would that be interest free debt to the owners following the outlay on Henderson, Downing, and co...?
State-backed banks are funding some of the sport’s most debt-ridden clubs – now critics say small businesses should start coming first James Moore Tuesday 26 March 2013 Britain’s two state-backed banks are helping fund the Premier League’s booming wages and transfer fees. Both Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds act as bankers to debt-ridden football clubs in the top flight. And they confirmed to The Independent that they participate in lending to others. While neither comes close to market-leader Barclays, which as sponsor of the Premier League could be expected to be heavily involved, or HSBC, the news is still set to cause controversy with campaigners. That is because they are effectively using state funds to help finance the Premier League at a time when all banks are facing criticism for failing to do enough to lend to Britain’s legion of credit-starved small businesses. RBS, 81 per cent owned by the taxpayer, serves as banker to both Liverpool and Fulham FC. According to the most recent editor of Deloitte’s football finance report, Liverpool had net cash listed at £9.6m but £202m of other debt bringing its total “net” debt to £192m. The club, owned by former derivatives trader John Henry’s Fenway Sports Group, which also owns the Boston Red Sox baseball team, made a pre tax profit of £5m in 2011 but lost £19m prior to that. Fulham, according to the report, had bank loans and overdrafts of £20.3m and £24.6m of other debt making a total of £46m. It made a pre-tax loss of £5.4m. The report’s figures only go up to the end of 2011 because the current edition is still in preparation, with not all clubs having yet filed their 2012 accounts. The article continues, but there are already enough holes in this to blow it apart. Firstly, it talks about "figures up to the end of 2011" when LFC's accounts up to May 2012 have been published. Secondly, the figures of £202m and £192m seem to be plucked from thin air. As of May last year, the total debt on the club was £87m. Thirdly, it gives the impression that the club owes this money to RBS. This is totally untrue. Of the £87m debt, over half is owed to FSG.
Its all ok and you don't have to worry. What is worrying is the level that journalism has fallen to. I mean, it never was exactly a fine art but nowadays blatant lies can be published. Simple fact-checking by an editor is apparently not a prerequisite to publish anymore. What does the editor do now? Is that not their job? 87m (dollars) is our debt, of which 3/4 is owed to John Henry. The rest is from the stadium plans by H&G if I recall.
I can donate a paper clip and a 75% used red pen if that helps? (both would be considered stolen goods mind )
TBF, if its in pound sterling it will sound bad in yankland, all them naughts would be enough to scare anyone
By the way, they retracted all this in the Independent today. Evidently the debt is (and was even for 2011) £60m-odd, but there is no mention that we don't owe that to the banks. And the report on Fulham was totally wrong in terms of their debt and that they've never banked with RBS or Lloyds. How in ****'s name do you get a job as a 'financial correspondent'?
