Liverpool FC Forum

by **Pig Catcher** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:56 pm

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/fo ... t-12711821

Loan for new Main Stand not interest free - but Liverpool owners won't pocket cash

Owners Fenway Sports Group will not make money on the £110million loan they provided to Liverpool FC for the building of Anfield’s new Main Stand.

A section of supporters have reacted angrily to details in the club’s recently released accounts which show that there is an interest rate of 1.24% payable on the inter-company loan from the club’s holding company UKSV Holdings Company Limited.

During the building work, which increased Anfield’s capacity to 54,074, the loan had been referred to as being “interest free”, which led to the belief that the money had come from FSG’s cash reserves.

However, it was in fact “premium free”. FSG have a credit facility which they used to secure the loan for £109,904,000 on favourable terms.

As a result the interest of 1.24% - which represents around £1.3million per year - will be paid to the banks rather than into FSG’s pockets.

If Liverpool FC had gone to the banks themselves to secure a £110million loan they would have been looking at paying an interest rate of nearer 5%.

It made sense business wise for FSG to borrow the money with Liverpool saving around £3million per year over the six years it will take to pay back the loan.

by **Penguins** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:21 pm

kazza » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:54 am wrote:
Penguins » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:44 pm wrote:But what you miss Kazza is that they have put 0! £ into the club.
ALL of it is borrowed money they expect back from the club when it is sold.
They have just taken a loan which interest the club is paying and will not put money into it from their own pocket.

That is how all sustainable properly run businesses operate. Even the ultimate sugar daddy owner Abramovich will expect his money back if he were to sell Chelsea. Our owners could do more but they could also be much worse, our club is being financially run more responsibly than in a long while.

So Abramovich expect to get back those billions he has spent on players?
And do please tell me how many titles football clubs have won when run 100% as a properly run business...
It's pure fantasy to win trophies if you have owners who don't want to spend a penny out of their own pockets and/or run it as a business which has to make money or break even every year.

by **Pig Catcher** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:42 pm

Penguins » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:21 pm wrote:
kazza » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:54 am wrote:
Penguins » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:44 pm wrote:But what you miss Kazza is that they have put 0! £ into the club.
ALL of it is borrowed money they expect back from the club when it is sold.
They have just taken a loan which interest the club is paying and will not put money into it from their own pocket.

That is how all sustainable properly run businesses operate. Even the ultimate sugar daddy owner Abramovich will expect his money back if he were to sell Chelsea. Our owners could do more but they could also be much worse, our club is being financially run more responsibly than in a long while.

So Abramovich expect to get back those billions he has spent on players?
And do please tell me how many titles football clubs have won when run 100% as a properly run business...
It's pure fantasy to win trophies if you have owners who don't want to spend a penny out of their own pockets and/or run it as a business which has to make money or break even every year.

Have you heard of Man Utd? Bayern Munich? Barcelona? Ownership of those clubs don't dip into their own pockets to fund the running of the club. And they are just a few examples.

by **red till i die!!** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:44 pm

Pig Catcher wrote:http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/loan-new-main-stand-not-12711821
Loan for new Main Stand not interest free - but Liverpool owners won't pocket cash

Owners Fenway Sports Group will not make money on the £110million loan they provided to Liverpool FC for the building of Anfield’s new Main Stand.

A section of supporters have reacted angrily to details in the club’s recently released accounts which show that there is an interest rate of 1.24% payable on the inter-company loan from the club’s holding company UKSV Holdings Company Limited.

During the building work, which increased Anfield’s capacity to 54,074, the loan had been referred to as being “interest free”, which led to the belief that the money had come from FSG’s cash reserves.

However, it was in fact “premium free”. FSG have a credit facility which they used to secure the loan for £109,904,000 on favourable terms.

As a result the interest of 1.24% - which represents around £1.3million per year - will be paid to the banks rather than into FSG’s pockets.

If Liverpool FC had gone to the banks themselves to secure a £110million loan they would have been looking at paying an interest rate of nearer 5%.

It made sense business wise for FSG to borrow the money with Liverpool saving around £3million per year over the six years it will take to pay back the loan.

I wonder who it was that led the fans to believe the money was interest free and from FSG in the first place :eyebrow

Now its from another fsg company who appears to have borrowed it from a bank at a special interest rate of 1.24%. :lookaround

And we are supposed to be ever so grateful that they are not getting it at 5% even though the ECB currently lend at 0.5%.
All that says to me is that they aren't even willing to put their own money in any more :no

Totally sick of this lots spin and I know we have no right to demand they spend hundreds of millions on flashy players but they are fecking bottom of the barrel owners. Like this idea of them being saviours because they cleared a debt when that's how they purchase investments in the first place. That stand will be paid for by the club but yet will significantly increase the overall cost of the club which benefits them. They could have paid for it themselves and claimed it back with interest when they eventually sell and that would be a decent statement that they aren't fleecing us and are here for the right reasons.
They keep telling us we cannot compete with the big clubs but everyone of us know that to do that you have to buy a ticket to that table and they will never do it. I for one am not grateful for them at all and think we could have done much better if the club was sold to someone else at the time.

by **parchpea** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:54 pm

FSG have used G & H as a stick to beat us with since day one and will always find an angle not to spend money.

Probably 99.9% of clubs would be very happy with sensible owners like FSG but Liverpool has always held itself as an elite club and its European Cup history alone sets it apart, and its custodians should have the resources and ambition to ensure this is maintained.

The misleading announcement over the stand loan makes me wonder what other BS has been and will be spun, and Liverpool is better than that, FSG need to be better in every way or like underperforming players or managers be moved on.

by **Pig Catcher** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:43 pm

There are loads of good reasons to criticise FSG. But doing up the main stand and securing a loan that only attracts 1.24% interest isn't one of them.

For it's worth I don't have an issue with the amount of money we've spent on players and wages over the last couple of years. But I do think we see a really poor return on our investment in these areas and ultimately the buck stops with the owners. They have failed to put the right people and processes in place so far.

The structure will slightly change from this summer with Michael Edwards being in the driving seat when it comes to negotiating transfers and contracts and supporting Klopp so we'll see if there is any improvement.

by **Penguins** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:42 pm

So Abramovich expect to get back those billions he has spent on players?
And do please tell me how many titles football clubs have won when run 100% as a properly run business...
It's pure fantasy to win trophies if you have owners who don't want to spend a penny out of their own pockets and/or run it as a business which has to make money or break even every year.[/quote]

Have you heard of Man Utd? Bayern Munich? Barcelona? Ownership of those clubs don't dip into their own pockets to fund the running of the club. And they are just a few examples.[/quote]

Bayern are in a unique situation in Germany as they are top dog where every german player wants to go. They get great revenue with Cl football every season as they are always at the top and get to keep wages low due to poor competition in Germany.
Barcelona spends twice the amounts on wages than we do and has the biggest stadium in the world bringing in insane amount of revenue. Cl football for 25 straight years due to low competition in their country also help their revenue.
Man Utd got way ahead of us in the 90s investing money in all departments, stadium, commercially etc which means nowadays they bring in a ton more revenue than us.
So we are way behind these in term of revenue and overall standing in the footballing world and the only clubs that have been able to create success without that huge advantage are Chelsea, City, PSG etc.

by **red till i die!!** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:50 pm

Pig Catcher » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:43 pm wrote:There are loads of good reasons to criticise FSG. But doing up the main stand and securing a loan that only attracts 1.24% interest isn't one of them..

It is when you were supposed to be paying 0% and never mind the fact that they were lying saying it was interest free. From the Telegraph back in 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... m-FSG.html

Under the purchase agreement they had to give an undertaking that they would increase the capacity to 60.000 and now they wont do that because the fans won't pay for it. http://www.thisisanfield.com/2016/09/jo ... ion-doubt/ Ayre himself back in October said that the Anfield Rd expansion was in doubt because it wasn't worth it financially because it would take 15 years for the money to be recouped.http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anfield-expans ... re-1585987 The cost of that expansion is reported to be between 50 - 60 mil. The main stand was 115mil over 5 years so why does less money need longer to repay and why would this be unsustainable when we have extra money from the stand. If they build that extension we can match Arsenal financially and therefore can compete at the level they do in the market. That could be achievable in just a few short years but they won't do it. They could have with their super low interest rate exclusive to them just borrowed 175 and paid it back over 7 or 8 years but :no

They wont pay for it and seemingly the club cannot afford to either in the next 15 years. They will always find something and some excuse to keep us behind.

by **parchpea** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:34 pm

As speculation hots up this evening that Couthino may be on hs way this summer I wonder where that puts a s as a club under FSG.

You may think it's inevitable players leave for clubs like Barcelona but Chelsea keep Hazard and United hold De Gea, if there is a will there is a way, part of that is remaining competitive and loading the team with stars, behaving like a big club.

We can suck it up and allow them to dumb us down or take a chance to enforce change, I would rather gamble and fail than accept second best.

by **ycsatbjywtbiastkamb** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:05 pm

parchpea » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:34 pm wrote:As speculation hots up this evening that Couthino may be on hs way this summer I wonder where that puts a s as a club under FSG.

You may think it's inevitable players leave for clubs like Barcelona but Chelsea keep Hazard and United hold De Gea, if there is a will there is a way, part of that is remaining competitive and loading the team with stars, behaving like a big club.

We can suck it up and allow them to dumb us down or take a chance to enforce change, I would rather gamble and fail than accept second best.

What's been said mate? I haven't seen anything myself.

Edit - just seen the reports, if Phil goes we should just go and get Mahrez. No if's or but's or Alexi Sanchez type excuses from the club, we need a worthy replacement not a 20 year old who will take 4 years to come good.

by **eds** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:18 am

http://www.espnfc.com.au/liverpool/story/3092463/liverpool-silent-in-face-of-reported-potential-transfer-ban

Alarming news.

If and its a MASSIVE if this is true and we were to face a transfer ban because of this, then this quiet simply spells the end of FSG.

Which may not necessarily be a bad outcome in all of this........

by **killerp** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:56 am

eds » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:18 am wrote:http://www.espnfc.com.au/liverpool/story/3092463/liverpool-silent-in-face-of-reported-potential-transfer-ban

Alarming news.

If and its a MASSIVE if this is true and we were to face a transfer ban because of this, then this quiet simply spells the end of FSG.

Which may not necessarily be a bad outcome in all of this........

April fools?

by **red till i die!!** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:36 am

killerp » Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:56 am wrote:
eds » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:18 am wrote:http://www.espnfc.com.au/liverpool/story/3092463/liverpool-silent-in-face-of-reported-potential-transfer-ban

Alarming news.

If and its a MASSIVE if this is true and we were to face a transfer ban because of this, then this quiet simply spells the end of FSG.

Which may not necessarily be a bad outcome in all of this........

April fools?

FSG fools

by **C-R** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:39 am

Any possible ban would only affect the Academy, don't panic

by **red till i die!!** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:48 am

C-R » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:39 am wrote:Any possible ban would only affect the Academy, don't panic

That is the party line anyway but previous bans handed to clubs over this type of thing has resulted in a ban at all levels. Just ask Barcelona :nod

Liverpool FC Forum

NESV - OUR NEW OWNERS - Official Thread

Who is online