Liverpool FC Forum

by **The Manhattan Project** » Fri May 16, 2008 5:09 pm

That's the only comforting thing, that while we have owners who don't have a pot to :censored:

in who have left us in debt, so have Man United, but on a colossal scale.

The difference unfortunately, is that they have a huge stadium and earn more revenue, and are likely to win title after title year after year, whereas we most likely will not.

by **Ciggy** » Fri May 16, 2008 6:15 pm

s@int wrote:Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and even Newcastle were shown live more on TV than Chelsea – some would no doubt claim that this is because “Well you don’t play pretty football like we do!” etc etc blah blah (insert whatever spurious jump on the hate Chelsea bandwagon comment you can think of) but my own feeling is that we were only very recently challenging for the league title (Newcastle? Why were they shown more than us? Keegan? Got me there!). Newcastle earned almost £10million from 20 live screenings whilst we were shown 18 times, earning £9.1million. Last season I think we were 1st or 2nd in TV money, so it is a bit disappointing.

Looking at the table below, we can see that the gap between top and bottom has increased from £15.3million to more than £20million when comparing the previous season’s figures, but despite this disparity, Premier League officials insist that the new payment structure is actually fairer to small clubs. True, all Premier League clubs have received vastly increased payments (e.g. Aston Villa a £42.3million total consisting of the standard payment, quantity of live games shown and merit payment compared to the £22.4million received in the 2006-07 season) but we can see that even within the Premier League itself there is perhaps a disproportionate “rich richer, poor poorer” situation developing.

What is also surprising is that the relegated clubs - Reading, Birmingham City and Derby – all receive what is termed “parachute payments” for up to two seasons if they still remain outside the top flight. These payments have been increased from just under £6.5million to £11.4million. These figures, at first glance, might not seem that much but when you consider TV revenues in the Coca Cola Championship are only about a tenth of that figure it makes you realise that relegated Premier League clubs still have a significant advantage over their new competitors.

It’s not all greed though, some £125million is split between payments to the Football League, charities and other causes – 10 years ago this figure was the total turnover of the Premier League! The Football League receives 77.4million of this which includes £45.6million in parachute payments and £31.8million of revenue to be awarded to clubs for youth development and community schemes.

The Premier League is awash in cash at the moment and there’s still the small matter of Champions League revenue to be factored in (around an extra £30 million apparently for Chelsea and Manchester United) BUT when we look at the financial situation of some clubs the picture becomes a bit more sober – Manchester United for example, still owe some £50 odd million in unpaid transfers and roughly the same again in unpaid interest payments.

What makes the sky even more cloudy for some clubs is that even with all the extra money flying around – a great deal of it will have eventually been trousered by the likes of Glazer, Hicks & Gillette, when they sell up and leave –leaving the fans, once more, to help pick up the tab for the next owners.

Nothing like the good ol Corinthian spirit, hobnail boots and pints of bitter is there!

Revenues for 2007-08 season (from The Times)(2006-07 in brackets)

Manchester United £49.3m (£32m)Arsenal £47m (£29m)Chelsea £45.6m (£30.9m)Liverpool £45.4m (£28.4m)Everton £42.1m (£25.3m)
Aston Villa £42.3m (£22m)
Blackburn Rovers £40.2m (£22m)
Portsmouth £40.4m (£23m)
Manchester City £39.7m (£21m)
West Ham United £36.8m (£21.1m)
Tottenham Hotspur £36m (£27.3m)
Newcastle United £39.2m (£21.2m)
Middlesbrough £34.2m (£20.5m)
Wigan Athletic £33.4m (£18.4m)
Sunderland £33.6m (£6.5m*)
Bolton Wanderers £32m (£24.6m)
Fulham £31.3m (£20.4m)
Reading £30.6m (£23.6m)
Birmingham City £29.8m (£6.5m*)
Derby County £29.1m (n/a)

Total £815,175,812 (£502,533,570)
* denotes parachute payment for clubs promoted from the Coca-Cola Championship.

The total payout to the 20 Barclays Premier League clubs, excluding parachute payments, was £758.2m (up from £463.6m in 2006-07).

------------------------------------

We where on the telly more than any other team last season even more than the mancs, and the bitters where hardly ever on

So how come they got that much?

by **account deleted by request** » Fri May 16, 2008 6:49 pm

Ciggy wrote:We where on the telly more than any other team last season even more than the mancs, and the bitters where hardly ever on So how come they got that much?

A third revenue stream came from the Premier League in the shape of “merit payments” which relate to the finishing position achieved. As Manchester United were top of the Premier League, they earned an additional £14.4million - but there is a yawning gap between top and bottom – Derby County earned a £720,000 merit payment from the Premier League for finishing bottom.

I think its because they finished above us in the league Ciggy, not sure how Everton got so much though, maybe we just never noticed how much they were on ?

by **Reg** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:00 pm

Manchester United for example, still owe some £50 odd million in unpaid transfers and roughly the same again in unpaid interest payments.

If they sell Ronavestite they could pay that back in one go, after all, its not like they dont have assets is it?

by **account deleted by request** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:12 pm

Reg wrote:Manchester United for example, still owe some £50 odd million in unpaid transfers and roughly the same again in unpaid interest payments.

If they sell Ronavestite they could pay that back in one go, after all, its not like they dont have assets is it?

I have always found that a little strange myself Reg - footballers arn't included as an asset in the same way as say a piece of machinery would be - more as a notional or arbitrary figure similar to "good will" when you buy a shop.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:07 pm

According to Manhattan's sources....this is a super secret copy of Man Utd's financial statement.

Yes, Manhattan has been doing that "due dillegenetic" thing.

Company Name: Manchester United PLC

Annual Revenue Sources:

Ground Attendence = 25M
Merchandise Sales = 35M
Corporate Sponsorship = 40M
Overseas Promotions = 43M
Other Services = 22M

Total = 165M

Annual Expenditure:

Transfers = 64M
Polish For Silvestre's Head = 33M
Figuring Out Why Rio Can Only Use One Side Of His Mouth = 30M
Airbrushing Rooney's Face = 200M
Clearasil For C.Ronaldo = 390M
Wax For Giggsy's Chesthair = 300M

Total = Massively In Debt

by **Kharhaz** » Sat May 17, 2008 4:04 am

Igor Zidane wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:The yanks bought us for £350 mill. DIC were rejected. Obviously there offer wasnt good enough. The fact that moores sold to the yanks on the promise of taking the club forward. Which makes me wonder, what did DIC offer? was it really that poor an offer that moores looked at the yanks offer as a more attractrive one? £ 1 billion to buy out the club according to hicks as proposed to DIC for there offer and yet they couldnt better £350 million. Like I said, so many things we dont know. Its easy to question things, its much harder to get answers.

I totally respect your opinion mate , although i totally disagree with it . When your making your arguement though try and deal with the facts and not idol speculation ( see saints post above ) . The yanks did not buy the club for £350 million , they borrowed the money to aquire the club for £247 million. There are claims that hicks now values the club at £1 BILLION . Dic have not offered £1 billion to buy the club.

Now it's little things like these facts ,that leave your arguement somewhat shallow. Do you seriously think that these two American's have the best interests of the club at heart, or is it as i suspect (and i apologise if i'm wrong) you don't give two fecks as long as they build the stadium and invest in players to make us successful . You couldn't care less where the money comes from ,just aslong as they've got it.

If it's the latter then fair enough mate cos your not alone. THere are some of us though, that care deeply about the club successul or not . We couldn't give two sh!tes if we won the league tomorrow with an all star squad and a nice new shiney stadium (no chance of this by the way) ,because its the club that matters you see. THe history and the traditions ,the fans and the players ,the very soul of this club is us not the owners . THe yanks were supposed to be custodians of all that and they've shat all over it from a big hieght , we've been made a laughing stock the world over and its literally breaking my heart seeing the club and all that goes with it being made a mockery of infront of the whole world.

I have done as saint has suggested and done my research. The sum of 350 mill is much more than what I percieved. Wikipedia eh? gospel on everything ! or not. One fact is true is that we are now set in our ways on the opinion of our owners. Of all the posts that got me wondering was the on LFC to win the champs league or that hicks go. So many people had concentrated their opinion on one man rather than support the club, the players, the manager. So many people said, nope, one man is bigger than the club, and there is my problem. I absolutely refuse to let any one man rule overrall the club, hicks, gillett, gerrard, carragher, rafa, LFC as a club has always been, and always will be run on the support of the fans, and by just this forum alone, we have those who are concentrating on what the chairmen are doing and those who are concentrating on the club. How can we expect the players to do there job when we as supporters cannot do ours. Its time for priorities to take charge.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat May 17, 2008 5:52 pm

Liverpool FC off-field season review: Admiration has turned into disbelief
May 17 2008 by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo

Admiration has turned into disbelief
SHORTLY after Liverpool won their last league title, a book was published called Foundations of Corporate Success which held the club up as an example for all businesses to follow.

Author John Kay, a management guru of international renown, argued that everything at Anfield, from boardroom to training ground, was so well ordered and structured that success was almost inevitable.

He wrote: "There are organisational routines – complex manoeuvres, perfected through repeated trial, in which each player fulfils without needing, or necessarily having, a picture of the whole."

In those dim and distant pre-Premier League days, football clubs usually did not warrant any sort of mention in the dispatches of economics experts, let alone receive fulsome praise from them.

But such was the well-oiled machine that Liverpool had been turned into that their operational routines, honed on decades of experience, were regarded as an example of the corporate ideal in such circles.

Fast forward to the present day and Liverpool FC is again the subject of much discussion by financial experts – only this time their verdict on the way the club has been run during the last season is nowhere near as complimentary.

And nor should it be. The structure which was once so solid has now crumbled to such an extent that at times it is hard to believe it is still standing.

If that sounds melodramatic then consider the following – the club is now owned by two Americans who are not on speaking terms and who may or may not have the resources to take it forward; one of the owners wants to remove the chief executive but is vetoed from doing so by his partner; and the team manager has learned that both owners and chief executive have been in talks with a potential replacement.

Off the field, Liverpool are a shambles and have become an object lesson in how a football club should not be run.

Owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have been found wanting and are continuing to let down those who have the best interests of the club at heart and who follow their team through thick and thin.

The much fabled "Liverpool Way" has been tossed aside with a wanton disregard for the club's image or its future and in its place is an all too public battle between two American millionaires who have been to only a handful of games between them.

In the early stages of last season there was little indication that civil war would later break out at Anfield.

Not much was seen of Hicks or Gillett and even their absenteeism failed to raise the ire of supporters who had welcomed them on the advice of outgoing chairman David Moores and chief executive Rick Parry the previous February.

Rafa Benitez was the first to alert the world to the problems behind the scenes during his now infamous "I am concentrating on coaching and training my team press conference" in November.

Having become increasingly frustrated at an apparent failure by Hicks and Gillett to act on his transfer demands, the Reds boss decided to go public with his concerns. Hicks duly slapped Benitez down and at that stage it looked likely that the Spaniard's tenure in the Anfield management seat would be coming to an abrupt end.

Those cracks were smoothed over at a summit meeting held in the wake of Liverpool's home defeat to Manchester United only for them to be reopened once more a month later when Hicks revealed to the ECHO that he had spoken to Jurgen Klinsmann about the possibility of replacing Benitez as Liverpool manager.

It was an incredible admission, one which the Texan no doubt now wishes he had never made and he has spent the last few months sidling up to Benitez by e-mail in a bid to show the manager he has his full support, although the more cynical among Liverpool's fan base suspect Hicks' charm offensive is nothing more than an attempt to coax the Reds boss into a marriage of convenience.

While all this was going on, Liverpool's form on the pitch stuttered as wins were turned into draws and the chances of a title challenge being mounted were all but wiped out.

The situation became so bad that in January Steven Gerrard spoke out about the unwanted distraction of dirty linen being washed in public after a disappointing 2-2 draw at home to Aston Villa.

If the only problems plaguing Anfield at that time were between owners and manager that would have been bad enough, but it soon became clear that Hicks and Gillett were not singing from the same hymn sheet either.

The exact moment when their relationship collapsed is difficult to pinpoint, although it undoubtedly predates Gillett's admission that he was no longer on speaking terms with his fellow American in late March.

What is not in doubt is that the duo can no longer stand the sight of one another, have not been at the same Liverpool game together since December and are now headed inexorably towards the divorce courts.

Where that leaves the club is anyone's guess. Venture capitalists Dubai International Capital remain keen to get their hands on an asset which, if handled correctly, would probably challenge Manchester United when it comes to revenue streams and profits.

But with Hicks continuing to show no signs that he is ready to sell out, even for a multi million pound profit, it could be that the spell of uncertainty could stretch into another season.

Should that happen it would be a disaster for the club, one which could conceivably cost them the services of a manager rated as one of the finest in Europe and add another layer to the laughing stock status it has assumed over the last nine months.

Benitez is happy at Anfield and he is continually at pains to make that clear. But how long can the manager be expected to have to put up with a situation in which he does not know who he can trust in the club's hierarchy for any length of time?

Similarly, it surely verges on the farcical when a manager of a leading club is having to get the go-ahead from two warring, rival factions before he can make a move in the transfer market.

From being one of the best run and well-oiled machines in sports and business, Liverpool have all but fallen apart in the last season.

The danger is, unless the rot is stopped, the corporate world will only look to the club as an example of how not to run a business in the years to come.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat May 17, 2008 5:55 pm

Hicks had never heard of Liverpool FC until about a month before buying the club.

After Gillett asked him to join him, Hicks had to look LFC up on the internet to know what exactly Liverpool FC was.

In his first press conference, Hicks called LFC the "Liverpool Reds"

:laugh:

by **Penguins** » Sat May 17, 2008 7:44 pm

Like everything in this world it all comes down to money.

Hicks want around a billion and will wait until he gets it.
No indication of anything different has been given.
Living the dream that he will be forced to sell is just that, a dream.

DIC, who are realistically our only hope had the chance to buy the club for 200 million and no matter how great a fan or how much money you have, paying 5 times that a year latter
is madness, no matter how you twist and turn the argument.
Saying DIC are stupid not to buy, makes me think you believe we are talking about monopoly money.
So DIC will wait.... and wait until Hicks comes down from dreamland, if and whenever that happens....

In the meantime we fans will have to suffer and with a good squad and a great manager, ask ourselves what might had been...

Until the current deal runs out next summer, I see no reason why Hicks will all off a sudden sell his cashcow for less than a billion when he has refused so far. So next summer when it's time to take another loan of 450 million to pay for the current loan of 350 million things might happen. Until then it looks like more lies from the fat pig...

by **Reg** » Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm

s@int wrote:Liverpool FC off-field season review: Admiration has turned into disbelief

May 17 2008 by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo

If ever there was an example of the relationship between a local newspaper and a club......... The Echo seems to be focused entirely creating negative publicity to ensure Hicks cant raise finance.

And good on them too, thats how it should be !!

by **heimdall** » Sat May 17, 2008 11:34 pm

Penguins wrote:Like everything in this world it all comes down to money.

Hicks want around a billion and will wait until he gets it.
No indication of anything different has been given.
Living the dream that he will be forced to sell is just that, a dream.

DIC, who are realistically our only hope had the chance to buy the club for 200 million and no matter how great a fan or how much money you have, paying 5 times that a year latter
is madness, no matter how you twist and turn the argument.
Saying DIC are stupid not to buy, makes me think you believe we are talking about monopoly money.
So DIC will wait.... and wait until Hicks comes down from dreamland, if and whenever that happens....

In the meantime we fans will have to suffer and with a good squad and a great manager, ask ourselves what might had been...

Until the current deal runs out next summer, I see no reason why Hicks will all off a sudden sell his cashcow for less than a billion when he has refused so far. So next summer when it's time to take another loan of 450 million to pay for the current loan of 350 million things might happen. Until then it looks like more lies from the fat pig...

Hicks will sell if he can't get backers and at the moemnt that's looking unlikely. He owes a lot of money to a lot of very jittery banks, he can't just owe that money forever, sooner or later he will have to sell.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sun May 18, 2008 12:13 am

It all goes back to Moore and Parry.

Why...did...they...sell?

by **SupitsJonF** » Sun May 18, 2008 12:18 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:According to Manhattan's sources....this is a super secret copy of Man Utd's financial statement.

Yes, Manhattan has been doing that "due dillegenetic" thing.

Company Name: Manchester United PLC

Annual Revenue Sources:

Ground Attendence = 25M
Merchandise Sales = 35M
Corporate Sponsorship = 40M
Overseas Promotions = 43M
Other Services = 22M

Total = 165M

Annual Expenditure:

Transfers = 64M
Polish For Silvestre's Head = 33M
Figuring Out Why Rio Can Only Use One Side Of His Mouth = 30M
Airbrushing Rooney's Face = 200M
Clearasil For C.Ronaldo = 390M
Wax For Giggsy's Chesthair = 300M

Total = Massively In Debt

Wheres Steve Bennets services?

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sun May 18, 2008 12:26 am

Refs offer their services free of charge.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online