Rumour of the day - For the miserable tw@ts amongst you

Liverpool Football Club - The Rumour Mill

Postby SouthCoastShankly » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:12 am

RED BEERGOGGLES » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:40 pm wrote:I think what posters seem to be conveniently omitting is that John Henry and FSG have still yet to reveal where exactly they obtained the necessary
funds to actually purchase the club.... We all know that John Henry and New England Sports Ventures paid off the original £200 million acquisition
debt left by Hicks and Gillette ,and yet they still felt impelled to borrow £37 million from RBS for development work on this (still waiting ) proposed
new stadia ...So although NESV fronted by Henry claimed that they had paid of the outstanding debt ,they still made that now infamous statement
"LFC is not servicing debt other than stadium debt.". 

It remains to be seen how they raised the 218 million required to buy the club ,and when asked to divulge such information they responded with this
statement "I have certain obligations to my partners regarding confidentiality of a private company and in not disclosing our financials publicly,"
he said. "LFC discloses its financials annually, so monies going in and going out are disclosed. But I'm not going to disclose NESV financials or
financing information."


To cut a rather long and drawn out saga short ,even after the insistence of certain Liverpool supporters club factions they steadfastly refuse to
answer some extremely pertinent questions ,and we still await any progress on  ground development ,although after the transfer debacle it seems
that carrot is being dangled again...I think after the fallout of the January window,supporters are more than justified questioning their commitment
to this club.

Another Spirit of shankly conspiracy theory?

Let's be clear both FSG public statements and the official club annual financial statements show the club do not own the acquisition debt. How NESV paid off this debt is 100% irrelevant, we do not own the debt.

I suggest a little light reading http://www.theliverpoolword.com/2013/04 ... e-numbers/
User avatar
SouthCoastShankly
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 6076
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:36 pm
Location: West Sussex

Postby RED BEERGOGGLES » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:37 am

SouthCoastShankly » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:12 pm wrote:
RED BEERGOGGLES » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:40 pm wrote:I think what posters seem to be conveniently omitting is that John Henry and FSG have still yet to reveal where exactly they obtained the necessary
funds to actually purchase the club.... We all know that John Henry and New England Sports Ventures paid off the original £200 million acquisition
debt left by Hicks and Gillette ,and yet they still felt impelled to borrow £37 million from RBS for development work on this (still waiting ) proposed
new stadia ...So although NESV fronted by Henry claimed that they had paid of the outstanding debt ,they still made that now infamous statement
"LFC is not servicing debt other than stadium debt.". 

It remains to be seen how they raised the 218 million required to buy the club ,and when asked to divulge such information they responded with this
statement "I have certain obligations to my partners regarding confidentiality of a private company and in not disclosing our financials publicly,"
he said. "LFC discloses its financials annually, so monies going in and going out are disclosed. But I'm not going to disclose NESV financials or
financing information."


To cut a rather long and drawn out saga short ,even after the insistence of certain Liverpool supporters club factions they steadfastly refuse to
answer some extremely pertinent questions ,and we still await any progress on  ground development ,although after the transfer debacle it seems
that carrot is being dangled again...I think after the fallout of the January window,supporters are more than justified questioning their commitment
to this club.

Another Spirit of shankly conspiracy theory?

Let's be clear both FSG public statements and the official club annual financial statements show the club do not own the acquisition debt. How NESV paid off this debt is 100% irrelevant, we do not own the debt.

I suggest a little light reading http://www.theliverpoolword.com/2013/04 ... e-numbers/


:laugh:

Conspiracy theories ,yeah lets corrupt any argument that requests relevant f*cking answers with a pop at SOS . I may be wrong but its an estimated guess
that the lengthy reading material ,you've so eloquently asked me to browse through fails to quell our concerns as to where exactly they borrowed the funds
for the stadium purchase .....

Am I right ? Maybe someone digging out his own furrow up FSG's respective derrières could retrieve some answers,because I'm sure as shit the
reading matter you just posted doesn't..... So in future perhaps you would endeavour to keep your suggestions to those who wholly and unreservedly
trust the owners ,because in case you were left in any doubt I don't tow the same party line.
Image
User avatar
RED BEERGOGGLES
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 8297
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby eds » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:16 am

Homebooby » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:10 pm wrote:Been quiet for days on this particular topic as I'm on the fence and see both sides. Of course I am disappointed as we all are that we didn't spend and I am quite surprised at that to be honest, especially given the chance we have to secure CL football next season. To be honest, I really thought that we would flash the cash here.

I'm not really in favour of the owner slamming that goes on here as I think that they're good business people and have done a lot to turn around our fortunes. I can't imagine that they hung Brendan out to dry either as that generally isn't how business works. I would be more inclined to think that he was asked for his opinion on his chances of succeeding with or without further investment and he set whatever expectations he did. Seems like he didn't say he needed a massive overhaul to achieve that CL spot, but a little bit of extra wouldn't hurt.

What I wanted to get across though is that a lot is made of the amount of money that FSG are seen to be spending in the transfer market as the only marker of their commitment to the club. If we take time to consider that we were really only hours away from going into receivership, does anyone on here really know just how much money was pumped into the club and has continued to be pumped since they took over in the background? I might have missed some big article/post detailing all of that, but my assumption is that we don't and it's more than likely that we've gotten a lot more than we realise and we should take time to focus more on the positives than the negatives. Yes it's a little disappointing and surprising that we didn't spend again, but for us to not just be in the running for 4th, but actually in 4th place with 8 games to go and only a few points off the top and with the goal difference that we have, this is still the stuff that dreams were made of at the beginning of the season. Many many many many people were predicting an 8th place finish, which is still in the realms of possibility, but the implication was that we'd be as far off the pace as we were last season and the one before that. Clearly it's not the case and we have no choice but to trust what they're doing (it's working better than anything in the last 5 years) and hope for the best.


Sorry mate I can't agree with any of this.

In your first point you clearly understand the frustration most fans underwent in January yet on the other hand you criticise the fan base that question why this happened and the owners involvement in all of this? The same fan base who are sick of player deals falling through the wayside, not just this window, but the window before that and the window before that one as well. You see a problem like this should be resolved by the people running the club and we shouldn't expect them to bury their heads in the sand like ostriches.

I like how you tried to pull the old chestnut (and trust me it's way past its use-by-date that it stinks the place out) of the wonderful things the owners have done. They came in like shining "white knights" and bought us at a time our club was about to self-implode and the world was going to end!  :laugh:  They got rid of the debt (by getting money from an undisclosed source)! Hurrah! As I have said time and time again all things that we would have EXPECTED from any reasonable owners to do in this situation. But when it comes to having the stomach and balls to continue running one of the world's biggest football clubs they have talked the talk but not walked the walk. In fact the only thing they have done right in the last 2 years is increasing the length of Suarez's contract and speaking at the Hillsborough memorial otherwise its been pretty poor.

Lastly your point on how you imagine the owners had no intention in hanging Brendan out to dry, yet they did whether it was intentional or not. I hardly doubt Brendan would have come to the owners or people responsible for bringing players in and been ambiguous in his "opinion" of preferably wanting a player or two. I'm pretty sure he would have CLEARLY identified the positions that needed cover and maybe even asked what players could fill these positions. It was then up to Ayre and a group of people (who the club pays handsomely) to make this happen. They failed miserably AGAIN and yet they are still at the club. With the owners yet AGAIN nowhere to been seen :no

Fans are allowed to feel aggrieved with this kind of rubbish happening. Put it this way if we miss out on CL next season and we lose one of the top player's in the world, it won't be Rodgers or him at fault. We will all clearly know what has led to this and who the people responsible for this are and THERE WILL BE NOWHERE the apologists and spin doctors will be able to hide.
"LIVERPOOL: 6 European Cups, 20 Domestic Titles, 3 UEFA Cups, 8 FA Cups, 10 League Cups and 4 European Super Cups and 1 Club World Championship

All other English clubs pale into insignificance!"
User avatar
eds
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:46 am

Postby ethanr » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:34 am

Red, NESV have no reason to disclose who or where the investors are or come from. They are a private company with private investors. They don't need to explain where it comes from because the debt is not on the club, it's on their investors, just as SCS said.  What we do know is that they see value, potential and opportunity with sports organizations who have an incredibly passionate fan base, and a strong history. They've won the World Series 3 times with the Red Sox now in the last 10 years, which is incredible considering they hadn't done it in over 80 years before that. They want to win, and they use a hell of a lot more strategy to do so than any Sheik or abramovic-type owner… They don't have all the money in the world and must use it in the right way. They know the stadium will bring in more revenue, so they can bring in more players in the future.

No, I'm not happy we didn't sign anybody last window, and that's on them, but I laugh at the fact that everybody complains about these sponsorship deals we've been making. What that tells me is that FSG are here to stay long-term, are making sure that the club is financially sound, and ensuring that we don't get screwed by FFP. But most importantly what they have shown is they know how to win with sports teams if you give them a bit of time. I'm not saying they're the best owners ever, but I'm still happy with them despite the fact that they haven't been doing great for us lately.

Bit of a tangent, but all I'm saying is they don't have to answer every question people ask them, no matter how relevant it may be. Their job is to run the football club.
DESPITE THE FACT I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA...
ethanr
 
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:14 am
Location: california

Postby SouthCoastShankly » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:57 am

RED BEERGOGGLES » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:37 pm wrote:
SouthCoastShankly » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:12 pm wrote:
RED BEERGOGGLES » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:40 pm wrote:I think what posters seem to be conveniently omitting is that John Henry and FSG have still yet to reveal where exactly they obtained the necessary
funds to actually purchase the club.... We all know that John Henry and New England Sports Ventures paid off the original £200 million acquisition
debt left by Hicks and Gillette ,and yet they still felt impelled to borrow £37 million from RBS for development work on this (still waiting ) proposed
new stadia ...So although NESV fronted by Henry claimed that they had paid of the outstanding debt ,they still made that now infamous statement
"LFC is not servicing debt other than stadium debt.". 

It remains to be seen how they raised the 218 million required to buy the club ,and when asked to divulge such information they responded with this
statement "I have certain obligations to my partners regarding confidentiality of a private company and in not disclosing our financials publicly,"
he said. "LFC discloses its financials annually, so monies going in and going out are disclosed. But I'm not going to disclose NESV financials or
financing information."


To cut a rather long and drawn out saga short ,even after the insistence of certain Liverpool supporters club factions they steadfastly refuse to
answer some extremely pertinent questions ,and we still await any progress on  ground development ,although after the transfer debacle it seems
that carrot is being dangled again...I think after the fallout of the January window,supporters are more than justified questioning their commitment
to this club.

Another Spirit of shankly conspiracy theory?

Let's be clear both FSG public statements and the official club annual financial statements show the club do not own the acquisition debt. How NESV paid off this debt is 100% irrelevant, we do not own the debt.

I suggest a little light reading http://www.theliverpoolword.com/2013/04 ... e-numbers/


:laugh:

Conspiracy theories ,yeah lets corrupt any argument that requests relevant f*cking answers with a pop at SOS . I may be wrong but its an estimated guess
that the lengthy reading material ,you've so eloquently asked me to browse through fails to quell our concerns as to where exactly they borrowed the funds
for the stadium purchase .....

Am I right ? Maybe someone digging out his own furrow up FSG's respective derrières could retrieve some answers,because I'm sure as shit the
reading matter you just posted doesn't..... So in future perhaps you would endeavour to keep your suggestions to those who wholly and unreservedly
trust the owners ,because in case you were left in any doubt I don't tow the same party line.

Nothing to do with the trusting the owners numbnuts.

It's pure financial accounting. Debt cannot just appear. There no reference to acquisition debt in our accounts, meaning we don't own it and can never own it. UK law prevent parent companies siphoning debt into holding companies. Unless it's assigned at the point of acquisition, which it wasn't.

The only debt we have referenced to is the stadium debt and an interest free loan from FSG that supposedly covers previous seasons transfers. We also have a borrowing facility of up to 120M. I believe we still have 80M unused (need to confirm in latest accounts to be released).

Like I said where NESV get the money to provide their subsidy FSG to buy matters nothing more than just curiousity.
User avatar
SouthCoastShankly
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 6076
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:36 pm
Location: West Sussex

Postby RED BEERGOGGLES » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:09 am

Firstly let me assure you my nuts are anything but numb ,but possibly you have more feeling in yours because their exposed to the air more often ?
Listen ,you can put as much spin as  you want on the proposed debt,and yes there exists enough confirmation that the owners plans could prove
efficacious in the long term..... Although there still ,(and I repeat my early question ) without the risk of regressing the argument to petty insults
no answer to who they borrowed the 218 million required to purchase the club.... All we need is for this particular information to be made public
as we see no viable reason why its so essential it remains shrouded in secrecy......Surely you can comprehend this   ??? if not my suggestion to you
is that you visit Anfield and maybe you could suppress the analytical just enough for the passion to emerge .... Just a suggestion mind ,as we seem
to be complete poles apart in our reasoning and opinions of the owners.
Image
User avatar
RED BEERGOGGLES
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 8297
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby SouthCoastShankly » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:01 pm

RED BEERGOGGLES » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:09 am wrote:Firstly let me assure you my nuts are anything but numb ,but possibly you have more feeling in yours because their exposed to the air more often ?
Listen ,you can put as much spin as  you want on the proposed debt,and yes there exists enough confirmation that the owners plans could prove
efficacious in the long term..... Although there still ,(and I repeat my early question ) without the risk of regressing the argument to petty insults
no answer to who they borrowed the 218 million required to purchase the club.... All we need is for this particular information to be made public
as we see no viable reason why its so essential it remains shrouded in secrecy......Surely you can comprehend this   ??? if not my suggestion to you
is that you visit Anfield and maybe you could suppress the analytical just enough for the passion to emerge .... Just a suggestion mind ,as we seem
to be complete poles apart in our reasoning and opinions of the owners.

First why do you assume 218M was borrowed? NESV could have had that in cash reserves? The reality is we don't know and don't need to know - it has no bearing on the club. Liverpool FC is a limited company whose debts are liable to the holding company. Our debts DO NOT include paying off the H&G debt (or acquisition debt) - as confirmed in our annual financial statements.

I don't comprehend the need to know where the privately owned company got their money from because even if I did know it would have zero bearing on the club I support. Just like Man City and Chelsea fans don't need to push their owners in describing fully how they got the funds for the purchases of their respective clubs.

Consider. Even if NESV borrowed to buy us, what does it matter? The liability of that debt is not ours, for it to be ours it would have to be stated on our financial statement as a liability - FYI it isn't. The only way LFC can assume any pre-existing debt is to indirectly buy the debt, i.e. ask for a £200M interest-free loan. Has this happened? No. If it did, would we know about it, yes.

The owner's source of funding is irrelevant. End of.

By the way I am all for opinions and every one having the right to one. However, the rules of financial and management accounting are not subject to opinions.
User avatar
SouthCoastShankly
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 6076
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:36 pm
Location: West Sussex

Postby Homebooby » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:47 pm

Heya, not looking to get into any sort of dispute here, opinions will always differ, but I do want to come back on a few bits and pieces that you highlighted if I may  :)


Sorry mate I can't agree with any of this.

In your first point you clearly understand the frustration most fans underwent in January yet on the other hand you criticise the fan base that question why this happened and the owners involvement in all of this? The same fan base who are sick of player deals falling through the wayside, not just this window, but the window before that and the window before that one as well. You see a problem like this should be resolved by the people running the club and we shouldn't expect them to bury their heads in the sand like ostriches.



I'd agree to some extent here, but I don't view the previous couple of windows as total failures. Rarely do you hear Brendan talking about absolute must gets, he seems to use terms such as 'useful addition' or 'strengthener' for most. My suspicion is this is how he has categorised the ones that got away and these have led to a limited fee placed on their head and a lack of willingness to go beyond that...simple and basic negotiation tactics, you have to be prepared to walk away. Clearly over the last few windows we have walked away from several and have shown we won't be held to ransom. It is viewed by some on here as being made a laughing stock, but it could also have us taken seriously in the future, bear in mind Newcastle got 35 mil out of us for Carroll knowing full well we were a soft touch. Depends on how you look at these things.

I offer this opinion as I have seen us go directly for the targets we needed...Sturridge is a good example and the effort to retain Suarez in the summer and the subsequent contract renewal point to going after what we need. If we had seen Suarez walk, I'd be more inclined to your way of thinking.



I like how you tried to pull the old chestnut (and trust me it's way past its use-by-date that it stinks the place out) of the wonderful things the owners have done. They came in like shining "white knights" and bought us at a time our club was about to self-implode and the world was going to end!  :laugh:  They got rid of the debt (by getting money from an undisclosed source)! Hurrah! As I have said time and time again all things that we would have EXPECTED from any reasonable owners to do in this situation. But when it comes to having the stomach and balls to continue running one of the world's biggest football clubs they have talked the talk but not walked the walk. In fact the only thing they have done right in the last 2 years is increasing the length of Suarez's contract and speaking at the Hillsborough memorial otherwise its been pretty poor.



I'm not sure that I pulled out the old chestnut you highlight to be honest, I wasn't going overboard, I was merely highlighting that they have done a lot to turn us around and certainly a lot more than the previous owners did. Yes that is what any reasonable owners would do, but let's be honest, there weren't too many reasonable owners queuing up at the time to dig us out were there? We weren't a particularly attractive option for many and beggars can't really be choosers. considering we had no hand to play, my personal opinion is that it could have been a lot worse and our current standing in the league has to be attributed to the owners and the manager (who incidentally they chose).


Lastly your point on how you imagine the owners had no intention in hanging Brendan out to dry, yet they did whether it was intentional or not. I hardly doubt Brendan would have come to the owners or people responsible for bringing players in and been ambiguous in his "opinion" of preferably wanting a player or two. I'm pretty sure he would have CLEARLY identified the positions that needed cover and maybe even asked what players could fill these positions. It was then up to Ayre and a group of people (who the club pays handsomely) to make this happen. They failed miserably AGAIN and yet they are still at the club. With the owners yet AGAIN nowhere to been seen :no



This is where we'll disagree indefinitely on how business is done and works. I've no idea of your background and experience and don't paint myself out to be an expert of any real sorts, but what I can say based on my experience of 20 yrs in the private sector is that things are rarely as black and white as you paint them and as I have mentioned above, I think he's been clear on the targets he needed and got them. To look with some hindisight at the Dempsey situation, that was made out to be just as serious and shocking as this last transfer window, but Brendan didn't seem that bothered and responded similarly to the way he has now. He got Sturridge instead, kept Suarez and stuck 2 fingers up to Arsenal at the same time, then got an extended contract. He seemed confident at the time that he was supported at the time and he says the same thing now. Until there's clear reason to doubt the situation and I would point to the fallout and tension between H&G and Benitez for a great example of when things really didn't feel like they were going well, I think we have to keep the faith. Does it mean that I think the world is perfect there, of course not, there has to be an element of rough with the smooth especially as Brendan and the owners become more familiar with each other and the trust relationship grows, that's the same in any workplace or relationship. Win some/lose some appears to be the mentality...so long as we are winning big and losing small, we stand a good chance of driving forward


Fans are allowed to feel aggrieved with this kind of rubbish happening. Put it this way if we miss out on CL next season and we lose one of the top player's in the world, it won't be Rodgers or him at fault. We will all clearly know what has led to this and who the people responsible for this are and THERE WILL BE NOWHERE the apologists and spin doctors will be able to hide.



I'll agree that fans can feel whatever they like, makes no odds to me, but I don't think there's justification for calling anything rubbish at the moment.If we do miss out on CL next season, it will only be conjecture that it was down to a lack of signings, much the same as it is conjecture that anyone signed in will bed in in time to make a difference, we'll never know. It's conjecture that Suarez will leave if we don't get CL, we don't know....but most thought he was gone at the end of last season and he's doing well for us now, so all we can do is wait and see.

As mentioned, nothing was intended to provoke or irritate above, but I've a feeling the following will and it's genuinely not intended to. So with that disclaimer in place, I find myself asking the same question again around your comment about apologists and spin doctors etc. Why is there a feeling amongst some fans that any club owes them an explanation? Why do we have a right to understand the funding model, or demand that they spend an amount of money on a player. It's a business and nothing more...always was.
Homebooby
 
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:43 pm

Postby devaney » Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:51 pm

I'm with you Homebooby. Another good post. Fed up with the negative digs at our owners.
Net Spend Over The Last 5 Years 20/21 to 24/25  (10 years
are in brackets 15/16 to 24/25 )
LFC €300m (€420m)
Everton +€33m (€211m)
Arsenal €557m (€853m)
Spurs €571m (€684m)
Chelsea €945m (€1051m)
Man City €370m (€1038m)
Man United €687m (€1240m)
devaney
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Liverpool

Postby RED BEERGOGGLES » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:53 pm

SouthCoastShankly » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:01 am wrote:
RED BEERGOGGLES » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:09 am wrote:Firstly let me assure you my nuts are anything but numb ,but possibly you have more feeling in yours because their exposed to the air more often ?
Listen ,you can put as much spin as  you want on the proposed debt,and yes there exists enough confirmation that the owners plans could prove
efficacious in the long term..... Although there still ,(and I repeat my early question ) without the risk of regressing the argument to petty insults
no answer to who they borrowed the 218 million required to purchase the club.... All we need is for this particular information to be made public
as we see no viable reason why its so essential it remains shrouded in secrecy......Surely you can comprehend this   ??? if not my suggestion to you
is that you visit Anfield and maybe you could suppress the analytical just enough for the passion to emerge .... Just a suggestion mind ,as we seem
to be complete poles apart in our reasoning and opinions of the owners.

First why do you assume 218M was borrowed? NESV could have had that in cash reserves? The reality is we don't know and don't need to know - it has no bearing on the club. Liverpool FC is a limited company whose debts are liable to the holding company. Our debts DO NOT include paying off the H&G debt (or acquisition debt) - as confirmed in our annual financial statements.

I don't comprehend the need to know where the privately owned company got their money from because even if I did know it would have zero bearing on the club I support. Just like Man City and Chelsea fans don't need to push their owners in describing fully how they got the funds for the purchases of their respective clubs.

Consider. Even if NESV borrowed to buy us, what does it matter? The liability of that debt is not ours, for it to be ours it would have to be stated on our financial statement as a liability - FYI it isn't. The only way LFC can assume any pre-existing debt is to indirectly buy the debt, i.e. ask for a £200M interest-free loan. Has this happened? No. If it did, would we know about it, yes.

The owner's source of funding is irrelevant. End of.

By the way I am all for opinions and every one having the right to one. However, the rules of financial and management accounting are not subject to opinions.


If Nesv had the cash in reserve then surely the need for full closure would hold less cause for consternation ? I think we're at odds over the importance of
this  issue being resolved ,You cant understand our need for answers you deem irrelevant ,and I am perplexed by your impassiveness given how underhand
our previous owners were ,but I do commend you for your trust....We can both post facts and figures from the net ,but we are also well aware that to some
that do not share your faith in the current proprietors its all a prelude to the mask being dropped.

I too started to envisage their vision for the future of this club ,and I often lauded them for their stance on Suarez ,but to leave us this open to failure by
not releasing the funds it would have took to secure the targets Rodgers selected for not one but two windows is frankly beyond the pale....And in truth is
what has opened the owners up to distrust ,and perhaps our first glint of an augury sign post  to what lies ahead.


So in short ,you say the owners source of funding is irrelevant ,whereas I and countless others believe different. .....  I believe this is where we move on
because we will never concur fully to anything pertaining to our present landlords,even though I largely agree with a great deal of your opinions on football
matters on the pitch ,off it I'm afraid we're opposite sides of the coin.....I believe that' is indeed  end of.
Image
User avatar
RED BEERGOGGLES
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 8297
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby SouthCoastShankly » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:22 pm

Sigh...

RBG I am not looking to pick a fight, I just want you to see that the "how" NESV funded our purchase is not important because it cannot affect us. No opinion pure fact.

H&G leveraged debt against the club to buy us. They essentially took out a loan and tied that loan against what they were buying (the same as pulling out a mortgage and your deposit and guarantee being the house you are going to buy). A screwed up situation that left us almost bankrupt.

NESV did not do that. How do I know because by law those arrangements have to be represented in the annual financial statements. Since NESV acquired us and setup FSG to run us, not a single penny of acquisition debt has appeared on our company statements. Meaning as John W Henry claimed, they paid off the debt H&G left. Now IF they borrowed to pay off that debt it is a liability NESV took on, not FSG. I reiterate for the upteenth time - THAT DEBT IS NOT OURS - and it is that reason that it doesn't matter.

Your disconnect here, and is something I have exhausted explaining, is the requirement (you are imposing) that an investor needs to details where his income stream comes from. No one financially or legally requires this information when an acquisition of this happens. The ONLY thing important to us fans should be what debt levels we're being burdened by. You talk of lack of transfer money but you realise for every penny we do not make within the business has to be borrowed from somewhere. That means debt.
User avatar
SouthCoastShankly
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 6076
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:36 pm
Location: West Sussex

Postby RED BEERGOGGLES » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:56 am

SCS I have never misconstrued your retorts as offensive, so there appears no need to become imbued in a fight as you put it. However I still harbour
reservations as to whether FSG will prove a panacea to whatever ails us..... Time will tell I suppose,but for now I prefer to retain a degree of caution
because the last two transfer windows have left us making a lot of presumptions based on FSG's proposed business model ,when the truth could have
not been simpler..... They let us down badly ,but that particular boat has already sailed ,not in one ,but two disconcerting  transfer windows ,so I guess
we will have to await the culmination of the season before we know just how critical our abstinence in this window proves.
Image
User avatar
RED BEERGOGGLES
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 8297
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby Kash_Mountain » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:47 pm

Image

ABSOLUTE STRENGTH       

ImageImage
User avatar
Kash_Mountain
 
Posts: 4635
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:22 pm

Postby maypaxvobiscum » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:16 am

Liverpool want to sign ‘new Sergio Aguero’ Vietto: Liverpool are ready to battle with Real Madrid to sign Argentine striker Luciano Vietto, according to a report in the Metro. The Anfield club are said to have been tracking the Racing Club player since 2011 and his agent has now confirmed that both the Reds and Real Madrid are considering bidding for the player. “There is a lot of competition to sign him. Liverpool we know like him and so do Real Madrid – I think also two German teams,” said agent Jorge Cysterpiller.
User avatar
maypaxvobiscum
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:02 am
Location: Singapore

Postby maypaxvobiscum » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:18 am

Liverpool boss Brendan Rodgers is putting Nottingham Forest’s young centre-half Jamaal Lascelles on his summer hit-list, writes Alan Nixon of the Sunday People.

Rodgers sent the Reds' top scout Dave Fallows to watch the classy defender for the second time in a fortnight in the FA Cup tie at Preston in midweek.

Lascelles, 20 – who scored for Forest at Blackpool yesterday – is a cert to play in the Premier League next season, either with Billy Davies’ side or via a sale at the end of the campaign.

The strong but skilful prospect is also fancied by Arsenal but they chose not to bid in the transfer window.

Now Liverpool, looking for a new centre-half, may have found one domestically after problems recruiting abroad. Lascelles was at the centre of a ‘tapping up’ row that ended with Everton being fined by the FA for an approach a couple of years ago.

But now Liverpool are poised to take him in the next window – although Forest will demand a huge fee.
User avatar
maypaxvobiscum
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:02 am
Location: Singapore

PreviousNext

Return to The Rumour Mill

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

  • Advertisement
ShopTill-e