I tend to think that it's more of a tax move to clear the debts to be honest ass I doubt they would have been bothered about the asset sitting on the balance sheet - I believe it is a asset that has been wrote off ? I wasn't being funny re the Addidas question I just wondered how much the increase is gonig to be in the annual revenue.
Eric, whilst this does have tax benefits, I feel that it is psychologically more important as it shows FSG to be taking full responsibility for the club and ditching any reference to H&G. Whilst i have no information with which to back my suggestion, I would not be surprised to hear (possibly after the Cup Final) a definitive statement about either a new ground or the refurbishment of Anfield.
I'm trying to look on the bright side. We made a loss of £50m but that includes two big sums paid out that are dead money situations - £35m on garbage stadium work and over £8m on getting rid of Hodgson and his croonies. That's £43m accounted for. Does the accounting period include the summer signings or just the Carroll and Suarez deals...?
The accounts cover the year to July 2011 so they would cover the sale of Torres and the purchase of Carroll and Suarez. However, unless you are a bigot like UIR you would appreciate that the net effect would be minimal!
Wouldn't that depend on the deals...? Ie, upfront payment or spread over so many months / seasons. I'm on the understanding that Chelsea paid upfront for Torres as did we for Carroll, but wasn't the Suarez deal done with a payment plan?
Wahay ya daft ****. Grown up yet have we gramps or still acting like your wife's ****ed off with the milkman? As for transfers its possible that the fees paid are spread out over the course of the contract, eg £10million and a 5 years contract would show up as £2million going out of the club per year. ( at Gerrez Carrard )
Before speculating, go and look at the published facts about those transfers. Before insulting try and make sure that you have both the knowledge and intellect to challenge somebody on their home turf. Unless that is you can prove that you have an understanding of corporate finance. You are, as usual, whistling in the wind.
What exactly have I said wrong? I asked what period it was for......said july 2011....and.....said transfer fees are possibly spread out over the course of the contract. So?
Nah, why dont you tell me what I am mistaken about. A question......cant be mistaken on that, the answer to my question.....nah, that was right, a potential way for clubs to show transfers on their annual accounts.....nah, ya see thats not wrong either. Its commonly used in football. The technical term is amortised I think. So?
Please go and talk to Eric before you go any further. The staging of payments for either the purchase or sale of an asset is totally different concept to that of amortisation (depreciation in common British parlance)
Dum de Dum de Dum ..... Oh don't mind me...I just like car crashes.......you just can't help staring....
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/liverpool/amortisation2.html For example, do the accounts include the £41million you made on Torres?
Im no financial expert but if you include the sale of Torres you also have to include all incoming and outgoing transfers from the same transfer window. If our debt has been reduced to the present £30m from the £230m debt H&G bestowed on us and the interest rate on the present debt has been reduced from 18% to 3% im happy. http://fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem=1782/title=liverpool count cost of stadium ambitions
I would think you would yeh. He was just the most obvious one tbf. The interest rate drop is very impressive. You should be happy.
Damn null rubbish again. I wanted to quote UIRs last post & apologise! A positive comment!!!!! Wait.....it's not a cunning trap is it?
Stay away from complex financial statements that you are ill-equipped to understand or interrogate. That's my advice.
Nope, very impressive. £3million in this day and age is pocket change and wont be a problem for you guys.
