Soldato
We still got Roy, lucas and Poulsen. We are still in the bottom 3. New owners will not be playing next week so we still stuffed.
Liverpool Takeover Thread
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
We still got Roy, lucas and Poulsen. We are still in the bottom 3. New owners will not be playing next week so we still stuffed.
That's almost certainly not the reason. Plenty of other clubs have directors loans from their owners without any interest being charged.
Equally even if interest is charged, that doesn't mean any money will actually be paid. Even with H&G, we never actually paid a penny of the interest they charged. It's just a way of avoiding paying tax; an interest bill (even if it goes unpaid (edit: obviously it rolls up)) will reduce your profit and therefore the amount of tax you pay.
Last edited:
Statement from NESV:
http://www.nesn.com/2010/10/statement-on-the-purchase-of-liverpool-fc.html
Nothing in there that we don't already know though.
http://www.nesn.com/2010/10/statement-on-the-purchase-of-liverpool-fc.html
Nothing in there that we don't already know though.
Soldato
I can't believe how much Broughton has public explained what's been happening over the last few weeks, and exposed H&G to be the massive ***** they are.Martin Broughton said:
It really does look he was doing the right thing all along and he was a man of his word.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yup, everyone else on the planet would be incredibly happy to sell the club having lost money for a value vastly, massively under whats its worth, how utterly horrible H & G are.
End of the day, you buy a business worth £400mil, get a big loan to get it, pay interest on the loan, increase the revenue of the club(supposedly pretty dramatically, which meaning excluding the debt its now worth more than £400mil, a number I'm making up as I can't remember how much they paid for the club). Anyone would be unhappy to sell the club for an amount that covers the debt and not much else, it would mean you've lost millions upon millions. Of course, I don't know how much the revenue is up because of better business management, and how much is down simply to increased money from tv/ticket prices which almost anyone would have got. Considering the last shirt deal they got, it was very good business, considering the clubs success and lack of real competitiveness to get money for shirt sponsorship and the like at the money they got, was good work. Lets be honest, they shouldn't be anywhere near the same league as Utd/Real/Chelsea in those area's, Arsenal have no excuse, our shirt sponsorship deal is a complete joke comparitively, 10mil a year for shirt and stadium while those other guys are mostly on 20mil + a year for shirt alone.
H&G couldn't afford to buy the club outright, and don't forget the market crash severely dropped their cashflow meaning sorting a new stadium which would long term do what it does for Arsenal, allow the club to easily pay off that debt isn't exactly their fault, the fact that after the stock market crash they don't want to write off millions letting Liverpool go for nothing, is a rather daft thing to "blame" them for. I can't think of a single other person on earth who would be happy to lose the club for less than they paid for it.
End of the day, you buy a business worth £400mil, get a big loan to get it, pay interest on the loan, increase the revenue of the club(supposedly pretty dramatically, which meaning excluding the debt its now worth more than £400mil, a number I'm making up as I can't remember how much they paid for the club). Anyone would be unhappy to sell the club for an amount that covers the debt and not much else, it would mean you've lost millions upon millions. Of course, I don't know how much the revenue is up because of better business management, and how much is down simply to increased money from tv/ticket prices which almost anyone would have got. Considering the last shirt deal they got, it was very good business, considering the clubs success and lack of real competitiveness to get money for shirt sponsorship and the like at the money they got, was good work. Lets be honest, they shouldn't be anywhere near the same league as Utd/Real/Chelsea in those area's, Arsenal have no excuse, our shirt sponsorship deal is a complete joke comparitively, 10mil a year for shirt and stadium while those other guys are mostly on 20mil + a year for shirt alone.
H&G couldn't afford to buy the club outright, and don't forget the market crash severely dropped their cashflow meaning sorting a new stadium which would long term do what it does for Arsenal, allow the club to easily pay off that debt isn't exactly their fault, the fact that after the stock market crash they don't want to write off millions letting Liverpool go for nothing, is a rather daft thing to "blame" them for. I can't think of a single other person on earth who would be happy to lose the club for less than they paid for it.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
That's sort of the impression I get with the whole situation, in an ideal world - the new stadium would have been built but they bought the club a year or two too late.
Caporegime
ok I've just got back from work, how rich are these guys and does that mean Liverpool are back to top 4 next year?
Man of Honour
Aye, if Spurs can build on what they did last year then that could mean 6 competing for 4 spots again. Arsenal could be bottom of that in terms of their financial clout. Not wholly worried (yet?).
As usual, your post is fundamentally wrong.
H&G bought Liverpool at a value of ~£230m; £170-180m for the shares and the remainder being the clubs existing debts. It's now being sold at a value of £300m.
Why did H&G take out a £350m loan to buy the club for ~£230m? Because the balance of £120m was going to be used (along with money Liverpool generates) to pay the interest on the loan over the next few years while H&G tried to sell the club on at a massive profit.
Unfortunately for them, RBS started asking for their money back, beginning with £120m of the £350m. H&G personally borrowed money to pay that back and put it down as a directors loan on the club/holding company hoping that they'll get the money back in the future when they find that buyer they've been seeking all along. The longer it went on the more desperate they become and ultimately they've had to give up total control and are going to end up out of pocket.
I bet they wish they took the £500-550m that was on offer from Dubai a couple of years back
Maybe in Hicks's dreamworld but it's pretty clear that their plan from day 1 was to buy an undervalued and financially underperforming club, make subtle improvements to things off the pitch and sell it on for a huge profit.
After all H&G were trying to sell off part of the club at a value of £1bn, less than 6 months after buying it for £230m.
Last edited:
Soldato
The club was put on the open Market. If it so under valued why wasn't the offer higher?
They got £300 because that's what it's worth.
The only thing concrete is the 'removal of the acquisition debt' from the club and a commitment to 'stadium development', whether that be a new stadium or a redevelopement of Anfield.
I've said on here before, there's no need for masses of money to be given to the club. Without the debt burden we've been under, we will be able to provide for ourselves.
Soldato
If you watch Broughton's interview or read the transcript, you'll see they talk of investment in the team and in the stadium (be it redevelopment of anfield or a new stadium) but do not go into to specifics as they do not want "any hostages to fortune".
Ill be a bit dissapointed if the new stadium doesnt go ahead. As much as I like Anfield and what it represents, I do think we need to move on and the new stadium design looked brilliant.
Caporegime
Is that a real question?
Well I mean are they going to have the sort of money to fund 250m shopping sprees and the like?
Apparently they will have money to spend but it is not being disclosed how much.
