LFC Accounts 2014/15

[an tha]

I'll judge Klopp when he isn't trying to get 100mph out of the clapped out old lada that he has been left with.

 

There isn't a manager in world football who could get the shower of shithouses that we have stealing a living doing the business....they are dogshite in every key area.

[TheHowieLama]

I don't think klopp is anywhere near possibly the best manager in the league.

Great managers are flexible and adapt tactics to suit opposition.

 

Klopp appears to be just as stubborn as all the rest we've had with his formation bring rolled out every week despite clearly failing for 4 months.

 

He needs to improve massively

 

Weren't you biggin up LvG for us?

[G Richards]

Klopp should not really be criticized for formation and style of play until:

 

1. He gets some of his own players in

2. The players he inherited are fit

 

Thus far he's had neither. He inherited an unbalanced squad lacking leaders. Even so, you suspect he'd have had a good go at top four with them if they would have been fit. Which they weren't.

 

Klopp's track record is good. Let him shape something at Liverpool and then we will see how much we should criticize him.

[Kant]

Just out of interest, are the owners obliged to turn debt into equity under PL rules? I seem to remember Abramovich being forced to do so

[Russ Atmosphere]

Just out of interest, are the owners obliged to turn debt into equity under PL rules? I seem to remember Abramovich being forced to do so

 

There are both PL and UEFA FFP rules so at a guess it's likely to prevent a fine and Ayre didn't want to be upfront about it. The rules take into account losses over a 3 year period and we had big losses 2010-2013 period.

[Trumo]

Just out of interest, are the owners obliged to turn debt into equity under PL rules? I seem to remember Abramovich being forced to do so

 

I'm not sure there's an obligation, but it's certainly easier to do if the club has only one owner/entity or perhaps no more than two, because converting debt to equity dilutes the shareholding. Also, it's easier if the debt is owed to whoever owns the club, as is the case with ourselves and Chelsea (and Man City before their owners sold a stake in City Football Group - the organisation under which Sheikh Mansour owns Man City, NYC FC and Melbourne City - to a Chinese state backed group). Arsenal have different groups of shareholders, and some of Man Utd's shares are publicly listed so converting existing debt to equity would be almost impossible to agree on. That's not to say it doesn't happen with publicly listed companies, but it's pretty rare and usually needs one hell of a sweetener such as a bumper dividend or a rights issue on very favourable terms.

[Lario]

To think that the Suarez money has been reinvested back into the playing squad, and we still have this muck.

[Pureblood]

Has anyone used the words "amortization" or "depreciation" yet?

[The Woolster]

With the club posting £297.9m in total revenue, looks like I got last year's forecast right. I said back then that I anticipate we will fall just shy of £300m in the next set of accounts.

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/107619-lfc-accounts-201314/?p=4091756

 

 

That last line still rings true. I think we will see total revenue push £340m for 2015/16 but the 2016/17 figures will include a hike in TV revenue, new sponsorship deals for training kits, possibly a naming rights deal for the Main Stand plus the first additional gains to be made from the new Main Stand. In 2016/17 I expect the club will hit £400m in total revenue.

 

Not really had a think about it yet, but next sest of accounts won't include Champs League money, so not sure we'd get to £340m

[Trumo]

Has anyone used the words "amortization" or "depreciation" yet?

 

'Tis the season of goodwill.

[The Woolster]

Just out of interest, are the owners obliged to turn debt into equity under PL rules? I seem to remember Abramovich being forced to do so

 

Only if losses were above the permitted amount, and with a £60m profit this year, I very much doubt that would have been the case.

 

To be honest, this debt to equity conversion makes very little difference, as it was an interest free laon it was essentially equity anyway.

[The Woolster]

'Tis the season of goodwill.

 

Such an intangible comment

[Trumo]

Not really had a think about it yet, but next sest of accounts won't include Champs League money, so not sure we'd get to £340m

 

I'm purely speculating on the basis of revenue growth of more than 10% again. TV revenue will be less as there was no Champions League football, but both matchday and commercial revenue have been climbing significantly each year for the past 3 years so that's why I think we'll get close to £340m.

 

Of course, making money is one thing. Being able to invest it wisely is where we keep going wrong.

[Pureblood]

 

 

Such an intangible comment

 

Way over my depreciating head.

[jimmycase]

Got to smile about people arguing the owners absorbing £49m of owed debt is not much to write home about.

[eeyore]

Weren't you biggin up LvG for us?

What

[The Woolster]

I'm purely speculating on the basis of revenue growth of more than 10% again. TV revenue will be less as there was no Champions League football, but both matchday and commercial revenue have been climbing significantly each year for the past 3 years so that's why I think we'll get close to £340m.

 

Of course, making money is one thing. Being able to invest it wisely is where we keep going wrong.

 

Had a little think.

 

I would expect to have only a slightly higer matchday revenue to last year unless we go on a significant run in the Europa. In 2014 we had no Europe and no real cup runs with 21 home games in total. Last year we had 4 games in Europe and 2 cup runs to the semi-finals, 28 home games in total with a semi-final at Wembley added on. This year we have at least 29 home games with a final at Wembley too, with a possible 2 extra and another final.

 

For the commercial, there was a hefty increase from 2014 to 2015 mainly down to it being the first year of the Garuda training kit deal as well smaller but deccent sized deals like Dunkin Donuts and Subway. This year we've done a few more of those smaller deals, I can only remember Skype and the Coconut water one off the top of my head, so I wouldn't expect a big increase, maybe £10m, but probably less. If we were to get to the final or win the Europa, there could possibly be some bonuses in the sponsorship contracts I guess.

 

TV, again depends on our Europa run and where we finish in the league relative to last season. We miss out on CL money, but the EL money is higher this season due to new BT deal. I reckon £10m less though unless we get to the final.

 

Overall, unless I've missed something, I'm gonna say a modest increase in revenues of between £5m to £15m

[setreal]

Two days gone and still no

 

LFC Acunts.

 

 

Poor form, Tony.

[Wezza]

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/

 

It's a long read but interesting (if you like that sort of thing!)

[Russ Atmosphere]

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/

 

It's a long read but interesting (if you like that sort of thing!)

Very interesting. Clearly FSG can't sell a Suarez every year so it's now time they have to improve us on the pitch.

 

To me their approach just seems massively uninterested in us creating a winning team a la Houllier/Benitez years of more recent times, and though Rodgers is a tit who has to shoulder far more blame than he has admitted to in his recent telly visits, he nailed it with these comments:

 

“This is the way it is going, some clubs operate with the model of football being a business and they will want to do the best they possibly can, but it will always be about getting a young player in, improving them and having a sale and value that is greater when they got them.

 

“Other clubs will be in the market to just buy the top talents, irrespective of what age they are, in order to look to win. I think the best clubs must get the balance between both [models].”

[jimmycase]

Very interesting. Clearly FSG can't sell a Suarez every year so it's now time they have to improve us on the pitch.

 

To me their approach just seems massively uninterested in us creating a winning team a la Houllier/Benitez years of more recent times, and though Rodgers is a tit who has to shoulder far more blame than he has admitted to in his recent telly visits, he nailed it with these comments:

 

“This is the way it is going, some clubs operate with the model of football being a business and they will want to do the best they possibly can, but it will always be about getting a young player in, improving them and having a sale and value that is greater when they got them.

 

“Other clubs will be in the market to just buy the top talents, irrespective of what age they are, in order to look to win. I think the best clubs must get the balance between both [models].”

 

The point is like it or not, we are now and have been for a good few years, in an age of 'super clubs' and we arent one of them.

 

One of my mates said to me years ago, 'when we achieved our dominance, there was fuck all money in football and no one cared because we were winning everything. manchester united started winning everything when big money did come into the game and unlike us, they took full advantage of it.'

 

In England, they massively outstrip us. so too now do city. To a lesser extent so do chelsea and arsenal. In pecking order we are seen as being well behind that lot and that's before you consider the real 'super' clubs in Europe such as Bayern, Real, Barcelona and PSG.

 

We will never compete on an equal financial footing with those club. The owners and any that come after them unless they are an oligarch or oil shiekh wont be able to go toe to toe with those clubs. They'll have to develop young player and buy in potential with a mix where able for experience.

[3 Stacks]

Very interesting. Clearly FSG can't sell a Suarez every year so it's now time they have to improve us on the pitch.

 

To me their approach just seems massively uninterested in us creating a winning team a la Houllier/Benitez years of more recent times, and though Rodgers is a tit who has to shoulder far more blame than he has admitted to in his recent telly visits, he nailed it with these comments:

 

“This is the way it is going, some clubs operate with the model of football being a business and they will want to do the best they possibly can, but it will always be about getting a young player in, improving them and having a sale and value that is greater when they got them.

 

“Other clubs will be in the market to just buy the top talents, irrespective of what age they are, in order to look to win. I think the best clubs must get the balance between both [models].”

 

It's another load of excuses from Rodgers, though. It doesn't take into consideration that top established talents didn't want to sniff us. I agree with his last point but he's basically insinuating that we were only trying to buy young prospects. I would argue the club definitely tried to strike the balance he is talking about.

 

We failed to sign Alexis Sanchez despite the fact we had almost won the league the season prior and we were offering a higher fee/wages than Arsenal. Before that, we'd tried to sign Diego Costa, Henrikh Mkhitaryan and Willian, all top talents, all in the prime of their careers, and all for big money.

 

We didn't lowball anybody in any of these deals. The fact is, we tried hard to sign these players but none of them wanted to come play for a relative nobody like Rodgers and for a club that has consistently finished around 7th place.

[jimmycase]

It's another load of excuses from Rodgers, though. It doesn't take into consideration that top established talents didn't want to sniff us. I agree with his last point but he's basically insinuating that we were only trying to buy young prospects. I would argue the club definitely tried to strike the balance he is talking about.

 

We failed to sign Alexis Sanchez despite the fact we had almost won the league the season prior and we were offering a higher fee/wages than Arsenal. Before that, we'd tried to sign Diego Costa, Henrikh Mkhitaryan and Willian, all top talents, all in the prime of their careers, and all for big money.

 

We didn't lowball anybody in any of these deals. The fact is, we tried hard to sign these players but none of them wanted to come play for a relative nobody like Rodgers and for a club that has consistently finished around 7th place.

 

Well a good work of fiction, eh?

 

Willain told Gerrard he'd love to play in the same team as him but Liverpool couldnt offer him Champions League football.

 

While undoubtedly some players may not have fancied rodgers, this notion that he \ ayre put them off is a bit fanciful unless you actually find one who does say they're the reason.

[3 Stacks]

Well a good work of fiction, eh?

 

Willain told Gerrard he'd love to play in the same team as him but Liverpool couldnt offer him Champions League football.

 

While undoubtedly some players may not have fancied rodgers, this notion that he \ ayre put them off is a bit fanciful unless you actually find one who does say they're the reason.

 

What fiction? These are facts. We offered more money for Sanchez and Mkhitaryan then Arsenal and Dortmund did. They chose those clubs because they had proven winners at the helm and because we've had many poor league finishes.

 

Your post has more "fiction" than mine considering you said I blamed Ayre when I haven't mentionned him.

[jimmycase]

What fiction? These are facts. We offered more money for Sanchez and Mkhitaryan then Arsenal and Dortmund did. They chose those clubs because they had proven winners at the helm and because we've had many poor league finishes.

 

Your post has more "fiction" than mine considering you brought Ayre up and I didn't.

 

Obviously you decided to ignore the lure of CL football William speaks of. And likely Sanchez and Mkhitaryan.

 

If its simply a question of offering more money to all players, then half the footballers in the world should be on Tyneside!