Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Financial Results for Year to May 31st 2021


an tha
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

The club is well run on and off the pitch. Id rather it was run the way it is rather than try and imitate city's or chelsea's or even newcastle's way, once they've figured out what to do.

 

There's fanciful talk that Abramovic could bail out of chelsea due to links with Putin leaving the club some £1.5bn in debt if he did. I dont for one moment think that's happening but fuck's sake, £1.5bn?!

 

Even the shite are in hock to Moshiri or is that really usmanov, united to the glasers etc, etc. People shouldnt be moaning at the way our club is run, they should be moaning at how other clubs in the PL are and how virtually no one gives a fuck about undeclared money sources or self inflated deals.

The club is only well run because we have such a fantastic manager with humility,modesty and a very small ego who actually listens and welcomes other people's opinions on transfers and such matters. Completely unlike his predecessor who was the opposite of all that. Being 'well run' is hugely dependent on the man in the manager's chair as much as anything else. I doubt FSG will ever find anybody else as suitable as Klopp. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Arsenal have announced a record loss of more than £100million for the year ended May 31, 2021 - attributing the majority to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

After losses of less than £50million the previous year, Arsenal posted post-tax losses of £107.3million in their latest financial statement - the biggest in the club's history.

As much as £85million of that was put down to the adverse effect of Covid as the club played just two games in front of a crowd at the Emirates Stadium during the 2020-21 season - with coronavirus measures preventing live attendances for much of the campaign.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10561459/Arsenal-announce-loss-100-MILLION-blame-Covid-19-pandemic-record-loss.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they restructure their loans/get a COVID loan that they then spent on transfers? Wonder how the losses compare for clubs that took a loan out and those that didn't.

 

They've cut costs massively since the end of those accounts (and lost out on income giving players free transfers) but their wage bill will be significantly lower this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2022 at 20:33, VladimirIlyich said:

The club is only well run because we have such a fantastic manager with humility,modesty and a very small ego who actually listens and welcomes other people's opinions on transfers and such matters. Completely unlike his predecessor who was the opposite of all that. Being 'well run' is hugely dependent on the man in the manager's chair as much as anything else. I doubt FSG will ever find anybody else as suitable as Klopp. 

No, but having a solid structure and system in place makes the club a lot more stable. That's no guarantee but it's better than re-building a club in the image of each successive manager.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TD_LFC said:

Didn't they restructure their loans/get a COVID loan that they then spent on transfers? Wonder how the losses compare for clubs that took a loan out and those that didn't.

 

They've cut costs massively since the end of those accounts (and lost out on income giving players free transfers) but their wage bill will be significantly lower this season.

Yes they did. Their players also took a 12.5% pay cut and they still made a huge loss.

 

No one is underestimating what Jurgen has achieved but, it's a bit silly for some people to deny the club is also well run off field as well. Jurgen doesnt get involved with sponsorship deals. He get's involved with some off field activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Companies house has been updated

 

Company Results (links open in a new window)
Date(document was filed at Companies House) Description(of the document filed at Companies House) View / Download(PDF file, link opens in new window)
02 Mar 2022 Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 May 2021
This document is being processed and will be available in 10 days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool published their accounts for the 2020/21 financial year on Friday, a period that included the Reds being crowned Premier League champions and a season played almost entirely without fans due to the pandemic.

 

Indeed, 2019/20 began as normal but then felt the brunt of the onset of the pandemic that resulted in a season being suspended before being finished after the financial year ended, Liverpool saw their 2018/19 pre-tax profit of £42m swing to a pre-tax loss of £46m.

In the latest accounts there was another loss, but at £4.8m it was a fraction of that seen by some of their Premier League rivals for the same period.

 

The combined losses of the Premier League's 'big six', the clubs who were agitating to form a new European Super League last year, stands at £775m over the two pandemic-affected seasons. Of that figure Liverpool, whose losses for the past two seasons come out at £50.8m, equated to around 6.5 per cent.

 

A more focused business approach and less exposure due to a lack of recklessness that has been seen at some clubs in Europe, most notably Barcelona, has meant that the Reds have been able to ride out the storm better than most under the ownership of Fenway Sports Group.

 

Of the headline figures, Media revenue rose by £64.5m to £266.1m due to the payments made to clubs for the games shown when the Premier League resumed after the end of the 2020 financial year. Clubs across the Premier League have seen healthy rises as a result of that.

 

 

The results, which cover the period up until May 31 2021, inevitably saw a huge impact on match-day revenue, which is down by nearly 95 per cent to just £3m. Overall revenues were down £3m to £487m year on year, while commercial revenues held steady, showing a modest £0.2m increase to £217.6m.

The detailed breakdown of the accounts has now been published by Companies House.

'GOING CONCERN'

In the 2019/20 accounts, with uncertainty around whether further suspensions to seasons would happen due to the pandemic, Liverpool highlighted the severity of the situation.

 

A paragraph from the 2019/20 accounts read: "The Directors acknowledge that due to continued Covid-19 pandemic, which is outside of management control, there is a material uncertainty that exists as a result of the possibility of an extended delay or a curtailment to the current 20/21 playing season and/or a delay in the commencement of the 21/22 playing season without committed funding currently in place - and therefore this may cast significant doubt on the Group’s ability to continue as a Going Concern."

The return of fans to stadiums and changing picture with regards to the pandemic due to the vaccination programme has seen that tone shift 12 months on.

 

The 2020/21 accounts stated: "Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the group or parent company's ability to continue as a going concern."

 

The club highlighted changes to the economic environment that impacted revenue streams, fans returning to stadiums and the change in the COVID-19 situation as a result of vaccinations, meaning seasons and competitions set to be completed as expected, as key factors behind this.

FUTURE TRANSFER FEES

In the accounts it state that £23.8m may have to be paid in future transfer fees, related to clauses being activated. In 2020 that figure was £10.8m. Since the year end, £1.8m of those payments have crystallised.

 

During the 2020/21 accounting period, Liverpool signed Diogo Jota for £42m from Wolverhampton Wanderers and Thiago Alcantara from Bayern Munich for £20m. Jota's deal was paid in instalments.

With regards to players heading in the opposite direction, Liverpool state that £7.3m in future fees could materialise, with £1.4m of that already crystallised since the end of the financial period.

PROFIT ON PLAYER SALES

Liverpool's profit on the disposal of player registrations during the 2020/21 period stood at £39.3m. The previous accounting period for 2019/20 had seen this figure stand at £26.9m.

 

Players who were sold during the 2020/21 accounting period included Rhian Brewster to Sheffield United for £23.5m; Ki-Jana Hoever to Wolves for £13.5m; Dejan Lovren to Zenit St Petersburg for £10.9m, and Ovie Ejaria to Reading for £3m.

 

The profit and loss on the disposal of player registrations is calculated as the difference between the value of the transfer fee recovered and the net book value of the player, calculated through amortising the cost of the player over the length of a contract, less any direct costs of the transfer.

 

Since the end of the financial period the Reds has contracted for the purchase and sale of player registrations, with the net profit standing at £7.7m, meaning the cumulative total is a profit of £21.4m, with the £7.7m figure to be included in the financial results for the year ending May 31, 2022.

AMORTISATION

Amortisation of player registrations increased by £1.8m, from £106m in 2020 to £107.8m in 2021.

 

Amortisation is something that features heavily whenever accounts are scrutinised. It is when a transfer fee is spread over the length of a contract, so the £36m paid for Konate from RB Leipzig will actually be shown as £7.2m per year in the accounts for each of the five years of his contract. Likewise, Luis Diaz's £36.5m move would be shown as an annual expenditure of £7.3m in the accounts.

 

The latest set of accounts include new deals for the likes of Virgil Van Dijk and Fabinho, reducing their amortised cost by spreading the remaining book value over an extended period in line with their new deal.

 

But with new additions such as Jota, Thiago and Kostas Tsimikas, that figure increased slightly, although still £4m less than the figure in the 2019 accounts.

 
There was also an impairment loss on player registrations in this year's accounts of £461,000, something that was zero in the 2020 accounts.
 

Impairment charges relate to the loss of value on a player. That can be through such things as long term injury or prolonged exclusion from the first team squad. At the end of each financial year there is an obligation on football clubs to assess each player and determine whether their market value is less than that shown in the balance sheet. If it is then it must be expensed as an impairment charge. It is not specified which player or players that the Liverpool impairment charge relates to.

LOAN DEBT

The club took out an intercompany loan with their holding company, and subsidiary of Fenway Sports Group LLC, UKSV Holdings Ltd, of £110m to fund the redevelopment of the Main Stand at Anfield, which was completed in 2016.

 

Sums have been paid off that debt since but the balance remains at £71.4m to FSG's holding company, the same level that it was in last year's accounts, with the interest fee loan, which has no set repayment date, not making repayments for the two pandemic affected years.

 

Bank debt decreased over the 12 months.

Liverpool refinanced their current facility back in January of 2020 for a five-year period, giving them access to as much as £200m of credit that could be used for general corporate purposes including working capital.

 

As much as £198m was drawn down in the 2020 accounts to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on revenues, but the latest accounts show that £70m of that has already been repaid, with the amount now standing at £128m.

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/future-transfer-fees-player-profit-23274322

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, for being shit owners, they're doing well at running the club, adding players to the team, selling players, and putting us at the better end of honours... but are still shit owners, right? 

 

Something like that. Either way, I hate them for existing and want them gone so we can finally spend loads of money on shit players the manager doesn't want and then fold. Down with sensible ownership. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

So, for being shit owners, they're doing well at running the club, adding players to the team, selling players, and putting us at the better end of honours... but are still shit owners, right? 

 

Something like that. Either way, I hate them for existing and want them gone so we can finally spend loads of money on shit players the manager doesn't want and then fold. Down with sensible ownership. 

Yep. I posted elsewhere the club was well run on and off the pitch. Swiss Ranmbler's disection of the accounts is a bit too heavy for me in places but he shows how the owners have navigated the pandemic's impact and beyond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dockers_strike said:

Yep. I posted elsewhere the club was well run on and off the pitch. Swiss Ranmbler's disection of the accounts is a bit too heavy for me in places but he shows how the owners have navigated the pandemic's impact and beyond.

For me, there's only one type of owner that's going to be clearly better for on the pitch results than these owners, and it really is getting into the realms of pure fantasy to even suggest it. It would be City-like owners - multibillionaires with unspeakable amounts of wealth - but are not attached to a murderous regime and are willing to put extravagant amounts of their their own money, funnelled through some scheme to avoid FFP restrictions, into the manager's pocket for any player he wants. That's about the only place that I see we can from from here. If it's that or the ownership are cunts, then maybe their expectations are too high. For ages we had people saying 'we just want to spend what we make', but that turned into jibes about yachts and skimming off the top and them being cunts, etc. I just don't see it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Yep. I posted elsewhere the club was well run on and off the pitch. Swiss Ranmbler's disection of the accounts is a bit too heavy for me in places but he shows how the owners have navigated the pandemic's impact and beyond.

We benefit from proximity to Everton, so we can keep a close eye on them and say "What would the Everton board do?"

 

 

And then do the polar fucking opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The longer the Mancs are shit and we are good we will overtake them revenue wise, I read somewhere that their debt is around the £490m mark but basically that gets added to every time they spunk money on shite players. 

 

Naming rights for the Main Stand would be a good move as looking at City's revenue they are able to get money from the same sponsor for the stadium and the shirt deal. Pity its all connected one way or another to their owners. There's absolutely no fucking way they get that money with the shite and very limited fan base they have. 

 

The kit deal is up to £70m but we've opened a few more stores around the world and the more exposure we get the more money we will receive.

 

We will probably get a large increase next year for the shirt deal as next season is the last of a £40m deal with Standard Chartered. Real Madrid got around €70m for their last shirt deal in 2013. We are in a league watched all around the world and more often than not we are on every week. 

 

The Anfield Road stand will bump us up to the same level as Spurs and Arsenal for matchday revenue. The club will probably sell more of those remote hospitality packages (Hilton, Isla Gladstone) to claw back some of the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

For me, there's only one type of owner that's going to be clearly better for on the pitch results than these owners, and it really is getting into the realms of pure fantasy to even suggest it. It would be City-like owners - multibillionaires with unspeakable amounts of wealth - but are not attached to a murderous regime and are willing to put extravagant amounts of their their own money, funnelled through some scheme to avoid FFP restrictions, into the manager's pocket for any player he wants. That's about the only place that I see we can from from here. If it's that or the ownership are cunts, then maybe their expectations are too high. For ages we had people saying 'we just want to spend what we make', but that turned into jibes about yachts and skimming off the top and them being cunts, etc. I just don't see it. 

Totally agree, it's either become a state run club with dubious means or stand alone and be well run on and off the pitch. If the owners were syphoning 10's of millions out of the club and not buying players, I could understand the criticism.

 

Our wages are now the 4th highest according to these accounts. Are the people who said the previous wages shown were false now going to complain we're only 4th highest payers?

 

People said they didnt want us to spend like city just spend £40m-£50m on players. We've spent £25m on Thiago, £30m+ on konate, upto £45m on Jota with a down payment of £4m and Diaz for £37m upto £50m.

 

Course we could have blown £100m on that waster Grealish, I suppose.

 

As for we sell to buy, yeah, virtually every club does that. Those that dont/ PSG, City, new comers Newcastle. Anyone else?

 

Bizarre world we live in where highest spenders are greatly applauded yet fiscal awareness is ridiculed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man City with the highest revenues of £570m. Oh do fuckoff, not Swiss Ramble, he is excellent but their murderous cunt owners. If they sold the club they really expect us to believe that they would generate similar revenues through sponsorship. My fuck, they would be West Ham at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

A £50m loss over two years of a pandemic is an impressive performance. We look in a great position for the next 10 years ahead, just need to get Jurgen to extend for another 200 years.

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Razoray said:

Man City with the highest revenues of £570m. Oh do fuckoff, not Swiss Ramble, he is excellent but their murderous cunt owners. If they sold the club they really expect us to believe that they would generate similar revenues through sponsorship. My fuck, they would be West Ham at best. 

Their financial doping is so blatant and yet nothing will get done about it. The league are so lucky to have Klopp because otherwise it would be a one horse race every year with said horse having won it by March each time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...