15 May 2010

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

With the recent publication of the Liverpool FC’s club accounts for 2009, the hysteria, misinformation and blatant deception over the state of the club’s finances has mushroomed beyond all recognition. I did vow not to return to writing on the site until Rafa Benitez had left Liverpool, but with all the lies and deceit over debt recently, I feel compelled to try and bring a different perspective to the table.

Dirty tricks

Apparently, the club is crippled by debt; on the verge of administration; being forced to sell its star players to service the debt etc. If you believe everything you read, the apocalypse is nigh. Well, as I will illustrate, this overwrought doomsday scenario is laughably exaggerated and ignorantly wide of the mark. Fans are being (willingly) manipulated , and the orchestrators-in-chief are not the anti-LFC media, but - for the most part – supposed Liverpool fans.

A prime example of a Liverpool fan trying to deliberately create as bleak a picture as possible is Tony Barrett of ‘The Times’ – In his article on May 8th 2010, he claimed that the club was £473m in debt. Similar figures have been bandied about all over the place, and have only served to fuel the hysteria and sense of despair amongst fans.

The implication in Mr Barrett’s article is that Liverpool FC has a debt burden of
£473m. This is simply not true.

Mr Barrett focuses only on Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd (KFHL), the company set up by Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

He (deliberately) neglects to mention Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd (LFCAGL), i.e. the actual club itself.

[From this point forward, when I refer to ‘The Club’, I mean Liverpool Football Club Athletic Grounds Ltd. When I refer to ‘H+G’ I mean Kop Football Holdings Ltd]

The typical trick pulled by Mr Barrett and others (as part of their anti-Owner agenda) is obvious:

1. Focus only on KFHL. Sensationalise its debt levels.

2. Try and convince everyone (through omission/subtle implication) that the debt on KFHL = debt on the club.

REAL Level of LFC's debt

The CLUB is not £473m in debt. The actual figure for the last financial year is £226m, which is found on page 23 of the accounts for LFCAGL (Look at the bottom of the 2009 column).

Not £473m. Not £351, £226m. That is the ACTUAL level of debt on LIVERPOOL FC at this moment in time. There is a further amount of £30m due, but as the accounts show, that is in a year from now. TODAY, at this moment in time, the figure is £226m.

Of course, £226m is not as sensational as £473m, so the truth got pushed aside in favour of a nonsensical figure that would provoke shock, hysteria, and more anti-Owner sentiment.

Money owed to H+G by the Club


So – Liverpool FC’s total debt is £226m. How much is actually owed to H+G’s company, KFHL? £351m? £400m?

NO.

The total amount owed by the CLUB to H+G is £100.8m, as revealed on page 23 of LFCAGL's latest accounts ('Amounts owed by Group Undertakings' column)

The
£100.8m constitutes loans made by H+G to the Club. This is normal business practice. Charging interest on the loan is also normal business practice. The likes of Mr Barrett et al will try their hardest to convince you though that H+G are ‘stealing’ money from the club and lining their own pockets.

Obviously, that is a dubious thought process.

The extent of the club’s debt liability to H+G is £100.8m. That may well be converted to equity at some stage (thus distinguishing that debt), but for now, it is an outstanding loan.

The other £126m of debt on the club has nothing directly to do with H+G:

Bank Loans and Overdrafts = 36.5m
Trade creditors = £35.5m
Tax + Social Security = £13.8m
Other creditors = £10.8m
Deferred income = £28.2m

NOTE: 'Social security' is a phrase used in the accounts. Check the 'Bank Loans and Overdrafts' link above for proof of this.

I suppose H+G are responsible for tax and social security debts too?!

Interest payments


And what about interest payments to H+G? The 'Payable to Group Undertakings' column on Page 16 of LFC's new accounts reveals that between July 2008 and July 2009, the club made £9.3m of interest payments only. Not £20m. Not £30m, and certainly not £40m, which is what Mr Barrett suggests in his article.

It is very important to make a distinction between Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd and Liverpool FC Athletic Grounds Ltd. They are NOT the same company; they are two distinct entities.

Debt level of Hicks and Gillett's company

Kop Football Limited's (KFL) current debt level is £347m. It's a large figure BUT The club is not affected by it. That is debt on H+G's company alone. It constitutes (mainly) money borrowed to buy the club in 2007, money that *only* affects KFL. That debt will be paid when the club is sold. H+G cannot take money from the club to pay that debt; it is ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. I repeat: KFL’s debt has absolutely NO BEARING on the club itself, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and/or clearly trying to spread misinformation.

The only thing H+G *can* do is take money from the club to pay off the £100.8m in loans, which was lent to the club by KFL.

However…

Page 13 of the KFL's accounts states: ‘Within the terms of the loan agreement, Kop Football Limited cannot demand repayment if to do so would cause the company to become insolvent’.

In other words, H+G can’t just demand repayment of the entire sum any time they want. In any event, to do so would not remotely be in their best interests. In what perverse reality do owners of a football club deliberately damage that club by making it financially weak and open to considerable financial penalties? It doesn’t happen, and again, anyone who suggests otherwise is lying.

It is in H+G best interests to keep the club as financially solvent and successful as possible. This is obvious.

Summary

1. Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd / Kop Football Limited = H+G’s companies
2. Liverpool Football and Athletic Grounds Ltd = Liverpool FC
3. Current debt level of the CLUB (i.e. LFCAGL) = £226m
5. Money owed by the club to H+G = £100.8m (This is part of the £226m referred to in point 3 above)
6. Level of interest payments made by the club to H+G in the last financial year = £9.3m

These are the facts. These are the figures at which fans should be looking. Do not be fooled by the obvious anti-Owner agenda being perpetuated in the media by the likes of Mr. Barrett and Spirit of Shankly – they focus only on the figures for KFHL, which are not instructive when it comes to assessing the financial health of the CLUB.

The only link between KFL and Liverpool FC that is relevant is the level of money loaned to the club by H+G, which as I illustrate above, is currently 100.8m (and interest payments that arise from those loans).

And let’s get one thing perfectly clear: I have no personal allegiance/connection to H+G; Like most other fans, I believe that the right thing for them to do is sell up and leave the club.

However, vitriol towards the owners should NOT result in lies and deceit over the figures just to achieve the goal of making them look bad.

This article is NOT a defence of H+G – it is a defence of the CLUB.

Many supposed Liverpool fans have painted an intensely bleak picture of the club in recent weeks, and they’ve used inaccurate financial figures to do it. And why? They’re so obsessed with making H+G look bad that they’re willing to sully the name of the club in the process. It’s textbook cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Debt is the rule in football, not the exception. Having debt is NORMAL. Liverpool had debt BEFORE H+G arrived. Just because a club has debt does NOT mean everything is in disarray. That's what the likes of SOS want you to think because it furthers their anti-Owner agenda. In an ideal, romanticised fantasy land, there would be no debt, but that is not reality.

All this misinformation and doom-mongering about finances does not affect H+G - it affects only the club. Fans who perpetuate the negative myths spun by the likes of SOS and the anti-Owner media mafia are complicit in placing the club in a negative light.

I have no doubt that Liverpool FC will be fine: The club will get sold. New investment will be found. A new stadium will be built. The commercial side of the club will continue to improve.

STOP BEING SO EASILY MANIPULATED.

Jaimie Kanwar


249 comments:

  1. Yet another desperate attempt at subterfuge. Your alleged source gave you the figure of 237 million pounds in November. These accounts are up to the end of July 2010.

    How, then, can you claim that the owners have "shaved" 11 million off the debt, when the accounts show that as at July 31st 2009, the club's debt was 226 million.

    What you have unwittingly demonstrated is that, by November 2009 - if your source does in fact exist - the club's debt had in fact been increased by 11 million pounds.

    Your chicanery convinces no one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yet another desperate attempt at subterfuge. Your alleged source gave you the figure of 237 million pounds in November. These accounts are up to the end of July 2009. 
     
    How, then, can you claim that the owners have "shaved" 11 million off the debt, when the accounts show that as at July 31st 2009, the club's debt was 226 million?
     
    What you have unwittingly demonstrated is that, by November 2009 - if your source does in fact exist - the club's debt had in fact been increased by 11 million pounds. 
     
    Your chicanery convinces no one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. <img></img><img></img><img></img>Yet another desperate attempt at subterfuge. Your alleged source gave you the figure of 237 million pounds in November. These accounts are up to the end of July 2009.

    How, then, can you claim that the owners have "shaved" 11 million off the debt, when the statements show that as at July 31st 2009, the club's debt was 226 million?

    What you have unwitting demonstrated is that, by November 2009 - if your source does in fact exist - the club's debt had in fact been increased by 11 million pounds.

    Your chicanery convinces no one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. More lies by Mr Kanwar. What a surprise =-O

    All of the Kop Football Holdings debt is secured against the club. You can take that as a fact if you want. If they cannot pay up then the club must do that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Provide proof please.  Do not just make unfounded assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great article well written it is nice for some one that knows about our great clubs finances and say it as it is well done keep up the good work .RobLfc

    ReplyDelete
  7. You may have deleted my comment, and conveniently added some stipulations to you piece, but that fact remains that ther e is an inconsistency in your argument.

    You claim that in November 2009, your source revealed the club debt to be 237 million pounds. First off all, it makes sense that - if he/she even exists - he would give you the amount of current debt, and not an out-of-date figure.

    According to the club's accounts, the debt was 226 million as at July 31st 2009.

    No matter how much equivocation you attempt, you have still unwittingly demonstrated that the level of debt had in fact been INCREASED by 11 million pounds, by the time your "source" provided you with these figures.

    ReplyDelete
  8. agree with this wholeheartedly. the media are twisting this so much and people are buying into it. there will be no firesale and we will continue to operate as normal

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do not know whether your report is real or not but i sincerely hope you are right. I agree that some writers are irresponsible and that makes me extremely sick reading all the rumours about Torres might be sold to fund the debts. Whether it is a manipulative way to gather momentum to force the owners out quickly or not, people must be responsible in their writing. Dont make innocent fans like me panic. I'm biting my teeth everyday in the hope that Torres will stay.

    So whoever is manipulating something or have an agenda, just stop it. It's demoralising.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In fact, your article dated November 2009 categorically states that your source has provided "up to date (sic) figures" about the current level of the club's debt.

    Stop dissembling, Kanwar.

    ReplyDelete
  11. STUPID ARTICLE BY A CLUELESS IDIOT.GET REAL AND UNDERSTAND CLUB WILL NOT BE AROUND FOR ANOTHER 100 PLUS YEARS IF LEFT UNDER CURRENT OWNERS/SITUATION.

    SOS ARE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO 'REAL' FANS NOT PEOPLE HIDING BEHIND A PC.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How low can a man get for money. Word Whore Jamie.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You're focusing on the irrelevant.  What matters is the disparity between the ACTUAL level of the CLUB's debt, and the figures being quoted in the press.  My article last year is small fry compared to that.  I should have asked at about the timeframes when I had the conversation with my source, but I neglected to do that, so we'll never know for sure.  (Actually, I will try and confirm the dates when I next have contact with him).

    It is entirely possible that he was referring to debt level for the previous financial year, is it not?  I concede it also possible that he may have been referring to current figures.  Either way, whatever figure is correct, it is still significantly less than the nonsense in the media, which is the overall point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OK so H+G LENT lfc £100M. WHY?  The club also owes the bank  what £126m.  The club is paying interest to H+G   as well having to pay back the loan to them and the bank.  Work it out man they are still sucking money out of the club. They lent money to the club why? to finance the take over or buy out? enlighten me here as this does not make sense.  They have made promises and have not delivered, put massive debt on the club, suck money out of the club and have bought the club for  a more than fare price and now want a to make a massive profit.  Leaving the club intially not much better than when they came in. Ok they have increased our revenue but that was over due as the last owners did not have any idea on how to do that, Any good business man operating on that level would have done the same I think.  No these 2 are in it for money and money only, not for the love of it , not becasue they are fans. The club is in a mess financialy. Look at our transfers net profit of 4 to 6 mill last season.  What are we now a selling club for other bigger clubs to pick off out best players so that we can stay afloat and pay bank loans and loans to H+G.  Not much investment in players means 7th place in the EPL, no CL football.  Lets face it they are no good and the sooner they are out the better,  no matter how you want to paint a pretty picutre on it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You are a prime example of the type of 'fan' who is easily brainwashed by the media.  I pity you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. JAKKO,

    No one is defending the owners here. They should leave as soon as possible. But that doesnt mean they need to report about selling torres and the debt is almost half a billion in order to push for our support to get the owners out. So speak with sense and not emotion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Good post Jamie,

    No doubt the mongs from RAWK/SOS will be calling for your head again.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Knows about the cub finances?

    Kanwar, you're full of shit.

    Bitter, bitter man.

    Go boil your head.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'BRAINWASHED'?
    I am a season ticket holder of 18years and make my own mind on the club issues. Never have i felt as disconnected with the club as i do now.
    That is not due to a bad season or poor signings or even a seat with little legroom.

    It is down to my/our club being pilfered for greed.
    It is down to my/our own fans being blind to real issues at club that thankfully SOS , Tony Barratt, Brian Reade etc are now exposing.

    You need to get behind campaign to rid club of cancer of H&G not offering lame/false excuses.

    That is indeed if your are a Liverpool fan?

    ReplyDelete
  20. fucking bad bellend

    ReplyDelete
  21. Christian Purslow6:39 pm, May 15, 2010

    <span><span>Like most other fans, I believe that the right thing for them to do is sell up and leave the club. </span></span>

    __________
    Why do you believe this? If as you say the level of debt is normal for a football club, then why are you against them?
    What are your 'inside sources' within the club telling you about their ridiculous over-valuation of the club, to make you think that:<span>
    "Liverpool FC will be fine: The club will get sold. New investment will be found. A new stadium will be built. The commercial side of the club will continue to improve."</span>

    ReplyDelete
  22. <span>"Liverpool FC will be fine: The club will get sold. New investment will be found. A new stadium will be built. The commercial side of the club will continue to improve."</span>

    Thanks for the reassurance, Jaimie. Now i believe everything will be alright. Just like when H + G, who are awesome, non-lying, moneyspending, commited owners, told us they would build the stadium, improve our commercial side and improve investments in our club, and they did just that.

    And the other SUPERawesome thing is that banks are willing to lend money to H+G private TOTALLY separate company and that it has no bearing on the club whatsoever. Aren't banks cool?

    And it's supergroovy too that interest payments from the club to the H+G is the only interest Liverpool is paying, being different companies and all. I love that Hicks is paying the interest from the money he borrowed to buy the club with his OWN money, and not the Club's money. So, yeah, we're actually only paying $9.3 mi. Good on you, mr. Hicks, you old rascal, you!

    Now if we can only get that bad man Benitez out of there, everything will be perrrrfect...

    <img></img>

    ReplyDelete
  23. H & G loan the club (their club) money - and then charge interest on it.  I would love to be able to loan myself some money and then get the interest on the money I have loaned to myself.

    Whatever way you try to spin it H&G are leeching off the club to line their pockets.  As far as Kop Holdings goes, it exists only in conjunction with LFC.  Without LFC there would be no Kop Holdings - H&G's company - from which LFC borrow money and pay interest.  

    There is no positive spin to be put on to the fact that H & G are putting the club into more and more debt without risking any of their own personal money.  It's like getting a mortgage and then borrowing from other banks to pay the mortgage and the debt just gets higher and higher, but because you're not actually putting any of our own cash in it never gets paid.  Eventually that balloon will burst - as will our Club if it carries on this way. 

    ReplyDelete
  24. <span>"Liverpool FC will be fine: The club will get sold. New investment will be found. A new stadium will be built. The commercial side of the club will continue to improve."</span>  
     
    Thanks for the reassurance, Jaimie. Now i believe everything will be alright. Just like when H + G, who are awesome, non-lying, moneyspending, commited owners, told us they would build the stadium, improve our commercial side and improve investments in our club, and they did just that.  
     
    And the other SUPERawesome thing is that banks are willing to lend money to H+G private TOTALLY separate company and that it has no bearing on the club whatsoever. Aren't banks cool?  
     
    And it's supergroovy too that interest payments from the club to the H+G is the only interest Liverpool is paying, being different companies and all. I love that Hicks is paying the interest from the money he borrowed to buy the club with his OWN money, and not the Club's money. So, yeah, we're actually only paying $9.3 mi. Good on you, mr. Hicks, you old rascal, you!  
     
    Now if we can only get that bad man Benitez out of there, everything will be perrrrfect...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Please don't miquote me.  I said football clubs having debt is normal; I did NOT say 'the level of debt is normal'.  There is a huge difference.

    I am not against H+G - however, the time is right for them to move on. They are businessmen with their eye on the bottom line.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that (this is the way of the world); however, the club (ideally) needs owners who are either fans of the club, or are better at fostering good relations with the fans.

    H+G have done good things for the club, but they have also made mistakes.  Furthermore, their communication with the fans has been poor, and this has allowed discontent to grow.

    Having said that, the person who needs to go first is Benitez, but that's another article ;)

    ReplyDelete
  26. You are right about Barrett's £473m figure in the Times. I couldn't quite work out where he got his numbers from, as that figure was much higher than the figures I had seen reported everywhere else. So maybe Barrett was scaremongering to switch attention away from Benitez, and back towards the owners.

    However, I am no-where near as confident as you seem to be that everything will be fine and dandy, if/when we find a new owner. That day may be a long time in coming, and God knows what state the Club will be in at that time. Even now the debt will be higher than has been stated in last years accounts.

    I would like to see an all out boycott of matches to force these two leeches out. It may make the financial situation worse, and possibly push the Club over the brink and into administration. But, at least we would go down fighting and not suffer a lingering slow death - which seems to be the case now.

    This may be a pessimistic viewpoint, but I think your view is overly optimistic, given the present circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There is nothing sinister in H+G loaning money to the club.  They own the club!  The money was used for new signings and working capital.  it is perfectly legit.  The other option was for the club to borrow from the banks at extortionate interest rates.  Would that have been a better idea?! NO.

    The club currently has 26 in outstanding loans to banks.  That is better than having 136m, is it not?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kenwar, One of the best things about Rafa staying was your promise not to write any more bollocks till he leaves but you just couldn't stop yourself from seeking more attention could you? It's a pity you haven't got any close friends as I'm sure that if you did one of them would surely point out to you what a complete and utter tit you are. Why don't you crawl back under the rock you have been under for the last few weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Aren't you a person hiding behind a pc? And if fans say that a bunch of violent, ignorant twats are the best that's happened to them, then maybe they deserve such representation... 

    ReplyDelete
  30. robert purfield6:50 pm, May 15, 2010

    your seriously deluded mate if you think the debt on kop football is seperate from a debt on liverpool football club.your article sums up the reason why Tony Barrett writes for the Times and you write for some no mark blog.if your keeping stum till rafa leaves i honestly hope thats when hes 85 and carried out after having a heart attack celebrating our 35th title

    ReplyDelete
  31. Your'e level of ignorance astound's me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Keep thinking in these terms if you like, but it's not reality.

    There is *nothing* wrong with H+G loaning the club money.  We have benefited from that (Torres/Masch etc).  As I said above, the alternative is to borrow more money from banks at high interest rates.  Would you rather that happened?  If you do, then the Club's actual interest payments would be unsustainable now, and there would be serious problems.  With H+G loaning the money through a company, there are no ramifications for the club if things go pear-shaped.  Do you not get that?

    If the club can't pay H+G the interest, what happens? NOTHING.  There are no consequences.

    If the loans are with a bank, there are big consequences.

    This is a very simple point but clearly people do not want to accept it/.  Why?  They're too wrapped up in irrational hatred for H+G to see the woods for the trees.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So the club owes 326.8million.  Thats ok then :-$

    Your defence of the yanks is pathetic the fact of the matter is we are in mountains of debt which are far larger than we had under moores with a transfer spend in the minus figures(I notice you didnt mention that anywhere)  and very little to show for all this debt.  Why dont you talk about how the accounts show over 50mill spent on the new stadium (really??? 50mill for a non existent stadium???)

    ReplyDelete
  34. HERE HERE!!!!
    HAVE YOU EVER EVEN BEEN A MATCH?DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE GAME?CAN YOU EVEN KICK A BALL?WHY CANT YOU SUPPORT THE MANCS.
    IDIOT

    ReplyDelete
  35. LOL. Poor Mr. Kanwar.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Everything *will* be fine. Despite all the doom and gloom-mongering over finances over the last few years, not one negative outcome has materialised.  We came 2nd last year; tied up an 81m sponsorship deal; renewed the contracts of gerrard, Torres, Kuyt, Agger, Reina and Benitez; wrapped up a new commercial deal with Carlsberg. Where is the supposed nuclear fallout that's everyone's been bitching about for the last 3 years? 

    This season's crap performance on the field is down to one man alone: Benitez.  The squad we have is more than capabloe of finishing within the top 4.  We didn't though, and thus it is BENITEZ who is costing the club REAL money, not H+G.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks for that Jamie, Christian will be around in the morning with your payment.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Christian Purslow7:00 pm, May 15, 2010

    So you think Rafa is causing more of a problem than Hicks and Gillett? I'll admit we greatly underachieved this season, but surely had there been significant investment on the side that came so close last year, rather than a net spend which earnt us more money on players that we paid out we'd have had much more of a shout? I can't believe people can be so short sighted as to believe that a squad which was second best, could then lose players, not replace them even with players of the same value and still improve! If you don't believe he's doing a good job in the consequences, then fair enough, I disagree, but that's football (I'd still expect you to support him at Anfield on a matchday by the way) but to say he needs to go before they do is outrageous!

    Who do you think will realistically be tempted to replace him under the current ownership by the way?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Some people need to get a sense of perspective here. To dismiss this article because it does not fit your world view is childish.
    Everyone is in agreement that we need new owners this issue here is about the debt structure.
    It seems entirely reasonable to me that the Kop holding debt cannot be called in if it puts the club out of business.
    What is not right is the whole structure of the deal and how the club is now valued.
    We need an owner now with deep pockets and a long term view on a return on investment.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jaimie,

    Is there really so many supporters attacking you or you make the negative comments yourself? LOL. Just a thought... just a thought.

    Whatever the hell it is, if Torres go, I will be joining the street protest.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thanks, Tom.  Remind Christian to bring POUNDS this time, and not dollars.  Thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
  42. A prime example of a 'fan' spouting unfounded generalisations based on tabloid myth.

    'Transfer spend in minus figures'?   = Nonsense

    Please provide an explanation (with evidence) for that contention.

    And 326m?  Perhaps if you spent more time properly comprehending the article, and less time trying to be 'smart' you'd get somewhere.

    *Club debt = 226

    *100m of that is owed to Kop Holdings

    That makes 226m, not 326m.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Christian Purslow7:07 pm, May 15, 2010

    I agree. It's deffo Rafa's fault that our best player and only out and out striker has been injured. The only reason the Mancs have finished so far above us this season is that Rooney hasn't been injured. It'd be the same for us with a fully fit Torres all season.

    One of the main reasons we've been so poor is the lack of someone to fill in when he's not there. (We can't afford anyone)

    When Chelsea's main man - Drogba is out, they still have Anelka.

    The Mancs have Berbatov (alright he's crap, but Fergie still has a 33 million pound backup)

    We have David Ngog - a very young lad who cost peanuts and is still learning his trade. There's the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Christian Purslow7:10 pm, May 15, 2010

    Hicksy lad, Monopoly money doesn't count, have you got any real money?

    ReplyDelete
  45. People just do not want to hear the truth.  Even when irrefutable facts are placed in front of them, some fans just will not budge from their ingrained view.  It's called Groupthink.  As for fans attacking me - it goes with the territory.  Doesn't bother me in the slightest.  Group mentality rules when it comes to football - you have to follow the crowd; if you don't, then you're an outcast, even if you speak the truth.

    I have to admit though, people come up with some funny stuff when they hurl insults at me. It's funny stuff :)

    ReplyDelete
  46. When Southampton's parent company went under (KFHL effectively being Liverpool's parent company), Southampton were docked 10 points. As far as the football authorities are concerned, parent companies are effectively the same as the club itself.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ah Jaimie. Obviously KPMG were alerted to the state of the club by 'irresponsible jouralism' and it was said journalism that led them to doubt the ability of the club to continue as a growing concern.
    Maybe if you used this forum to discuss the actual problems at our club instead of spinning them, it would be of more assistance. That is, if you have the clubs best interests at heart.
    You claim to hate 'groupthink' yet swallow hook, line and sinker all information you are fed.
    Our club is in serious debt. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Being docked points and having to pay 340m are two massively different things, wouldn't you say?

    ReplyDelete
  49. I am a big dirty queg!

    ReplyDelete
  50. It must have been tough on you. i agree that it's funny and entertaining though childish. Whether your facts are real or not, there's still no need for personal insults on you. Your critics have been really tough on you for the whole season.

    Even your positive articles with positive views are being slammed so often. LOL. It's so hard to please these Liverpool Fans. Man, it must be really suck to be G, H, Rafa or even Jaimie Kanwar (just a poor writer)

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pre Hicks and Gillett, LFC are recent CL winners, current CL finalists, with Rafael Benitez, a team and club in the ascendancy, in need of a higher stadium capacity to the tune of 10 - 25,000 yes, and debt of about £45m. Moores wouldn't load the club with debt to finance the extra ground capacity, and so handed over the club to someone he trusted to utilise their own capital to take the club forward. Annual income was high and rising, and we were posting a profit.

    With Hicks and Gillett, we have no increased capacity, a 7th place finish, between £240 million and £400 million debt on the club (take your pick), no means by which to buy players (despite increased TV income), and we make losses and interest payments, as a club, that dwarf the entire debt we started with before they came.

    Hmmm. You think this is NORMAL? And you think our primary issue as a club is Rafael Benitez?

    Staggering brainlessness, Mr Kanwar.

    Face it; the Americans have financially raped the club. That's the sad, sad truth.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The club is not in serious debt.  Man United have 789m debt; THAT is serious debt.  Get some perspective.

    And the going concern warning has no weight.  The club got the same warning last year, and will again next year.  In and of itself, the 'going concern' warning has no impact.  It is the opinion of one person.  One accountant.  Since you raised it, why don't you tell me wht the specific, measurable impact of that warning is? 

    Why people put such stock in the 'going concern' thing is mystifying.  The Directors of LFC *choose* to include it in the reports - it is not mandatory.  Moreover, the Directors *agree* with the 'going concern' warning (this is explicitly stated in the accounts notes). 

    It is words on a page.  Nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Oh, please.  Who decided to spend 18m on right back we didn't need instead of a striker, which we *desperately* needed?!  Benitez.  We could've bought a back-up striker but Benitez decided to buy a perpetually injured midfielder for 20m, and right back.

    I can't believe people actually use such thin arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  54. forget debt and owners.
    lfc will be a mere club under benitez. the answer is so simple and so do the clue to success. just send him to another club who is willing to get him even for half of his compensation paid to the club. would be a great deal and bring a capable manager who can inject collectiveness by his signings and sense of management

    ReplyDelete
  55. Believe me, I don't take any of it personally.  It doesn't bother me.  That's just the type of person I am.  I don't write for validation.  If people want to waste their time slagging me off, let them get on with it.

    The problem is my views are often very different to the majority, and the majority don't like it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Entirely different. And I also very much doubt the club will go under. However, the fact is that H&G have landed the club in a serious amount of debt for no return. £40m+ spent on the stadium? What stadium? £40m last year in interest payments...wouldn't that have been nice to spend on players or wage bill.

    I'm sure you're right up to a point, and that a lot of the tabloid reporting is sensationalising. However - that doesn't mean that the club doesn't have difficulties. Yes, Utd's debt is much bigger - but so is their turnover, and they also do not need to fund a new stadium.

    H&G are the biggest impediment to the progress of the club, even if things aren't quite as bad as some of the more sensationalist reporting suggests.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I deleted the insult in your post.  Stick to  debating the issues - any further posts that contravene the comment policy will be deleted, and you will be banned.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Who would this be? Long ball O'Neil? Expect Carew to be parked in the box to nod on.
    With what money will this manager do this? There is none. It goes to pay interest.

    Open your eyes you fool.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Has Rafa made mistakes? Yes. Although I don't agree Johnson was one of them...

    Has he made more mistakes than any other top manager? No.

    Would we be in a much worse position of MON or some other such 2nd rate manager was in post - YES.

    ReplyDelete
  60. but fans from every other club want to see LFC do a Leeds. say your words of clarity aren't true!

    ReplyDelete
  61. 'Words on a page' - that's not really a cogent argument Jaimie. Basically, you're saying that you don't agree with it, and therefore no-one should take any notice. Well, excuse me if I continue to think for myself...

    ReplyDelete
  62. the fact is LFC are paying £110,000 in interest payments (not even paying off debt) EVERY DAY! this is not good enough. getting rid of the yanks is our priority. the manager is far less important than getting rid of the yanks.

    ReplyDelete
  63. its rafas fault for not using any money available to him for buying the right players, he chose to spend roughly 20 mil on an injured player, he chose not to buy a suitable replacement for an increasingly injury prone striker, he chooses the style of play, he chooses to keep some quality attacking players on the bench and play 2 holding midfielders and dirk kuyt who offers nothing, so yes last seasons dire performance is down to rafa

    ReplyDelete
  64. Arguing about the details of liverpools debt is like two bald men fighting over a comb.
    Liverpool are finished unless a magical billionaire rides into town and says "heres 600 million do want you want with it" and its more likely that kanwar gets one of his screenplays commissioned and made into an ocscar winning movie directed by steven speilberg.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Presumably, then Scotty, you would acknowledge that the previous season's fine performance was also down to Rafa?

    ReplyDelete
  66. that's right, papi. The substitution of Torres during Fulham vs Liverpool when the match was 1-1 was the final straw. And also the continuous insistence of playing Lucas regularly. Since then I lost my patience with Rafa. Questionable tactics for the whole season. Javier Mascherano as rightback during Liverpool Vs Chelsea. Even seasonal championship manager or FM players can tell it's a stupid tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sorry, but this is another media figure that is plainly wrong, and it is misinformation like this that needs to be corrected.

    LFC has paid 9.3m in interest payments in the last year.  That equates to 25k a day, not 110,000 (!). The 9.3m figure is in the club accounts (see the article).

    ReplyDelete
  68. Brainlessness?

    Jeez, you have a thin-skin!

    I think you'll find around 99% of that post dealt with 'the issues'.

    Care to respond to them?

    ReplyDelete
  69. There's more chance of Billy Liddell rising from the grave and managing the club than Liverpool 'doing a Leeds'. It's never going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  70. By all means make your points, but do it without insulting other posters please.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The proof is in the pudding! If the club is financially sound or not so unsound, why did the wretched owners walk away with the sale proceeds of Alonso, etc. when investment in new players was so badly needed? Why is the bank so concerned that a Chelsea season ticket holder is appointed as a watchdog chairman to oversee a quick sale? He may do a decent job in the end but until a good sale deed is done, the jury will remain out on him and the owners. Forget Beitez, name one top manager who will join us as replacement at present without assured investment in new players? So I don't care about any stats. We supporters have suffered every day of the season and I don't blame Rafa either after he took us to second position last year and instead of being supported with more finds, he was pickpocketed even from sales of players.

    ReplyDelete
  72. yes i would, and i have done in the past, but for me last summers dealings were unforgivable, torres' injury problems are nothing new, and while at the end of the previous season we were playing expansive attacking football, fact is last season we've gone backwards, but while some people are totally anti-rafa i just feel that, like houllier, hes taken us as far as he can and come to a natural end

    ReplyDelete
  73. Why did the wretched owners walk away with the sale proceeds of Alonso.

    Please provide your evidence for this contention. I suspect you just read this in some newspaper/LFC forum and accepted it as fact.

    You don't care about stats = you don't care about the TRUTH and REALITY.  With that in mind, how do you expect to have a clear, informed view of what is *actually* happening?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ho ho Championship Manager or FM players. Oh my.

    Who do you blame for the second place finish the year before?

    If only Rafa had spent a bit more time on Championship Manager, we could have won it!

    ReplyDelete
  75. KENNY DALGLISH!!KEVIN KEEGAN !! That's 2!! >:o

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ok.

    Open your eyes, man!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Read the comment policy: any post that contains insults will be deleted *even if it contains good points*.  It is not a question of taking it personally (I Don't) - it is a matter of principle.  This site is for civilised, respectful debate.  That means discussing things properly.  if you want a childish free-for-all then go to TIA or Six Crazy Minutes. 

    I usually just delete posts that contain insults, but since yours contains some good points too, I didn't.  In future, I will just delete.

    I will address your points soon.

    ReplyDelete
  78. ALways thought you were a club plant but now this just proves it. Who in the UK uses the term 'Social security'. Only a yank would say something like that. Its National insurance you numpty.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Actually, no - that's not what I'm saying at all. There is no negative impact from having the 'going concern' warning.  Nothing happens asa a result of it.  As I said in my original response: why don't you tell me wht the specific, measurable impact of that warning is?   The fact you didn'd focused on something irrelevant shows you do not have an answer.

    As such, the warning is as I said" words on a page that mean nothing.  If they DO mean something, please outline what.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Please tell me you were being ironic with the CM/FM comment? Please?

    ReplyDelete
  81. People jusmp all over the 'going concern' warning because it's just another thing they can add to their armoury when they're attacking the Owners.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Would we be in a much worse position of MON or some other such 2nd rate manager was in post - YES.

    How do you know this? 

    Aston Villa finished above us this season, with less resources and a squad which has far less quality than ours.  And you claim that we'd be in a worse position with MON?! 

    Yes, that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I'm still too young too know about investments but my dad is an accountant and from what i've picked up from him is that if you own any investment for example a football club, or even a flat for rent, anything like that, and it is making a healthy profit then you can borrow money on that investment/property to keep your other businesses running efficiently. In H+G's case they own other businesses as well so that's probably why they took the loan out but it also means LFC is making a healthy profit, right? 

    ReplyDelete
  84. Just consider that Alonso is sold for £30 million. The earnings for the year are around £20 million (or more).

    RB spends around £12 million on Johnson (Portsmouth, now in Administartion, owed LFC over £5 million from Crouch), an initial payment of around £7 million for Aquilani and about £1.5 million for Kyrgiakos.The seasons income pretty much spent. Ok.

    Yes there is more owing on Aquilani (dependent to a large extent on LFC success). This has not yet been paid.

    But I do not believe RB received a single penny of the Alonso money. £30 million. Where is it?

    Also, while I'm at it, do we really believe £43 million has been 'spent' on the 'new stadium'.

    Face it, its a LBO that is destroying our club from all angles.

    ReplyDelete
  85. This is not true. Yes the club needs someone to purchase the club from the Americans, but as long as it's at a fair price, a sensible debt structure and real increases in stadium capacity will assure future income is healthy and the club could go from strength to strength.

    It will take years to get over these last three years of mess. The American owners MUST go first.

    But this club will be strong again.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Hang on, he never said that was normal, he said.... i dont know how many times . . . !! that Debt is normal.
    We had great times just before Moores sold up thats for sure, and as you said he didnt want to burdon the club with debt. But he sold the club. It now belongs to H&G. And if you brought a house of someone you decide how to decorate it.
    And before you start i know its not a house its a club, and a club that believe me, i have loved down to every last blade of grass for the last 30 years.
    But the club was sold, obviously no signed agreements to keep the club out of debt. That would be rediculous. These Yankie BuisnessMen came in and did what they know... Buisness.
    Now this bloke has posted what i have found to be real and accurate statements regarding the clubs finances. Thats it! Simple!

    Why are you arguing the toss over facts that are Fact??

    He wants the current owners out....so do we

    He wants Rafa out...... so do we

    Whats the problem? just thank him for the info, and move on

    Cheers Man

    ReplyDelete
  87. Jakko

    I am a long standing season ticket holder and a long time ago, I predicted that in abandoning DIC and going to H & G we would regret it. I am no fan of  H & G. However, Jamie is correct in his assertion that the clubs debt is £237 million and not the £400,m plus figure. Love them or hate them, H & G have also massively improved the commercial fortunes of the club. It was a joke before they took over. I want them to sell because they realise now, post credit crunch, that they cannot build the stadium and thus make massive money. Unlike the aggressive Spirit of Shankly, we should let them sell the club, thank them for making our commercial activities much better, and move on, with our £237 million debt disappearing under new ownership. They are not as bad as SoS would have people believe.

    ReplyDelete
  88. It is a warning of a potential event, and therefore has no specific measureable impact, as I'm sure you know. It does, however, highlight that if new lines of credit are not secured, there would be significant doubt as to the clubs (yes - the club, warnings were issued with regard to both the Club and H&G, to use your terminology) ability to continue as a going concern.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I wonder how much of the £43 millino was paid to Laing O'Rourke who were selected to construct the stadium but then were discharged. I guess like paying off the 20 Academy staff plus the £4.3 million (???) for Parry, LO'R would have been entitled to compo for loss of profit ?

    ReplyDelete
  90. The truth is that the club were sold because we could not compete ifnancially any longer and all being equal, remaining in the ownership of Moores would have fresulted in terminal decline. You cannot and should not L also lost ot burnley in round 3 of the cup. We were NOT a great team. Lets face facts

    ReplyDelete
  91. I always thought that it was 226m because the owners did reduced it in their last extension with the banks. When I see the reports of 350m then 450m, I was sensing rubbish everywhere. Well I don't doubt SOS are fans but there's also reasons why Broughton is not meeting them while he rather address the fans overall. Also meeting Scudmore is not going to help as if he cares.

    As for the 100m we owe H + G, it could well be money for Torres and co. I would also like to comment that under the H + G, we had broken the banks many times with Torres (25m), Keane (20m), Johnson (18m), Aquilani (20m), Babel (11m), and a truck load of youngsters. This has never happened before during Moores.

    They only thing they didn't do was the stadium and they promised not to saddle the club with debts (100m loan). Also not forgetting the Klinsmann joke and treating the club as a franchise, plus Snoogy Doogy, Bad mouth son, Parry vs Rafa (part 1), Hicks vs Rafa (part 2), Gillet vs Rafa (part 3), Purslow vs Rafa (ongoing)...Rafa's got social problems lol but that's another story.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I agree, it is a warning of potential event, but the question is, what is the realistic probability of that event transpiring?

    Zero, in my view. You only have to look at the history of football and see how many times it has happened in 100 years to see that the probability is zero.

    As I said, just words on a page.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Jamie, surely as Liverpool fan you except that regardless of the debt being as "low" and i use that term very loosely as you claim to "know", much like every other blogger \ journo, its not ideal. 

    The bottom line is we had 40m debt and it was serviceable, now, dependant upon where the moon is, people are claiming anywhere from 200 - 400 m debt, while that is a big difference, its immaterial. The owners promised they would not leverage buy us like the glaziers did with United, they lied and the debt is now simply unmanageable.   

    marketing revenue is indeed slightly up, but then for years we have been lacking (the LFC shop in Chester for example), but that is in no way reason enough to have any appreciation for these charlatans.

    The sooner they sell up and go the better, then we can concentrate on whats important. 

    ReplyDelete
  94. theycallmemrBurt9:21 pm, May 15, 2010

    Very plausable......  All is never what it seems at the best or worst of times

    ReplyDelete
  95. Hey Jaimie.
    You continue to be a breath of fresh air when it comes to covering the raw truth regardless of the b*llshit you get in return. S.O.S  who are representive of anyone who will listen are painted in a far better light for whatever reason. I am not totally against them as to do nothing is simply a sin but they are far from perfect and lack any sort of class that we as a team both on and off the pitch have shown in abundance since i was a kid ( Now 40 years old ).
    Please continue the good work and stay true to your belief's.
    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  96. The State of Liverpool FC – An Idiots Guide

    While "senior sources" at the club (Christan Purslow) try to facilitate a smear campaign against the manager, pretend everything is rosy at the club and briefs the press to headline the Rick Parry pay off on the day the club's financials are tactically released on election results day; here's what's really going on at Liverpool Football Club:


    The figures released on Friday 8th May 2010 indicate that Liverpool FC is in net debt to the tune of £351m; an increase of £52m from last year’s figure.

    A total of £233.996m is owed to RBS, in addition to an inter-company loan of £144.441m owed to “Kop Cayman”; a company owned by Gillett and Hicks based in the Cayman Island for tax reasons; a company that have loaned Liverpool FC £144.441m at an interest rate of 10%. This is the “own money” that Gillett and Hicks claim to have put into the club. In reality, they’re just charging the club 10% interest for lending that money through an offshore limited liability company that they aren’t even personally liable for – Liverpool FC are.

    Liverpool FC are not paying the interest off on that £144.4m however. It is being charged as a “compound interest”, meaning the interest isn’t paid, but is instead “rolled up” to the grand total. For example, this year (if I’ve got this right):

    £144.4m @ 10% interest = £14.44m payable this year.

    Instead of paying that £14.44m, it is rolled onto the total making the outstanding debt owed to Kop Cayman £158.88m. The following year this is then charged at a further 10% interest:

    £158.88m @ 10% interest = £15.88m payable next year.

    Instead of paying that £15.88m, it is rolled onto the total making the outstanding debt owed to Kop Cayman £174.76m. The following year this is then charged at a further 10% interest:

    £174.76m @ 10% interest = £17.76m payable next year.

    Instead of paying that £17.76m, it is rolled onto the total making the outstanding debt owed to Kop Cayman £192.52m etc etc etc...

    The debt soon spirals out of control, as you can see; and don’t forget, this only concerns the £144.4m owed to Gillett and Hick’s Cayman Islands company – it doesn’t concern the huge £234m owed to RBS.

    The financial figures released last week are for the 2008/09 season.

    Those figures declare the club made a loss of around £52m for that year, due to the interest repayments on the loans and another £22m spent on the new ground; on what that was spent on we have no idea. There’s nothing to show for it anyway – and the total spend on the new ground now exceeds £50m. To put that into perspective – Sunderland managed to build the 48,000 seat Stadium of Light for a lot less than that. We have a few fences up at the back of the Anfield Road End!

    Anyway – we made a loss of £52m that year despite finishing 2nd in the league and reaching the latter stages of the Champions League. The accounts also declared a profit made on player transfers (despite Purslow telling us we don’t need to sell players to balance the books and service debt, and Rafa being accused of wasting millions on players – the accounts prove otherwise).

    .



    .


    2007: £44m debt (£3m per year to service)
    2008: £350m debt (£36.5m per year to service)
    2009: £378m debt (£40m per year to service)
    2010: ???

    Those are the levels of debt on the club, with it being only £44m before Gillett and Hicks bought the club. Therefore the club’s profits were able to be invested back into the squad, allowing us to compete on the pitch. We’re now crippled by debts we cannot service, when that £40m leaving the club each year in interest repayments should be being spent on new [...]

    ReplyDelete
  97. It is ot just words on a page though is it? Accountants who have access to forensic details of the club accounts believe that our club is in grave danger.

    You just bury your head in the sand about it. Everything that should go against the whole ethos of your site, no?

    Only you know why you are so opposed to people learning the exact depth of our debt.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Aj - I agree that the debt level is not ideal, but that doesn't mean the world is ending and Liverpool is going to wither and die. Debt is the rule in modern football, not the exception.

    Not everything is black and white re H+G - it's easy just to demonise them, but it's better to appreciate the good things they've done during their tenure AND slam the bad things that have arised.  Balance is better. 

    Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, good things HAVE occured during the H+G reign. I also accept that bad things have happened to.  These should be discussed, but only in a fair manner, using facts, not supposition and generalisation.

    ReplyDelete
  99. This post is a prime example of everything that is wrong with fan thinking re the debt. It is so riddled with false information it's unbelievable!  Furthermore, figures have been taken from the accounts and added up incorrectly.  The whole post is laughable.  And where did it originate?  Red and White Kop.  What a surprise!

    I am going post another article tomorrow, which will tear this post apart line by line.  Unlike the above post, I will - as I have in the article above - use evidence and links to the relevant sections of the club's accounts to prove that this post is nonsense.

    jeez, no wonder fans don't know whether they're coming or going with this kind of rubbish floating about.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Guest - it is not accountants (plural) it is accountant (singlular).  one accountant has access to the club accounts. And it is not forensic accounting either; the accounts are compiled by the Directors of the club and the accountant persuses whatever he is given and then offers his opinion.  This is clearly stated in the accountant's report in the accounts.

    And where does it say anywhere that the club is 'grave danger'?

    Since when does 'material uncertainty' = grave danger?

    Could it be that you are exaggerating to make a point, perhaps?

    That the club is in 'grave danger' is your opinion - it is not fact.  it is not even close to being fact. 

    The 'exact depth' of the club's debt is precisely as I have outlined in the article above.  I have even provided snippets from the reports themselves as evidence.

    it is you who has his head buried in the sand.  You are ignoring irrefutable, recorded fact.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Interested Observer10:01 pm, May 15, 2010

    Good article.  I was with you right up until you also started spreading falsehoods and misinformation.  You want us to believe Aquilani cost £20m, when he didn't.  It was reported, when our link to him was still a rumour that he had a 14M buy out clause in his contract.  After we signed him that figure suddenly became universally reported as £20m.  Strange how you know all other figures connected to the club but not that one.  Are you also aware that Torres didn't cost £26m? 
    Aquilani isn't perpetually injured at all.  Coming back from long term injury a player often picks up a few niggles but by and large he's been fit for the past 6 months. 
    Glen Johnson actually cost us only £7m due to Rafa's quick thinking.  Portsmouth owed us £10m that would never have been repaid as the majority of their debt will be written off.  The only other team in for Johnson was Chelsea who also happened to be owed money by Portsmouth.  They had the same idea Johnson chose us.
    This striker that everyone is talking about is going to have to be a very special individual.  He must be good enough to repace Torres when he's out but content to spend most of the season on the bench.  Not many of those about.  Only strikers content to spend that much time on the bench are young kids learning their trade, like Ngog, or those coming towards the end of their careers.  
    You and others seem to forget how it used to be before Rafa.  Between 1990, when our European ban ended, and Rafa's arrival we played 2 seasons in the Champions League.  We reached the quarter-final one year and went out in the group stages the other time.   Rafa took us to the number 1 ranked team in Europe over that 5 year period.  He took us to 2 European Cup Finals, our first in 20 years.  Before Rafa it used to be widely called 'The Big Three' by those wishing to wind us up.  After Rafa's arrival even they could no longer continue to call it that.
    If you can honestly, hand on heart, say that straight after we beat Man Utd 4-1 at OT you wanted Rafa out then fair enough you should be entitled to demand his replacement.  However if it's simply because of the one poor season we've jusst had then you're as fickle as the fans that you deride in your article.  Nothing went right for us this year.  Going right back to the beginning of pre-season.  When your dealing with one of your own who genuinely has the best interests of the club at heart, you say that was awful but we'll accept that there were a lot of mitigating circumstances and we'll call it a blip.  If come Christmas 2010 we're again out of the title race and struggling to qualify for the Champions League then that would the time to start sounding out potential replacements to take over in the summer if things didn't dramatically improve.
    You won't understand what i'm going to say next but i'm more to blame for our poor season than Rafa.  There's so much going on out there that you don't know about.  All i'll say is that i guarantee that next season will be much better in every way than this one.
    I love our club and feel genuine affection for most of our supporters.  We are like kindred spirits.  We all want the best for Liverpool FC,  Many people out there don't want the best for our club and we just play into their hands when we constantly criticise individual players and slag the club and each other off.  It would be better if we put our heads together and came up with ways to improve our club.  For instance if anyone out there has heard of a quality striker, maybe playing in a lesser known league, who has the quality to deputise for Torres and not demand a consistent starting place, let us know so we can get his name out there and maybe the powers that be hear [...]

    ReplyDelete
  102. You want us to believe Aquilani cost £20m, when he didn't.  It was reported, when our link to him was still a rumour that he had a 14M buy out clause in his contract.  After we signed him that figure suddenly became universally reported as £20m.  Strange how you know all other figures connected to the club but not that one.

    1. Where in my article did I state that Aquilani cost 20m?  I didn't.

    2.  Look at the attached image.  This is a snippet from the latest club accounts.  It states that Aquilani and Kyrgiakos were signed for a total of 20.4m.  If we surmise that Kyrgiakos was signed for 2m, then that leaves 18.4m on Aquilani.  This tallies with the the figures Roma posted on their website at the time of Aquilani's sale, something I have written about here:

    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/alberto-aquilani-truth-about-his.html

    3. What do buyout clauses have to do with anything?  What is 'reported' is not reliable.  There is no way to verify what was in Aquilani's contract - it is confidential.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Or if you actually produced an actual balanced article that was not all H&G loving anti Rafa propaganda you would realise that you yourself said that the Club owes 226 mill to RBS and "owe" 100.8mill to H&G, are we to believe that our owners who you respect so much for being great businessmen are just going to write off that money and that the club will never have to pay it back, really are you that blinded by your love?   And in the meantime they can take their sweet time while that owed money grows year by year in interest.

    An with regards to transfer spend if you actually looked at the accounts in as much detail as you claim you would have noticed that we made a profit in transfer activity but of course that does not get anywhere near your agenda does it?

    ReplyDelete
  104. A bit of advise: drop offensive part of your comments.

    Last paraghraph of your above comment wasn't necessary, was it?

    The way you talk to other fans - who might be wrong - is inflaming and doesn't do any good for your arguments. You made few good points which made me rethink the whole thing, but I feel anger when a Liverpool fan is abused for expessing his concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  105. You really think that this money was put in but H&G?  I would not be at all surprised to find out that they borrowed the money .

    ReplyDelete
  106. Jamie, do you have any info on how much H&G took out of LFCAGL in terms of dividends and expenses. It seems to me they have taken money out of the club in dividends, management fees and expenses. This has left the club short of money so the club then borrows off of H&G and are charged interest. If H&G had not bled the club dry there would be no need for the club to borrow from H&G. This looks like a roundabot method of extracting money from the club.You have quoted from the accounts so can you let us know how much went to H&G in terms of expenses management fees and dividends

    ReplyDelete
  107. "I agree, it is a warning of potential event, but the question is, what is the realistic probability of that event transpiring? 
     
    Zero, in my view."

    KPMG are a respected audit company. No offence Jaimie, but I trust them more than I trust you.

    ReplyDelete
  108. You're kidding, right?

    Since when does the following constitute abuse:

    "They're too wrapped up in irrational hatred for H+G to see the woods for the trees".

    That comment was necessary because it's my opinion.  Furthermore, it was not even directed at the poster.  I refer to 'people' and they say 'they're' i.e plural, referring to a section of fans.

    If you feel anger over that, then I submit that is your problem, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Interested Observer10:56 pm, May 15, 2010

    You didn't state in your article that Aquilani cost £20m but when replying to a post you gave reasons for wanting Rafa's departure as he spent £20m on a perpetually injured midfielder.  I don't know many of the figures with regard to Liverpool FC.  My point was that by claiming Rafa wasted £20m on Aquilani and £18m on Johnson you were also guilty of stretching the truth fo assist your argument. 
    Did you honestly want Rafa out after the 4-1 win at OT?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Thanks for your comments west derby red.

    1. H+G have never taken a dividend out of the club.  This year's accounts confirm that once again (See image below)

    2. Re expenses: these are charged to Kop Holdings, Not LFCAGL.  Same goes for consulting fees - none of it has evern been charged to LFCAGL.

    The expenses situation was exactly the same as what I descrobe in the article - the media making out that H+G had charged expenses to the club (LFCAGL), which in reality, it was all charged to KFHL, which is their company.

    ReplyDelete
  111. So jamie why did you not answer when the question was put to you why h and g have paid 40 mil towards a stadium yet we are no closer to having one. Yet this is the soul reason why the club was sold in the first place!

    ReplyDelete
  112. I wanted Rafa out three years ago.  One result at Old trafford doesn't make a difference.  I think long-term, not short-term.  I knew this season would be a disaster; I predicted on the site at the end of last season, and I was right.  Furthermore, in 2004, before Benitez signed on as Manager, I wrote a post on TIA explaining why it was the wrong decision:

    http://www.thisisanfield.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2694&highlight=martin%20neill

    I didn't want Benitez from the start.

    ReplyDelete
  113. AV finished above us this season having spend more money (NET) in the last 2 years. They didn't have CL football, and they didn't have the same injury problems. They also don't suffer from the same expectations. Football is 70% psychological Jaimie. If you'd ever played it, you'd know that.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hahahhahaha

    That reminded me of one of those staged comments on the Mrs Merton show!!

    Good god, man - can't you be more subtle?

    ReplyDelete
  115. I'll look forward to that, Jaimie...because anything you say to refute the above post is wrong. I know this for a FACT.

    Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I'm sure we all look forward to it.
    If you can also indicate what makes you such an expert at reading accounts, please post that proof as well!

    ReplyDelete
  117. You wrote:

    "This is a very simple point but clearly people do not want to accept it/.  Why?  They're too wrapped up in irrational hatred for H+G to see the woods for the trees"

    That mean:
    1. Jan hates H=G. (But you cant say that from his post. Maybe he is just misinformed?)

    2. Jan doesnt WANT to know the truth. It is an insult mate.

    I'm not going to continue - it was a sincere advise. Do with it wathever you want.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Ditto. They are paid to do this job. How many company audits have you carried out Jaimie?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Staged?  Why do people love trying to make out I post under other names?  It's highly amusing.  Anyway: the image attached below is a screeshot of the Admin section of the site.  As you can see, west derby red and I have completely different IP addresses, which means our comments were made from different computers. 

    Epic Fail.

    ReplyDelete
  120. So I missed a question amongst hundreds of posts. Sue me!  I'll respond to it when I can.

    ReplyDelete
  121. WHo says you have to trust me?  I'm not trying to get people to trust me.  I state my opinion; that's all there is too it.  Whether people accept it or not is up them.

    KPMG's status as auditors is irrelevant.  What IS relevant is whether Liverpool will succumb to a 'material uncertainty' and cease to be a going concern.  No chance.  It will never happen.  Not in a million years.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Interested Observer11:49 pm, May 15, 2010

    That was a clever way of trying to avoid my question, which was if straight after the win at OT you sat at home thinking God... Rafa has to go.  It's easy to say after a bad season that i wanted him out 3 years ago.  So you didn't want a manager whose taken us to 2 Champions League finals and given us our highesst points total in our PL history.  Instead you flag up Martin O'Neill.  A manager who has never reached 70 points in any PL season. 
    If you don't and never have wanted Rafa fair enough but your reasons can't have anything to do with football.  They can't have if the season gefore we got him he won the Spanish League Title and the EUFA Cup.

    ReplyDelete
  123. "Who says you have to trust me?"

    Did I say someone says so?

    "KPMG's status as auditors is irrelevant."

    It is relevant - for me. I would dare to say it is relevant for every person who is not a professional auditor and doesn't have access to our accounts.

    They say: we are in danger. You say: they are wrong. Two contradicting opinions. As I don't have access to all the accounts and data (and I don't have sufficient tools to analyse the accounts) I have to choose one. No offence mate, I picked professional auditors.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Pompey still owed us around £7 mil last summer. Can you tell me how we could have got it from there other than getting a player off them? Given the players in their squad at that time, was there anyone else worth more than £7 mil that we could have taken from them? Also because of the new rules we needed more Wnglish players too.

    ReplyDelete
  125. 400 million, 300 million, 200 million? the debt is there. instead of people fighting over exact figure, people must focus on how to get some investments to get some good players and lower the debts! if the americans need to  go, so be it but pls just get down to some work and find owners who really love the club and want to see it right where it belongs, ON TOP!

    ReplyDelete
  126. SOS, i keep hearing SOS as been some sort of saviours. More like part of a continued ruination of LFC.

    Think its time some fans really took the heads out from inbetween there arse cheeks and realised that the media make things out to be 100 x worse than they are. Just some fans are more gullible than others.
    Whilst i agree that H + G need to leave, they have improved our income greatly compared to the last clowns in charge.

    Get behind the club, thats the way we will survive this.

    ReplyDelete
  127. You have your view and other reds fans may have another. That's football. The reality is that we are in trouble whether you blame Rafa or the owners. What purpose apart from your own personal anti benitez agenda does this article serve? We all have an opinion and I welcome yours, but I have to be honest and tell you I don't agree. If Purslow was brought in to sell the club - what's the need for him now after brougtons employment. A 'senior source' ?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Jamie, two points from the article and your subsequent comments

    Firstly you stated your not against H&G, why not? I'll remind you that they promised to build a new stadium (spades in the ground within 60 days), the club was bought debt free, unlike the Glaziers with man u, clearly a short fix before loading the club with debt £227 million, £351 million or £473 million, whichever figure is really true. We were never in this mess before they came in. And if Rafa wanted to buy snoggy dog comment certainly wasn't true. As for good things, erm yeah well I suppose we're far more aggressive in our 'marketing brand' nowadays than before they came in, another rick parry failure in his glory filled list of achievements, and Purslow getting 80 million for a shirt deal. Apart from that I don't see any real benefits and please don't quote the 40-50 million in the summer of 2007 this was offset by 20-30 million sales, the net spend was between 20-25 million, hardly big beer in these days. They have been a blight on our great club and the sooner they are gone the better.

    Secondly MON, you make an arguement for him, let's say I believe he's the type of guy who gets you to a certain level and that's it. Look at his signings wherever he's been in terms of forwards, Claridge, Sutton, Hartson, Carew, Heskey do you see a pattern? The only small nippy goalscoring strikers he's had he inherited most notably Henrik Larson at Celtic. The guy plays football which makes Rafa look a student of the go out and play with freedom type of game, I understand that a section of Liverpool fans are sick of the defensive football and want Rafa out but the names touted to replace him are in most cases perplexing. Would the football we watch be any better under MON or Mourinho? Evidence says not, a Martin Jol type on the other hand would by past example tend to play a more attack minded game if Rafa goes.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Its ok, with Benitez next year we will struggle into the fourth spot again..Dont mention 1st, 2nd or 3rd because Man City, Spurs, Villa and Evertoon are all coming!!

    ReplyDelete
  130. No..With Benitez next year we will struggle into fourth again..Dont forget Man City, Spurs, Villa and Evertoon are all coming! Benitez do not have an ideas to improve the squad

    ReplyDelete
  131. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  132. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  133. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  134. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  135. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  136. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  137. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  138. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  139. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  140. Jishnu Viswanath2:55 am, May 16, 2010

    Bravo!! Bravo!! Rafa has to go first? WTH? Just putting up some pdf document figure any one can make, does not make it rite.

    I belived that you may be rite, now I believe you are some one who want to throw away Rafa first than the biggest Morons H & G. Can you give me an example what is the good thing they done for the club? No new stadium? 2009-10, 2008-10 season transfer kitty almost 0, its zero not O. No contact between owners and fans.. if any one is bigger loosers that Glaziers of ManU.

    YANKS out rest all can wait.....

    ReplyDelete
  141. Hi There,

    I am LFC fan from Malaysia (for the past 30 years). I love my club. From what i see who ever left their comments here showed thet they love LFC nothing esle. We need somebody to inject in cash. Any idea who is the potential buyer?

    *** my english is not so good. Sorry for that.

    ReplyDelete
  142. I have to agree that there are several points in this article that make lot of sense. Now im not advocating that H&G have done the most honourable things towards our club, but i don't feel that all this doom and gloom scaremongering that has been trife in the media is all it has been cracked up to be. I think there are certain realities we have to face, firstly that Rafa is not the right man for the job. We have the best striker in the world, and yet he continues to rely on a redundant defensive style, that has both proved to be usless in the premier league, and extremely unattractive. I have been a supporter of LFC for close to thirty years now, and i have never seen us play so badly. And im not just talking about the results, its that we play such boring, uninspiring football. We have the talent, but we do not have the right man at the helm. We need someone who understands the EPL, not a ego such as benetiz. His arrogance is our downfall, and his inability to admit his mistakes is costing us dearly. I truly believe that there are are number of managers that could easily take the reigns and do a much better job than Rafa, starting with Daglish, Hodgson, and any number of other english managers who understand the EPL and what it takes to succeed in it.. Its not ego, and that is the only thing that Rafa brings to the table. You may disagree with me, but the only positve in Rafa's time at anfield is a CL trophy, from a team he inherited from houllier, to which there are only 2 players left that played in that team.. Going forward, i think not.....

    ReplyDelete
  143. Sorry i went on a bit of an anti rafa rant, but that is where i feel most of our problems stem from.. I think that our major problem is on the field. Once we can sort out our on field problems, our dire situation wont seem so dire. Now this seems like i am going in circles, but to be honest, Rafa has had enough time and money to initiate improvements to our club, to which he has simply not been able to do. Any other club would have releived him of his duties long ago. And this is now a reflection of the owners, who simply are not willing to fork out money to a man who hasnt proven his worth. And the merry go round keeps on a turning. No investment meens no prospect of improving, but if you were H&G would you hand Rafa any more money. Some of the players he has bought and sold due to poor performances under his rule are now flourishing in other clubs. This is major point that some of you in Rafa we trust ranters neglect to mention. Man u are in so much more debt than we are in, yet they are constantly in the top 2. and as much as i hate to admit it, Fergo is ther key. And other clubs realise this. Look at Tottenham, Villa, even Everton, these clubs have risen from mediocrity and are now challenging for CL places. Why? Managers who understand the epl. THere is nothing positive in arguing about our owners when on the field we simply look like a bunch of girls. This is Rafas legacy. He has put us here. And he is the one we should be replacing. LFC will always be a great club, and hopefully we will again reign supreme. 

    ReplyDelete
  144. All this financial engineering is irrelevant. when it comes down to it, rafa has been forced to sell before he can buy, so the club is not financially healthy. you can debate whether he has been wasteful in the past, but face facts, at this point in time, there is no money, and money is what is needed. 

    ReplyDelete
  145. I HAVNT LAUGHED SO HARD IN AGES AT SOME OF THE RUBBISH ON HERE . tHE BEST JONKE IS THAT PEOPLE ACTUALY BELIEVE IT, I WONDERD WERE THAT HICKS GOBSHITE OF A SON HAD GOT TO , NOW I KNOW , BIGGEST FISHING SITE EVER ,

    ReplyDelete
  146. great to see you back JK, been waiting awhile!. like i said to you way back, keep up the great work mate, I'm a fan of the cold hard truth.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Tears for Liverpool7:30 am, May 16, 2010

    Christian,

     I dont think that's a question for Anwar to answer.It's a question you should be giving an answer to yourself. We have for long wished for the Premiership and after 6 years, we have nothing. I cant blame you for the time you havent been at this club but I can say you and the board neeed to realise our frustrations over our performance that has been far from exciting!! Anwar is only trying to do what none of you at LFC has thought of doing!! bring clarity to the ammounts of Debt sorrounding the Club. I dont knoe if any of this is actually true but You need to clear the Air so we can find out if Anwar is giving us wrong information.
    You ask him about Benitez, which in a way is a surprise to me because you should have the answers!!
    Please give the honest answers to these questions.
    1. If all is well, why are we looking for new owners?
    2. Are you satisfied with Benitez's performance this season?
    3. Why are clubs with less expensive squads in terms of signing fees and salaries performing better than us?
    4. Why isnt the money that is generated from player sales never used to by new players?
    5. Why buy injured players for large sums of Money and want to sell them after a single season at a loss?
    6. Are you saying with the current situation its okay to stay with a Manager who has failed to deliver anything in the past three years?
    7. Is it Anwar's Fault that we cannot get rid of this Manager?
    8. How many Fans still have the loyal Support we had for Benitez two Years ago?
    9. What is the true Financial State of the club if Anwar is wrong?
    10. How many more companies would be willing to be associated with the club in the current situation? Wouldnt that make your job harder?
    11. Man U has massive debts but are still up there in the Top Four. How do you explain that?
    12. When we lose good players who is responsible for finding replacements? Why have they not done that?

    Clearly something is terribly wrong and alot has be done. I dont care who goes first but do something please!!!
    Honestly, we need a new Manager....... Someone to breathe life into the squad.
    I believe we have a decent squad to make an impact and progress much further than we have this year.

    ReplyDelete
  148. dam, deleted my own comment! bloody computers, i'm from a different age. great to see you back JK, like you, i've been waiting for the magic day we clear out benetiz and his anti-football. keep up the good work, its always a pleasure to read your posts. to you DISBELIEVERS the truth is a cruel mistress.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Tears for Liverpool7:45 am, May 16, 2010

    We all look at the symptom and forget the cause!!! The first person to blame is Rick Parry for being so greedy and dropping DIC for the Yanks.
    Christian, alot has be done as I said before but I believe our talent scouting is lacking. i know of a Fabregas who cost a reasonable amount but is one of the best. Did I mention a certain Kolo Tore who was bought at less than a million and was sold for Millions??

    Here in my Country(Uganda to be precise) we have a new name..... LOSERFOOLS Fc. It hurts when you have fans from other clubs screaming that at You!!

    ReplyDelete
  150. That's your opinion Jaimie. Please avoid stating unfounded opinion, and show the irrefutable facts - i.e. 2 going concern notices.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Ah yes, conclusive proof.

    1) You can change IP addresses with one command
    2) Or West derby red could be a friend.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Don't fall for this 'article', it's complete tosh. Were are are nearly £500m in debt and going nowhere. The problem is real and not 'misinformed' or 'exaggerated'.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Jaimie,

    If a structural engineer came and assessed your house and said there was a possibility it could fall down, would you:

    a) Be somewhat concerned and move out, or
    b) Tell the neighbours not to worry, it was only one structural engineer's opinion, and anyway, none of the other houses in the street have ever fallen down?

    Because that is basically the argument you are making..

    ReplyDelete
  154. All correct and factual, well done, there is nothing there to argue with in terms of the club's actual level of debt. I don't share your optimism however. G + H bought this club for about 220 million right? I don't really know but that's the commonly reported figure. That actually covered the club's debt. Now they are looking to sell. The problem is that they are unlikely to be willing to suffer a loss on this transaction. They'll want to surely at least match their investment. They'll also want to cover their loans. Some sources, again could be totally wrong, estimate that they only put up 100 million of their own cash. They'll want that back plus some kind of token profit at least. Would 10 million profit each be enough? That means 120 million and enough money to write off their debts. Total is around 470 million. Then there is the club's debt themselves, any new owner will have to inherit these. So when they bought the club it was worth about 174 million with 45 million in debt. Now they would surely aim to sell it for at least 470 million with 226 million in debt. 
    Of course any new buyer will have some kind of finance in place, there will be loans. In all it means the new owner has to come in with something in the region of 700 million pounds and it's likely that only some of that will be their own cash. I don't feel good about that. I see that as a problem. I see it as a huge problem. Doesn't it seem like an inflated figure to associate with a football club that was recently bought for only 175 million? It worries me a great deal and I don't have much confidence in the result. We're going to have a massive struggle as G + H fight to actually make some money out of the deal while potential investors will be asked to front up about 4 times what the Americans had to come up with in the first place. 

    ReplyDelete
  155. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  156. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  157. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  158. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  159. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  160. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  161. Steven Gerrard9:16 am, May 16, 2010

    Guys, what chances do we have of finding a new owner for the club before the start of the next season?

    ReplyDelete
  162. If the future is so bright, why did KPMG include a qualification? I stand to be corrected but I beleive it was a going concern qualification...

    ReplyDelete
  163. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  164. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  165. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  166. Do you mean the subsitution of Torres in the game after which he was ruled out for the rest of the season with a knee injury? That subsitution? Yeah, you're right. Rafa really lost it with that one..

    ReplyDelete
  167. I don't normally reply to such articles, but I felt the need to. I fully understand the accounts, and it is good to see a proper analysis of the finer details.

    However, to degrade the SOS, is wrong. I don't see anywhere in any of their flyers, their emails etc, the figure of £400+ or what ever. It is very clear that they know what they are talking about. £227 + £100. I've known that for a long time, and anyone who is being educated by the SOS, will know that too.

    Secondly, the media Yanks out campaign? It is about time we got some solid media coverage. It was glossed over in a season where we challenged for the title, but has come to light in what has been an extremely poor season. Anything that helps remove them, I am for. And if media helps oust them out for what they really are, then so be it.

    The media spin everything for effect. They do enough of it to degrade us, so why not take advantage when they are trying to help us?

    ReplyDelete
  168. We all need to unite and actively join in the fight to get rid of H&G and replace them with decent owners, infighting does us no good.

    ReplyDelete
  169. We are NOT nearly 500m in debt.  You can keep blindly saying it but it won't make it true.  I have proved we're not 500m in debt wiith FACTS and EVIDENCE.

    Where is your evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Tony Barret's Mate10:15 am, May 16, 2010

    Jamie, I feel that your criticism of Tony Barret is well wide of the mark.
    A more genuine Liverpool fan ( The club is in his blood) you could not wish to meet.
    The fact that you have chosen to criticise a massive kopite who happens to be a journalist shows which side of the fence you sit on.
    I agree with you that there are a lot of scare stories in the media about liverpool at the moment and I am not saying that Tony is exempt from this criticsm.... However, if you knew the man then you would know that the club is in his heart and his stories about liverpool in general are usually spot on and well intentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  171. I don't doubt that Tony Barrett is a huge fan. However, he is partly responsible for the iresponsible scaremongering re the club's debt.  What he should have done is illustrate the club's ACTUAL debt, i.e. LFCAGL.  Instead, he tried to subtly imply that the CLUB has 473m of debt, which is just plain wrong.

    He painted an inaccurate picture of despair, and fans have latched onto that.  A by-product of that is his story gets repeated, the misery mushrooms, and the club itself starts to look bad.

    ReplyDelete
  172. <span>http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/05/14/anfield-s-grim-truth-is-revealed-by-liverpool-fc-s-latest-accounts-dominic-king-100252-26443226/</span><span></span><span></span><span></span>MoreShow user's profileMark comment as offensive URL of this commentGet a widget like this<span>Like this comment?</span> [yes] [no] <span>(Score: <span>0</span> by <span>0</span>)</span>Community assigned karma score: <span>0</span> by <span>0</span><span>reply</span><span>delete</span><span>edit</span><span>moderate</span><span><span>roy beno</span><img></img></span> replies:Yesterday, 22:46: VIRUS ALERT!<span><span>“</span></span><span>http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/05/14/are-senior-sources-undermining-rafael-benitez-at-anfield-100252-26443197</span>

    Read more: <span>http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/05/liverpool-fcs-debt-lies-misinformation.html#ixzz0o5BbVsnc</span>

    ReplyDelete
  173. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  174. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  175. <p><span>Jamie,</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Good balanced article and I would concur with your viewpoint.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>One thing I’ve never been able to figure out is how much have H+G personally invested in LFC. <span> </span>We know they bought LFC for £219M (£174.1M value + £44.8M debt) having raised a £350M loan.<span>  </span>The difference of the two figures (£131M) I believe was intended to build the new stadium.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>However, it appears most of £131M has been lent back to LFC to pay for transfers (Torres, Masch etc) and the wage bill. <span> </span>Hence 3 years on, and despite increases in revenue (TV, PL, CL, marketing etc) and being #1 ranked team in Europe, LFC debt has increased from £44M to £226M.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Now H+G are trying to sell LFC for at least £400M. <span> </span>Were they to conclude such a deal they would stand to each make £25M having made little or no significant personal cash investment into LFC.<span>  </span>In such a scenario they would have nearly doubled the value of LFC in 3 years.<span>  </span>One thing you could clarify Jamie, is whether the new owners having paid £400M for LFC will inherit a club with no debt, or one still with a debt of £226M?</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>More than anything, this is the real legacy of H+G.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>If I’ve made errors in the above figures or assumptions, please correct, so that we have the clearest understanding of the dealings of H+G.</span></p>

    ReplyDelete
  176. Pity there is no mention of Besian Idrizaj here, I guess for many getting rid of Rafa is more important than mouring the death of a former Liverpool player.

    ReplyDelete
  177. It's on the site's facebook page.  Why don't you check your facts before running your mouth off, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  178. Jamie, is Tony Barrett and Brian Reade and such are so misinformed and you know everything through your contacts at the club and your superior intelligence in relation to LFC.. Then why dont you work for a major natioanl news paper, why are you still faceless,, If everything you say is truth and evetrything they say, LFC fans with a face, who we know, is wrong, then why arent you the face of LFC fans, if you are the truth bringer, you have no fear..  For me you are and have been working on behalf of the owners, probabley for some PR,, You are mr disinfo and i said ages ago i would never read anthing by you, i have never trusted you and your info, i dont even believe you have ever been to anfield. I will take what the Barretts and the Reades and others information over anything you can say. Its the LFC fans who listen to you who are gullible.. You for me are exposed as a fraud working on behalf of Kop Holdings..
    WHo else would try and say, all is rosy in the garden of Anfield,, Its a mess, And your pay masters Tom and George are the only people to blame..

    ReplyDelete
  179. Not everyone uses Facebook eh?

    ReplyDelete
  180. Honestly, this is Goebels stuff. Unbelievably one-sided and propaganda-like. Everyone have 'the facts' before them, you, H&G (which is not much different), SoS, Barrett... Rafa too, remember. It's how you use those facts to make a point.
    What puzzles me is what's there for you. I'm sure you're not getting paid for writing this things. I don't want to make nervous accusations but to me it seems it's the attention. You got, what - 50-60 responses. Maybe more. You got heard, you got people talking back, and you got people emotional and nervous. I don't think you are worth it. Not with your logic and your one-sided way of looking at things.
    So, for my sake, I am not going to this page any more. I don't think it's worth the attention, and I certainly don't believe it's worth the emotions of so many people. I hope more people realize it.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Interesting comments made over finances. i took my eye off the ball at the start of this campaign believing these Yanks were rich? couldn't believe it when i was refused transfer funds to strengthen after finishing runners up last term. I run affairs round here i'll get the money myself from here on in. . . I've signed up/bought more players than any other manager in my time here, i will endeavour to get it right.Top 4 guaranteed next season.They won't stop me, i would have had the entire Spanish team here to play with Stevie and Carra,until a spanner got thrown in and they're good believe me.

    ReplyDelete
  182. last year we came 2nd and we had the same owners .that does not mean we are happy with them because we came  2nd and every thing is ok.that goes for rafa he came close for the title so did the owners

    ReplyDelete
  183. Mate,

    Any knowledgeable fan knows that the debt is between 200-250m. Hicks and Gillett are about as useful together as a chocolate fire guard and its working AGAINST the club.

    So what about your article?. Stating the bleeding obvious I think mate.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Hurry up and bring back the days we only talk about the football1:14 pm, May 16, 2010

    The State of Liverpool FC – An Idiots Guide RAWK


    The whole post is laughable.  And where did it originate?  Red and White Kop.  What a surprise! 
     
    I am going post another article tomorrow, which will tear this post apart line by lineHow childish ... Jamie ..Thought you site was closed until rafa left ?Suppose another sensational article as usual ...Am i saying your facts are wrong or RAWK's are ... No as I'm no expert , just a worried fan and hope its somewhere between both articles..,.

    ReplyDelete
  185. why dont all the millonaires who support us and of course the millonaire players and ex players buy the club it is getting a joke imagine if we lost gerrard torres mascherano we would be a bottom half of table team does no one care

    ReplyDelete
  186. Jamie - I'm surprised that you changed your mind and decided to return before Rafa left.  Somehow, nothing has changed even after this dreadful season!  I should also be surprised that Rafa is still in charge and his apologists continue to back him wholeheartedly, but unfortunately I am not.  

    Liverpool really does seem like a religion under Rafa, with all those in the cult of Rafa refusing to hear even slightly negative comments about the man (look at how any legends that voiced their honest opinions this season have immediately been ripped apart on the various forums, as obviously they don't love the club like Rafa and only have their own personal agendas to uphold...) and as such, combined with the dreadful football on display all season, it really has not been any fun to follow Liverpool recently.


    Anyways, in regards to this article, I do agree with your sentiment - unfortunately the Rafa apologists will say anything to create a smokescreen for Rafa's job, and are willing to drag the club through the mud to do so.  However, I think some of your follow up comments have been a bit too kind to the owners in regards to the job they have done; by no means do I believe they have taken the club to the brink of oblivion as many would have us believe, but the main point of new owners was to build a new stadium and enhance our spending power in the transfer market to take us over the hump.  They have failed in both of these aspects and so do deserve their negative feedback (on the flipside however, I do not understand how constantly criticizing and villainizing the guys in public is supposed to inspire them to put any money into the club or look out for anybody but their own selfish interests, but that's another argument...)

    ReplyDelete
  187. Since when has the truth been sensational?  Do you not think it is important for fans to know the truth?  RAOTL's article is sensational, not mine.  My article is backed up with evidence taken directly from the club accounts (with sceenshots). Are you suggesting that the club's own accounts are sensationalised?

    ReplyDelete
  188. Of course its sensational , why do you think their such a response and its on nearly every other liverpool forum ive read this morning ... as i said I'm no expert so is it the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you Jamie , i don't know , just taking everything on board .

    Your in my opinion painting a much rosier picture and then why didn't we invest much better since last season when finishing second and bringing in around £45m in transfer of players out of the club.
    {leto £3m Alonso £30m Arby £3.5m  Dossena £4.7m Voro £1.8m  Mihaylov £1.5m  etc }
    And the yanks now trying to sell the club ......

    Somethings not right imo.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Jaimie

    I agree that thereis an anti-owner agenda out there that exagerates the club's financial problem, however:

    The £226m debt you refer to, why is this falling due within 1 year? Does this amount only represent short-term debt?  What about the long-term debt?

    Where can I get a copy of the accounts?

    ReplyDelete
  190. This article seems kinda pointless really. You start off by saying that "<span>Fans are being (willingly) manipulated , and the orchestrators-in-chief are not the anti-LFC media, but - for the most part – supposed Liverpool fans." [sic]
    </span>

    Then you go on to base the majority of the article rebutting a piece by Barrett in The Times.

    Is this not an example of the anti-LFC media?

    Then you mention your "source inside Anfield", which is vague beyond belief. For someone who regularly cries for facts and proof, you cannot base your arguments around this statement, it is hypocritical to say the least.

    So while you may be right in what you state, you can command no more credibility than any other party that uses such vague assertions to back up its claims

    ReplyDelete
  191. Jamie, I'm an accountant from Australia. I've been a fanatical Liverpool fan since I was a kid. Your comments from a financial stand point ring true. It doesn't excuse however the false promises made at the time the club was purchaced. The financial crisis played a part but does not account for everything. Moores and Parry are more to blame anyway as they should have done further research, if they loved LFC as they have asserted.
    My biggest issue is with your focus on positives. What about the positives brought about by Benitez. He has worked hard behind the scenes putting pressure on Parry to go. He has brought about substantial changes to our academy which I'm sure will begin to bear fruit. A change in ownership is the final piece in the puzzle. NOT a change in manager. If he were so poor how did we finish 2nd last season and play such attractive football. I don't jump on bandwagons easily because I do appreciate that we don't see a lot of what goes on behind the scenes. What we do know is that the Moores and Parry show was disastrous for our club. H&G have allowed the club to move forward but still made assertions they did not follow through on when they bought it. Benitez is the one party to all of this who needs to stay. Finally I'd like to say a personal thank-you to Christian Purslow for the outstanding job he is doing. Lets hope the sale is done right, H&G have gone about this perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  192. "The annual financial results for Kop Football (Holdings) Limited were published ... Liverpool made a pre-tax loss of £54.9m in the year to July 31, 2009..."

    If H&G aren't so bad, do you think LFC can continue making this kind of loss indefinitely?

    Also, don't you think such losses spell doom and gloom in relation to future transfer window investment.

    MY OPINION: In Rafa I trust, just give him the (net) money he needs and he will win us trophies. That won't happen under H&G - I mourn for our current mess, and pray for them to be gone (with as little profit as possible).

    Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  193. "The annual financial results for Kop Football (Holdings) Limited were published ... Liverpool made a pre-tax loss of £54.9m in the year to July 31, 2009..."

    If H&G aren't so bad, do you think LFC can continue making this kind of loss indefinitely?

    Also, don't you think such losses spell doom and gloom in relation to future transfer window investment.

    MY OPINION: In Rafa I trust, just give him the (net) money he needs and he will win us trophies. That won't happen under H&G - I mourn for our current mess, and pray for them to be gone (with as little profit as possible).

    Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Jamie

    I am a Liverpool fan and, for my sins, an accountant.  I agree with the analysis of the debt position, we are not on the brink of collapse.  However, you miss a fundamental point in your analysis.  Kop Holdings is a holding company with an investment (ie 100% share capital of LFCAGL) and a debt (ie Waicova & RBS) on its balance sheet.  Nothing else.  Kop Holdings must a) finance the debt (ie interest payments) and b) at some point pay back the principal debt.  The only income Kop Holdings receives are dividends or interest from LFCAGL.  IT MUST FINANCE THE DEBT IT OWES TO THE BANKS FROM LFCAGL PROFITS.  This means that cash generated by LFCAGL must be paid up to Kop Holdings in priority and not reinvested in squads, salaries, or stadiums. It also means that LFCAGL can no longer afford to finance it own debt (for instance to borrow for a stadium) as this will hamper its ability to finance Kop Holdings interest payments.  THIS IS THE POINT. LFCAGL IS BEING SUCKED DRY TO PAY INTEREST ON DEBT TAKEN OUT TO BUY THE CLUB.

    This is why H&G must go.  Your defence is valid in terms of scaremongering on the debt.  The bigger picture is as I say.  Whilst LFC must finance the debt, it did not generate itself, it will be going backwards.  

    ReplyDelete
  195. Hi Jamie

    Good to note the figures.

    What we need to clarify further is how the debts were secured, what was given in guarantee (was it the club's assets or H+G's assets?), what are the repayment terms. It would seem that the loan is repayable first; if this is true then this means that we have enough cash flow. Most of that information would be highly confidential.

    I agree to say that our finance was a joke before the Yanks who have more commercial acumen than Parry et al.

    I would prefer a Barca type ownership though...for the fans...spirit of shankly or not...

    ReplyDelete
  196. Jamie your stat are facts and this has to be accepted. You are right in stating that the debt on the club is only £226m, what I want to know is what is the total debt owed by the club AND all the holding companies. I suppose this is the figure that is used most in the media because unlike you (and companies house) they do not separate the two.

    ReplyDelete