LFC accounts for 2011/12

[The Woolster]

Season ticket revenue is recognized in the month in which the games are played. Hence, it would have made no difference. All games are covered in the reporting period. The report states the change in accounting period affects only commercial revenue. Match day and media are fully accounted for.

 

That is revenue recognition, I am talking hard cash, which has to be shown in the Cash Flow Statement and Balance Sheet as and when it is there, and its hard cash that is used against net debt

[Guest San Don]

As I understand it you can see in the P&L statment the major reason for the loss was the amortision of players amounting to some £33.7 million and paying off player contracts of some £8.9 million.

 

This totals some £42 million non cash transaction. Additionally, we made a profit of £7.5 million before interest and tax.

 

The cash flow statement shows a more healthier position. The club had a positive cash flow of just over £2 million. This compares to a negative cash flow of just over £16m in 2010 / 11.

[piscinin]

It was a rhetorical question, as I've been arguing that the shareholder loan was a cash investment from FSG. This payment will not have been part of any agreement when they purchased the club.

 

If we assume the debt had an interest rate of 5%, that would save us a couple of million each year in interest payments as well.

 

We've no way of knowing one way or the other. I find it difficult to believe the banks would not have insisted on their loans, secured on a non-existent stadium, being repaid though.

[piscinin]

As I understand it you can see in the P&L statment the major reason for the loss was the amortision of players amounting to some £33.7 million and paying off player contracts of some £8.9 million.

 

This totals some £42 million non cash transaction. Additionally, we made a profit of £7.5 million before interest and tax.

 

The cash flow statement shows a more healthier position. The club had a positive cash flow of just over £2 million. This compares to a negative cash flow of just over £16m in 2010 / 11.

 

The amortisation isn't the major reason for the loss. 40m is right about where it has been for the last few years. The major reason is we paid off a 37m loan for H&G's stadium handiwork.

[Guest San Don]

The amortisation isn't the major reason for the loss. 40m is right about where it has been for the last few years. The major reason is we paid off a 37m loan for H&G's stadium handiwork.

 

Yeah, whatever :whistle:

 

As I understand it, the Warrior and extra Chevrolet money arent included in these figures so people painting a dark picture need to keep their panties on.

[piscinin]

That is revenue recognition, I am talking hard cash, which has to be shown in the Cash Flow Statement and Balance Sheet as and when it is there, and its hard cash that is used against net debt

 

Aaah, I'm with you now.

[The Woolster]

The amortisation isn't the major reason for the loss. 40m is right about where it has been for the last few years. The major reason is we paid off a 37m loan for H&G's stadium handiwork.

 

The £37m goes through the cash flow statement, not the P&L.

[Guest LFD]

Ayre on finances - Liverpool FC

[piscinin]

Yeah, whatever :whistle:

 

As I understand it, the Warrior and extra Chevrolet money arent included in these figures so people painting a dark picture need to keep their panties on.

 

Don't think anyone has lost their panties on this. All I see is people adding context that highlights the improved position we are in.

 

And Xerxes being pissed because he's not allowed a forensic analysis of H&G's misdeeds.

[piscinin]

The £37m goes through the cash flow statement, not the P&L.

 

haha! I need to brush on my accounting don't I.

 

*breaks open "Accounting for uber-dummies".

[Guest San Don]

Don't think anyone has lost their panties on this. All I see is people adding context that highlights the improved position we are in.

 

And Xerxes being pissed because he's not allowed a forensic analysis of H&G's misdeeds.

 

The comment about panties, was about the usual cohorts who only see darkness at the end of the tunnel.

 

Considering the club has shifted its accounting period so only reflects a 10 month period this time, didnt have european football income, we've paid off a lot of player and staff contracts, we have significantly reduced the wage bill, we havent got the warrior, chevrolet and airline deals included in this accounting period, the accounts are in quite good health.

[The Woolster]

We've no way of knowing one way or the other. I find it difficult to believe the banks would not have insisted on their loans, secured on a non-existent stadium, being repaid though.

 

I don't think the loan was secured on the stadium, it was a working capital facility which had some of it designated for stadium expenses.

 

I think the banks would have been happy picking up their £2m a year in interest now that we are a club without a significant debt problem, thats how they make their money.

[The Woolster]

haha! I need to brush on my accounting don't I.

 

*breaks open "Accounting for uber-dummies".

 

Unless you have studied or have a working knowledge of accounts, then it can be very easy to get things the wrong way round. I wouldn't worry about it.

[The Great Jacko]

110m Wage bill (which went up marginally despite all the spin),

35m Depreciation of players transfer values

10m Write-off of player's contract values (Jovanich era stuff I think).

 

The rest is leases and random accounting shit.

 

It doesn't include our Annual 10m payment to replace coaching staff etc.

 

Is that the wage bill for 10 or 12 months? If it's for 10 months then the annual one is £132m which isn't so good.

[Whelan]

In a word - good or bad?

 

You can use a couple more if necessary, but are we okay or are we fucked?

[xerxes]

Last year we wrote off the asset. The drawings.

 

This year we paid back the 37m loan to create the drawings.

 

Who, what, where, when are all H&G era issues. Speak to them if you want those answers. There is no benefit to FSG raking over all that. FSG have now eliminated that blight and have managed to get us access to 120m of working capital to be invested in things that will (used properly) actually enhance the club's revenues and performances.

 

This, in short, is what they have done, tarring them with H&G's mistakes is just nonsensical.

 

That, and Woolster's post, stacks. Thank you.

 

I was not seeking to tar FSG with G&H's misdeeds. I do think that the issue of how £50m of club funds has been spent on nothing ( and i am not talking Andy Carroll) is worthy of a far fuller explanation than has thitherto been offered.

[piscinin]

That, and Woolster's post, stacks. Thank you.

 

I was not seeking to tar FSG with G&H's misdeeds. I do think that the issue of how £50m of club funds has been spent on nothing ( and i am not talking Andy Carroll) is worthy of a far fuller explanation than has thitherto been offered.

 

It does, but of the people in a position to explain, it's not in their interest to do so, is it? FSG have the future to worry about. The auditors. Nash. They can't possibly come out of it looking good. Let sleeping dogs lie.

[Guest San Don]

Is that the wage bill for 10 or 12 months? If it's for 10 months then the annual one is £132m which isn't so good.

 

Except we've massively reduced the wage bill after this accounting period so £132m isnt correct.

[The Woolster]

Is that the wage bill for 10 or 12 months? If it's for 10 months then the annual one is £132m which isn't so good.

 

Probably a bit under as there won't be bonus/appearance type payments in those 2 months over the summer, but last year was £129, so not a massive difference. The summer before last we got rid of a lot of crap, but we also signed Downing, Henderson, Bellamy etc, so was going to be around the same. I think the next set of accounts should show a decent decrease.

 

The important thing though is wages relative to revenues. We don't know what the commercial revenues would be in those 2 months, but it could be quite high with new shirt sales and summer tours.

[Trumo]

The easiest way to understand the figures is to realise that they account for everything that happened LAST season, so the transfer fees, wages, commercial deals etc that are included are all deals that commenced before the end of May 2012. The matchday and TV revenue will include whatever the club made during the two domestic cup runs.

 

Since then, the Warrior deal has kicked in, as have the Chevrolet and Garuda sponsorship deals. The revenue from these deals will be shown in the next set of accounts, which cover THIS season. The matchday and TV revenue from our Europa League run will also be included in the next set, but I don't imagine this to amount to much since clubs currently make very little from Europa League participation, especially when they get knocked out early.

 

Since the accounting year end, We've sold the likes of Kuyt and Aquilani, released the likes of Bellamy and Maxi, and have Carroll out on loan with West Ham paying his wages. Even if we are still paying a portion of Aquilani's salary (from memory, there were no reputable confirmed sources for this but I stand to be corrected), we've also got rid of Cole's high wages from the books. Having sacked Kenny and his coaching staff as well as Comolli, I expect the next set of accounts to show any pay-offs made, as well as pay-offs to players released. We've also agreed new contracts with several players as well as signing Allen, Borini, Sahin (briefly on loan), Assaidi, Sturridge and Coutinho.

 

As a rough estimate, I think the annual wage bill will have come down by about £15-20m at most in the next set of accounts, and I would expect turnover to surpass £200m for the first time, in light of our new commercial deals. Basically, wages will account for little over 50% of turnover, which is a healthy position to be in and allows the necessary wiggle room for reinforcements. FSG did a similar thing with the Red Sox which is why I think they'll have tried the same here.

[xerxes]

A good summary Trumo.

 

It will also help if we stop appointing, then sacking, people.

[piscinin]

A good summary Trumo.

 

It will also help if we stop appointing, then sacking, people.

 

The 10m stoopid tax.

[xerxes]

The 10m stoopid tax.

 

Ouch:P

[cmuller]

Alarm bells rang at first at the loan but after seeing what it was used for it makes sense.

 

It'll still take another year or so I reckon for all the bad decision making of the last few years to flow through the books but it's not too bad overall.

[Guest San Don]

A good summary Trumo.

 

It will also help if we stop appointing, then sacking, people.

 

And if the owners had of kept the King, Clarke and relevant backroom staff on, you'd probably be saying they should be sacked!