Oh well if you say so. I am not as familiar with the UEFA statutes and reporting rules as you seem to be.
Not one single person has 'agreed' with that, as the actual phrase on that banner hasn't even been discussed, so yet another lie. Oh and coming from a man who's done what you have attempted to here, you wouldn't know classy if it smacked you in the mouth lad. Stay deluded.
So they do, I apologise. My understanding was that they'd look at 2012,2013 and 2014 plus the forecasts. I'll give up the day job and stick to delivering toys. I stand by everything else though. We'll be reet.
If Liverpool become established in CL football again i.e. next season and the season after that, then the season after next Liverpool will be judged on the previous 3 years accounts like everyone else, which by then will be 11/12, 12/13 and 13/14.
Only ~£35m was stadium related, the rest was Hodgson and players Everton are lucky they will never be troubled by FFP so Kenwright never has to justify how they can make a transfer profit every season for the last half a decade but still see no reduction in bank debt and losses continue to increase #worrying
It is a very complicated system and I personally doubt that even UEFA have a full handle on it. The fact is they won't start banning bigger clubs because that would mean lower viewing figures which would mean broadcasters would want to pay less and then UEFA would start getting less money. They won't do it except against little clubs.
Try reading what I said, and then before coming back with drivel, actually research the point in question x2 You wrote off £50m on the 'stadium' in the 2011 tax year. The figure mentioned in this years accounts was them re-financing the debt accrued as a result. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...um-cost-the-club-a-staggering-50-million.html
Not by much it isn't, and any increase is surpassed by the increase in net debt..... In any case turnover is vanity..........
So if you already know that £35m was the stadium plans itself and additional debt costs add up to £50m then why did you pretend £50m needed to be explained rather than the original £35m
I said; So for FFP purposes only the proposed £35m needs to be looked at. But my original point was, how the f**k do you run up £50m on a project that doesn't break the ground? It stinks.
Net debt is bitterness....what startling insight. I must remind my auditors of that before we compile our year end accounts. "Don't worry about the net debt increase, to see it as a negative would just show your bitterness" MAO p.s. Your net debt increased by £27m btw......
External debt went down by £20m. FSG made an interest-free loan of £47m to make the net debt increase £27m. Tell your auditors you think it's a better strategy to owe money to banks with high interest rates rather than have interest-free internal loans You never have to worry about net debt because Kenwright would never put in a penny
Just spotted this. Your wage bill rose according to these accounts from 119M last time to 132m this time. (see post at 1.28pm http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-fc-accounts-recap-reaction-3205450) Are you sure this is your day job?
I've not seen the loan listed as being 'interest free' anywhere, can you back that up? Debt is debt, the only advantage in bringing it 'in house' i.e. from an external lender to an internal loan from the Holding Company, is that the debt is more stable and not at the behest of the banks possibly calling it in. If they transfer the debt to equity then that's more philanthropic, however, they could be charging interest at a rate higher than they can get from a bank for all you know....and in any case, the fact that you've accrued another £27m of debt on top of a £50m loss, on a turnover of a little more than £200m, doesn't look great at face value........
