The Issue of Pepe

You can't seriously believe they're continuing where Hicks and Gillett left off? We made a profit on transfers last season. That was part of the squad erosion. I won't go into individual players but Utd have also made profit on transfers recently.

Do you have a source? I'm curious where you got your figures.

http://soccerlens.com/forbes-rich-list-the-worlds-most-valuable-football-clubs/50725/

Man Utd: Estimated value: $1.83 billion (£1.19 million) / Estimated revenue: $459 million (£300 million)

Liverpool: Estimated value: $822 million (£538 million) / Estimated revenue: $304 million (£199 million)

£300m to £200m is not four times as much. It's not even double. And those are last year's figures.

 

I was talking about profit before transfers. And Utd have only made a profit on transfers cos of the Ronaldo deal, which was definitely not part of the usual transfer spending. Without that sale, we've spent an average of £15-20 million a year net under the Glazers, whilst also selling on squad players like Pique, Rossi, Foster, Campbell and Richardson for big profits.

I'm talking about operating profit, not revenue:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Income.html

Utd: $150m (around £100m)
Liverpool: $37m (around £25m)

Operating income is revenues less wages and other expenses. Whilst the revenue difference between the clubs is only around 50%, 'pool has a wage bill and other expenses that are only just smaller than ours:

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/11/exclusive-liverpool-vs-man-united-wage_07.html

hence we make around £75 million more operating profit per season. Whilst interest knocks that down a lot, it's still at least £30 million more than 'pool's figure. And given that you'll have an amortisation charge of at least £10 million a season for the next four or five years on the Carroll and Suarez purchases, the FFP rules will also limit what you can spend until you can either get the wage bill down, or get back in the CL.

 

Swarbs.
You are either ignorant or stupid.
Liverpool until this season had interest repayments of £42 million.They no longer have interest repayments of £42 million.Therefore there is £42 million not being used.Therefore along with increased revenue from increased sponsorship fron the Standard Chartered deal,which is currently the biggest in England standing at £80 million over 4 years and the revised deal with Adidas which kicks in,in the summer of £150 million over the next 10 years.And before you say there is no evidence of that,the obvious evidence is Liverpool aren't changing their shirt maker this summer,so the deal has been already agreed and automatically replaces the existing 3 year £40 million deal that was signed in 2008/2009.This deal is on shirt sales alone,there is a separate deal on the rest of Liverpools line,this deal is also the biggest in English football,topping Chelsea's £110 million deal over the same period.

 

Aren't they the same thing?

Yes but as of your last financial accounts in the year to June 2009, you made a loss of £54 million.
Take out the £42 million interest.
Add in the extra £13 million a year from SC over the £7 million you got from Carlsberg
Add in an extra £2 million a year from adidas (£15 million a year less £13 million a year from the £40 million deal).

Expected profit for next year = £3 million.

Now take out the £25 million cost of missing out on the Champions League and replace it with the £8 million Fulham got as the highest earner in the EL last season.

Expected loss for next year = £14 million.

Now who's ignorant or stupid?

 

Swarbs.Its you that is again is both
ignorant and stupid.Standard Chartered is Liverpool primary sponsor worth £80 million over £4 years.They have a second sponsor,their secondary sponsor
which is Carlsberg worth another £28 million over £4 years.That totals £108 million over 4 years.As for missing out on the Champions League,Liverpool have already financed for that for not just this year but for next year too,as Christian Purslow before he quit his job negotiated a number of commercial deals that were kept hidden.But were reported on.Liverpool are in decent financial shape.You also forgot the mention that in terms of transfer dealings that Liverpool have £15 million in cash from the Torres sale.The Suarez money was a gift from the new owners.They also made £10 million net profit from their summer transactions and seeing as they haven't had a positive net spend since 2008 has helped them stay financial strong.

 

The companies didn't hide them.Liverpool did.Nobody knows what commercial deals Liverpool have been involved in recently,as if they are going to tell their competitors.Do you actually know what the word '''Competition'' means.But then again the standard of education is poor in the UK.The UK philiosophy in a lot of places is ''Man United have to win the league every year cos they are the bestest team in the world and they have Giggsy and Scholesy and nobody else does and we said so,so there''.Liverpool also have a deal with a clothing company,it has something to do with outdoor wear.
Secondly which fellow directors did Christian Purslow tell that the NESV deal was at the ''bottom of the barrell''.Was it Ian Ayre and Philip Nash?Who both voted in favour of the NESV deal instead of the Chinese investor Kenny Huang
whom
it turned out,was as wealthy as the bloke who bought Portsmouth.Was it Martin Broughton who himself met NESV representatives in London,Liverpool and Boston over a period a two months.The fact is Liverpool did their homework on NESV,something Moores and Parry didn't do on Hicks and Gillett.Martin Broughton wasn't going to mess up,because he has a reputation to uphold.He's recognised as one of the UK's best businessmen.He didn't want that to change.
Finally,unless you are Liverpools accountant,Don't comment until you know the facts,instead of reading(thats if you're able to read) media garbage.The fact is Liverpool without interest repayments are quite profitable.

 

That just makes no sense at all. Every club in the world announces its commercial deals to show how big their brand is and to attract more sponsors. Or is this another case of "Liverpool is so great we don't need to announce anything cos the whole world loves us" crap? And if you're talking about the Jack Wolfskin deal then lol. That's the same company that sponsors the Emirates Cup and Fulham FC, as well as various stuff in the Bundesliga. Their average sponsorship is in six figures. I'm sure all the other clubs are shaking in their shoes...

All of them. You really should follow your club more closely. Not knowing what's going on just makes you seem like a plastic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/11/christian-purslow-nesv-liverpool-bid

I do know the facts.

In a season when you came second in the PL and reached the CL quarter finals you lost £52.8 million, with interest only counting for £40 million of that:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...latest-accounts-dominic-king-100252-26443226/

Your operating profit (revenue less wages and other direct expenses) was $37 million in 2010:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Income.html

Your owner thinks your wage bill is shockingly high:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/05/damien-comolli-john-henry-liverpool

And your transfer spending in the January window was bankrolled by a £25 million loan which was arranged by H&G and not repaid during the takeover.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...n-henry-nesv-secret-loan?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Or is your club's official annual report and the quotes of your owner just 'media garbage'? In fact, I can't believe you claim this is media garbage given the amount of media garbage written about Utd that your fans love to cite as gospel...

And I can read perfectly. Although given your inability to use the space bar, or even know what a paragraph is, I have to admit I struggle with your rambles.

 

Firstly.A loan can only be arranged by people that own an asset,so how in the name of sweet Jesus could Hicks and Gillett arrange a loan for Liverpools january transfer dealings.They don't ****ing own Liverpool.NESV do.
Oh wait,whats next,You're going to try to tell me that KOP Holdings the holding company that Hicks and Gillett set up sttill exists.If you know anything about corporate law(which I doubt),you will know that KOP Holdings when Hicks and Gillett sold the club was dissolved.It no longer exists.Hicks and Gillett actually set it up,and this is done in business practice as a tax dodge.They registered the company in tax free Cayman Islands.
Your owner thinks the wage bill is shockingly high.
Again this is wrong.As Tom Werner has said that Liverpools wage bill isn't high enough,but his main aim is to make the squad younger.

 

Read what I said and read the article. I said that the facility used was originally set up and retained by the new owners. FSG repaid the facility A debt, but maintained the facility B debt to use for player purchases. The facility was held by the club, just like an overdraft, and if you knew anything about corporate finance (which your comments have shown is highly unlikely), you'd know it didn't have to be repaid as it was not dependent on the owners.

In the long term. In the short term he's stated he just wants to see "some progress". Given he was speaking in mid January when you were 12th in the league, it seems clear you've already made some progress since then. And of course Tom Werner isn't your owner...

All I am interested in is why Liverpool fans are so convinced they will be going on some magical summer spending spree and bidding for every player under the sun, when the club's finances are in such poor sharpe and the owners have made it clear that they are looking at long term revenue growth, with revenue reinvested to achieve success, rather than throwing money at the club in the short term.

 

All this seriousness is exhausting so I'll try to be brief as we're wandering all over the place now.

Your profit includes player sales, doesn't it? And you've only got Rooney left who'll fetch a price like Ronaldo and Tevez to keep profit up.

"Amortization - Is the periodic paydown of principal. This is a common feature of most mortgages. Amortize also refers to the accounting write down or reduction in an intangible asset. This creates a charge against income. Amortization can also refer to the reduction in the cost basis of a bond purchased at a premium to par. Sometimes, amortization is used as a synonym for depreciation or other write down of an asset or liability. In the later capacity it tends to apply to intangible assets."

Not being a mortgage advisor I'm not sure exactly how £50m over five years is paid on assets costing £57m.

Our wage bill is down. We saved £15m on Torres' contract. Babel had a high wage. Tom Werner has said our wage bill isn't high enough. NESV like to pay high wages as reward rather than incentive but they have offered huge wages to baseball players for a signature.

As for the FFP rules, who knows? Wages don't count for the first two years:

http://www.sportingintelligence.com...-wages-dont-count-for-first-two-years-010205/

And who put them there? No World Series for 86 years and NESV had it won in two years. Then they won it again. That'll do for me, whatever the wage bill. How are the Glazer malls doing?

Hmm...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...r-vows-Kenny-Dalglish-transfer-war-chest.html

'I don't want to get the wage bill down, I want it to increase and we have the resources to do that." Tom Werner

I suppose when people say they know the "facts" they mean articles which back them up, which we all do. So you could say we all know the "facts."

THis debate is degnerating from the original contention (I think) that Liverpool will outspend Utd in the summer. Was that it? You could be right that we spend around the same. There are few facts known about the future but I say again, as a factless opinion, there isn't a fan in the world who'd choose the Glazers over FSG/NESV. Except you, but I'm guessing you don't wear a green and yellow scarf.

 

And of course.
Tom Werner isn't your owner.
That statement alone proves how incredibly stupid you are.
Tom Werner owns 50% of the controlling interest.John Henry the principal owner of NESV owns the other 50%.''Controlling interest'' means they act on behalf of their partners as NESV have 22 partners,and some of their partners are involved in their many businesses which make up their port-folio.
Finally do you know what the term ''Speculate to accumulate'' means.You have to spend money to make money.Instead of making money from not spending any of your own.Which is something that both Hicks and Gillett and Malcolm Glazer thought they could achieve.Malcolm Glazer is still trying to achieve it.He still pays himself money even though he put nothing in of his own.
I never once expected Livepool to throw money left right and centre and do a ''Man City'',but we do need a substantial short term investment in the squad to get it competitive again to get us back to our 2009 level.With good management we can get back and even beyond our 2009 level.

 

My first thought when Rafa went was that htem two would go as I felt Rafa was a big part of why they decided to sign.

 

No it doesn't. I specifically stated it is operating profit excluding player sales. And we only had Tevez on a two year loan - we didn't sell him for any money at all.

Simple. You bought them both on five year contracts, so I assume that they've signed till 2016. The £57 million will go on your balance sheet and be written down in stages over the five and a half years, so it will equal a loss of roughly £10 - £11 million. Strange rules, but I didn't make them up!

I thought he was on £110,000 a week? That's only around £6.5 million a year when all NI payments and bonuses are sorted. Interesting that Liverpool see Torres wanting to leave as a positive wage saving coup, but Ronaldo leaving Utd as a major blow. Only time will tell if Carroll comes even close to being a sufficient replacement...

<no> to that fiddle. That's a shocking loophole, didn't realise UEFA were being so lenient on that measure. FFP probably won't stop anyone overspending for the first two years in that case.

They'd been there for years. Prior to the NESV takeover, they were held up as the perfect example of how to maintain brand loyalty even if the club isn't winning. They were considered the US equivalent of United in 1991, such was the strength and appeal of their brand:

http://www.strategy-business.com/article/13714?gko=7e910

Compare that to the Tampa Bay Bucaneers. 14 straight losing seasons, the Glazers take over and there's three division titles, a conference championship and a Super Bowl in the next decade. That would be the equivalent of someone taking Leeds to the CL title in a decade.

And how's Henry's hedge fund doing? 33% of staff laid off and one of the worst performing funds in the US last time I looked....

"We will be driven by value but we certainly have the resources to have some targets. We are in this for the long-term and every pound that we make will strengthen the club."

Like I said, they have a long term rebuilding plan. I can see investments in quality players, but only if Kenny can make an really strong long term case for them. Whereas SAF was allowed to buy Bebe without even looking at him, which to me represents a stronger level of trust and support from the owners.

I used to have the green and yellow kit, but that was a decade and a half ago. If you compare what the Glazers have done to what NESV promise:

1. They expanded the stadium within a year of owning the club and plan to expand it further in future.
2. They invested in Rooney, Carrick, Anderson, Nani, Tevez, Hargreaves, Smalling, Berbatov, Rafael and Fabio, Valencia, Van Der Sar, Hernandez and Park, all of which have proved vital to our success over the past five years.
3. In the five years since they owned us, we have been four times as successful as in the previous five years, and more successful than Chelsea in spite of Abramovich's efforts.
4. Since they bought us our revenues have increased by 75%, primarily due to the stadium expansion and higher commercial revenues, and our operating profit has more than doubled from £46m to £100m. Over the same period Chelsea's revenues have grown by about 40% and Liverpool's by less than 50%.

So they have basically done everything NESV have promised to do for Liverpool. The only reason to hate them is the debt. And remember that they put £250 million of their own money into United - only £550 million of the takeover was financed by debt on the club. That's more than NESV put into the 'pool takeover. Had NESV bought United, they'd have had to load more debt on the club, and thus would be hated more.

They own 50% of the voting rights. Not the same as 50% of the controlling interest. A controlling interest would mean that one investor owned more than 50% of the shares. Don't try to use corporate finance terms if you don't know what they mean:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...illet-s-regime-100252-27844989/#ixzz1GJ1TD1vc

"In the unlikely event there were to be any dispute principal owner John Henry has the prevailing economic interest and would have the means to resolve any issue."

John Henry has the controlling interest, and thus will have the final say in the event of any dispute.

I do indeed know what speculate to accumulate means. I've done in myself in three property transactions over the last five years. And NESV has shown no interest in speculating at all. Everything they have said indicates that they will never speculate. They will only invest money when they are certain it will make returns. Malcolm Glazer has speculated and accumulated. He invested £250 million in the club, allowed SAF to speculate on players like Anderson and Nani, and has been rewarded with three PL titles, a CL and a club that is worth twice what he paid for it.

You do need substantial short term investment, but nothing I've seen indicates that NESV will take a short term view. I think their long term strategy is to get you back to your 2009 level within the next four or five years, primarily funded by the revenue growth for getting back in the CL. Imo you're going to have your work cut out just to overhaul Spuds or City over the next few years and get back on the CL gravy train.

 

Swarbs do you actually work lad?

 

Not today. My daughter has given me her rotovirus. I'm in bed with hot tea and a bucket and a lot of time to kill. Stupid children...

I work from home most of the time anyway, so I always have time to kill, and a short attention span for writing marketing reports and financial analyses.

 

Hargreaves has been vital to your succsess.Now tell me how a player that has played 5 minutes of football in the last three years has been vital to your success.
As for Carrick.Ferguson blundered big time there,If we wanted a one paced central midfielder that passes side ways and backways,He could have got Jimmy Bullard for a third of what Carrick cost.
As for Anderson,He is talented,if you regard passing the ball to the opposition a talent.He's worse than Kleberson,and thats insulting Kleberson.
I think their long time strategy is to get you back to get back to your 2009 level within the next 4-5 years,Have they told you that personally.You don't have the facts to back that up.
As for overhauling Spurs.Spurs have been lucky,and that is being kind for getting where they are.A small piece of good management plus a number of of recruits in the RIGHT areas should see Liverpool overtake them.As for City.They are going to calm down on their spending,as they have got a warning from UEFA that you cannot make 140 million and spend 150 million on players.They have to cut back enormously.They are in a massive need to get their house in order.
As for Chelsea,the signs are that they are definitely heading for a period of transition,as 1st to 4th is definitely not a ''blip''.
As for Man United,most of the experts have suggested that Man United need massive improvements as there is a large amount of their squad quiet simply aren't good enough and funnily enough that includes Carrick and Anderson.Add Gibson,Evans,Park,Obertan,Bebe,Brown and O Shea ,Rafael and Fabio to that list.

 

Unlucky with the illness.

 

That's what I get for being a good father and looking after her all day. I'm gonna be more of an abusive alcoholic in future...

@KPR those examples are exactly what I mean. SAF has been allowed to bring in players even when they didn't necessarily represent long term value. Carrick was brought in purely to solidfy the midfield to recapture the PL in 2007, Hargreaves likewise for the PL and CL in 2008, when he played integral roles in both games. I can't see your owners ever doing that, which means you'll be bringing in less players and relying on them developing in the future before they can really make a difference. And if our squad is so terrible, why has it been better than yours for every one of the last eight years?

Anyway, I can see this debate has come full circle, and you've reverted to the usual "insult Utd players to mask Liverpool's flaws" argument. I'm still unconvinced that you will have the investment or quality needed to get back in the CL any time soon. If you are, then good luck to you and I hope it all works out.

Actually, I hope it ****s up big style and you get relegated. I'm bitter like that

 

Swarbs.
1.Does Andy Carroll at 22 priced at £35 million provide better value than Dimitar Berbatov aged 28 at £32 million.?
2.It seems that you haven't a clue what an overdraft is.An overdraft facility only comes into effect when you overdraw,An overdraft is NOT a debt.Hicks and Gillett had a £60 million overdraft facility that was never used.
3.John Henry when he said he wanted to make long term investments was refering to player ages,not price.Damien Comolli has been instructed on this alredy,notice that Luis Suarez aged 24 and Andy Carroll aged 22 were signed for big money.Both provide long term investments.Does Berbatov at 28 provide a long term investment.Only a complete moron would say yes.
4.The only way Man United will make the profit they made in 2008 is if they sell Rooney(and that is finding someone stupid enough to pay £50 million).Real Madrid are your best hope.