Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kyoto

Liverpool Hopeful Of Deadline Day Sale

Recommended Posts

Has anyone been following the saga at Liverpool?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9094283.stm

Liverpool are waiting to see if the club's £300m sale to New England Sports Ventures (NESV) goes through before the deadline to settle the club's debt.

The Reds must pay off a £240m loan to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) on Friday to avoid the threat of administration.

Their turnover is £159m.

Net debt is £280m.

How do we get to the situation of approaching 2 * turnover (not profit!) of debt?

Football must be relatively simple business: buy players and a stadium, play football, sell tickets, shirts, TV rights to mug fans. Big numbers involved but srely you must be able to navigate away from days like to day where you are hours away from administration.

I'm not even a big football fan but find it very sad that even something with the history of Liverpool FC isn't free from spivs and speculators hollowing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even a big football fan but find it very sad that even something with the history of Liverpool FC isn't free from spivs and speculators hollowing it out.

Same here. I'm more of a neutral football fan (or if anything I prefer the lower leagues as that is more 'true' football to my mind). The thing is with Liverpool though is the fans on the whole were well up for the deal in the early days saying how great it would be and how much extra money it would give them to spend. It's a mess of their own making due their lack of long term vision and open acceptance of someone who's shown no previous interest in their club suddenly stepping forward and offering £100's millions. It'll be the same for Man City fans at some point in the future who were so keen for a random Arab who knowbody has ever heard of before to buy the club, it has disaster written all over it. Same again with Chelski, once the Russian billionaire gets bored and withdraws his money it's bye bye for the club. I have more respect for the Man U fans as on the whole they opposed the takeover from before day 1 and so the fact that it still happened should ring alarm bells of how vulnerable Premier League clubs are to takeover by people who's motice is not exactly clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone been following the saga at Liverpool?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9094283.stm

Their turnover is £159m.

Net debt is £280m.

How do we get to the situation of approaching 2 * turnover (not profit!) of debt?

Football must be relatively simple business: buy players and a stadium, play football, sell tickets, shirts, TV rights to mug fans. Big numbers involved but srely you must be able to navigate away from days like to day where you are hours away from administration.

I'm not even a big football fan but find it very sad that even something with the history of Liverpool FC isn't free from spivs and speculators hollowing it out.

1. football is anything but a simple business.

2. the price, for example is subject to lots of factors like growth, high margin, stability of revenues, NAV you name it.

If you looked at turnover, then you'd be bewildered as to why say a jet aircraft manufacturer is worth so little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here. I'm more of a neutral football fan (or if anything I prefer the lower leagues as that is more 'true' football to my mind). The thing is with Liverpool though is the fans on the whole were well up for the deal in the early days saying how great it would be and how much extra money it would give them to spend. It's a mess of their own making due their lack of long term vision and open acceptance of someone who's shown no previous interest in their club suddenly stepping forward and offering £100's millions. It'll be the same for Man City fans at some point in the future who were so keen for a random Arab who knowbody has ever heard of before to buy the club, it has disaster written all over it. Same again with Chelski, once the Russian billionaire gets bored and withdraws his money it's bye bye for the club. I have more respect for the Man U fans as on the whole they opposed the takeover from before day 1 and so the fact that it still happened should ring alarm bells of how vulnerable Premier League clubs are to takeover by people who's motice is not exactly clear.

I don't think that Chelsea or Man City are doing too badly, because their owners really do have the cash and seem under no illusions as to getting it back.

Liverpool and Man U (and other clubs like Portsmouth) have had the 'Schrödinger's Billionaire' syndrome, where the buyers can only afford to buy the club because they have just bought the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillette has a most abysmal investment record. He's lost about a billion dollars over the last 5 years or so.

Liverpool is the type of club where the fans should own it, like Barcelona. That's the only way that stability can be assured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is going to cost 600 m to buy this club (including paying off the debt), for a turnover of 159 m.

They will be lucky to turn a profit of 16 m/ year on this, or less than 3% of their investment. That is the upside.

Probably the club will bleed money every year, and the owners will have thousands of angry fans wanting a sugar daddy to piss more money up the wall on overpriced greedy stars. If they want to build their squad they will have to have a few years losing 100s of millions.

Well at least the new owners will get an ego trip before losing hundreds of millions and becoming the hate figure for thousands and thousands of fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool and Man U (and other clubs like Portsmouth) have had the 'Schrödinger's Billionaire' syndrome, where the buyers can only afford to buy the club because they have just bought the club.

That's an interesting idea, which also brings us back on topic of the housing market.

At the moment a house is sold, nobody values and has the means to pay for. Your implicitly buying right at the top of the market out of a pool of 1 prepared to pay that price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillette has a most abysmal investment record. He's lost about a billion dollars over the last 5 years or so

Makes you wonder why billionaires (or even multi millionaries) bother to invest.

What's the point when you have everything to lose and nothing to gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here. I'm more of a neutral football fan (or if anything I prefer the lower leagues as that is more 'true' football to my mind). The thing is with Liverpool though is the fans on the whole were well up for the deal in the early days saying how great it would be and how much extra money it would give them to spend. It's a mess of their own making due their lack of long term vision and open acceptance of someone who's shown no previous interest in their club suddenly stepping forward and offering £100's millions. It'll be the same for Man City fans at some point in the future who were so keen for a random Arab who knowbody has ever heard of before to buy the club, it has disaster written all over it. Same again with Chelski, once the Russian billionaire gets bored and withdraws his money it's bye bye for the club. I have more respect for the Man U fans as on the whole they opposed the takeover from before day 1 and so the fact that it still happened should ring alarm bells of how vulnerable Premier League clubs are to takeover by people who's motice is not exactly clear.

I have been following this story.

I have highlighted your very predictable, boring statement. Yes I am a Chelsea supporter. There are two different types of owners (Foreign) in the Premier league. Liverpool and Man Utd for example were all bought by owners using huge amounts of debt. They were bought simply to make money. They are or were waiting for the new TV rights that will come along soon and will make each owner a small fortune when the clubs get the tv rights blah de blah and then you have the Abramovich and the Sheikh at City who have bought themselves what some would call hobbies.

When the Russian came in to Chelsea, we were virtually bankrupt with huge debts, we were, although some like not to remember already winning at that stage, league and FA cups and in the top 3 of the premier league.

It may be a play thing to him but he attends most games has chucked shit loads of money (not debt) at Chelsea. The club does not owe any banks money. He is desperate to win the Champions league and for an owner actually likes football.

The club are desperately trying to operate as a stand alone buisness. Whilst he is waiting to get bored we have won the Premier League 3 times, the FA cup 3 times and the league cup twice. He has chucked millions into Russian football and the Russian national team. He is a football man and IMO that makes a huge difference.

Chelsea are double winners and currently sit top of the premier league by four points. Manchester City are on the up and will be in the mix maybe this season but defintely next season. Both clubs are owned, the others have mortgages and struggle to pay the monthly payments.

The money in football is obscene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two different types of owners (Foreign) in the Premier league.

There are two types of owners.

Those with no wealth that have bought into a lie. They borrow heavily.

Those with paper money that they want to convert into assets. They buy an over priced football club and loads of over priced footballers beacuse should the paper money world fall apart, then they own the economic output of assets that will continue to exist.

Ever wondered why the Man City owners are so happy to throw so much money around? What else can they buy with their paper wealth that they get for their oil? Why not own the economic output of some of the best footballers in the world. Should armageddon happen, you can rest assured that an alcoholic will always find a way to fund a drink, a druggie will find a way to fund their fix and the football fan will still find a way to follow their team. I should probably add that their will be plenty of people who thought they were wealthy who will have plenty of options for which piece of paper to wipe their bums with too........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this story.

I have highlighted your very predictable, boring statement. Yes I am a Chelsea supporter. There are two different types of owners (Foreign) in the Premier league. Liverpool and Man Utd for example were all bought by owners using huge amounts of debt. They were bought simply to make money. They are or were waiting for the new TV rights that will come along soon and will make each owner a small fortune when the clubs get the tv rights blah de blah and then you have the Abramovich and the Sheikh at City who have bought themselves what some would call hobbies.

When the Russian came in to Chelsea, we were virtually bankrupt with huge debts, we were, although some like not to remember already winning at that stage, league and FA cups and in the top 3 of the premier league.

It may be a play thing to him but he attends most games has chucked shit loads of money (not debt) at Chelsea. The club does not owe any banks money. He is desperate to win the Champions league and for an owner actually likes football.

The club are desperately trying to operate as a stand alone buisness. Whilst he is waiting to get bored we have won the Premier League 3 times, the FA cup 3 times and the league cup twice. He has chucked millions into Russian football and the Russian national team. He is a football man and IMO that makes a huge difference.

Chelsea are double winners and currently sit top of the premier league by four points. Manchester City are on the up and will be in the mix maybe this season but defintely next season. Both clubs are owned, the others have mortgages and struggle to pay the monthly payments.

The money in football is obscene.

:D

Let's not mention slippery Pete or Abramovich's 'loans'.

Generally I'd agree with you though that equity trumps debt in a football club. This would preferably be dealt with at a governing body level.

As for LFC, it's a shame Hicks/Gillett are on their way out, but I'm sure NESV will screw them over just the same. He hasn't got enough money, once he takes over he'll introduce debt back onto the balance sheet and they won't get a new stadium for a long time. Torres should have sacked his agent by now for not getting out earlier. At least one of them is an idiot.

Edit: As to how did LFC get into so much debt? Well, RBS were happy to lend it to Hicks/Gillett. Says it all really. The fans were screwed over by the banksters as much as anyone else.Fred Goodwin and Peter Cummings. Two Scots that have done more harm to our future than anyone else on the planet. Living in luxury for the rest of their lives as a reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this story.

I have highlighted your very predictable, boring statement. Yes I am a Chelsea supporter. There are two different types of owners (Foreign) in the Premier league. Liverpool and Man Utd for example were all bought by owners using huge amounts of debt. They were bought simply to make money. They are or were waiting for the new TV rights that will come along soon and will make each owner a small fortune when the clubs get the tv rights blah de blah and then you have the Abramovich and the Sheikh at City who have bought themselves what some would call hobbies.

When the Russian came in to Chelsea, we were virtually bankrupt with huge debts, we were, although some like not to remember already winning at that stage, league and FA cups and in the top 3 of the premier league.

It may be a play thing to him but he attends most games has chucked shit loads of money (not debt) at Chelsea. The club does not owe any banks money. He is desperate to win the Champions league and for an owner actually likes football.

The club are desperately trying to operate as a stand alone buisness. Whilst he is waiting to get bored we have won the Premier League 3 times, the FA cup 3 times and the league cup twice. He has chucked millions into Russian football and the Russian national team. He is a football man and IMO that makes a huge difference.

Chelsea are double winners and currently sit top of the premier league by four points. Manchester City are on the up and will be in the mix maybe this season but defintely next season. Both clubs are owned, the others have mortgages and struggle to pay the monthly payments.

The money in football is obscene.

Abramovich is famous because of Chelsea.... makes it a lot harder to slip a splash of polonium in his cuppa or confiscate all his money and send him off to the Siberian Gulag.

With Putin breathing down your neck making yourself too famous to f*ck with is a very cute strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debt should not be allowed like this. It's insane.

Cash only buyers. No debt to be bananced on clubs. Wages need to come down, make tickets cheaper to get more bums on seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hicks & Gillett allow Liverpool sale but pursue damages

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9094283.stm

Liverpool's co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett accept defeat in their attempts to block the club's sale, but say they will pursue damages of £1bn.
They removed the restraining order preventing the club's sale in a Dallas court on Friday, paving the way for the sale to New England Sports Ventures.
NESV, the board's choice as Liverpool's new owners, now look set to complete their £300m purchase of the club.
But Hicks and Gillett will "pursue every legal avenue" to claim damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramovich is famous because of Chelsea.... makes it a lot harder to slip a splash of polonium in his cuppa or confiscate all his money and send him off to the Siberian Gulag.

With Putin breathing down your neck making yourself too famous to f*ck with is a very cute strategy.

There is something in this :lol: Rich and smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

Let's not mention slippery Pete or Abramovich's 'loans'.

Generally I'd agree with you though that equity trumps debt in a football club. This would preferably be dealt with at a governing body level.

As for LFC, it's a shame Hicks/Gillett are on their way out, but I'm sure NESV will screw them over just the same. He hasn't got enough money, once he takes over he'll introduce debt back onto the balance sheet and they won't get a new stadium for a long time. Torres should have sacked his agent by now for not getting out earlier. At least one of them is an idiot.

Edit: As to how did LFC get into so much debt? Well, RBS were happy to lend it to Hicks/Gillett. Says it all really. The fans were screwed over by the banksters as much as anyone else.Fred Goodwin and Peter Cummings. Two Scots that have done more harm to our future than anyone else on the planet. Living in luxury for the rest of their lives as a reward.

Chelsea seem to be more-or-less, completely debt free. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/dec/30/chelsea-roman-abramovich-debt-scolari. Abramovich turned debt into equity, but he'll also be servicing their overspend out of his own pocket.. It'll be interesting to see if UEFA bring in rules whereby clubs have at least break-even in order to take part in the Champions League. The Champs League is a major money spinner for most the top clubs.

I'm sick & tired of clubs getting out of their financial obligations just by going into administration, and thereby getting only a 10-point deduction. It just isn't right. They should get relegated at least a league, possibly two. My club in league one constantly suffer by staying within their means, whereby a "bigger" club goes bust, a new company is setup, and their back in business.

In the words of Saint & Greavsie, "Football's a funny game"...Its like no other business...Fans stay loyal to their club...you can't just chop & change willy nilly...and the owners know this. The German model on club ownership is the right one - a fans group have a controlling stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know how Hicks and Gillet stand from a net point of view?

There were some refinancings during the three years which I assume means that they paid themselves a fair sum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 149 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.