Liverpool FC Forum

Posted: **Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:39 pm**

Buck Rodgers » Jun 19th, '15, 21:52 wrote:It's the new main stand that is up for naming rights

Have they started a new FFP investigation then ? Haven't we just recently been told that we won't be fined for any FFP issues as well as the rules also recently being relaxed.

Massive debts ? About £40mil isn't it with the club recently actually making a profit

Yes all clubs will get an increase in telly money but that will get swallowed up quick enough.

So yes they may sell us at some point in the future - thats not new news but lots of tentative links to suggest it's next year to the year after.

Not tentative at all. Oh you'd be surprised just how much the club is heavy in debt- hence, sell to buy and a lots more besides.

Posted: **Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:42 pm**

Kash_Mountain » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:39 pm wrote:
Buck Rodgers » Jun 19th, '15, 21:52 wrote:It's the new main stand that is up for naming rights

Have they started a new FFP investigation then ? Haven't we just recently been told that we won't be fined for any FFP issues as well as the rules also recently being relaxed.

Massive debts ? About £40mil isn't it with the club recently actually making a profit

Yes all clubs will get an increase in telly money but that will get swallowed up quick enough.

So yes they may sell us at some point in the future - thats not new news but lots of tentative links to suggest it's next year to the year after.

Not tentative at all. Oh you'd be surprised just how much the club is heavy in debt- hence, sell to buy and a lots more besides.

External debt has reduced dramatically over the 4 years to below £50mil - unless you think the published accounts are wrong ?

Posted: **Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:44 pm**

There is heavy debts. More than you realise

Posted: **Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:46 pm**

Kash_Mountain » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:44 pm wrote:There is heavy debts. More than you realise

Then why aren't they being published in the official books and why did UEFA FFP stop the probe on the club

What do you class as heavy debt - the figure because you appear to be suggesting the official released figures are false ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... gs-5259936

Posted: **Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:26 pm**

Buck Rodgers » Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:46 pm wrote:
Kash_Mountain » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:44 pm wrote:There is heavy debts. More than you realise

Then why aren't they being published in the official books and why did UEFA FFP stop the probe on the club

What do you class as heavy debt - the figure because you appear to be suggesting the official released figures are false ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... gs-5259936

For the love of all things holy Benny ,stop with the f*cking questions

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:04 am**

RED BEERGOGGLES » Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:26 pm wrote:
Buck Rodgers » Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:46 pm wrote:
Kash_Mountain » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:44 pm wrote:There is heavy debts. More than you realise

Then why aren't they being published in the official books and why did UEFA FFP stop the probe on the club

What do you class as heavy debt - the figure because you appear to be suggesting the official released figures are false ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... gs-5259936

For the love of all things holy Benny ,stop with the f*cking questions

Pretty valid questions if you ask me - when someone starts suggesting facts about the club ( which go against published facts ) then it's only natural for the comments to be questioned.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:22 am**

Buck Rodgers » Jun 19th, '15, 22:46 wrote:
Kash_Mountain » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:44 pm wrote:There is heavy debts. More than you realise

Then why aren't they being published in the official books and why did UEFA FFP stop the probe on the club

What do you class as heavy debt - the figure because you appear to be suggesting the official released figures are false ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... gs-5259936

Not suggesting anything Buck or is it Benny :;):

Oh, that rag, I see.....As they say, the answers are out there, if you look 'properly.'......go take a look.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:31 am**

Buck Rodgers » Jun 19th, '15, 22:46 wrote:
Kash_Mountain » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:44 pm wrote:There is heavy debts. More than you realise

Then why aren't they being published in the official books and why did UEFA FFP stop the probe on the club

What do you class as heavy debt - the figure because you appear to be suggesting the official released figures are false ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... gs-5259936

Not suggesting anything Buck or is it Benny :;):

Oh, that rag, I see.....As they say, the answers are out there, if you look 'properly.'......go take a look.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:05 pm**

Kash_Mountain » Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:31 am wrote:
Buck Rodgers » Jun 19th, '15, 22:46 wrote:
Kash_Mountain » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:44 pm wrote:There is heavy debts. More than you realise

Then why aren't they being published in the official books and why did UEFA FFP stop the probe on the club

What do you class as heavy debt - the figure because you appear to be suggesting the official released figures are false ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... gs-5259936

Not suggesting anything Buck or is it Benny Oh, that rag, I see.....As they say, the answers are out there, if you look 'properly.'......go take a look.

As I'm struggling to see where these reports are about the "heavy debt" then would you be so kind to show me the report that disagrees with the official club figures or at the very least what the amount of debt is ?

Surely you should be able to provide the facts behind your statement

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:59 pm**

I've read the debt is somewhere along the £40m mark. Not sure how true that is, but it means we've cleared a lot in the last 3 years if true.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:21 pm**

Buck, surely you can do your own research instead of reading rags. There is still heavy debts (more than £40m you mentioned), since they arrived (FSG), first 3 seasons/years, debts were actually increasing to almost over £1m a week. They are taking on more debt for stadium development, BR wasting millions away, and that is all i will say about it (there is more, but i'll not go into that), hence one of the reasons for the sell to buy policy.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:29 pm**

Kash_Mountain » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:21 pm wrote:Buck, surely you can do your own research instead of reading rags. There is still heavy debts (more than £40m you mentioned) and that is all i will say, hence one of the reasons for the sell to buy policy.

Have done my own research - and what is in the mirror is the same in the Echo or Guardian or Telegraph or the LFC Website

The reports are are all there for everyone to read - external debt has reduced from £270 mil to just around £50mil March 2014 which is the latest released accounts - are you saying they are false

You suggest the club is heavy in debt - you fail to put a figure to this "heavy debt" and so far have failed to back up the statement by saying - "look for myself"

If you can't back up your statement then just say so ? But right now you are attempting to avoid it

If the club has heavy debts - then please tell us all what the figure is and where we can find the reports to back up your statement. Surely you must have evidence to back up the statement ?

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:32 pm**

Buck Rodgers » Jun 20th, '15, 18:29 wrote:
Kash_Mountain » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:21 pm wrote:Buck, surely you can do your own research instead of reading rags. There is still heavy debts (more than £40m you mentioned) and that is all i will say, hence one of the reasons for the sell to buy policy.

Have done my own research - and what is in the mirror is the same in the Echo or Guardian or Telegraph or the LFC Website

The reports are are all there for everyone to read - external debt has reduced from £270 mil to just around £50mil March 2014 which is the latest released accounts - are you saying they are false

You suggest the club is heavy in debt - you fail to put a figure to this "heavy debt" and so far have failed to back up the statement by saying - "look for myself"

If you can't back up your statement then just say so ? But right now you are attempting to avoid it

If the club has heavy debts - then please tell us all what the figure is and where we can find the reports to back up your statement. Surely you must have evidence to back up the statement ?

So who has been creative....... :;):

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:35 pm**

Kash_Mountain » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:32 pm wrote:
Buck Rodgers » Jun 20th, '15, 18:29 wrote:
Kash_Mountain » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:21 pm wrote:Buck, surely you can do your own research instead of reading rags. There is still heavy debts (more than £40m you mentioned) and that is all i will say, hence one of the reasons for the sell to buy policy.

Have done my own research - and what is in the mirror is the same in the Echo or Guardian or Telegraph or the LFC Website

The reports are are all there for everyone to read - external debt has reduced from £270 mil to just around £50mil March 2014 which is the latest released accounts - are you saying they are false

You suggest the club is heavy in debt - you fail to put a figure to this "heavy debt" and so far have failed to back up the statement by saying - "look for myself"

If you can't back up your statement then just say so ? But right now you are attempting to avoid it

If the club has heavy debts - then please tell us all what the figure is and where we can find the reports to back up your statement. Surely you must have evidence to back up the statement ?

So who has been creative.......

What sort of answer is that ?

As you appear to fail to provide the relevant information on the accounts I'm going to suggest that it's a statement you can't back up.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:42 pm**

suggest all you like.

Liverpool FC Forum

Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?

Re: Job too big for Rodgers?