Summer 2011

[piscinin]

The accounts that were from last year? Thought they were the only ones available?

 

Yeah they are but they have the post purchase financing information in them and some forward looking statements. So for example they mention we need to refinance 92m by the end of this month! 47m of which is the "stadium" BTW!

[Chinandeler Bong]

The Guardian figures are most likely from the last set of accounts up to July 2010, before the new owners took over. The debt situation as things stand, not least the absence of purchase debt, is considerably different to the state of play back then. Lest we be unclear, the tumours never did manage to put the entire debt upon the club, but since the sum was still well over £100m (the amount matters not as NONE of it should have been allowed to be placed) it carried a substantial amount of interest.

 

Yeh the '123M' of debt was from back then.

So I dont get Why The poster said we were 100M in debt, based on those figures ?

[DaveT]

The Guardian figures come from the official accounts for the period ending July 2010 i.e. before the FSG buy-out. Current debt, according to Ian Ayre, is 'minimal' - reported recently throughout the media as around £3m. The Guardian figures also exclude the Standard Chartered sponsorship money.

Happy days.

[Unrighteous]

Yeah they are but they have the post purchase financing information in them and some forward looking statements. So for example they mention we need to refinance 92m by the end of this month! 47m of which is the "stadium" BTW!

 

All money owed to the banks was paid by the NEW yanks. The other debt was secured against the old yanks. We're not responsible for that debt... and its part of the reason the old yanks thought they had grounds to sue.

 

So, we've only got the small cash flow debt that the new yanks left. It's 3m pounds a year to service that.

[piscinin]

The Guardian figures are most likely from the last set of accounts up to July 2010, before the new owners took over. The debt situation as things stand, not least the absence of purchase debt, is considerably different to the state of play back then. Lest we be unclear, the tumours never did manage to put the entire debt upon the club, but since the sum was still well over £100m (the amount matters not as NONE of it should have been allowed to be placed) it carried a substantial amount of interest.

 

Those #s are post-takeover and have nothing to do with purchase debt. It's all stadium debt, loans for player purchases and working capital.

[piscinin]

All money owed to the banks was paid by the NEW yanks. The other debt was secured against the old yanks. We're not responsible for that debt... and its part of the reason the old yanks thought they had grounds to sue.

 

So, we've only got the small cash flow debt that the new yanks left. It's 3m pounds a year to service that.

 

According to the accounts all money owed to the banks by the Kop companies was paid off. Liverpool FC still owes plenty.

[Trumo]

Those #s are post-takeover and have nothing to do with purchase debt. It's all stadium debt, loans for player purchases and working capital.

 

I still haven't seen the accounts so cannot argue from an informed position. Do they say any more about the loans for player purchases in particular? I already know the date the accounts were published, but I would like to know what date the post balance sheet event statements were made. What went on in between those two dates would certainly have a material effect on the figures published.

[The Party Boy]

Speculative figures them surely.

[Il Fenomeno]

Those #s are post-takeover and have nothing to do with purchase debt. It's all stadium debt, loans for player purchases and working capital.

 

Have you got a link for this years accounts?

[piscinin]

I still haven't seen the accounts so cannot argue from an informed position. Do they say any more about the loans for player purchases in particular? I already know the date the accounts were published, but I would like to know what date the post balance sheet event statements were made. What went on in between those two dates would certainly have a material effect on the figures published.

 

I can send you the accounts if you like. PM me your email.

[piscinin]

Ngogwetrust posted the accounts earlier https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B2k6HQD5WemzMTU3NDkwMzUtYzliYy00ODBjLTg2ZWMtYWJkMmZjMzIxZDBj&hl=en&pli=1

[Guest TK-421]

Im willing to bet we spend more than anyone this summer. . .

 

I'll take you up on that. 20 quid to the HJC?

[The Party Boy]

We'll spend a lot this summer but Chelsea and City are gonna go mental again I reckon.

[Chinandeler Bong]

I'll take you up on that. 20 quid to the HJC?

 

Not 20, but a fiver ?

Im a poor student.

[Chinandeler Bong]

Mirror reporting that Utd have stepped in for Enrique and beaten us too it.

[Guest TK-421]

Not 20, but a fiver ?

Im a poor student.

 

No worries. I'm a poor solicitor.

[ThewaytoRome]

Mirror reporting that Utd have stepped in for Enrique and beaten us too it.

 

United go for all our targets. Why exactly would they need enrique anyway?

[Reacher]

The Mancs are well worried by us. They know next season is going to be a very different.

[18-5]

Enrique is not the best we can get tbh. His defensive positioning for one of goals conceded was shocking. Neither a great passer of the ball nor has blistering pace. He will get skinned by fast wingers. Average signing at best.

[seamus o'lunacy]

Debt wise people are aware that we are still carrying over 100m in debt and paying in excess of 15m/year to service it, right? Just because the purchase debt is gone doesn't mean we have a completely free hand. We are still unpicking the mess we were left.

 

So it's no surprise everyone at the club is saying much the same thing. There will be a conservative, measured approach. Constant upheaval hasn't worked, so lets get back to 2 in 2 out and use this time to put down some solid foundations and establish a sustainable model.

 

A few observations from the accounts.

 

The net debt increased from £110.3m to £123.4m. This is down to two main factors the first is an increase of £9.6m in intercompany debt due to accrued interest on this debt. There was also a £5.8m repayment of the debt within the year. There was a net 1.2m increase in bank debt due to financing costs. Added to this was an £8m reduction in cash balances.

 

Of the £123.4m of net debt, the gross debt was £142m of which £104.6m was owed to group undertakings (i.e. the holding companies).

 

Bank debt stood at £37.7m on which £4.5m of interest was charged (i.e. an average rate of approx 11.9%. There was a further £9.6m (as per above) charged on inter-company loans. There was then a further cost of £6m to raise the finance for the year. I presume this last part relates to all the extensions in the first half of 2010.

 

After the takeover there was a replacement facility agreed with RBS. The total facility is for £92m of which £20m is a working capital revolving credit facility, £47m for stadium term debt and £25m in a letter of credit facility (presumably for transfer fees). As at 31 Jan 2011 £86.6m of these facilities had been utilized. These facilities are due to expire on 31st May 2011 but there have been talks over future borrowing needs for the club. The board do not expect any issues for this.

 

On 15th October 2010 UKSV cancelled the intercompany debt they had assumed on takeover and credit the capital account. As a result the club has a very healthy capital balance and a reduced P&L impact.

 

During the financial year there was a net positive transfer fund. £34.6m of transfer fees were agreed on purchases whilst the club agreed fees totaling £40m in the year. The club paid in cash through the year £46.7m whilst receiving £34.8m for transfers in the period and in prior periods.

 

Looking at the balance sheet, and it's not easy to work out, but it suggests that the club owed only a minimal amount in cash on transfers as at 31 July 2010. This should leave the club in a very good position for future transfers.

 

Subsequent to the year end the club sold players for a total guaranteed value of £76.1m whilst paying out £76.2m in fees. When taking these transactions into account with the termination payments for Roy Hodgson and co, the club will show a net gain of £46.5m in the 2011 profit figures. This will, however, likely be cancelled out by the anticipated £48.4m write-off relating to the new stadium plans.

 

FSG paid approx £218m to acquire the club and associated debt from Kop Football Limited. As at 31 July 2009 (the latest available figures) Kop Football Limited owed the banks £200m whilst owing Kop Football (Holdings) Limited £145m. As there will have been further finance charges due in 2010 this shows that all of the cash paid by FSG was paid to the banks. This will have left a minimum loss of £145m for the former owners. Also since FSG bought the rights for the inter-company debt as part of the takeover they could afford to write the debt off as they had not actually paid any cash for it. They could have gone an easy route and left it and already had most of the purchase cost covered, but they didn't. This transaction, effectively, puts the club's balance sheet back to the position it was in 2007 but with a stronger revenue base.

 

It should also be noted, and I've banged this drum before to be shot down, but apart from the £6m repayment of intercompany debt in the year ending 31 July 2010 (beyond that remains to be seen but the accounts suggest nothing further was repaid) there was no cash paid from the clubs coffers for the purchase debt. They didn't have the chance to do this as the club needed all it's cash to keep itself running. It wasn't until this set of accounts that the club had repaid any of the inter-company debt. And the takeover stopped any further repayment of this. There has been the stadium debt only, although the indirect impact on the club is immeasurable.

 

If anything, and this is a stretch, the takeover has meant that the club has managed to take over £100m (depending on final figures that won't be confirmed for another year) off of Gillett and Hicks and not had to repay anything more than £6m. It's possibly a sweet irony and justice that they lose £140m between them and most of it has been lost to the club. Hopefully the court case (which the board do not see as a material impact on the clubs finances) will disappear without a trace.

 

from ttnbd

[MLB]

Mirror reporting that Utd have stepped in for Enrique and beaten us too it.

 

 

I don't believe that, but even if it was true we have other targets who are good as him (and possibly better.)

[Gym Beglin]

Enrique is not the best we can get tbh. His defensive positioning for one of goals conceded was shocking. Neither a great passer of the ball nor has blistering pace. He will get skinned by fast wingers. Average signing at best.

 

I don't get the wank-fest over the lad either, he seems very much like Bob, but 5 times more expensive.

 

He seems very much like an average la liga left back.

[silverlining]

I don't get the wank-fest over the lad either, he seems very much like Bob, but 5 times more expensive.

 

He seems very much like an average la liga left back.

 

He's looked quite tidy whenever I've seen him. Perhaps not amazing in any aspect of his game, but we don't need him to be.

[James Dean]

Reminds me of Aurelio. He's a very good footballer.

[silverlining]

Reminds me of Aurelio. He's a very good footballer.

 

I hope he's a better defender than Aurelio