Liverpool FC Forum

bunglemark2 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:36 am wrote:That's great for the beancounters reading this. It's success and Sh*t to fill the trophy cabinet that is a measure of a club's success. Do the right thing NESV : if you're more interested in the P&L than silverware, move on...

bunglemark2 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:36 am wrote:That's great for the beancounters reading this. It's success and Sh*t to fill the trophy cabinet that is a measure of a club's success. Do the right thing NESV : if you're more interested in the P&L than silverware, move on...

bunglemark2 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:48 pm wrote:I don't think some of you numpties who responded to my post here got the point. Not if you reply with a "Behave" anyway.
The point here, is any company posting a record profit is attractive to investors and a helluva lot easier to market. If NESV is focused more on turning a profit, making the P&L look good, and not using that surplus cash to help the manager reinforce the squad, then it says to me they have a different objective.
Let's face it, in order to have a squad with the depth of Citeh or the Chavs, we need the money of a drunken oligarch like Abramovich or be bankrolled by a sovereign oil rich state.

damjan193 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:32 pm wrote:Did you guys see this? Didn't know where to post this but this seems like the most appropriate thread. Don't know how to post videos from twitter so here's the link.

Top 10 football club spenders from 1991 to today

https://twitter.com/FourFourTwo/status/ ... 6648938496

Liverpool face up to the threat of administration as crisis deepens at Anfield

The sense of looming crisis threatening to engulf Liverpool deepened on Saturday as Roy Hodgson’s side stuttered to a 2-2 draw with Sunderland at Anfield and it emerged the Royal Bank of Scotland has not ruled out the possibility of Kop Holdings, the company which owns Liverpool, going into administration.

RBS holds the majority of the £282 million debt laden on to Liverpool by the club‘s current owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett and is due to call the loans in on October 15.

The bank, which is 84 per cent government owned, introduced Martin Broughton as the club’s chairman and appointed Barclays Capital, the investment arm of the high street bank, to identify replacements for the Americans as owners in April.

That search has proved fruitless and, though managing director Christian Purslow suggested this week “a small number” of groups were conducting due diligence on the club’s accounts, it is believed no live bids are currently on the table.

Meanwhile, Hicks has explored a number of avenues that would allow him to refinance that debt but is yet to secure the necessary funding. He informed the club’s board last week that he was negotiating a deal with GSO Capital, an arm of the hedge fund Blackstone, but sources at the company have since insisted they are not intending to take the matter further.

That leaves RBS facing a choice as the deadline approaches between calling the loans in or offering Hicks and Gillett a short-term refinancing in order to continue the search for a buyer.

Should the bank opt for the former, it would put Kop Holdings at risk of going into administration, though Liverpool as a club is solvent. Though that would not automatically result in a nine-point penalty, as suffered by Portsmouth last season, Liverpool are the company’s only asset and, as such, the Premier League would be likely to examine the matter.

Such a prospect, even if it entailed a penalty which would all but end Liverpool’s season, though, is not as unappealing to the club‘s supporters as may have been assumed.

A poll conducted by Vizu for the supporters’ website anfieldroad.com revealed that 97.6 per cent of Liverpool’s fans believe administration is a better option for the future of the club than seeing Hicks and Gillett allowed to remain in control beyond October.

“We had the same two choices on the poll as the RBS decision makers will have next month,” said Jim Boardman of anfieldroad.com.

“Fans have chosen the uncertainty of a bank takeover and the real threat of administration over the depressing certainty of what would come from more time with Hicks and Gillett at the helm. The message to RBS in particular is clear: Do not refinance that debt.”

Thousands of supporters remained behind at Anfield after watching Steven Gerrard rescue a point for Hodgson’s side to voice their discontent at the Americans’ regime.

Further direct action has been planned by the supporters’ union Spirit of Shankly, including a march before next Sunday’s visit of Blackpool, to increase pressure on the owners and RBS.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footb ... field.html

1. As the transfer window approaches deadline day, Liverpool fans are at loggerheads over whether the club's relative recruitment inactivity is a grave mistake or nothing to worry about.

2. The escalating tensions amongst Reds has brought increasing attention to the club's financial situation. Is the club awash with money but the owners are refusing to spend it? Or is the piggy bank depleted? Hopefully this thread will help fans better understand the situation...

3. In 17/18, the club generated revenue of £455m. For 18/19 I estimate the club's revenue was approximately £500m (seventh biggest in world football). For the purposes of football club accounts- revenue is split into three categories: broadcasting, commercial and matchday.

4. Broadcast monies, as you'd expect, are largely from TV companies paying for the broadcast of the club's Premier League, Champions League and domestic cup games (and for this season, the UEFA Super Cup and FIFA Club World Cup).

5. In 18/19, the club generated £251m from this revenue stream- a world record figure for any football club in a single season. "So where's the TV money, John?" More on that later...

6. In 17/18, LFC generated £154m from commercial activities and £81m from matchdays. For 18/19, the commercial income would've been higher given the renewed Standard Chartered deal kicked in whereas matchday may have been slightly less given the club played one fewer home game.

7. £455m in 17/18 and then circa £500m for 18/19 is mightily impressive. However, as Jurgen noted last week, the club has bills to pay too...

8. For 17/18, the club's wage bill (for all staff) was £264m, a staggering 27% increase on 16/17. Much of this would have been down to bonuses related to CL exploits- Firmino's was the only big contract renewal that season whilst Salah, VvD and Ox were big additions to the wage bill

9. What this tells us is though the club's basic wage structure is carefully controlled, with no players earning more than £200k per week, bonuses must be amongst the most attractive in world football (possibly too generous- a 27% year-on-year bonus-driven increase is eye-watering).

10. The £264m was part of an overall cost of £448m for 17/18 (where TV money goes!). Other sizeable outgoings would have been for transfer fees/amortisation, agents costs, the running costs of Anfield/Melwood/Kirkby, depreciation, etc. The net operating profit was therefore only £7m.

11. "Yes, but the club made a massive profit of £125m for 17/18", I hear you protest. Correct- this was all to do with how sale of players is captured in accounts. The club made a £124m profit on disposal of players, which was largely through the sale of Coutinho.

12. Though the club is/was to receive payment for Phil from Barcelona through multiple instalments over several years, in the accounts, the entire profit on his sale was recorded in the 17/18 accounts- even though much of the money was still owing at that point.

13. Transfer fees are not recorded as revenue in the accounts of football clubs in the UK (they are shown as a revenue stream in the accounts of club's on the continent) but profit on transfers are reflected in the profit and loss account. That's why 17/18's pre-tax profit was £125m.

14. To put the above into context, whereas Liverpool's operating profit was only £7m, Tottenham Hotspur's was £152m- thanks largely to significantly lower operating costs achieved through a much smaller wage bill. This means their available cash was greater.

15. For 18/19, the arrivals of Alisson, Fabinho and Naby swelled the wage bill further along with numerous big contract renewals (e.g. Mo, Mane, Henderson). Factoring in CL win-related bonuses, it's not inconceivable that LFC's wage bill for 18/19 will be around the £300m mark.

16. Given all of the above, though LFC has enormous revenue, its costs have increased significantly over recent years too. That's not to say the club has little/no money to spend, but the club has to be careful about where money goes given how the club's operating model is set up.

17. On that point, other factors that could be influencing decisions over spending are the costs of redeveloping Kirkby (estimated to be £50m, and I'm not aware of the club borrowing money to pay for it), Anfield Road End design/feasibility work, add-on payments and loan repayments.

18. So is the club not signing big-money players because money might be tight presently? Perhaps, but not necessarily. When surplus funds have been meagre in the past, the club has sold players to generate sufficient money to splash on incomings.

19. Between the likes of Ings (who has already brought £20m into the club's coffers), Grugic, Wilson, Lallana, Clyne (before his injury), Kent, Ojo, Ejaria, Awoniyi and others the club could easily have generated in excess of £100m for Klopp and Edwards to spend on new players.

20. You may then be wondering how other clubs who have lower revenues and high costs can afford to spend more than us. There are many different ways. Owners may bankroll transfer spend (FSG have always been clear they would never do this), take loans out against future revenue, agree payment terms with selling clubs that defer most payments to later on down the line- or all of the above. What this demonstrates, however, is that if clubs really want players, they can usually figure out a way to get the deal done. LFC is no different, in that respect.

21. Will LFC have the same issue next summer? Not necessarily. VvD, Mo and Ox's transfer fees should have been fully repaid by then plus the club should have a game-changing new kit deal come into effect at that point.

22. Given all of the above, I'm of the view LFC has intentionally decided to have a quiet summer, largely because Klopp is mostly happy with what he has, but more money should be available next summer and perhaps Klopp feels the players he really wants will be more attainable then.