonso article - I did not 'scan' a piece of paper; I took a screenshot from a press release on LFC.tv, the official LFC site, which is owned by LFC. News initiated by the club itself will be checked for accuracy before going live, and will obviously be correct.
With respect, you are clearly incorrect about the provenance of the documentation provided.
Let me guess: if I'm not from Liverpool I can't be a real fan, right?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you need to know where I'm from and if I attend games/ What business is it of yours?
Unlike some fans, who are desperat to prove they go to games, I have no such problem. I live in the UK, and I go to games. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about it though as I'm not that insecure. if people don't believe me, I couldn't care less! I don't need to boast about it. I know the truth, and that's good enough for me.
In any event. only those of supreme ignorance equate going to games with being a 'proper' fan. 90%+ of LFC's fanbase (i.e. the sustaining lifeblood) doesn't even live in the UK. I guess they can't be proper fans eh?
£9m on a £100m loan = 9% APR
ReplyDeleteSounds like a lot to me given that the interest rates are currently at their lowest rate EVER.
Any chance you can check what the rate of interest we are paying on the RBS loans made to H&G.
They are in the accounts, so I am sure it won't take you long to find the figures.
The rate of interest for RBS loans is LIBOR + 4.5%.
ReplyDeleteLIBOR currently at 0.28% and has been no higher than 0.5% since December 2008.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, a 9% rate of interest being paid to H&G seems very high compared to the 4.78%-5% available elsewhere.
Also... if LFC decided to try to renegotiate that loan if they thought 9% was a touch high in the current low interest rate environment:
ReplyDeletea) who would be in charge of renegotiating?
b) who would they go to in order to renegotiate??
<span>LIBOR (1month sterling) currently at 0.57% and has been no higher than 1% since March 2009.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, a 9% rate of interest being paid to H&G seems very high compared to the 5-5.5% available elsewhere.
<span>Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/05/liverpool-fc-interest-payments-media.html#ixzz0otS1oTz6</span></span>
In response to Chris: Premier League rules state that if the holding company goes into administration, then the club is regarded as being in the same situation and a nine point deduction is made. Even if the club is profitable, there is no distinction made between club and holding company.
ReplyDeleteSo Kanwar, what is the £6.3M paid out in interest on bank loans and overdrafts refer to? Of the approx £234M owed to RBS how much is on Kop Holdings and how much on the club? Bearing in mind only £110M is covered by 'guarantees' of any sort by Hicks and Gillett. Also the £9.3M paid to 'group undertakings' is more than 60% higher than it needs to be commercially.
Firstly, it is important to establish that the purchase price of a company is what you pay for the equity (the "right to control the company") and the cost of assuming the net debt owed by the company.
ReplyDeleteSo lets say that you buy LFCAGL. There is only one person you can buy it from - KFL. Lets say you agree a price of X with KFL to take control of the club (remember -- the real cost is X plus the net debt in the club).
So what happens now. Effectively, X would go on the balance sheet as cash, the investment of 183m would go to zero and a value of (X-183) would be recognised as a gain/loss on disposal in the income statement and flow through as retained earnings on the balance sheet (shareholders fund).
At this point, KFL is a company that effectively has a bunch of cash (X) plus the 100m owed to it by LFCAGL. In addition, it has debts of 345m (145 to KFHL and 200m to RBS). That means the equity of KFL (i.e. what H&G gets) would be worth (X+100) - (145 + 200) = X - 245.
The relationship is KFHL is pretty similar but simpler as it only has the debt passing through.
So I know you have been arguing that you should only be looking at the financial structure of LFCAGL, but the reality is, as Mike eloquently said - "Their problems are our problems". The ownership structure has meant that the incremental debt that sits in KFL actually is a 'on the club' even though it is not sitting on the trading company's balance sheet.
It is for this reason that KFHL shows consolidated accounts as it nets out the effect of these relationships. It effectively shows the 'true' financial position of the club. If it didnt, why would they include consolidated accounts?
Let me spin this around. If you are H&G, which company would you sell? Anyone of the companies (KFHL, KFL or LFCAGL) would give you control over the club. But if they sold any company below KFHL then they (H&G) would be straddled with the resultant debt, so any purchase price would need to cover that so they could meet the own profit hurdles.
This argument does not reflect my views on H&G, Rafa, Moores or Parry or imply that I am a member Tomkins, SOS or anyone other clique -- so please do not counter by referring to any of these points.
Hallo Jaimie!
ReplyDeleteI think your explanation of the debt and company issues are right. But because HG comapnies are paying huge interests LFC suffers. If the Americans didnt´t have to pay off loans then they could invest the money in LFC instead. (Not that I think they would do it, but who knows). So due to their loans and debts LFC could be missing out on large sums that, for instance, could go to buying new players.
Irespective of what debt the club or whoever owe, IT IS THE CLUB THAT PAYS THE DEBT, SERVICES THE DEBT
ReplyDeleteNo. You are wrong, and clearly incapable of comprehending simple facts. Just because you say it in bold doesn't make it true. Thus far, H+G's debts have been serviced by....H+G, via loans from RBS, which *they* pay interest on, not the club.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Terry. Yes, it's possible that money could have been spent on players, but I doubt that H+G would've given Benitez more money anyway. They do not trust him to spend the money well, and at least one of them is vehemently against giving him money.
ReplyDeleteHicks put the Rangers into voluntary bankruptcy yesterday to speed up his plans to sell the baseball franchise .
ReplyDeleteI now this this doesn't have any effect on us , but could he do it with us ?
And what would it mean if he did ?
Sorry if of topic , but wondering what effect it has on the Rangers even though doesn't effect us , just wondering what his thinking is ..
holding company owns all of the equity. No other shareholders
ReplyDeleteJaimie, all of these articles do not detract from one simple truth - When H&G sell the Club they will INCLUDE their debt liabilities for KOP Holdings in the sale price, ergo, they will clear ALL debts associated with their tenure at the Club.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter whether the Club "only" has a debt burden of £226m or £351m it will ALL be included in our sale price, so I ask you...what's the difference?!
The Club will still be raped to the tune of £351m+ to pay off debts associated with LFC, H&G said would never exist.
Get them out.
Let me spin this around. If you are H&G, which company would you sell? Anyone of the companies (KFHL, KFL or LFCAGL) would give you control over the club. But if they sold any company below KFHL then they (H&G) would be straddled with the resultant debt, so any purchase price would need to cover that so they could meet the own profit hurdles.
ReplyDeleteThat's it a nut shell imo ... said it loads of times .Buyer will need to stump up £XM so the yanks can cover all debts all money they have out in and a profit ...My guess would be £400-450m minimum ...My worry is the club is still a very attractive purchase imo , but is there any body out there in this financial times to buy us at that price with a new stadium in there ideas as well and player purchases ....
yes these people against the manager, they have a terrible record with sports clubs. it was plain to see how badly they have performend with other sports and now we suffer.
ReplyDeletethe interst is high - due to they had no secure means to buy us in the flippion 1st place!
ReplyDeleteOh that's alright then jamie...
ReplyDeleteThere was me thinking we were in a financial mess...
I can sleep easy now :s
Yanks out!
Long live rafa!
How can you lend yourself money and charge youself interest? Thats like taking a lend of a £100 out of your wages an chrging yourself £4.50.
ReplyDeleteInterest is owed to the bank they got the loan of .....
ReplyDeleteI am not as pessimistic as all that. Take a look at the Forbes valuations on football teams
ReplyDelete(http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html)
Basically, they estimate that Man Utd is worth USD$1bn more than Liverpool. This is roughly £700m.
Given that our records are broadly similar (same number of titles, we have more European cups, they have more FA cups), the primary difference is that
a) They have a bigger stadium
b) they have a better squad
c) They have more commercial relationships.
Arguably (c) has been addressed with the new management team. If a new stadium costs £450m to build (based on Emirates costs of 470m minus some of the work done to date) and probably another £150m to make a squad that is comparable in size and depth to Man Utd (or Real, Barca whoever), that totals 550 - 600m. Still leaves a tidy £100 - 150m profit....
The real issue around this is not on whether the deal works but on negotiation tactics. H&G have backed themselves in a corner. Everyone knows the club needs the incremental investment and if they dont put money in (especially on the squad) then the value will deteriorate. So if you are a potential buyer and believe that H&G dont want to put any money into the club to buy players (fair assumption), then why wouldnt you wait until next year when you can buy the club for less....
You never answered the question on the 9340 paid to KFL. What is that used for?
ReplyDeleteNo...
ReplyDeleteH&G 'loaned' LFC £100m which they then charge interest on at a rate (according to Jaimie's own figures) of 9% per year.
This is compared to the 5-5.% that RBS charge H&G on the bank loan that helped buy the club in the first place.
A cynical person may question what is happening to the extra money H&G are raking in from charging such high interest on their loan.
And as 'I don't get it' says, who agreed that the rate on the loan from H&G should be a whopping 9%.
They are the lenders, but as owners of LFC they are also the people accepting the loan.
To take it to the extreme... what if they had set the interest rate at 20%, or 50%, or 99%... that is money going straight into their pockets (well, probably then straight to RBS) from the club's finances that should be ploughed back into football business.
Jaimie loves to say that £9m a year interest to H&G is a piffling amount and everyone should stop getting so worked up about it.
To put it into context, that's the wages of two £86,500-a-week players.
Joe Cole is potentially available on a free transfer this summer... might be nice to have a spare £173,000 a week in the kitty to try to get someone of that calibre.
The interest is high because in the case of the £100m to LFC (the club), H&G are both the lenders and (effectively) the lendee.
ReplyDeleteThey can charge what they want and sign it off themselves!!!
I'm still waiting to hear what Jaimie has to say about this set-up.
@guest ... yes but aren't they paying interest on the £100m loan to some bank in the caymans .. i would be thinking the same they are paying a lower interest to the bank in the caymans but its all guess work ..
ReplyDeleteRE: Hicks Debts
ReplyDelete<span>New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez heads the list of creditors. He is owed US$24.9 million in deferred compensation six years after leaving the Rangers. Bloomberg notes: 'The next five on the list are also current or former players: Kevin Millwood ($12.9 million), Michael Young ($3.9 million), Vicente Padilla ($1.7 million), Mickey Tettleton ($1.4 million) and Mark McLemore ($970,000).'</span>
Can't even play his players in the US
I believe H&G class the £100m as cash they have put into LFC (albeit via a loan) from their own pockets.
ReplyDeleteEven if it has originally come from a bank loan, the worldwide rates have been nowhere near 9% for the past 12-18months.
Would be interesting to know how long LFC have to repay that original £100m loan from H&G and what total amount the Americans are scheduled to get back.
For example... 9% over 5years would return £125m overall to H&G.
Jamie, if LFC aren't paying the interest on KFHL's debt, where IS the money actually coming from?
ReplyDeleteKop Football (Cayman) Ltd and Kop Investment LCC, H+G's overseas companies. KFCL has a history of loaning KFHL and KFL money, which it uses for working capital.
ReplyDeleteJamie
ReplyDeleteWhere does your money come from?
Hicks & Gillett?
OK lol so where does THAT money come from?
ReplyDeleteThis is wrong, where exactly are H&G paying interest? Don't you mean they are accruing the interest, or rather the various companies in the group are?
ReplyDeleteThey bought the club with a loan and then loaded that loan and more on the club and associated companies. How is that effective business for LFC?
Very nice Jamie but who pays your bills?
ReplyDeleteHicks and Gillett?
According to Tom Hicks, the interest the club is paying is 21m. Even he contradicts you.
ReplyDeleteNo - you have to remember that the latest *published* club accounts are for the year 2008-2009. That year ended on 31 July 2009. 10 months have passed since then, in which payments would've mean made. Furthermore, LFC's loans with RBS were reorganised in March 2010, which would've had an impact on the interest. Hicks is referring to the new combined interest figure after everything that has taken place over the last 10 months.
ReplyDeleteAt 31 July 2009, the combined figure 25m (LFCAGL = 9.3m; KFL = 8.3m: KFHL = 8.1m)
10 months later, it is now 21m, which makes sense.
Jaimie - I'm not trying to be rude but your lack of business knowledge shines through when you try to post with respects to the accounts.
ReplyDeleteKop Holdings has one asset - Liverpool Athletic grounds. The debt owed by Kop Holdings is secured on £110 million of Hicks and Gillet's own personal assets and on the assets of Kop Holdings. Looking solely at the Liverpool Athletic Grounds accounts is akin to looking at what's in the window when trying to assess the financial health of a shop.
Kop Holdings generates no money itself. It is a holding company. Money is transferred between it and its sole asset in order for it to meet its financial obligations.
Looking at Liverpool Athletic Grounds' accounts in isolation, and making claims that the Holding company is somehow mystically seperate is grotesquely innacurate as Rupert Lowe's attempts to make the same magical distinction with Southampton would demonstrate to you.
Can I just point out a factual innaccuracy in your opening piece?
You say the total interest paid is what is listed as paid to inter-company undertakings. This is incorrect. If you look just two lines above this, you will see interest paid to, erm, banks (ie RBS/Wachovia and from end of January 2010 solely to RBS). That's £15.6 million total in just 2009/10 financial year. Once you venture into the holding company's details (one asset remember) then you'll see where the full picture of £40 million in interest per year being charged.
I appreciate you trying to get to the truth, but the simple fact is Jaimie that unless you learn to read a balance sheet or get some understanding of how the accounts are working what you're writing is at best ludicrous nonsense which people who do understand it have to try and correct in the absence of your willingness to do so and at worst grossly misleading when financially our club is at a crucial tipping point because purchase debt has been laden onto the club.
Not trying to knock you lad, and you've got your agendas against whoever, but it's always worth having some knowledge of a subject if you're going to stand on a soapbox.
For the record, annual turnover has been skyrocketing under Hicks and Gillett. Part of this will be the increased television deals, but they have done well on that front. The downside is that such high turnover is still inadequate to meet debt as it becomes due - as the notes in the accounts make clear with short-term fixes being required throughout their tenure over the past three years to stave off the banks repossessing for the £237 million owed due to the purchase debt.
Regards,
Zeb
Jaimie - I'm not trying to be rude but your lack of business knowledge shines through when you try to post with respects to the accounts.
ReplyDeleteKop Holdings has one asset - Liverpool Athletic grounds. The debt owed by Kop Holdings is secured on £110 million of Hicks and Gillet's own personal assets and on the assets of Kop Holdings. Looking solely at the Liverpool Athletic Grounds accounts is akin to looking at what's in the window when trying to assess the financial health of a shop.
Kop Holdings generates no money itself. It is a holding company. Money is transferred between it and its sole asset in order for it to meet its financial obligations.
Looking at Liverpool Athletic Grounds' accounts in isolation, and making claims that the Holding company is somehow mystically seperate is grotesquely innacurate as Rupert Lowe's attempts to make the same magical distinction with Southampton would demonstrate to you.
Can I just point out a factual innaccuracy in your opening piece?
You say the total interest paid is what is listed as paid to inter-company undertakings. This is incorrect. If you look just two lines above this, you will see interest paid to, erm, banks (ie RBS/Wachovia and from end of January 2010 solely to RBS). That's £15.6 million total in just 2009/10 financial year. Once you venture into the holding company's details (one asset remember) then you'll see where the full picture of £40 million in interest per year being charged.
I appreciate you trying to get to the truth, but the simple fact is Jaimie that unless you learn to read a balance sheet or get some understanding of how the accounts are working what you're writing is at best ludicrous nonsense which people who do understand it have to try and correct in the absence of your willingness to do so and at worst grossly misleading when financially our club is at a crucial tipping point because purchase debt has been laden onto the club.
Not trying to knock you lad, and you've got your agendas against whoever, but it's always worth having some knowledge of a subject if you're going to stand on a soapbox.
For the record, annual turnover has been skyrocketing under Hicks and Gillett. Part of this will be the increased television deals, but they have done well on that front. The downside is that such high turnover is still inadequate to meet debt as it becomes due - as the notes in the accounts make clear with short-term fixes being required throughout their tenure over the past three years to stave off the banks repossessing for the £237 million owed due to the purchase debt.
Regards,
Zeb
Jaimie - I'm not trying to be rude but your lack of business knowledge shines through when you try to post with respects to the accounts.
ReplyDeleteKop Holdings has one asset - Liverpool Athletic grounds. The debt owed by Kop Holdings is secured on £110 million of Hicks and Gillet's own personal assets and on the assets of Kop Holdings. Looking solely at the Liverpool Athletic Grounds accounts is akin to looking at what's in the window when trying to assess the financial health of a shop.
Kop Holdings generates no money itself. It is a holding company. Money is transferred between it and its sole asset in order for it to meet its financial obligations.
Looking at Liverpool Athletic Grounds' accounts in isolation, and making claims that the Holding company is somehow mystically seperate is grotesquely innacurate as Rupert Lowe's attempts to make the same magical distinction with Southampton would demonstrate to you.
Can I just point out a factual innaccuracy in your opening piece?
You say the total interest paid is what is listed as paid to inter-company undertakings. This is incorrect. If you look just two lines above this, you will see interest paid to, erm, banks (ie RBS/Wachovia and from end of January 2010 solely to RBS). That's £15.6 million total in just 2009/10 financial year. Once you venture into the holding company's details (one asset remember) then you'll see where the full picture of £40 million in interest per year being charged.
I appreciate you trying to get to the truth, but the simple fact is Jaimie that unless you learn to read a balance sheet or get some understanding of how the accounts are working what you're writing is at best ludicrous nonsense which people who do understand it have to try and correct in the absence of your willingness to do so and at worst grossly misleading when financially our club is at a crucial tipping point because purchase debt has been laden onto the club.
Not trying to knock you lad, and you've got your agendas against whoever, but it's always worth having some knowledge of a subject if you're going to stand on a soapbox.
For the record, annual turnover has been skyrocketing under Hicks and Gillett. Part of this will be the increased television deals, but they have done well on that front. The downside is that such high turnover is still inadequate to meet debt as it becomes due - as the notes in the accounts make clear with short-term fixes being required throughout their tenure over the past three years to stave off the banks repossessing for the £237 million owed due to the purchase debt.
Regards,
Zeb
You deleting fair comment on your opinion pieces Jaime?
ReplyDeleteCome on lad, you're out of your depth pretending to be able to read a balance sheet. At least accept fair criticism.