£105m in debt

[SimonNo7]

Sorry if this has already been posted in another thread but it’s just been on $ky that Thicks and Gillette have managed to re-finance.

It breaks down into £185m loan on Kop Holdings, £60m personally to Thicks and Gillette and £105m on Liverpool FC.

Thoughts? (Like I said sorry if this has already been posted)!

[Pablo]

Cheers for the info, I have heard this yesterday, although not the news that it had been complete.

There is another huge thread that you could have posted in though.

[redblood]

Sorry if this has already been posted in another thread but it’s just been on $ky that Thicks and Gillette have managed to re-finance.

It breaks down into £185m loan on Kop Holdings, £60m personally to Thicks and Gillette and £105m on Liverpool FC.

Thoughts? (Like I said sorry if this has already been posted)!

So they have personally borrowed 60mill, that must've been forced upon them but at least they didn't saddle the club with all debt.

[SimonNo7]

Cheers for the info, I have heard this yesterday, although not the news that it had been complete.

There is another huge thread that you could have posted in though.

I thought there would be, I’m always too slow (me) which is why I don’t start threads often!

[Pablo]

I thought there would be, I’m always too slow (me) which is why I don’t start threads often!

- there you go.

[AFII]

Isn't Kop Holdings and LFC more or less the same thing?

[SimonNo7]

Isn't Kop Holdings and LFC more or less the same thing?

Could be because isn’t LFC a company owned by Kop Holdings (the holding company set up to buy LFC)?

[wildman]

Isn't Kop Holdings and LFC more or less the same thing?

I would say so yes but to the yanks no its another vehicle but it'll control the club

[Vermilion]

I would say so yes but to the yanks no its another vehicle but it'll control the club

These guys know what they're about when it comes to all this underhand ****, LFC will get the debt eventually, IF Parry did dawdle over this he'll be gone i due course, they just play the waiting game & do all their dirty deeds over time.

[disco]

Here's the difference.

As a holding/parent company, other than any other trivial business practices attached to Kop Holdings, its main source of income will be dividends from LFC

I guess the only subtle difference is that if LFC don't make enough profit to pay a dividend, then Kop Holdings will have to get money from Hicks and Gillett.

So....the question is whether transfer funds will suffer to enable LFC to make sure they DO make a profit and cover the interest payment in years that we don't qualify for the CL or get knocked out early, or whether they will 'ring-fence' a minimum guaranteed amount for transfers which takes priority over dividends.

You'd hope it's the latter, but I suspect it will be the former (or, at best a compromise). I doubt DIC would be much different, may be tending more towards dipping into their own pockets in 'bad' years.

It's interesting that some of this (new) money is apparently ring-fenced for transfers - may be we'll be pleasantly surprised in the summer....

[Dhav]

Pleasantly surprised eh Disco? As in the yanks borrow money to cover our summer transfer outlay, the net spend of which actually happens to be less than the amount of money the club makes from it's Champions League run?

More likely any money they've borrowed will go towards paying off Rafa and his coaching staff when they get sacked.

I'm sick of tired fo these two muppets taking us for a ride and pulling the wool over our eyes. I for one will not rest until they are hounded out of Anfield

[disco]

I'm talking about next summer.

Look mate, just trying to explain how it all works.

Until we see the accounts, we can only speculate where the CL money went. The whole article earlier, whilst interesting, was pure speculation - hanging on its main assumption that CL money = transfer money

[Dhav]

I'm talking about next summer.

Look mate, just trying to explain how it all works.

Until we see the accounts, we can only speculate where the CL money went. The whole article earlier, whilst interesting, was pure speculation - hanging on its main assumption that CL money = transfer money

I know you're talking about the coming summer mate. But look, the facts are these: Last summer our net spend was only £20-£25m, which is not more than what we made from our CL run. Yet of the loan taken out to buy the club, £50m of the amount borrowed was reportedly to be spent on summer signings. What makes you think this summer will be different, and the money they've borrowed will be plunged into team building? I maintain that any surplus cash will more likely go towards paying off Rafa and hiring a new manager and coaching staff.

Am I right in saying that regardless of how they allocate the debt and to what companies, in practice the club's revenues will be going towards paying Gillett & Hicks' purchase debt? The thousands of pounds I give the club every season on match tickets, merchandise etc, in all likelihood is going towards paying off the debt incurred by these two cunts in buying our cluB?

[Chris]

It's interesting that some of this (new) money is apparently ring-fenced for transfers - may be we'll be pleasantly surprised in the summer....

The only bits ive read on this new money covering transfers is paying off Torres, Babel and co not funding future deals.

"They would also then be able to repay loans used to sign players last summer and start work on a re-scaled plan for a new stadium."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/7203724.stm

[disco]

In theory, yes.

I'm guess I'm saying that ultimately we need to see what happens in practise to judge.

(pre-new stadium) IF the club invested sensibly in the transfer market every summer (£25m net?) but genuinely did well enough to pay a dividend, then that's fine. However, if transfers suffered at expense of a dividend to the owners then clearly that's wrong.

BTW had they bought the club with their own cash, you'd expect them to take a profit for their investment, here their using debt to buy the club so you'd expect them to take a profit to pay for the interest. I'm not sure what the problem is... other than a lot of people don't seem to get/like 'leveraged buyouts'

My reservation is that before the stadium is built there simply isn't enough revenue (unless other sources improve) to earn a profit (and spend in transfer market), so I'd find it very surprising if they could justify a dividend for a few years.