"What debt? There will be no debt. This is our loan not Liverpool's"

[disco]

Hicks about 12 months ago.

At the same time, Gillett also said "We have purchased the club with no debt on the club,"

Here's my question. Is a part of a loan secured against a future stadium, which is what you would expect a bank to insist upon, really that surprising and upsetting?

With a bit of clarity of thought - this seems completely reasonable!

(all this is of course subject to how the loan to buy the club is secured, it would be very disappointing if this was directly or indirectly secured on the club - but there's no point trying to guess until the details are out)

[disco]

I guess you're fed up about this subject.

It's very relevant though - their actual words are different to what some people are claiming.

[Exiled_red]

Hicks about 12 months ago.

At the same time, Gillett also said "We have purchased the club with no debt on the club,"

Here's my question. Is a part of a loan secured against a future stadium, which is what you would expect a bank to insist upon, really that surprising and upsetting?

With a bit of clarity of thought - this seems completely reasonable!

(all this is of course subject to how the loan to buy the club is secured, it would be very disappointing if this was directly or indirectly secured on the club - but there's no point trying to guess until the details are out)

Do you mean the loan to buy the club or the loan to build the stadium?

I'd always accepted whoever bought the club that there would be a loan taken out to build a new stadium - which would be secured against the club.

However the issue of taking a loan out to buy the club and placing this debt on the club is a different one

[disco]

Do you mean the loan to buy the club or the loan to build the stadium?

I'd always accepted whoever bought the club that there would be a loan taken out to build a new stadium - which would be secured against the club.

However the issue of taking a loan out to buy the club and placing this debt on the club is a different one

Thanks for the reply. I agree with that above, but I get the impression that's not what other people think. re. debt on club for buying club - I guess we'll have to wait and see the small-print.

[willa1975]

Yes...G&H claimed to purchase the club without putting any of the debt on the club itself. Now, we're looking at GBP200 million of debt placed on the club in order to refinance the loan that the owners took out to buy the club, with another GBP300 million to follow for stadium construction.

In a nutshell, we will have the same amount of debt to service as United currently have, with only a fraction of the turnover. This is VERY worrisome.

[Sus]

Do you mean the loan to buy the club or the loan to build the stadium?

I'd always accepted whoever bought the club that there would be a loan taken out to build a new stadium - which would be secured against the club.

However the issue of taking a loan out to buy the club and placing this debt on the club is a different one

is the correct answer.

The debt for the stadium can be on the club, as it is secured against a revenue generating asset (the stadium). So no problems with that one.

The money to buy the club is something else altogether. No way should that be placed on the club....

[Lecter]

Thanks for the reply. I agree with that above, but I get the impression that's not what other people think. re. debt on club for buying club - I guess we'll have to wait and see the small-print.

No its totally unrealistic to expect NO DEBT whatsoever on the club

During the takeover conference it was alluded to that the takeover was a Glazer style one and Gilletts reply of "no debt" was in reference to that question

I understood that to mean none of the takeover costs would be placed against the club as a debt

I never believed that it meant they wouldnt put the stadium debt against the club and I think if I remember rightly when asked about the stadium they advised that no decision had been taken as to exactly how the stadium would be funded and a number of options including naming rights would be considered

[sonsofthedesert]

Thanks for the reply. I agree with that above, but I get the impression that's not what other people think. re. debt on club for buying club - I guess we'll have to wait and see the small-print.

I have no problem what so ever with the stadium debt and player debt on the club, it makes financial sense as you say, I would have a problem with debt relating to their purchase being on the club. That would remove all risk associated with them. The loan they are getting doesn't sound great but if the stories are true and they are having to put in £55m of their own money it means they are financially invested into the club and there is now a risk for them as they could lose the money they have had to put in. Before anyone else says t yes I know they will take money as dividend to pay their loans and pay themselves back but you can't take what is not there.

[sonsofthedesert]

No its totally unrealistic to expect NO DEBT whatsoever on the club

During the takeover conference it was alluded to that the takeover was a Glazer style one and Gilletts reply of "no debt" was in reference to that question

I understood that to mean none of the takeover costs would be placed against the club as a debt

I never believed that it meant they wouldnt put the stadium debt against the club and I think if I remember rightly when asked about the stadium they advised that no decision had been taken as to exactly how the stadium would be funded and a number of options including naming rights would be considered

I remember on the day Parry saying to local tv that the loan needed or the stadium would be put on the clubs books. That has been said since day 1.

[Lecter]

I remember on the day Parry saying to local tv that the loan needed or the stadium would be put on the clubs books. That has been said since day 1.

I have no problem with that

Its an assett / revenue stream

As you say above the takeover costs being placed on the club is the worry, it isnt healthy imo not for a club that struggles to make profits

[sonsofthedesert]

I have no problem with that

Its an assett / revenue stream

As you say above the takeover costs being placed on the club is the worry, it isnt healthy imo not for a club that struggles to make profits

They are going to have to sort all area's of the club out now. I am suprised there has not been a noticable improvement yet.

[Lecter]

They are going to have to sort all area's of the club out now. I am suprised there has not been a noticable improvement yet.

Hard to do that though imo, I'm not sure you can increase merchandising overnight it takes time

[sonsofthedesert]

Hard to do that though imo, I'm not sure you can increase merchandising overnight it takes time

I know it takes time but I would have expected something small at least.

[Lecter]

I know it takes time but I would have expected something small at least.

With Rick Parry still in charge?

[sonsofthedesert]

With Rick Parry still in charge?

Let's hope this commercial guy does something special. Biggest test will be when they sell the naming rights and how much they get for that, but it will be a few years until we see that.
If the club sorts out the marketing and the stadium so they are making similar to scum there is a chance the club can overtake them on income due to the possability of naming rights. This will be a long way off but also one of the reason I now believe G&H will try everything they can to stay in charge of the club, in 5+ years the club could be a good source of funds, but getting there could be a massive problem. Also I don't think they are the right guys to get the club there.