If the rules are broken a panel decide if they were deliberately broken to strengthen your team/squad at the expense of your running costs. It doesn't take Einstein to see that's not the case with us, N'gog, the ponytail, Downing etc
I'll tell you why its good. One, the 50m loss comes from a huge payment towards servicing the debt that we were saddled with under Hicks and Gillette. Two, our revenue is up and once the debt is cleared it goes towards profit. Three, such a debt is before FFP and as such we will probably be applauded by UEFA for trying to become self sufficient - which requires the elimination of debt. FSG has external debt of 50m compared to about 300m to RBS under H&G. What these numbers show is that we have converted a huge increase in revenue into debt repayment as opposed to squad investment - something FFP actually requires us to do. The chavs can laugh all they want but they have to. Otherwise they would have to feel the guilt of being the one of the clubs that began ruining football. Their owners support for FFP is because he capitalised on the millions poured in and now he's pulling the ladder up with him. He wants to keep the status quo he created. Chelsea supporters know this deep down and it manifests itself in the form of support for a man who is trying to ruin football. Its a shame but they can't help it. As for Tobes its pretty self explanatory.
FFP advisor Shwan will be able to answer the above and any other question have you ffp may... Hehehe stoopid loserpool Hehehe Cough
I thought that debts were allowed so long as significant efforts were being made to reduce said debts through either increasing revenue or lowering expenditure; both of which we've been doing since FSG came in and are continuing to do so. Our wages have been slashed and we've increased our revenue by almost 40mill per year - that was only with 2013 May figures, but we've announced many more commercial deals since. I fail to see how anyone can find a problem with what we're doing. Sure, there's debt and a yearly loss. But it's a annual debt and loss which is being reduced all the time. FSG are financially supporting us until we're self sustainable - which we're well on the way to becoming.
For those arsed here's where we stand regarding FFP http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpools-latest-accounts-good-indifferent-3207256 And here's a decent explanation as to how it works. http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk
I see this has stoked plenty of "debate" on the Chelsea board Of all the teams to criticise us I can't say I'm too clued up on the financial side of things but reading the various articles that have been posted around, all seem to be saying that despite the losses things are getting better and without the full breakdown you can't say for certain where the money has been spent but we're pretty safe towards being eligible under FFP.
I personally cannot wait for the day ambramovich's accounts are frozen when the yanks finally call cameron and tell him to stop looking after the oligarchs down by the thames. If this ukraine thing keeps going i think the chavs are the first to go Now until someone actually publishes the full annual report it is utterly pointless to debate headline figures without any context. just as it is a s pointless for UiR to clutch at straws as it it moyes to try to win a game at more than relegation level.
MITO is right that these figures only truly give an indication of the direction of travel and the intent of the journey. We need for more information before anybody can make more than informed guesses. However, the principles stated by FSG upon which LFC will be run appear to be corroborated. Now the City, United and Chavs positions are all very different. If FFP were established and truly had teeth then all 3 would have very serious problems - they may still have but not quite today.
Yes in short; what is the 50 million loss made up of? how much money is fsg propping us up with? What is actual debt? How much cash is at hand? what legacy decisions are still being paid for? (players paid off, etc etc) when do we expect to break even? We cannot know this until a proper look at the accounts is done.
MITO, even when the full figures are published the situation will be a clear as mud and that's the way FSG/LFC want them to be. There are a myriad of ways that you can analyse financial data but in the end its not the numbers themselves that are important it's what they represent. I'm firmly in the FSG camp. The are running the club as a long term viable business operation that aims to live within its means. However, like all businesses the need 'wriggle-room' and hence they obscure the position for strategic purposes. When we get CL football they neither want to be seen as likely not to spend but also they want to be able to buy 'big' should the right player become available. Then we have all of the questions regarding the stadium spend. OK those figures don't apply to FFP but they do effect the overall strategy. I think that this Summer we will see LFC linked with some very expensive players but most of that will be hot air. However, they are likely to spend some very large fees and appear, in the short term, to be breaking their Golden Rule.
Tony Barrett wrote an article last night explaining that LFC would be safe to play in the CL next season (If we get there of course ). Something to do with the fact that we weren't playing in a European Competition this year so the rules/debts do not apply in the calculation of aggregated losses (or something along those lines) ...
A full financial report is not clear as mud. its very clear. its called tax laws etc. go look at arsenal's offical wbesite where every years finanical rpeort is there for all to see. this is the standard to aspire to i think lfc have to pay tax so the accounts are there... its just how they are given to the public.
oh who knows... if putin has lost it and is sliding into megalomania he might try it on and a cold war might drop and frankly chelsea's plight will be the least of anyone's worries.
MITO, you are truly being blinkered. In complex organisations such as LFC and Arsenal, financial reports are prepared so as to show the picture that the management want to portray within the legal financial rules. If that were not so then City analysts would not make a fortune trying to use other reports to to verify the reported figures and add to them the debts and profits that have been scheduled outside of the reporting period. Remember a Balance Sheet is only a snap shot in time ie it identifies the financial situation on one particular day whereas the Profit & Loss reports over an annual period. Together, they are then capable of being interpreted. However, just as you can use loopholes in the tax laws to avoid having to pay tax, companies can use loopholes in the accounting rules to help them present the picture that they wish the world to see.
Yes this is fair a balance sheet is exactly what you say and yes they are manipulated as far as possible within the rules to generate a better picture. that's fine and the loopholes are fine too as they are deliberately provided too. HOWEVER to state that things are presented, and i am interpreting what you are saying, to deliberately mislead is simply not the case. You can only polish a turd so much. Yes if you look at an annual report it's like a glossy sales brochure putting the best foot forward... but the truths are within. I can sit within my organisation and see the inventory game being played to make the snapshot prettier but there's only so far you can go on an quarterly basis. Yes sales guys chase revenue over profit based on what their bonuses are paid on... yes figures on both ends get stretched but its robbing peter to pay paul as well. so yes the P&L can show more. heres a nice glossy one for you http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_file...1380277138_Arsenal_Holdings_plc_-_Annual_.pdf this is the standard LFC fall way short of in terms of transparency.. oh and yes holding companies and all sorts can hide the issue per G&H. the arsenal report boils down to 2 pages post the gloss.. 37 and 38. you re telling me i can't see the rude good health or otherwise of this organisation over the period reported (not today) based on this. I think its clear enough frankly for me as the lay man..... this is the issue with LFC, its not very clear and It requires someone to pay for the report and break it out. I hope this makes clear my view as I have looked at other clubs published finances compared to LFC
