Man. Utd. make $110 million loss; $1.5 billion in debt!!!

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

And you've STILL got the 3rd* highest wage bill in the league. A sad state of affairs.


*4th probably, that Liverpool estimate is ludicrous.

Kimbo wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

And you've STILL got the 3rd* highest wage bill in the league. A sad state of affairs.


*4th probably, that Liverpool estimate is ludicrous.

Only Torres and Gerrard are on huge money

We don't have a deep squad (most of them are kids)

It's seems reasonable Kimmy, especially when looking at our Turnover

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

Yet the 3rd highest wage bill & 3rd biggest debt. Good stuff

I want Kimmy to explain why 9.3% of our wage bill is going to just Darren Bent...

Inieto'o wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

Yet the 3rd highest wage bill & 3rd biggest debt. Good stuff

With the 2nd highest turnover.

Good stuff

COTR wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

And you've STILL got the 3rd* highest wage bill in the league. A sad state of affairs.


*4th probably, that Liverpool estimate is ludicrous.

Only Torres and Gerrard are on huge money

We don't have a deep squad (most of them are kids)

It's seems reasonable Kimmy, especially when looking at our Turnover

What are the likes of Reina, Carragher, Agger, Alonso, Pennant, and Kuyt on?


Also, i thought Spurs were supposed to be debt free. Where is Malcolm X?

COTR wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

And you've STILL got the 3rd* highest wage bill in the league. A sad state of affairs.


*4th probably, that Liverpool estimate is ludicrous.

Only Torres and Gerrard are on huge money

We don't have a deep squad (most of them are kids)

It's seems reasonable Kimmy, especially when looking at our Turnover

What's huge money?

Alonso, Masherano, Carragher & now Agger must be earning a fair bit, Reina too. But yeah, it's probably still lower than Arsenal's who now have Walcott on £60k p/w.

Kimbo wrote:

COTR wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

And you've STILL got the 3rd* highest wage bill in the league. A sad state of affairs.


*4th probably, that Liverpool estimate is ludicrous.

Only Torres and Gerrard are on huge money

We don't have a deep squad (most of them are kids)

It's seems reasonable Kimmy, especially when looking at our Turnover

What are the likes of Reina, Carragher, Agger, Alonso, Pennant, and Kuyt on?


Also, i thought Spurs were supposed to be debt free. Where is Malcolm X?

When did I say this?

it's a perfectly manageable debt, 56% of turnover which is great going compared to the vast majority of the league. You lot on the other hand... *smirks*

Inieto'o wrote:

COTR wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

And you've STILL got the 3rd* highest wage bill in the league. A sad state of affairs.


*4th probably, that Liverpool estimate is ludicrous.

Only Torres and Gerrard are on huge money

We don't have a deep squad (most of them are kids)

It's seems reasonable Kimmy, especially when looking at our Turnover

What's huge money?

Alonso, Masherano, Carragher & now Agger must be earning a fair bit, Reina too. But yeah, it's probably still lower than Arsenal's who now have Walcott on £60k p/w.

Huge money = what Chelsea and United pay to the majority of their squads

We are a level below what they can do

I'd imagine carra and agger are on between 55-70 a week

Masch, Reina and Alonso between 40-55 (less than agger as he has just renegotiated his deal)

Kuyt probably about 40

The rest will probably be 40 or under

Rosicky wrote:Arsenal have the lowest turnover to wage ratio

Good stuff.

Still 50 million a season more than the chasing pack of Everton, Villa and Spurs.

Which means for all the praise Wenger gets about working 'with limited resources', he's actually achieving exactly what his budget is - 4th in the league.

When you look at what Moyes and O'Neill spend and what they deliver, they're doing SERIOUSLY good stuff.

Cheats

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8084182.stm

Liverpool FC owners lose £42.6m

The parent company of Liverpool FC, owned by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, lost £42.6m in the year to August 2008.

The loss was mainly due to the £36m of interest payments that Kop Football Holdings had to make to service the debt taken on to buy the club.

Its auditors warned that the need to refinance loans by 24 July cast "significant doubt" on the future of the group as a going concern.

But they added the club's owners were confident they would secure the funds.

The US owners bought Liverpool in February 2007, promising to build a new stadium.

In their accounts, they say they are "committed to building a new stadium and actively seeking funding to complete the project".

But they admit that "the opening of the new stadium will be delayed until 2012".

The parent company's loss came despite the £10.2m pre-tax profit reported by the football club in the same period.

The profit was helped by increased television revenues and the sale of players such as Peter Crouch, John Arne Riise and Scott Carson.

The results for the parent company showed net debt on 31 July 2008 of £300m.

Now we all know that Saints is the body of all knowledge, and as a result his word is gospel.

Is it just me or does the financial year end quarter '09, not August 2008... just a little food for thought, as it would paint an entirely inaccurate picture not to include the finances introduced from August 08 - March 09 such as ticket sales, merchandise, commercial events etc... As anybody who has operated in a commercial enviroment will realise budgets and books are set with a view to each FINANCIAL year as opposed to clutch and grab figures at any random month.

But then of course Saints is the messiah of everything and couldn't POSSIBLY be wrong..

No wonder he has such a gripe with capatism, he barely understands the fucking economics..

Tool

A far more accurate break down; not neccessarily a better picture, however more accurate;

Liverpool FC & Athletic Grounds Limited

Key Figures

		2008		2007		% Change
Turnover		159,052		133,910		19%
Cost of Sales		16,523		16,417		0.6%
Admin Expenses		145,240		143,160		1.5%
Profit/(Loss) Before Tax		10,199		(21,655)		n/a
Net Debt		86,017		43,868		96%
Cashflow from Operating Activites		22,863		39,996		(43)%
Gross Transfer Expenditure		69,966		69,972		0%

Turnover

This is broken down as thus

	2008		2007		% Change
Media	68,358		52,161		31%
Matchday	39,215		38,442		2%
Commercial	49,849		41,794		19%
Museum & OSC	1,630		1,513		7.7%

Healthy increases in media was expected with the advent of the current premier league tv deal. However a small amount of the increase is also due to the steep fall in sterling in the latter part of the season. While there was a compensating item for failing to reach the european cup final.

Matchday turnover increased as a result of the standard increase in ticket prices. With Anfield operating at near enough full capacity the scope for increases here are limited.

Commercial revenue increased as a result of both merchandise sales increasing aswell as an increase in the value of the club's sponsorship deal with Carlsberg. The carlsberg deal accounted for approx £2.5m of this increase.

Admin Expenses

	2008		2007		% Change
Staff Costs	89,729		77,589		16%
Amortisation of Players Registrations	32,497		31,121		4.4%
Impairment on Players Registrations	-		2,005		(100%)
Other Operating Charges	20,406		16,991		20%

Net Debt

	2008		2007		% Change
Bank Debt	21,546		43,868		(51)%
Inter-Company Loans	79,911		-		N/A
Cash at bank and in hand	16,284		441
Total Net Debt	86,017		43,868		96%

The net debt to external parties (ie banks) has decreased, however this is more than surpassed by loans from the parent companies of LFC. The bank debt carries an interest charge of Libor + 3.5%. The intercompany loans were provided from the Caymen Islands company.

Since the year end and additional £21.3m was received from Kop Football Limted (ultimately from Kop Football (Caymans)) for working capital requirements.

Contingent Assets/Liabilities

If certain conditions are met the club has potential income of £11.6m (of which £2.6m has since been realised) and potential expenditure of £19.8m (of which £1.6m has since been realised) on transfer fees.

Transfer Expenditure

The one area that causes the biggest debate. Every year we have fans complaining about the amount of money spent on players and every year they get it wrong, massively. These are the true figures for the last 3 financial years.

(figures in £000s)

Financial Year Ending	2008		2007		2006
Purchases	69,966		69,972		41,753
Sales	29,740		25,946		16,838
Net Transfer Activity	40,226		44,026		24,915

These values include relevant levies to the premier league, VAT and agents fees. Signing on fees go straight to the Profit & Loss at time of payment.

Since the year end Albert Riera, Peter Gulasci and Victor Palsson were bought by the club for total transfer fees of £7m (I assume this includes VAT and agents fees, but am not certain)

Since the year end the club sold Robbie Keane and Steve Finnan for a total guaranteed income of £12.8m. However this amount will increase significantly should certain conditions be met.

The Immediate Future

The immediate future is now very difficult to predict, will we be sold again or won't we. Will the stadium go ahead or not, will refinancing be granted or not? So many questions so little answers. There is only a limited area of certainty.

1) The latest Premier League tv deal. This will continue for the next 4 years, but there is the uncertainty of Setanta.

2) The increased sponsorship revenue from Carlsberg continues until the end of next season, while other improved sponsorship/advertising deals have been agreed.

3) The supporter pet hate, ticket prices, this will go the other way for the coming season, for the season just gone there will likely be a net fall due to the number of games played at home in the season.

4) The club has the full benefit of owning the company that runs the website and LFC TV. This will increase turnover by approx £4m per year and profits from it will double from previous levels.

Benchmarking against our rivals

With this I aim to show how the top 4 compare in the revenue, core costs (player amortisation and wages) and transfer expenditure stakes.

The figures relate to the season 2006/07 and are taken from the published accounts of all 4 clubs. There is a slight difference in accounting reference dates but I believe these are insignificant. The figures also relate to footballing activity only (arsenal have a property development going on at present, chelsea have the hotel etc)

(in £000s unless stated)

	Liverpool		Manchester United		Chelsea		Arsenal
Turnover	159,052		256,239		199,339		207,723
Media	68,358		90,723		Not Avail		68,360
Matchday	39,215		101,468		Not Avail		94,580
Commercial	49,849		64,048		Not Avail		44,311
Amortisation of Player Registrations	32,497		35,481		57,281		21,757
Staff Wages	89,729		121,080		171,620		101,302
Staff Wages as % of Turnover	56%		47%		86%		49%
Gross Transfer Expenditure	69,966		14,338		80,727		27,490
Net Transfer Expenditure	40,226		(13,254)		48,106		(13,707)

It must be noted that the following events occurred after the balance sheet dates.

Manchester United bought players for fees totalling £34.4m, with £1.6m recouped from sales. Contingent Liabilities on transfers stand at £14.8m

The figures for Chelsea only relate to football activites, hotel revenues are excluded to make the figures more comparable. The Staff Wages includes termination costs of £23.1m

Chelsea sold players for a profit of £8.5m since the balance sheet date. Contingent Liabilities on transfers stand at £3.7m

The figures for Arsenal are for footballing activities only. Since the year end Arsenal received £1.5m net on transfer fees. Contingent Asset/Liabilities on transfers stand at £6.3m/£12.3m respectively


LFC.tv Limited

This is appears to be a success story at present. Nothing much to say on it.

Turnover £7.9m (from 2008/09 onwards all of this will be a wholey owned subsidiary of LFC as opposed to being a joint venture)
Profit Before Tax £2.9m

Turnover is split as follows

Website £4.7m
Television £3.2m (this is an increase from £0.5m the year before).

This suggests that the deal with setanta could be worth £2.5m per annum. If this is true then I would say it's a great deal.


Kop Football (Holdings) Limited

Loss Before Tax £40.9m

Net Debt £299.5m.

Gross debt £320m of which £261m owed to banks, £58.2m owed to parent companies and £7.5m of financing costs capitalised to the balance sheet.

Cash balances £20.6m

Interest charged £36.5m

Interest paid £35.2m

Net debt increased by £55m in the year. This includes monies received from parent companies (charged at 10% per annum, interest not yet paid).


Expenses Claimed

2008 - reimbursable third party consulting, travel and other expenses with Hicks and affiliated companies £192,000

2008 - reimbursable third party consulting, legal, travel and other expenses with Hicks and affiliated companies £129,000


AUDIT REPORT

The major issue arrising from the accounts this time, however, relates to the KPMG report on Going Concern. Due to the facilities being due for repayment on 24 July 2009 and with no refinancing agreed/announced at the time of sign off by KPMG they have raised an emphasis of matter on the going concern status of the holding companies and club. The club/owners are in discussions to refinance the facilities and looking for possible equity finance. I don't think there is too much to say on this as I am sure everyone will have their views on this, and the results.

I will say that as a standalone company LFC should have no problems. I'd imagine they would get refinancing for club debt, however the millstone of the purchase debt is having an effect. This may explain some of the rumours going round recently about the owners being told to pay down the debt over the next couple of years.

There is a comment in the report about revised stadium plans going to the council in Q2 2009, however the refinancing issue needs to be settled before this can really be taken forward.

Future prospects are both bleak and positive. Positively the club is back in the black and has increasing revenues again, especially in the commercial area (the one area at present that the club can really increase revenues by it's own actions). The tv deal will provide a stable platform for the next 4 years and LFC.tv is improving year on year.

Bleakly the club needs to have the refinancing/takeover saga sorted quickly. It always has, however with the new contracts, both staff and commercial, there must be a large amount of optimism that the refinancing will occur. However it needs to be for longer than a year to ensure short to medium term stability.

In case you hadn't noticed the figures provided in the Guardian articles posted on this thread were for the year ending spring/summer 2008, and they were published yesterday, whereas the BBC article I posted was published today.

So, much as you might try to discredit me by implying I am clueless, all I'm doing is drawing people's attention to what the major news media are covering, which is accounts ending spring/summer 2008. So if you have a gripe about who understands what, it's with them.

Now that you've also posted accounts ending in 2008, are we to assume you are a fucking moron like you're trying to imply I am, or just someone who is completely oblivious to what's going on? Still, nice of you to be so obsessed with me that you couldn't miss the opportunity to make demonstrably misguided comments.

Can't we all just be friends?

Stimulus Package wrote:In case you hadn't noticed the figures provided in the Guardian articles posted on this thread were for the year ending spring/summer 2008, and they were published yesterday, whereas the BBC article I posted was published today.

So, much as you might try to discredit me by implying I am clueless, all I'm doing is drawing people's attention to what the major news media are covering, which is accounts ending spring/summer 2008. So if you have a gripe about who understands what, it's with them.

Now that you've also posted accounts ending in 2008, are we to assume you are a fucking moron like you're trying to imply I am, or just someone who is completely oblivious to what's going on? Still, nice of you to be so obsessed with me that you couldn't miss the opportunity to make demonstrably misguided comments.

You post a press release, i find actual figures comparitive with competitors, and you question credibility?

My source > your source.



Heres a challenge then Einstein, why don't you analyse what i've posted and give some constructive feedback.

I for one would absolutely galvanise this opportunity to challenge your business credentials...

Let the challenge begin.... fuck face.

Football Genius wrote:
You post a press release, i find actual figures comparitive with competitors, and you question credibility?

No, just pointing out that you criticised my posting of a BBC article as it talked of accounts up to August 2008, only to go on and post figures up to 2008.

My source > your source.

My penis > your penis.

Heres a challenge then Einstein, why don't you analyse what i've posted and give some constructive feedback.

Regarding what, exactly? Aside from crediting me with opinions I don't hold you've not offered much perspective.

I for one would absolutely galvanise this opportunity to challenge your business credentials...

Let the challenge begin.... fuck face.

Sure, why not? But you might want to explain what the challenge is first.

I see as opposed to tackle what you are fully well aware of, the figures above, to make some sort of 'findings' from... you prefer get out clauses.

Perhaps you find this difficult as it entails an element of impartiality?

Or perhaps you find this difficult because you don't precisely know how to analyse without having an end goal to match the findings against.

My challenge was very simple ole mighty Saints, analyse the figures above i so kindly provided you, against the figures of our competitors, give findings on perhaps why we made our £44m loss in August, perhaps you'd prefer to comment on why our competitors general costs exceed ours (however i doubt that)

You're usually on the whole, generally speaking not so tight lipped when you have an agenda to press, perhaps my objective task is one too far along the line for you?

Shame...

What I find difficult is working out what you're asking of me and why. If you were genuinely interested to hear my opinions then this is funny way of going about it.

Alas yet another get out clause!

You're not really the battler you make out really are you?

There is overwhelming material to analyse, yet you still 'can't figure out what i'm asking'

Perhaps what you're saying is, 'i don't know where to start' either because you don't have an end goal to generate, or you simply don't understand how the above figures reflect on a business scale.

I'll leave it here... and respond when you are able to anaylse the figures i so generously provided you to analyse.

There are so many bones there, where if you wanted you could jump on and criticize the 'Liverpool operation' infact i gave you ammunition if you fancied a personal pop at me or Liverpool FC in general...

What i requested was a substantial analysis of the accounts that you highlighted, with myself providing the figures, if you cannot understand how to scrutinize those figures, then i've given you far too much credit and for that... i apologise.

I was challenging your business acumen, you gave no response... i won't lambast you, rather leave the option open for you to scrutinize.

You can create any hypothesis you wish to analyse upon, however the idea is it should adhere to the greater picture of the business / sporting directive of the operation.

Football Genius wrote:No wonder he has such a gripe with capatism, he barely understands the fucking economics..

An assessment from you not long ago, based on my in depth comment ' '

Football Genius wrote:i've given you far too much credit and for that... i apologise.

Your latest assessment.


Can you see, 'impartially', why I'm having trouble understanding you?

Not really i gave you no credit for your knowledge, you've continued to give me no factual basis to give you credit.

My position has not changed...

Your last post = a load of shit frankly.

You keep fluctuating - do you want to know my view or are you simply seeking to try and insult me?

Make up your mind, then I'll respond accordingly.

I asked for your response you've gave none.

I gave a pre-deceived opinion on what i believe is your apparent acumen, you've done nothing to contradict that.

Unless you provide an analysis this conversation is over...

I again re-iterate, i request a analytical response to the figures i've posted.

Your beating around the bush, is irrelevant, and only emphasises my opinion you can't deliver a successful business anaylsis..

Prove me wrong, rather than clutching on straws trying to turn this into an arguement about 'he said, she said'

I want a business analysis, give it to me.

And now we're back to 'good cop', or at least 'reasonable cop'.

Look back over your own posts and see how from each to the next you've flipped from being aggressive to reasonable back to aggressive.

If you genuinely want my opinion then I'll offer it tomorrow.

Business response please... cut the bullshit.

FG i don't think you should go on the internet.

L-r d wrote:FG i don't think you should go on the internet.

Just because he's raping one of your Man U buddies ?

I think it's excellent entertainment seeing Saints getting owned

L-r d wrote:FG i don't think you should go on the internet.

I accept your challenge also, i expect a response upon the above figures tomorrow, failure to do so warrants this reply void...

I don't want semantics, i want a logical, partisan discussion on the business side of the game.

Now you i certainly do NOT expect a literal response, Saints will wipe the floor with what you can produce...

Axeslammer wrote:

L-r d wrote:FG i don't think you should go on the internet.

Just because he's raping one of your Man U buddies ?

I think it's excellent entertainment seeing Saints getting owned

Nope because he's high on something and he just comes across like a rambling nutter. I like the guy but i have no idea what he's on about or why he's bashing saints for an article written by the BBC just today...the BBC are hardly anti Liverpool....