Dubai International to make bid for Liverpool FC

[Johnny]

But the CL money is a myth anyway.

Say on average we make £20mill from it then in order to stay there or improve you need better players of say on average £20mill a season, plus you also get higher salaries and agents fee's for good measure.

They'd be better off without CL £20 million and a cheaper payroll picking up the extra prem league money and building the stadium.

How are they expected to fill the stadium if we become a fulham or west Ham.we are a global Football team.It`s the reason they bought in.they have to keep us in the CL,collect the TV deal money.Sort out the merchantdising etc.It`s all about making money to pay back the loan and make a profit.Skimming the club and making us a mid table team makes no financial sense at all.

[Johnny]

What is your point Johnny? That they are willing to spend in the transfer market? Very reassuring, especially as the loans they will take out to cover it will plunder us further into an already huge debt

My point is Dhavlos.

That they have put uo credit notes that they are personally responsible for.they see a sucessfull LFC as a profit making company.The best way to make profit is to copy the Glazers and make us a sucessfull team on the pitch thus increasing our global image and therefore profits.there is no reason why we can`t compete wit manU WHEN the stadium is built.Their WHOLE financial plan is based around 70,000 supporters at a stadium watching us lift No.19 therefore increasing global revenue fron World TV rights,sponsorship.The most sucessfull teams secure the biggest sponsorship and revenue.they can make a hell of alot off money after the stadium is finished.we`re in the same position as arsenal were 5 yrs ago.

[Johnny]

But the CL money is a myth anyway.

Say on average we make £20mill from it then in order to stay there or improve you need better players of say on average £20mill a season, plus you also get higher salaries and agents fee's for good measure.

They'd be better off without CL £20 million and a cheaper payroll picking up the extra prem league money and building the stadium.

the team that replaced us in the CL would make alot more money from extra gates ,the CL money,the TV money,the new Fairwheather fans etc.

[Dhav]

My point is Dhavlos.

That they have put uo credit notes that they are personally responsible for.they see a sucessfull LFC as a profit making company.The best way to make profit is to copy the Glazers and make us a sucessfull team on the pitch thus increasing our global image and therefore profits.there is no reason why we can`t compete wit manU WHEN the stadium is built.Their WHOLE financial plan is based around 70,000 supporters at a stadium watching us lift No.19 therefore increasing global revenue fron World TV rights,sponsorship.The most sucessfull teams secure the biggest sponsorship and revenue.they can make a hell of alot off money after the stadium is finished.we`re in the same position as arsenal were 5 yrs ago.

And we all know what happened to the last club that borrowed beyond its means.

Arsenal probably would have been ****ed if they hadn't qualified for the CL in the last 2-3 yrs

[Darth Marty]

I genuinley cannot believe some peoples points of view, its incredible that anyone could think that the Yanks have our best interests at heart. I am astounded at what must be incredible naiviety. Get the ****ing yanks out of Liverpool....pronto.

[Alpha]

Division in the boardroom...?
Division in the dressing room...?
Division on The Kop...
Division on The forums...

It doesn't really matter whether G&H are out to **** us or not, does it? We're doing a good job of ****ing ourselves fighting about it.

So whether you see them as the Big bad wolves or sacrificial lambs, one way or another, they have to go.

Because that is the only way we are going to restore harmony, isn't it?

[carlton]

I genuinley cannot believe some peoples points of view, its incredible that anyone could think that the Yanks have our best interests at heart. I am astounded at what must be incredible naiviety. Get the ****ing yanks out of Liverpool....pronto.

Mate its not about thinking they have LFC's best interests. They didnt buy the club because they were lifelong fans. They bought the club to make money, not to loose money. What some people are suggesting is that in order to make that money they have to keep LFC healthy on the pitch otherwise they will not fill a 71 ,000 stadium on a regular basis or be able to access the $ of the CL.

Somehow this has turned into a pro-Hicks- anti-Hicks argument. I think we all want the Yanks gone.

[bigfooty]

MThe best way to make profit is to copy the Glazers and make us a sucessfull team on the pitch

The Glazers did not however invest heavily in the squad. Whether it was by choice or design who knows, but until Ferguson won the title the Glazers kept him on a tight leash. It's only after he won the title, thus securing additional sources of income, that they cut loose and gave him the funds to get the likes of Hargreaves, Nani and Anderson. Prior to that he had been net outspent by Rafa over the 4 transfer windows since they arrived by a considerable degree.

[Danish_Pastry]

.... Dear CAD, Johnny et alii

I just don't get the sudden change of cashflow. I know that a better merchandisesection at the club could do wonders - as well as a better marketing in Asia (as one of the reasons why Adidas came back in for shirts).

BUT - if the higher value in TV-revenue an similar are going to raise the result at LFC from abt. zero (a non-winning the CL-year) to abt. 30m£ - HOW COME that not all the PL-clubs do similar things as these two men do? How can they do it and expect such an enormous change - if nobode else dare to?? Arsenal did - 5 years ago - but with another market - with London as fanbase - with a PL-winning-team as base (only needed update on a few elderly players). This is by far our situation. I must say - I'm stunned that someone can believe in this change.

I do expect the legal notes in the holding companys contract says something along the lines that G&H are only due to pay up to a limited amount to keep the loans alive - and else they will be able to sell on/run away - with the banks left to cash in on the assets of the club left. That will only be when the holding company has paid high dividends to its owners before the payment of interests.

[carlton]

Dawn of a new Liverpool FC era - one fans feared they'd never witness
Jan 30 2008 by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post
THE events of January 25 this year were dreaded by many Liverpool FC fans. It was the day when American co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett revealed they had completed a deal that loaded £105m of debt on to the club.
Many fear it marks the beginning of the end of what had traditionally been a family club, now left vulnerable to the whims of the market.
The debt on the club was part of a wider £350m deal that also saw the co-owners taking on £245m through their Kop Football Holdings company, and will see around £30m in interest being paid annually.
Liverpool FC will be responsible for its chunk, and Hicks and Gillett for that of Kop – so goes the theory.
But the two Americans are businessmen and will not want to sink money endlessly into the club.
A spokesman for Mr Hicks has implied that Liverpool FC would be expected to help fund the total interest, but in a situation where there was a shortfall Hicks and Gillett were “prepared to fund whatever was required”.
The Daily Post can reveal that the financial plan also includes “significant funds” for transfers in the summer.
But the lack of explicit statements on future funding has left many fans fearing Liverpool’s future ambitions could be weighed down with a chunky debt.
Liverpool FC has not been very good at making profits in recent years.
Kop Football Holdings, set up by Gillett and Hicks to buy LFC, is yet to file its first set of accounts – they are due in May.
But looking at the previous accounts the club made a loss in two out of three of the previous years. In 2004, when the club did not qualify for the Champions League, a loss of £21.9m was recorded.
Even when the club won the Champions League in 2005, it only made a profit of £9.4m, and this was later restated as £500,000.
In the latest available accounts, 2006, the loss was £9.7m.
It would appear that servicing the debt out of club profits is currently out of the question.
A new stadium would, of course, help bring in extra cash, as would increased revenue from future TV deals.
Anfield currently seats 45,000, while the new stadium could potentially accommodate 71,000 fans.
Based on an average ticket price of £30, the club could make £2.1m from every home game.
If the club were to only play the min- imum 19 Premier League matches, its revenues would still increase by £14.8m a year with sell- outs, even before additional corporate hospitality profits.
It is understood the club will also look to secure a huge naming rights deal of around £100m, similar to Arsenal’s Emirates deal.
Last night, a source said “modest” ticket price rises were factored into the refinancing deal.
Success on the field is a key component – more matches equal more cash.
At the moment, it would appear that Hicks and Gillett are willing to make “losses” on Liverpool for the time being until the stadium investment starts to pay off.
Neil Blankstone, a director of Blankstone Sington, a stockbroking firm that specialised in buying and selling Liverpool FC shares when it was a public company, said he was not overly worried about the new deal: “One would assume that it is reasonably important [to qualify for the Champions League].
“But they could probably afford to miss one, even two years, in a five- year period.”
Mr Blankstone, who has been an observer of Liverpool FC’s affairs for the past 20 years, said a dividend could be paid to the owners to service their section of the debt.
“But a dividend can only be paid if the club makes a profit.”
It is success for Liverpool FC on the field which will bring success for their co-owners off it. For now, the pair will fall and rise as one.

A very interesting article. A lot of people on here are worried about our profits going to pay the interest bill and it seems we have hardly made a profit in the last few years.

[AFII]

That they have put uo credit notes that they are personally responsible for.

They have put up their credit notes up against the club. They will get every single pound back in case of a takeover.

So they are NOT responsible for them.

It was the Observer that published that article and they have been spot on so far when it comes down to the details of the loan.

[dawmdt]

And added a few grey hairs in the process

I still dont understand how people like you are so calm and patient about them, especially given the way they've turned us into a media circus

As far as the media storm is concerned the stupid mistake they made is the equivalent of putting up the crap posters in the hairdressers window advertising the circus.

If you want to know who's turned us into a media circus then we just need to look at ourselves. We lap up every in interview and quote as a reason to spout more bile-loaded crap about stuff most of us have no clue. We take every newspaper report, refresh Newsnow every 10 seconds, religiously watch SSN reveal the next days back pages every night and post it all in verbatim and dissect and analyse it as if it's gospel. And the outrage and bile grows even more and the media lap it up and produce more articles designed to to stimulate the fans (and they are well aware that there are millions of us around the world) that lets them produce more articles to sell more papers. The forums grow, the blogs grow and the papers and tv lap it up as we tune in to every station and media report to see that media outlets reaction and we call it a "public reaction" without any reason to believe it's the case. And the Manure and Bitter fans lap it up and the media just goes on selling more outrageous stories for those millions of fans as well.

Just to be clear, I'm no G&H supporter and they do concern me a great deal, especially Hick's history and the fact the financial return of finishing higher than 4th is probably smaller than the investment needed to achieve it. Perhaps. But the only mistake they've made in terms of a media circus was being stupid enough to read the firework instructions with a match instead of a torch and now it's hard to stop it exploding. The problem is people (including us) just love a firework display.

OK end rant (not aimed at you Dhav just a response to this "media circus" stuff)

Logically it makes a lot of sense that they wouldn't shaft the club but similarly if they did and walked away they are unlikely to actually lose much money (they wouldn't make much either) and as it's in a different country it's unlikely to effect their business worthiness in the US either.

[disco]

Dawn of a new Liverpool FC era - one fans feared they'd never witness
Jan 30 2008 by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post
THE events of January 25 this year were dreaded by many Liverpool FC fans. It was the day when American co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett revealed they had completed a deal that loaded £105m of debt on to the club.
Many fear it marks the beginning of the end of what had traditionally been a family club, now left vulnerable to the whims of the market.
The debt on the club was part of a wider £350m deal that also saw the co-owners taking on £245m through their Kop Football Holdings company, and will see around £30m in interest being paid annually.
Liverpool FC will be responsible for its chunk, and Hicks and Gillett for that of Kop – so goes the theory.
But the two Americans are businessmen and will not want to sink money endlessly into the club.
A spokesman for Mr Hicks has implied that Liverpool FC would be expected to help fund the total interest, but in a situation where there was a shortfall Hicks and Gillett were “prepared to fund whatever was required”.
The Daily Post can reveal that the financial plan also includes “significant funds” for transfers in the summer.
But the lack of explicit statements on future funding has left many fans fearing Liverpool’s future ambitions could be weighed down with a chunky debt.
Liverpool FC has not been very good at making profits in recent years.
Kop Football Holdings, set up by Gillett and Hicks to buy LFC, is yet to file its first set of accounts – they are due in May.
But looking at the previous accounts the club made a loss in two out of three of the previous years. In 2004, when the club did not qualify for the Champions League, a loss of £21.9m was recorded.
Even when the club won the Champions League in 2005, it only made a profit of £9.4m, and this was later restated as £500,000.
In the latest available accounts, 2006, the loss was £9.7m.
It would appear that servicing the debt out of club profits is currently out of the question.
A new stadium would, of course, help bring in extra cash, as would increased revenue from future TV deals.
Anfield currently seats 45,000, while the new stadium could potentially accommodate 71,000 fans.
Based on an average ticket price of £30, the club could make £2.1m from every home game.
If the club were to only play the min- imum 19 Premier League matches, its revenues would still increase by £14.8m a year with sell- outs, even before additional corporate hospitality profits.
It is understood the club will also look to secure a huge naming rights deal of around £100m, similar to Arsenal’s Emirates deal.
Last night, a source said “modest” ticket price rises were factored into the refinancing deal.
Success on the field is a key component – more matches equal more cash.
At the moment, it would appear that Hicks and Gillett are willing to make “losses” on Liverpool for the time being until the stadium investment starts to pay off.
Neil Blankstone, a director of Blankstone Sington, a stockbroking firm that specialised in buying and selling Liverpool FC shares when it was a public company, said he was not overly worried about the new deal: “One would assume that it is reasonably important [to qualify for the Champions League].
“But they could probably afford to miss one, even two years, in a five- year period.”
Mr Blankstone, who has been an observer of Liverpool FC’s affairs for the past 20 years, said a dividend could be paid to the owners to service their section of the debt.
“But a dividend can only be paid if the club makes a profit.”
It is success for Liverpool FC on the field which will bring success for their co-owners off it. For now, the pair will fall and rise as one.

A very interesting article. A lot of people on here are worried about our profits going to pay the interest bill and it seems we have hardly made a profit in the last few years.

Cheers Carlton.

I've mentioned the dividend/profit thing before. Would still like to know how they intend to cover the interest payments in such a circumstance tough

[el matador]

The interesting part of the FD public relations statement made on behalf of Hicks is not whether Liverpool FC would be responsible for the reported £30m interest payments every year - but how would Liverpool actually service that interest.

Our profits have been vastly over - reported over the last few years and commercially speaking Liverpool FC have always been run poorly. We have never made a £30m profit per season so how are we going to pay for this.

The statement implies that Hicks and Gillett would ultimately be responsible for the interest payments if our profits werent sufficient to cover them.

This finance is a short term measure and cannot be sustained by Liverpool FC until the earliest 2012 when the stadium is finished ?

Can you really see Hicks and Gillett forking out £20m plus from their own pockets every season to pay the interest plus have a budget for transfers ?

The figures simply dont add up.

[carlton]

Cheers Carlton.

I've mentioned the dividend/profit thing before. Would still like to know how they intend to cover the interest payments in such a circumstance tough

The Daily Post can reveal that the financial plan also includes “significant funds” for transfers in the summer.


Thats the other bit of the article worth thinking about. It appears the money, would as their PR bloke said, come from their own pocket?