New global corp sponsor revealed Sept 18th!!

[James P]

this is why the owners need to be forced out..

Sorry, but force them out and replace them with who, precisely?

The number of philanthropic billionnaires is pretty limited in the first place, and those willing to invest huge sums into a football club with no guaranteed return is even smaller.

Look at Mike Ashley - conservative estimates suggest that if he gets £100m for Newcastle (which is by no means guaranteed) he stands to lose circa £200m on owning the club for just a couple of years. That's a pretty damn expensive hobby, particularly when that hobby results in you becoming a figure of hate amongst a significant portion of the population. We football fans are impossible people to please - we want success, new signings, cheaper ticket prices, a new stadium and so forth, and many of those things are incompatible.

The likelihood is that any acquiring party will also require a degree of financing, and then we will simply be in the same situation as we are now.

I think that people are in danger of knee-jerk reactions here. If you look at the facts, things are not quite as black and white as some people think. The basis of the Americans' promises were:

World class signings - since they came on board we have bought Torres, Mascherano, Acquilani, Keane and Johnson, all costing north of £15m, plus the likes of Babel and Riera for not insignificant sums. The fact that we've managed to balance the books as well isn't bad. Before they joined, we had to beg / borrow / steal the £10m to buy Kuyt.

No borrowing on the club - strictly speaking they've followed this through. Before I hear howls of protest, do the sums (and I've got a full set of the Kop Holdings accounts in front of me, so these numbers are correct):
They paid £219m for the club, including debt (at the point of acquisition the club had debts of circa £80m). As at 31/7/08, there was £320m of debt in Kop Holdings, of which £60m was owed to Kop Football (Cayman) Limited, the parent company, and the rest to RBS. Of that, £60m was owed by the Football Club to Kop Holdings. Of that lending, £185m is personally underwritten by the owners.
What this means is that the Club's debt to the Holding company is actually LOWER than the debt was when they acquired it, and while the Club is certainly responsible for servicing the interest cost, they never said that it wouldn't be - after all, the Club is generating all of the revenue, so of course it has to service the debt. The debt itself sits mainly in the Holding company and the Cayman company, underwritten by Hicks and Gillett themselves, and there are strict rules in place regarding their ability to recall any debts from the Club - it is strictly forbidden if it would cause the Club to become insolvent. Any additional debt that the Club has incurred since the acquisition appears to have been the result of net transfer spending, which is what you'd expect.

Finally, the new stadium. No one really predicted the depth and severity of the current economic slump. Would you rather that we have embarked on a massively expensive project, financed at exhorbitant rates, or that we wait until such time that the project can be carried out cost effectively? I for one am glad that we aren't in the middle of such a development, because right now the banks are charging rates that would make you weep, and that's if they will lend at all. Part of my day job involves helping companies to get funding, and I'll tell you now, it's the hardest it has ever been. By and large the banks just aren't lending.

It's easy to jump up and down and shout 'Yanks out', but what are the real alternatives? I'm sorry, but the whole 'fans ownership' idea is ludicrous - the financing would never be sufficient, banks wouldn't touch the club with a bargepole, and governing by committee of thousands would be a nightmare. What we have at the moment isn't ideal, but it's the best port in a storm, and until something palpably better turns up, I for one won't be trying to hound the Americans into leaving.

[Fierce]

Sorry, but force them out and replace them with who, precisely?

The number of philanthropic billionnaires is pretty limited in the first place, and those willing to invest huge sums into a football club with no guaranteed return is even smaller.

Look at Mike Ashley - conservative estimates suggest that if he gets £100m for Newcastle (which is by no means guaranteed) he stands to lose circa £200m on owning the club for just a couple of years. That's a pretty damn expensive hobby, particularly when that hobby results in you becoming a figure of hate amongst a significant portion of the population. We football fans are impossible people to please - we want success, new signings, cheaper ticket prices, a new stadium and so forth, and many of those things are incompatible.

The likelihood is that any acquiring party will also require a degree of financing, and then we will simply be in the same situation as we are now.

I think that people are in danger of knee-jerk reactions here. If you look at the facts, things are not quite as black and white as some people think. The basis of the Americans' promises were:

World class signings - since they came on board we have bought Torres, Mascherano, Acquilani, Keane and Johnson, all costing north of £15m, plus the likes of Babel and Riera for not insignificant sums. The fact that we've managed to balance the books as well isn't bad. Before they joined, we had to beg / borrow / steal the £10m to buy Kuyt.

No borrowing on the club - strictly speaking they've followed this through. Before I hear howls of protest, do the sums (and I've got a full set of the Kop Holdings accounts in front of me, so these numbers are correct):
They paid £219m for the club, including debt (at the point of acquisition the club had debts of circa £80m). As at 31/7/08, there was £320m of debt in Kop Holdings, of which £60m was owed to Kop Football (Cayman) Limited, the parent company, and the rest to RBS. Of that, £60m was owed by the Football Club to Kop Holdings. Of that lending, £185m is personally underwritten by the owners.
What this means is that the Club's debt to the Holding company is actually LOWER than the debt was when they acquired it, and while the Club is certainly responsible for servicing the interest cost, they never said that it wouldn't be - after all, the Club is generating all of the revenue, so of course it has to service the debt. The debt itself sits mainly in the Holding company and the Cayman company, underwritten by Hicks and Gillett themselves, and there are strict rules in place regarding their ability to recall any debts from the Club - it is strictly forbidden if it would cause the Club to become insolvent. Any additional debt that the Club has incurred since the acquisition appears to have been the result of net transfer spending, which is what you'd expect.

Finally, the new stadium. No one really predicted the depth and severity of the current economic slump. Would you rather that we have embarked on a massively expensive project, financed at exhorbitant rates, or that we wait until such time that the project can be carried out cost effectively? I for one am glad that we aren't in the middle of such a development, because right now the banks are charging rates that would make you weep, and that's if they will lend at all. Part of my day job involves helping companies to get funding, and I'll tell you now, it's the hardest it has ever been. By and large the banks just aren't lending.

It's easy to jump up and down and shout 'Yanks out', but what are the real alternatives? I'm sorry, but the whole 'fans ownership' idea is ludicrous - the financing would never be sufficient, banks wouldn't touch the club with a bargepole, and governing by committee of thousands would be a nightmare. What we have at the moment isn't ideal, but it's the best port in a storm, and until something palpably better turns up, I for one won't be trying to hound the Americans into leaving.

Please, post more

[Lecter]

Sorry, but force them out and replace them with who, precisely?

The number of philanthropic billionnaires is pretty limited in the first place, and those willing to invest huge sums into a football club with no guaranteed return is even smaller.

Look at Mike Ashley - conservative estimates suggest that if he gets £100m for Newcastle (which is by no means guaranteed) he stands to lose circa £200m on owning the club for just a couple of years. That's a pretty damn expensive hobby, particularly when that hobby results in you becoming a figure of hate amongst a significant portion of the population. We football fans are impossible people to please - we want success, new signings, cheaper ticket prices, a new stadium and so forth, and many of those things are incompatible.

The likelihood is that any acquiring party will also require a degree of financing, and then we will simply be in the same situation as we are now.

I think that people are in danger of knee-jerk reactions here. If you look at the facts, things are not quite as black and white as some people think. The basis of the Americans' promises were:

World class signings - since they came on board we have bought Torres, Mascherano, Acquilani, Keane and Johnson, all costing north of £15m, plus the likes of Babel and Riera for not insignificant sums. The fact that we've managed to balance the books as well isn't bad. Before they joined, we had to beg / borrow / steal the £10m to buy Kuyt.

No borrowing on the club - strictly speaking they've followed this through. Before I hear howls of protest, do the sums (and I've got a full set of the Kop Holdings accounts in front of me, so these numbers are correct):
They paid £219m for the club, including debt (at the point of acquisition the club had debts of circa £80m). As at 31/7/08, there was £320m of debt in Kop Holdings, of which £60m was owed to Kop Football (Cayman) Limited, the parent company, and the rest to RBS. Of that, £60m was owed by the Football Club to Kop Holdings. Of that lending, £185m is personally underwritten by the owners.
What this means is that the Club's debt to the Holding company is actually LOWER than the debt was when they acquired it, and while the Club is certainly responsible for servicing the interest cost, they never said that it wouldn't be - after all, the Club is generating all of the revenue, so of course it has to service the debt. The debt itself sits mainly in the Holding company and the Cayman company, underwritten by Hicks and Gillett themselves, and there are strict rules in place regarding their ability to recall any debts from the Club - it is strictly forbidden if it would cause the Club to become insolvent. Any additional debt that the Club has incurred since the acquisition appears to have been the result of net transfer spending, which is what you'd expect.

Finally, the new stadium. No one really predicted the depth and severity of the current economic slump. Would you rather that we have embarked on a massively expensive project, financed at exhorbitant rates, or that we wait until such time that the project can be carried out cost effectively? I for one am glad that we aren't in the middle of such a development, because right now the banks are charging rates that would make you weep, and that's if they will lend at all. Part of my day job involves helping companies to get funding, and I'll tell you now, it's the hardest it has ever been. By and large the banks just aren't lending.

It's easy to jump up and down and shout 'Yanks out', but what are the real alternatives? I'm sorry, but the whole 'fans ownership' idea is ludicrous - the financing would never be sufficient, banks wouldn't touch the club with a bargepole, and governing by committee of thousands would be a nightmare. What we have at the moment isn't ideal, but it's the best port in a storm, and until something palpably better turns up, I for one won't be trying to hound the Americans into leaving.

Just to pick you up on 1 point

The debt was £45 million when they paid £174 million for the entire shareholding

[The_weatherman]

Sorry, but force them out and replace them with who, precisely?

The number of philanthropic billionnaires is pretty limited in the first place, and those willing to invest huge sums into a football club with no guaranteed return is even smaller.

Look at Mike Ashley - conservative estimates suggest that if he gets £100m for Newcastle (which is by no means guaranteed) he stands to lose circa £200m on owning the club for just a couple of years. That's a pretty damn expensive hobby, particularly when that hobby results in you becoming a figure of hate amongst a significant portion of the population. We football fans are impossible people to please - we want success, new signings, cheaper ticket prices, a new stadium and so forth, and many of those things are incompatible.

The likelihood is that any acquiring party will also require a degree of financing, and then we will simply be in the same situation as we are now.

I think that people are in danger of knee-jerk reactions here. If you look at the facts, things are not quite as black and white as some people think. The basis of the Americans' promises were:

World class signings - since they came on board we have bought Torres, Mascherano, Acquilani, Keane and Johnson, all costing north of £15m, plus the likes of Babel and Riera for not insignificant sums. The fact that we've managed to balance the books as well isn't bad. Before they joined, we had to beg / borrow / steal the £10m to buy Kuyt.

No borrowing on the club - strictly speaking they've followed this through. Before I hear howls of protest, do the sums (and I've got a full set of the Kop Holdings accounts in front of me, so these numbers are correct):
They paid £219m for the club, including debt (at the point of acquisition the club had debts of circa £80m). As at 31/7/08, there was £320m of debt in Kop Holdings, of which £60m was owed to Kop Football (Cayman) Limited, the parent company, and the rest to RBS. Of that, £60m was owed by the Football Club to Kop Holdings. Of that lending, £185m is personally underwritten by the owners.
What this means is that the Club's debt to the Holding company is actually LOWER than the debt was when they acquired it, and while the Club is certainly responsible for servicing the interest cost, they never said that it wouldn't be - after all, the Club is generating all of the revenue, so of course it has to service the debt. The debt itself sits mainly in the Holding company and the Cayman company, underwritten by Hicks and Gillett themselves, and there are strict rules in place regarding their ability to recall any debts from the Club - it is strictly forbidden if it would cause the Club to become insolvent. Any additional debt that the Club has incurred since the acquisition appears to have been the result of net transfer spending, which is what you'd expect.

Finally, the new stadium. No one really predicted the depth and severity of the current economic slump. Would you rather that we have embarked on a massively expensive project, financed at exhorbitant rates, or that we wait until such time that the project can be carried out cost effectively? I for one am glad that we aren't in the middle of such a development, because right now the banks are charging rates that would make you weep, and that's if they will lend at all. Part of my day job involves helping companies to get funding, and I'll tell you now, it's the hardest it has ever been. By and large the banks just aren't lending.

It's easy to jump up and down and shout 'Yanks out', but what are the real alternatives? I'm sorry, but the whole 'fans ownership' idea is ludicrous - the financing would never be sufficient, banks wouldn't touch the club with a bargepole, and governing by committee of thousands would be a nightmare. What we have at the moment isn't ideal, but it's the best port in a storm, and until something palpably better turns up, I for one won't be trying to hound the Americans into leaving.

Well, it's hard to argue with that Forcing them out is clearly no solution unless something else is on the table but I think we need to be cautious. Hicks has a terrible record with sports clubs and he is only in it for the money, he has practically said so himself, with his no-need to win comment and the Weetabix comparison. If they had the choice to finish fourth and make some money or finish first but break even, they'd go for the former option, that is what they are doing IMO.

Regarding the stadium, well that's just a useful stick to beat them with, I'll give you that, but I can't see it built unless they have paid off the debt the club is servicing now - because the club then has to service the stadium debt. And them fellas ain't gonna live forever at 97 and 105 they might opt to not bother with whole thing.

[Lecter]

Sorry, but force them out and replace them with who, precisely?


It's easy to jump up and down and shout 'Yanks out', but what are the real alternatives? I'm sorry, but the whole 'fans ownership' idea is ludicrous - the financing would never be sufficient, banks wouldn't touch the club with a bargepole, and governing by committee of thousands would be a nightmare. What we have at the moment isn't ideal, but it's the best port in a storm, and until something palpably better turns up, I for one won't be trying to hound the Americans into leaving.

Unfortunately this is the problem

No-one will buy the club at the current valuation

I think a buyer COULD be found but not at a level the owners would be willing to sell at

[James P]

Unfortunately this is the problem

No-one will buy the club at the current valuation

I think a buyer COULD be found but not at a level the owners would be willing to sell at

Agreed. And they really aren't going to sell in the middle of a recession, because they'll get far more if they hold on and the club maintains its position amongst Europe's elite.

But even if a buyer could be found, I have concerns about whether that person would be any better positioned to support the club financially without recourse to expensive and restrictive bank financing.

[James P]

Just to pick you up on 1 point

The debt was £45 million when they paid £174 million for the entire shareholding

That's not what I read, but it's not worth arguing over the minutiae!

[Neil Young]

That's not what I read, but it's not worth arguing over the minutiae!

You clearly don't have the first idea what the LFC forum is for.

[Guest]

You clearly don't have the first idea what the LFC forum is for.

And he clearly hasn't been hanging around in the same thread as Craig.

[James P]

You clearly don't have the first idea what the LFC forum is for.

[Lecter]

That's not what I read, but it's not worth arguing over the minutiae!

A statement was made to the Stock Exchange stating they have agreed the terms "of a recommended cash offer" to be made by Kop Football Limited, the American pair's bid vehicle.

The statement read: "The offer is £5,000 in cash for each Liverpool Share, valuing the issued share capital of Liverpool at approximately £174.1million.

"Together with the £44.8million of net debt in the club as at December 31 2006, this represents an enterprise value for Liverpool of £218.9 million."

[Darkon]

Sorry, but force them out and replace them with who, precisely?

The number of philanthropic billionnaires is pretty limited in the first place, and those willing to invest huge sums into a football club with no guaranteed return is even smaller.

Look at Mike Ashley - conservative estimates suggest that if he gets £100m for Newcastle (which is by no means guaranteed) he stands to lose circa £200m on owning the club for just a couple of years. That's a pretty damn expensive hobby, particularly when that hobby results in you becoming a figure of hate amongst a significant portion of the population. We football fans are impossible people to please - we want success, new signings, cheaper ticket prices, a new stadium and so forth, and many of those things are incompatible.

The likelihood is that any acquiring party will also require a degree of financing, and then we will simply be in the same situation as we are now.

I think that people are in danger of knee-jerk reactions here. If you look at the facts, things are not quite as black and white as some people think. The basis of the Americans' promises were:

World class signings - since they came on board we have bought Torres, Mascherano, Acquilani, Keane and Johnson, all costing north of £15m, plus the likes of Babel and Riera for not insignificant sums. The fact that we've managed to balance the books as well isn't bad. Before they joined, we had to beg / borrow / steal the £10m to buy Kuyt.

No borrowing on the club - strictly speaking they've followed this through. Before I hear howls of protest, do the sums (and I've got a full set of the Kop Holdings accounts in front of me, so these numbers are correct):
They paid £219m for the club, including debt (at the point of acquisition the club had debts of circa £80m). As at 31/7/08, there was £320m of debt in Kop Holdings, of which £60m was owed to Kop Football (Cayman) Limited, the parent company, and the rest to RBS. Of that, £60m was owed by the Football Club to Kop Holdings. Of that lending, £185m is personally underwritten by the owners.
What this means is that the Club's debt to the Holding company is actually LOWER than the debt was when they acquired it, and while the Club is certainly responsible for servicing the interest cost, they never said that it wouldn't be - after all, the Club is generating all of the revenue, so of course it has to service the debt. The debt itself sits mainly in the Holding company and the Cayman company, underwritten by Hicks and Gillett themselves, and there are strict rules in place regarding their ability to recall any debts from the Club - it is strictly forbidden if it would cause the Club to become insolvent. Any additional debt that the Club has incurred since the acquisition appears to have been the result of net transfer spending, which is what you'd expect.

Finally, the new stadium. No one really predicted the depth and severity of the current economic slump. Would you rather that we have embarked on a massively expensive project, financed at exhorbitant rates, or that we wait until such time that the project can be carried out cost effectively? I for one am glad that we aren't in the middle of such a development, because right now the banks are charging rates that would make you weep, and that's if they will lend at all. Part of my day job involves helping companies to get funding, and I'll tell you now, it's the hardest it has ever been. By and large the banks just aren't lending.

It's easy to jump up and down and shout 'Yanks out', but what are the real alternatives? I'm sorry, but the whole 'fans ownership' idea is ludicrous - the financing would never be sufficient, banks wouldn't touch the club with a bargepole, and governing by committee of thousands would be a nightmare. What we have at the moment isn't ideal, but it's the best port in a storm, and until something palpably better turns up, I for one won't be trying to hound the Americans into leaving.

very good post

[James P]

A statement was made to the Stock Exchange stating they have agreed the terms "of a recommended cash offer" to be made by Kop Football Limited, the American pair's bid vehicle.

The statement read: "The offer is £5,000 in cash for each Liverpool Share, valuing the issued share capital of Liverpool at approximately £174.1million.

"Together with the £44.8million of net debt in the club as at December 31 2006, this represents an enterprise value for Liverpool of £218.9 million."

Okay, if we are going to argue over minutiae, this is what has been reported elsewhere:

Stars and MLB Rangers Owner Tom Hicks and Canadiens Owner George Gillett Jr. through their Kop Football Ltd. have agreed to buy a 62.2% stake in English Premier League club Liverpool for US$925.6M. The price includes $343.9M for the club and $88.2M towards the team’s $157.5M debt, “with the remaining debt to be refinanced and all borrowing expected to be concentrated” on a new $423.4M stadium. Gillett and Hicks “have extended the formal offer” of $9,846 per share to all remaining shareholders “and aim to have complete control within 21 days.

So the £45m figure was only what they paid for in the purchase price but the total club debt was circa £80m. So while you're right, you're not quite as right as I am.

[Lecter]

Okay, if we are going to argue over minutiae, this is what has been reported elsewhere:

Stars and MLB Rangers Owner Tom Hicks and Canadiens Owner George Gillett Jr. through their Kop Football Ltd. have agreed to buy a 62.2% stake in English Premier League club Liverpool for US$925.6M. The price includes $343.9M for the club and $88.2M towards the team’s $157.5M debt, “with the remaining debt to be refinanced and all borrowing expected to be concentrated” on a new $423.4M stadium. Gillett and Hicks “have extended the formal offer” of $9,846 per share to all remaining shareholders “and aim to have complete control within 21 days.

So the £45m figure was only what they paid for in the purchase price but the total club debt was circa £80m. So while you're right, you're not quite as right as I am.

I'd trust a statement to the London stock exchange ahead of anything reported in a newspaper

[Scratch]

Hmmmn, does Christian Purslow have a middle name....Christian James Purslow perchance lol....you sir speak far too much sense, and will soon be hounded out of here as an American sympathiser.