Is this good or bad.

[Ronnie]

Sorry for such a sh*t first post and sorry if it's in the wrong place sure a mod can move it normally just a lurker.

Just been browsing looking for any snippets about another signing before the window closes and found this:

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?rpc=401&type=breakingFundsNews&storyID=2007-08-29T180240Z_01_L29780529_RTRIDST_0_LIVERPOOL-GOLDMAN.XML

Can anybody tell me if this is good or bad for Liverpool football club.

[Shaggy]

Hmmmm.......

LONDON, Aug 29 (Reuters) - U.S. investment bank Goldman Sachs (GS.N: Quote, Profile , Research) is no longer working for Liverpool F.C. to refinance the debt used to buy the soccer club earlier this year, people familiar with the situation said on Wednesday.

Following the March acquisition by U.S. tycoons Tom Hicks and George Gillett, bankers at Goldman Sachs's New York office drew up a highly geared refinancing plan that would have put about 550 million pounds ($1.1 billion) of debt onto the club's books, more than 20 times its profit, one of the sources said.

Liverpool is now focusing on either extending or refinancing a 300 million pound bridge facility, which expires in February. A new adviser may be appointed, the source added.

"Goldman is no longer involved in refinancing Liverpool," a second source said.

Both sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

Goldman Sachs declined to comment, while Liverpool F.C. were not immediately reachable for comment.

Investors are shying away from highly leveraged deals following the recent turmoil in credit markets, making it more difficult for companies to access financing.

Liverpool arch-rival Manchester United [MNU.UL] also failed this summer to refinance its high-priced debt, following the acquisition of the club by U.S. billionaire Malcolm Glazer.

Unlike Glazer, the refinancing plan for the Liverpool takeover did not include a direct equity investment by the new owners, but was instead slated to be funded only with new debt, the first source said.

The plan was to raise about 300 million pounds to re-pay the bridge facility provided by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS.L: Quote, Profile , Research), as well as another 250 million pounds to finance the building of a new stadium, the source added.

The stadium, originally expected to cost about 280 million pounds, may now end up costing as much as 400 million pounds, the source said.

The Goldman Sachs plan included raising as much as 8 million pounds for naming rights on a new stadium, the source said, while London rival Arsenal generates about 3 million for its Emirates Stadium.

[Kilteragh]

Sorry for such a sh*t first post and sorry if it's in the wrong place sure a mod can move it normally just a lurker.

Just been browsing looking for any snippets about another signing before the window closes and found this:

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?rpc=401&type=breakingFundsNews&storyID=2007-08-29T180240Z_01_L29780529_RTRIDST_0_LIVERPOOL-GOLDMAN.XML

Can anybody tell me if this is good or bad for Liverpool football club.

Welcome mate and there's nothing **** about it.

Don't know the answer to be honest but I would imagine it won't mean too much in the short to medium term.

[badpiggy]

Hmmmm.......

LONDON, Aug 29 (Reuters) - U.S. investment bank Goldman Sachs (GS.N: Quote, Profile , Research) is no longer working for Liverpool F.C. to refinance the debt used to buy the soccer club earlier this year, people familiar with the situation said on Wednesday.

Following the March acquisition by U.S. tycoons Tom Hicks and George Gillett, bankers at Goldman Sachs's New York office drew up a highly geared refinancing plan that would have put about 550 million pounds ($1.1 billion) of debt onto the club's books, more than 20 times its profit, one of the sources said.

Liverpool is now focusing on either extending or refinancing a 300 million pound bridge facility, which expires in February. A new adviser may be appointed, the source added.

"Goldman is no longer involved in refinancing Liverpool," a second source said.

Both sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

Goldman Sachs declined to comment, while Liverpool F.C. were not immediately reachable for comment.

Investors are shying away from highly leveraged deals following the recent turmoil in credit markets, making it more difficult for companies to access financing.

Liverpool arch-rival Manchester United [MNU.UL] also failed this summer to refinance its high-priced debt, following the acquisition of the club by U.S. billionaire Malcolm Glazer.

Unlike Glazer, the refinancing plan for the Liverpool takeover did not include a direct equity investment by the new owners, but was instead slated to be funded only with new debt, the first source said.
The plan was to raise about 300 million pounds to re-pay the bridge facility provided by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS.L: Quote, Profile , Research), as well as another 250 million pounds to finance the building of a new stadium, the source added.

The stadium, originally expected to cost about 280 million pounds, may now end up costing as much as 400 million pounds, the source said.

The Goldman Sachs plan included raising as much as 8 million pounds for naming rights on a new stadium, the source said, while London rival Arsenal generates about 3 million for its Emirates Stadium.

that bit doesn't sound so great but i haven't got a clue about this kind of thing. also, welcome ronnie.

[rushscored4]

The Goldman Sachs plan included raising as much as 8 million pounds for naming rights on a new stadium, the source said, while London rival Arsenal generates about 3 million for its Emirates Stadium.

Didn't the Arse raise around £100m from the Emirates naming deal including the shirt sponsorship?

Beeb Link

[CJ]

i thought that they said when they bought the club that the club would not be saddled with debt a la that scum.

the debt was going to sit with themselves and the club was not the equity against which it would be borrowed.

thinking about it the equity would be the club but slightly concerning nevertheless.

[Chris]

Didn't the Arse raise around £100m from the Emirates naming deal including the shirt sponsorship?

Beeb Link

I assume its referring to each season. 3m for 15 seasons 45m and 55m for 8 seasons for the shirt sponsorship. 100m.

[Rocket]

not overly thrilled about being too highly geared, but the Mancs have gone down the debt versus equity route and appear to be still financially sound.

[rushscored4]

I assume its referring to each season. 3m for 15 seasons 45m and 55m for 8 seasons for the shirt sponsorship. 100m.

£100m sounds like a lot until you break it down over a long time...

[Chris]

£100m sounds like a lot until you break it down over a long time...

Agreed mate, puts a bit of a different perspective on that deal.

[kurtangle01]

Doesn't sound to good to me....

[Rocket]

Arsenal today unveiled a £100m sponsorship deal with Emirates just days after Chelsea claimed it had chosen not to extend its contract with the Arab airline.
Under the deal, Emirates will get shirt sponsorship and have the club's brand new ground named after it until at least 2021.

The club's new stadium in Finsbury Park in north London, scheduled to be ready by the time the 2006/07 season kicks off, will be known as the Emirates Stadium for its first 15 years.

Under the terms of the record-breaking deal, which is likely to be worth at least £100m to the club over the length of the contract, Emirates will take over as shirt sponsors once the north London club's existing deal runs out at the end of the 2005/06 season.

"The combined value of both elements of the sponsorship is by far the biggest deal ever undertaken in English football," the club said in a statement.

The Arsenal contract was signed at Highbury by club chairman Peter Hill-Wood and Maurice Flanagan, the Emirates vice president and group president.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sponsor such a major new stadium and club, and represents a win-win partnership for both Emirates and Arsenal," said Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum, the billionaire chairman of Emirates.

The airline currently sponsors Arsenal's Premiership rival Chelsea, which announced last week it was dropping the company at the end of this season in order to concentrate on securing a brand that better fitted with its global ambitions.

However, that move now looks like a case of the west London club getting its PR retaliation in first, having been informed by the airline of its intention to sign a major deal with its rivals.

But it remains to be seen whether fans of the north London club can be persuaded to refer to the ground, currently known as Ashburton Grove, as the Emirates Stadium.

The concept of a sponsor being given naming rights to a stadium is fairly new to the UK but has been common practice in the US for some time, with companies paying up to £9m a year to have baseball and American football stadiums named after them.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...320212,00.html

[kurtangle01]

So the article is basically saying that we haven't been able to secure the money for the stadium or to pay the bridging loan that was taken out to actually buy the club, is that right?

[Johnny]

Hmmmm.......

LONDON, Aug 29 (Reuters) - U.S. investment bank Goldman Sachs (GS.N: Quote, Profile , Research) is no longer working for Liverpool F.C. to refinance the debt used to buy the soccer club earlier this year, people familiar with the situation said on Wednesday.

Following the March acquisition by U.S. tycoons Tom Hicks and George Gillett, bankers at Goldman Sachs's New York office drew up a highly geared refinancing plan that would have put about 550 million pounds ($1.1 billion) of debt onto the club's books, more than 20 times its profit, one of the sources said.

Liverpool is now focusing on either extending or refinancing a 300 million pound bridge facility, which expires in February. A new adviser may be appointed, the source added.

"Goldman is no longer involved in refinancing Liverpool," a second source said.

Both sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

Goldman Sachs declined to comment, while Liverpool F.C. were not immediately reachable for comment.

Investors are shying away from highly leveraged deals following the recent turmoil in credit markets, making it more difficult for companies to access financing.

Liverpool arch-rival Manchester United [MNU.UL] also failed this summer to refinance its high-priced debt, following the acquisition of the club by U.S. billionaire Malcolm Glazer.

Unlike Glazer, the refinancing plan for the Liverpool takeover did not include a direct equity investment by the new owners, but was instead slated to be funded only with new debt, the first source said.

The plan was to raise about 300 million pounds to re-pay the bridge facility provided by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS.L: Quote, Profile , Research), as well as another 250 million pounds to finance the building of a new stadium, the source added.

The stadium, originally expected to cost about 280 million pounds, may now end up costing as much as 400 million pounds, the source said.

The Goldman Sachs plan included raising as much as 8 million pounds for naming rights on a new stadium, the source said, while London rival Arsenal generates about 3 million for its Emirates Stadium.

[Ronnie]

Cheers for the welcome people. Clearly none of us have got a clue what it means, sure someone will be along who can clear things up, if not someone will pretend they know