A letter from America...Henry.

[xerxes]

But I am prepared to be proven wrong, I am asking is that people explain where the money came from to spend last season! We were operating at a loss, yet spent £40m net. Now that money came from somewhere.

 

It's a good question Whelan. The answer has not been made public, nor is it in any available accounts.

 

The average FSG Investment Club stake is around £10m. So a £40m call would be an extra 20% each at around 20 members. In practice this is not at all straight forwards. It amounts to a cash call, which would be difficult to organise- or justify. Highly unlikely.

 

The most likely route would simply be an overdraft facility of some description, underwritten by the Club? the Directors? FSG? Who knows.

 

There is also a £50m stadium provision against which no expentiture has ever been formally declared. A useful slush fund- most big companies have them.

 

My guess is that the net spend was club borrowing- which is why this summers transfer dealings have been noteable for getting wages down.

[WaltonRed]

Its not about puttint their own money in but we've signed deals left right and centre this year and we should be able to spend 6m on a player

[MichaelThomas]

 

I said it in 2003: Chelsea have ruined football and brains alike.

 

Milan ruined football in the 1990s bankrolled by Berlusconi?

Real Madrid ruined football buying those Galacticos and getting sub from the Madrid council?

 

You act like rich owners splashing their own cash was invented by Abramovich. Only thing that happened was inflation

[BCM]

Amen to ROTOQ post also.

 

See the PR machine is in full effect, The damage from them withholding 1-2 million for a player may end up costing them 10x that in the long run.

[FanchesterCity]

So:

 

MONEY IN = 220 Million

TV money + Gates + Merchandise 180M

Player sales 40M

 

MONEY OUT = 201 Million

Wages 135M

Player Purchases 26M (80M / avg 3 year contract)

Club running costs (30M???)

Manager Payoff 10M

 

 

Getting closer?

[piscinin]

Why should they put their own money in?

 

We are a fucking business, nothing more and nothing less. LFC is not their plaything as Chelsea or City are to their owners.

 

If they are to run it as a business, than they have absolutely no obligation to put their own money in.

 

I am as fed up as anybody about not having another striker, but let`s stay in the real world.

 

I said it in 2003: Chelsea have ruined football and brains alike.

 

Why should they put their own money in?

 

Because in this climate and given how poorly they have run us to date that is the only way they will be competitive. We, the fans, expect to be competitive. We really couldn't give two hoots that they pissed the torres money up the wall. We expect to be competitive. We, mostly, couldn't give a shit about balance sheets and profit statements. We are a football team that also happens to be a business, not a business that plays football.

 

So why should they? Because if they don't, they will come to realize, very quickly, that we are horrible bastards who will make their life a misery. And we'd probably be even better at this time around.

[MichaelThomas]

Why should they put their own money in?

 

Because in this climate and given how poorly they have run us to date that is the only way they will be competitive. We, the fans, expect to be competitive. We really couldn't give two hoots that they pissed the torres money up the wall. We expect to be competitive. We, mostly, couldn't give a shit about balance sheets and profit statements. We are a football team that also happens to be a business, not a business that plays football.

 

So why should they? Because if they don't, they will come to realize, very quickly, that we are horrible bastards who will make their life a misery. And we'd probably be even better at this time around.

 

I'm not convinced our fan base would. Their PR is quick off the mark and too many are willing to swallow it. As long as they have us knocking around in the top eight, and keep spouting that we're building, then I think they will have a good four or five years.

[FanchesterCity]

Milan ruined football in the 1990s bankrolled by Berlusconi?

Real Madrid ruined football buying those Galacticos and getting sub from the Madrid council?

 

You act like rich owners splashing their own cash was invented by Abramovich. Only thing that happened was inflation

 

Exactly. Money impacting success feels 'wrong'. Even as a City fan, that has to be acknowledged.

My gripe is that it's an evil that's been around for a long long time (possibly always) and if it's going to be put right, it has to be done properly (which won't happen, because turkeys don't vote for xmas).

 

The tragedy isn't clubs spending money to try and win. It's that we have a sport where they HAVE to in order to stand a chance.

City cannot BE Man United or Liverpool (not for another 30 years at least). Rochdale can never BE City.

 

The big clubs outmarket, and outspend the little ones. Big city teams can pull 40K a week, small town teams can't. It's never been 'fair'.

[xerxes]

I thought players sales were included as part of the revenue figures? is that not the case?

(obviously I'm simplifying a lot 'cos I'm not an accountant, and neither are most of the fans, but it's easy enough to grasp 'Money In' and 'Money Out' if the figures are accurate and helps folks to see roughly where the money lies (or doesn't lie!).

 

Players values are amortized to zero at the end of their contract. A player bought for £20m on a four year contract is shown at 15m/10m/5m/0 over that period.

 

Therefore that player sold for £14m after a year represents a £1m loss on the books, that same player sold for £10m with one year to go shows a £5m profit.

 

Andy Carroll, with £4m a year plus wages , bought for £35m after eighteen months on our books will be shown at around £26.5m. Depreciation and wages have cost the club around £18m to date.JW may even have been thinking of this when he talked about mistakes and poor value for fees and wages.

[Mr Nando]

Fanchester City bores me.

 

 

I support this post, even if you did say that Nandos is shit....

[Major Tom]

Why should they put their own money in?

 

Because in this climate and given how poorly they have run us to date that is the only way they will be competitive. We, the fans, expect to be competitive. We really couldn't give two hoots that they pissed the torres money up the wall. We expect to be competitive. We, mostly, couldn't give a shit about balance sheets and profit statements. We are a football team that also happens to be a business, not a business that plays football.

 

So why should they? Because if they don't, they will come to realize, very quickly, that we are horrible bastards who will make their life a misery. And we'd probably be even better at this time around.

 

They fired the people they thought responsible for pissing their money up the wall. We can hound them out with protests and emails for not spending enough, but the chances of getting very similar owners - who run the club as a business - are quite high.

[Whelan]

It could perfectly well have been loaded onto the club. The difference between it and H&G's debt would be:

 

a) It was much lower, as the repayments needed to service a £50m operating loss in one year would be a lot less than those needed for the debt to buy the whole club, and

 

b) There was a guaranteed, or highly likely, chance of it being paid back, unlike with H&G's purchase of the club.

 

So the answer to "where did it come from" would either be from whichever lender FSG got it from, and/or from FSG's own assets with the intention of recouping it as the new revenue came in.

 

Neil you have dammend them on a hunch! You don't, and can't prove where that original injection came from. So the only fact is that they have provided at least (not factoring in this years) £40m net in transfer fees.

 

As I posted earlier the breakdown in transfer fees, during the H & G period we were in the champions league yet had either a negative or negligable transfer spend. In other words that champions league money was servicing the debt, since then both have dissapeared.

 

 

Yes I do think they were expecting it back. Why not? They may have physically made a cash transfer from their own assets to the club's accounts at some point before July 2011, but that's not the same as investing it in the squad or even the club without any expectation of getting it back directly, which is what I want them to do.

 

I'm happy to revise my claim to "I don't see any evidence that they've invested their own money in the squad" if you'll do the same. The loss in the accounts to July 2011 is not evidence of them doing that.

 

You are admitting the money has been invested, but you are debating where it has come from, without providing any proof. My argument is based on the fact that we have spent a net of £40m, without champions league income, and without an operating profit. I really don't see any proof that I should revise as I am not accusing them of not spending any of their own money. If anyone can prove that what they have spent has come from the club then I will certainly take back what I have said.

 

As I said from the start. You could very well be proved right, they could ditch the club to the highest bidder and we would be fucked. But as yet, all they are guilty of is not having enough wealth to maintain last years investment. Or perhaps more pertinant, not prepared to maintain last years investment.

 

For the record I do think we could do with a bit more investment, but I can understand why they haven't.

[xerxes]

Its not about putting their own money in but we've signed deals left right and centre this year and we should be able to spend 6m on a player

 

I don't think that the Dempsey deal had anything to do with cash constraints. In ""fee in and wages it amounted to a straight swap with Adam. It was an Ayrehead cock-up no more, no less. He thought that a deadline deal could screw Fulham- he did not reckon on Spurs losing Modric and VDV being able to swallow the reasonable terms easily. Gamble lost.

[Major Tom]

I'm not convinced our fan base would. Their PR is quick off the mark and too many are willing to swallow it. As long as they have us knocking around in the top eight, and keep spouting that we're building, then I think they will have a good four or five years.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

I know plenty that will be up in arms if we are still lingering around eighth in four or five years time.

[Major Tom]

I don't think that the Dempsey deal had anything to do with cash constraints. In ""fee in and wages it amounted to a straight swap with Adam. It was an Ayrehead cock-up no more, no less. He thought that a deadline deal could screw Fulham- he did not reckon on Spurs losing Modric and VDV being able to swallow the reasonable terms easily. Gamble lost.

 

Speculation.

[piscinin]

I thought players sales were included as part of the revenue figures? is that not the case?

(obviously I'm simplifying a lot 'cos I'm not an accountant, and neither are most of the fans, but it's easy enough to grasp 'Money In' and 'Money Out' if the figures are accurate and helps folks to see roughly where the money lies (or doesn't lie!).

 

Ok, I see what you are doing.

[xerxes]

. If anyone can prove that what they have spent has come from the club then I will certainly take back what I have said.

 

Currently, it cannot be ascertained one way or another.

 

It is true however that a club facility is a far easier way of raising the cash than an investor's cash call.

[FanchesterCity]

Why should they put their own money in?

 

Because in this climate and given how poorly they have run us to date that is the only way they will be competitive. We, the fans, expect to be competitive. We really couldn't give two hoots that they pissed the torres money up the wall. We expect to be competitive. We, mostly, couldn't give a shit about balance sheets and profit statements. We are a football team that also happens to be a business, not a business that plays football.

 

So why should they? Because if they don't, they will come to realize, very quickly, that we are horrible bastards who will make their life a misery. And we'd probably be even better at this time around.

 

Therein lies the crux of the problem really. The motives of owners these days aren't the same as the fans.... although superficially, they are claimed to be.

Success on the pitch generally means greater financial rewards for all concerned (the players and the owners), but the modern day American / Arab / Asian owner's prime motive tends not to be success of the pitch.

 

For varied (but similar reasons) these owners see our clubs as a means to an end. You're very lucky if you get an owner who truly does have a love of the club, and when that happens, the fans still complain - usually because he's a local businessman who's made it big, but not big enough (according to the fans). The fans expect him to plunder all his wealth into the club, to the very last penny he owns, then will still call for his head when the money runs out.

 

It would be a shame if Liverpool fans turn on FSG (not because they don't deserve it), but because it would just add fuel to the fire regarding the impression of Liverpool, and deter other owners. Liverpool has enough problems as a city, and ugly protests just give politicians and media another excuse to give the place a kicking.

 

After you managed to get rid of G & H, FSG don't seem quite as dire. a 3rd set of owners MIGHT be better still, but you might end up with the Venkys!!!

 

Hell of a gamble!

[xerxes]

Speculation.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Your faith in the hapless one is touching.Just join the dots.............

[BCM]

Speak for yourself.

 

I know plenty that will be up in arms if we are still lingering around eighth in four or five years time.

 

Id say more like 4-5 months if there is another almighty fuck up .

[WaltonRed]

I think he's just the scapegoar

 

had they said there's 30m we'd of got Llorente, by making him piss about with about 5m or even less he had to gamble

[Dicko]

Ah right

That's ok then.

[Major Tom]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Your faith in the hapless one is touching.Just join the dots.............

 

As I say, like you, I have no idea one way or another.

 

You have joined the dots and there is a picture of Ayre. Others have come up with FSG and others, Rodgers. It depends who your gripe is with.

 

I will definitely bow to those with greater knowledge on this topic. I just don't happen to think that is you.

[FanchesterCity]

Players values are amortized to zero at the end of their contract. A player bought for £20m on a four year contract is shown at 15m/10m/5m/0 over that period.

 

Therefore that player sold for £14m after a year represents a £1m loss on the books, that same player sold for £10m with one year to go shows a £5m profit.

 

Andy Carroll, with £4m a year plus wages , bought for £35m after eighteen months on our books will be shown at around £26.5m. Depreciation and wages have cost the club around £18m to date.JW may even have been thinking of this when he talked about mistakes and poor value for fees and wages.

 

Yeah, but I was trying to figure if the player sales were already included in a headline revenue figure, or if the need to be added on.

And of course, if Liverpool sold a player/s for 40m, that's not 40m right there and then.

 

But still are they already included in, or in addition to the '180m revenue' headline figure?

[Major Tom]

Id say more like 4-5 months if there is another almighty fuck up .

 

January looms large. If they thought they were overpaying on Friday, wait until Jan comes round.

 

I agree with your post above. Not forking out £2m a couple of days ago could well end up costing them many times that. I hope not.