Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Stanley J Krammerhead III said:
Isn't a fair whack of that debt what we 'owe' FSG for the stands? That doesn't come under FFP anyway, and I think that's what the article stated. And don't get me going on how FSG is billing the club for infrastructure when NESV, as it was, went to court alongside RSB against Hicks and defended the sale price on the basis that the new owners had £200m ready to build the new stadium that H&G didn't. I don't blame them for not building a new stadium, but I do think it's rich that when they eventually got around to doing it that they then billed the club for the privilege, even though it adds value to their asset. presumably, if we're sold the remaining debt is written off?
Click to expand...

110mil in 2017 call it to build it we repaid 10mil in 2018, and 2019, the kindly let us off in 2020 due to covid and we were paid pay in 2021. so it might show up in latest accounts as say 70mil still owed to FSG.

the cheap ****s wouldn't even write that much off to help us compete.

I would certainly hope that is wrtten off but equally the club itself is on the hook for another 70mil for anfield road end and another 50mil paid for kirkby.

All these should by rights be written off by new owner on a fresh outlook and let the cash flow serve the future not the past. I think any new owner would want that refected in deal.

this is what i mean by cash flow. The revenue goes out in wages, in expenses for running the business etc and then repayments. Its amazing we even have 50mil left net to spend on players the way FSG go on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy Squarefoot and Ivan Dobsky
moreinjuredthanowen said:
110mil in 2017 call it to build it we repaid 10mil in 2018, and 2019, the kindly let us off in 2020 due to covid and we were paid pay in 2021. so it might show up in latest accounts as say 70mil still owed to FSG.

the cheap ****s wouldn't even write that much off to help us compete.

I would certainly hope that is wrtten off but equally the club itself is on the hook for another 70mil for anfield road end and another 50mil paid for kirkby.

All these should by rights be written off by new owner on a fresh outlook and let the cash flow serve the future not the past. I think any new owner would want that refected in deal.

this is what i mean by cash flow. The revenue goes out in wages, in expenses for running the business etc and then repayments. Its amazing we even have 50mil left net to spend on players the way FSG go on.
Click to expand...

investment in buildings or real estate are amortised over a longer period typically. So the worst case is, for example, £200m over 10 years = £20m pa. Now look at the increased income from revenue; seats alone is what? 15,000 more after the anfield road end is done? (I don’t know tbh),

so 15,000 x # of home games x average ticket price PLUS additional revenue from corporate and I’d wager that the building is paying for itself, by and large. Sure the team itself won’t benefit from that extra revenue for a decade but it will at some point, as Arsenal eventually did.
 
SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING said:
investment in buildings or real estate are amortised over a longer period typically. So the worst case is, for example, £200m over 10 years = £20m pa. Now look at the increased income from revenue; seats alone is what? 15,000 more after the anfield road end is done? (I don’t know tbh),

so 15,000 x # of home games x average ticket price PLUS additional revenue from corporate and I’d wager that the building is paying for itself, by and large. Sure the team itself won’t benefit from that extra revenue for a decade but it will at some point, as Arsenal eventually did.
Click to expand...

yes that's all cool.

it's published that the loan made to lfc was 110million and its stated that each year there is an agreement to pay it back. that by convention was 10mil per year each year.

yes the increased revenue is far in advance of that number.

the point being discussed was what might happen in event of sale, so the 70mil outstanding must be paid back as part of sale process.

for anfield road end: 7,000 extra seats x 19 assured games (add in cups if you like) put about 50 quid a set on that and factor in food as stuff on top. call it 70 quid.

that'll be 10mil a season extra revenue before we talk premium seating allowance.

again all good revenue boosts but at a capital cost with repayment.

again a new owner should ask all the are settled as part of sale process.

every penny we make doing forward should be available to improve the team and if at some point its possible improve anfield to 75k with the stadium becoming symmetrical in some form.

fsg don't allow debt, they control the purse strings so we are always battling cash flow and these debts to be able to sign players.

I don't think ffp has ever come into it for a signing
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
yes that's all cool.

it's published that the loan made to lfc was 110million and its stated that each year there is an agreement to pay it back. that by convention was 10mil per year each year.

yes the increased revenue is far in advance of that number.

the point being discussed was what might happen in event of sale, so the 70mil outstanding must be paid back as part of sale process.

for anfield road end: 7,000 extra seats x 19 assured games (add in cups if you like) put about 50 quid a set on that and factor in food as stuff on top. call it 70 quid.

that'll be 10mil a season extra revenue before we talk premium seating allowance.

again all good revenue boosts but at a capital cost with repayment.

again a new owner should ask all the are settled as part of sale process.

every penny we make doing forward should be available to improve the team and if at some point its possible improve anfield to 75k with the stadium becoming symmetrical in some form.

fsg don't allow debt, they control the purse strings so we are always battling cash flow and these debts to be able to sign players.

I don't think ffp has ever come into it for a signing
Click to expand...

the debt will be taken into consideration in the valuation of the club. How a new owner wants to do with it is entirely down to them.

I think it important to note that debt is not a bad thing in itself if structured correctly and can be financed. Not all debt is bad. Investors like to see capital invested and a return. (ROCE - return on capital invested) - in fact, it f you don’t, you are essentially worth less in investors eyes. Nobody can accuse FSG of not investing wisely when you look at it from
Investors eyes (fans would be a different story).

However, now the playing field is changing again; Funds to some clubs are endless and FSG need to adapt or their investment will devalue. What that change is remains to be seen exactly but at least they acknowledge that. My guess is that, if they can, they’ll sell a stake in the club to reinvest. Why would they do this has been asked. Simple, the average value of a PL team is way lower than that of an NFL team but their fan base and thus, marketability is much higher…so PL teams…all football teams are undervalued when compared to other sports teams….throw in the exchange rate and that magnifies this….this is why the Americans are all sniffing around european football.

so, FSG sell a 49% share in the club for say, $1.5b, issue dividends to their shareholders for 2/3rds of that, vastly more than they invested and they keep a stake in the controlling shares in the club and the club get £500m to invest.

In 10 years time, the club is worth £8b, the controlling shares just over £4b and hey presto you’ve had you’re money back in spades and the value of your shares is worth more than what you received when you sold just less than half of the club. It’s a no brainier but who would invest £1.5b without wanting a say? Nobody.

so if nobody can be found, they will, reluctantly imo, sell up completely to the highest bidder. If anyone thinks that FSG will care who takes over if this happens, think again. It’s all about the money.
 
SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING said:
the debt will be taken into consideration in the valuation of the club. How a new owner wants to do with it is entirely down to them.

I think it important to note that debt is not a bad thing in itself if structured correctly and can be financed. Not all debt is bad. Investors like to see capital invested and a return. (ROCE - return on capital invested) - in fact, it f you don’t, you are essentially worth less in investors eyes. Nobody can accuse FSG of not investing wisely when you look at it from
Investors eyes (fans would be a different story).

However, now the playing field is changing again; Funds to some clubs are endless and FSG need to adapt or their investment will devalue. What that change is remains to be seen exactly but at least they acknowledge that. My guess is that, if they can, they’ll sell a stake in the club to reinvest. Why would they do this has been asked. Simple, the average value of a PL team is way lower than that of an NFL team but their fan base and thus, marketability is much higher…so PL teams…all football teams are undervalued when compared to other sports teams….throw in the exchange rate and that magnifies this….this is why the Americans are all sniffing around european football.

so, FSG sell a 49% share in the club for say, $1.5b, issue dividends to their shareholders for 2/3rds of that, vastly more than they invested and they keep a stake in the controlling shares in the club and the club get £500m to invest.

In 10 years time, the club is worth £8b, the controlling shares just over £4b and hey presto you’ve had you’re money back in spades and the value of your shares is worth more than what you received when you sold just less than half of the club. It’s a no brainier but who would invest £1.5b without wanting a say? Nobody.

so if nobody can be found, they will, reluctantly imo, sell up completely to the highest bidder. If anyone thinks that FSG will care who takes over if this happens, think again. It’s all about the money.
Click to expand...

the average value of an elite club is the same as an elite NFL franchise. theres as few elite clubs as there are NFL teams. theres lots of minor league teams ;)

the yanks see it as the wild west, they can buy anyhting on never never money and some other yank will come along and pay more. its a classic bubble. if the galziers are getting out of a free man utd club that pays 20mil per year to them personally and the financing was not even on them but on the club... well thats says the top of the ponzi scheme must be hitting.

the question has to be: 200mil in 2010 was probably vastly under valued. cheslea at 2bil plus a fask clause for 1.75bil to build something o nthe never never was probably quite right.

4bil for LFC or utd is probably top top of the market. will it go to 8bil? who knows. whats the underlying value to anyone based on just parking funds there and hoping to sell it for more. they are not for profit concerns. if people don't believe they will double their money on the investment then they probabaly won't do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
moreinjuredthanowen said:
the average value of an elite club is the same as an elite NFL franchise. theres as few elite clubs as there are NFL teams. theres lots of minor league teams ;)

the yanks see it as the wild west, they can buy anyhting on never never money and some other yank will come along and pay more. its a classic bubble. if the galziers are getting out of a free man utd club that pays 20mil per year to them personally and the financing was not even on them but on the club... well thats says the top of the ponzi scheme must be hitting.

the question has to be: 200mil in 2010 was probably vastly under valued. cheslea at 2bil plus a fask clause for 1.75bil to build something o nthe never never was probably quite right.

4bil for LFC or utd is probably top top of the market. will it go to 8bil? who knows. whats the underlying value to anyone based on just parking funds there and hoping to sell it for more. they are not for profit concerns. if people don't believe they will double their money on the investment then they probabaly won't do it.
Click to expand...

the Dallas Cowboys franchise is valued at $10b. A few others are values at c. $6b. None of these have the reach of Liverpool or Utd but yet are valued at more . The weak GBP makes it even more attractive. The Americans see huge value over here. Given that club valuations have nothing to do with a multiple of ebitda like every other business, brand equity must be how they view it and we have a ton of that….maybe only less than utd in the U.K?

anyway, we’ll never really know so all moot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
Red Hadron Collider said:
Have we signed a midfielder yet THIS WINDOW
Click to expand...

Yea just announced.

Sofie Lundgaard. Only 20. Played for Fortuna Hjorring.

According to her own words she’s a powerful player, likes to play good football, can defend, get good possession and make a lot of goals.

Sounds like perfect midfielder. Can’t be any worse than the rest have been this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Germlands Nozzer, Zanjinho, organic red and 2 others
InBiscanWeTrust said:
Yea just announced.

Sofie Lundgaard. Only 20. Played for Fortuna Hjorring.

According to her own words she’s a powerful player, likes to play good football, can defend, get good possession and make a lot of goals.

Sounds like perfect midfielder. Can’t be any worse than the rest have been this year.
Click to expand...
Sounds a bit fishy to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back