They're also a much more worthwhile prospect to potential buyers.
Liverpool post loss as debts rise
- Thread starter BBC Sport
- Start date
- Replies 98
- Views 5K
They're also a much more worthwhile prospect to potential buyers.
they win things and have much much much better players. if i was a multi billionaire i would easily rather spend my cash on utd than liverpool.
United are probably also twice as likely to be taken over.
United seem to be able to manage theirs a lot better though, don't they?
Last edited:
Erm, not really. They sold their best player last summer to pay their debt interest... They're going to be milked to obscurity by their new owners for the next decade at least no matter how many Norwich scarves are worn. The distinct lack of sympathy at times from Liverpool supporters is that the company (they are no longer a football club - they did away with that when they floated on the stock market) reaped what it sowed back when it was able to go out and break transfer records every summer. United are a very good investment because the Glazers have shown that the vast majority of Manchester United fans are dumb tourists who'll happily let the club get looted. (And I know there's some good Manchester United fans on this site, so I hope you'll know exactly which part of your fan base I mean - you know, those who'll buy the green and yellow scarf from the street trader outside the Arndale and then head straight to the club shop when they get to Salford).
Chelsea are unsustainable as a football club currently. Should Roman fail to invest or pull the plug, then you can't afford to maintain that squad level (in size or quality) and they'll go back to scrapping for the odd finish above mid-table. My missus is a Chelsea fan (as are her family - old school though) but I'll have to confess that I'll be happy when it happens. Their newer fans are perhaps the most classless and clueless idiots of any team in any league in England.
Arsenal's debt has meant they've not been able to spend on transfer fees without incurring more debt. It's lovingly packaged as Wenger not wanting to spend, but the harsh reality is that the new stadium means that transfer spending is at the cost of more debt for the club. The result? They've won **** all for how long now?
Spurs and Manchester City have been the two biggest spending clubs in Britain for the past two seasons. Manchester City can spend money until their owners run out of oil or get bored. Spurs are on the financial edge. Villa too have pushed their finances as far as is safe to try and get that fourth spot.
So Liverpool - massive debt (we're currently barely balance sheet solvent) caused by throwing money at transfers? Nope. We've made a profit on transfers since summer 2007. Massive debt from buying a new stadium and so investing for the future? Nope. We've spent 45 million on plans for a new stadium but it's no closer than it was four years ago. The debt is purely that two Americans came over and said they had the cash and our previous owner thought they were telling the truth. Instead they were taking out a mortgage and now can't afford to pay it back which is ******** us as a football club. Hardly karma - **** we had Souness as a manager and haven't won the league for two decades.
Crazy thing is that without that debt we're a very, very profitable football club - take out the debt repayments and we've made a profit of 40 million for the past two seasons.
Fun times - no new owner, and next summer we will probably be in administration.
YouTube- Who stole the soul.wmv
Last edited:
markodragojevic
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,755
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
We sold Ronaldo because he wanted to leave.
Don't question Zeb. You'll lose XD
ah zeb, why did you have to bring us back to earth with the sad state of football today?Erm, not really. They sold their best player last summer to pay their debt interest... They're going to be milked to obscurity by their new owners for the next decade at least no matter how many Norwich scarves are worn. The distinct lack of sympathy at times from Liverpool supporters is that the company (they are no longer a football club - they did away with that when they floated on the stock market) reaped what it sowed back when it was able to go out and break transfer records every summer. United are a very good investment because the Glazers have shown that the vast majority of Manchester United fans are dumb tourists who'll happily let the club get looted. (And I know there's some good Manchester United fans on this site, so I hope you'll know exactly which part of your fan base I mean - you know, those who'll buy the green and yellow scarf from the street trader outside the Arndale and then head straight to the club shop when they get to Salford).
Chelsea are unsustainable as a football club currently. Should Roman fail to invest or pull the plug, then you can't afford to maintain that squad level (in size or quality) and they'll go back to scrapping for the odd finish above mid-table. My missus is a Chelsea fan (as are her family - old school though) but I'll have to confess that I'll be happy when it happens. Their newer fans are perhaps the most classless and clueless idiots of any team in any league in England.
Arsenal's debt has meant they've not been able to spend on transfer fees without incurring more debt. It's lovingly packaged as Wenger not wanting to spend, but the harsh reality is that the new stadium means that transfer spending is at the cost of more debt for the club. The result? They've won **** all for how long now?
Spurs and Manchester City have been the two biggest spending clubs in Britain for the past two seasons. Manchester City can spend money until their owners run out of oil or get bored. Spurs are on the financial edge. Villa too have pushed their finances as far as is safe to try and get that fourth spot.
So Liverpool - massive debt (we're currently barely balance sheet solvent) caused by throwing money at transfers? Nope. We've made a profit on transfers since summer 2007. Massive debt from buying a new stadium and so investing for the future? Nope. We've spent 45 million on plans for a new stadium but it's no closer than it was four years ago. The debt is purely that two Americans came over and said they had the cash and our previous owner thought they were telling the truth. Instead they were taking out a mortgage and now can't afford to pay it back which is ******** us as a football club. Hardly karma - **** we had Souness as a manager and haven't won the league for two decades.
Crazy thing is that without that debt we're a very, very profitable football club - take out the debt repayments and we've made a profit of 40 million for the past two seasons.
Fun times - no new owner, and next summer we will probably be in administration.
YouTube- Who stole the soul.wmv
sadly there are too many of these
. all fun poking aside, i would dread the day one of the big sides went **** up. It would be crying shamme to lose a side liverpool for exmaple. besides, how can you gloat over a rival if they dont exist?---------- Post added at 07:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------
i second this
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Chamoionship here we come.
Where did the cash from the Ronaldo sale go according to the last accounts released by RFJV? What was the Manchester United loss for that financial year absent the Ronaldo cash? How much reinvestment in the squad happened during that financial year, and why were previously arranged transfers cancelled at the last moment?
Ronaldo may well have wanted to leave with three years on his five year contract outstanding and it's also certainly true that after one year of that contract, Manchester United, Real Madrid and Ronaldo agreed to him moving in the summer of 2009.
Surely theres a difference between the ronaldo money being used to pay off the debts in some way and ronaldo being sold solely because we needed the money?
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
A renaming of the thread may now be in order.
"Argument between Liverpool and Man Utd fans over who is in worse financial state".
"Argument between Liverpool and Man Utd fans over who is in worse financial state".
markodragojevic
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,755
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
What previously arranged transfers?
There is yes. But the two things aren't necessarily opposed to each other - both could equally be true.
Look at the timeline of the sale from the lies Gill and Ferguson told about there being no agreement to sell when later it turned out that there was.
Then there was to the curious coincidence of the sale placing you in profit for the accounts released just prior to a 500 million bond issue rather than trying to raise that money on a set of accounts which would have had you showing a loss.
A further factor is that the Real Madrid money was paid in one lump sum which is very unusual in football - I'd suggest the reason for this was to try and keep your net debt/EBITDA ratio below x6.0 as above that triggered a penalty interest charge from the Pik debt. It didn't work (the ratio was actually x6.2) and it cost Mr.Glazer £4 million of his own money as a result.
---------- Post added at 08:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 AM ----------
Ljajic from Partisan Belgrade.
And if you say 'it's because of work permit issues', no work permit application was ever lodged and that was the second reason used by the club after it was blatantly obvious that the first, 'that his improvement had stalled', was utter nonsense.
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Right people the thread is Liverpool Debts not Man Utd transfers. Go back on topic.
Sorry
Been spending the past few days going through our accounts since the year dot and came back on here for some banter and as a relief and this thread was the first I opened...sadly there are too many of these
Too many clubs' fans aren't even bothered to check their accounts and to make sure the club is being run properly. Never been true for either of our clubs, but far too many of our own fans really don't understand just how these Americans have messed us up. If your debt was because of throwing it all on players, then I'd have little to no sympathy. If our debt was because of doing the same, we'd deserve to be laughed down the leagues. But this **** with leveraged buyouts is just beyond the pale - at least Portsmouth's owners had the decency to do a runner after looting their club.
---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 AM ----------
Sorry mate, posted before I saw that.
Anything anyone wants to know about the debt? Got the accounts back to 2005 in front of me now and can dig back to the 80s if anyone's really interested.
i for one would be interestedSorry
Too many clubs' fans aren't even bothered to check their accounts and to make sure the club is being run properly. Never been true for either of our clubs, but far too many of our own fans really don't understand just how these Americans have messed us up. If your debt was because of throwing it all on players, then I'd have little to no sympathy. If our debt was because of doing the same, we'd deserve to be laughed down the leagues. But this **** with leveraged buyouts is just beyond the pale - at least Portsmouth's owners had the decency to do a runner after looting their club.
---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 AM ----------
Sorry mate, posted before I saw that.
Anything anyone wants to know about the debt? Got the accounts back to 2005 in front of me now and can dig back to the 80s if anyone's really interested.
Yeah, because that's what he said in his interview after winning the league. Oh wait, he said I want to stay didn't he?
And to think for years United have been singing Gerrard kisses the badge on his chest then puts in a transfer request... haha.
Erm, not really. They sold their best player last summer to pay their debt interest... They're going to be milked to obscurity by their new owners for the next decade at least no matter how many Norwich scarves are worn. The distinct lack of sympathy at times from Liverpool supporters is that the company (they are no longer a football club - they did away with that when they floated on the stock market) reaped what it sowed back when it was able to go out and break transfer records every summer. United are a very good investment because the Glazers have shown that the vast majority of Manchester United fans are dumb tourists who'll happily let the club get looted. (And I know there's some good Manchester United fans on this site, so I hope you'll know exactly which part of your fan base I mean - you know, those who'll buy the green and yellow scarf from the street trader outside the Arndale and then head straight to the club shop when they get to Salford).
Chelsea are unsustainable as a football club currently. Should Roman fail to invest or pull the plug, then you can't afford to maintain that squad level (in size or quality) and they'll go back to scrapping for the odd finish above mid-table. My missus is a Chelsea fan (as are her family - old school though) but I'll have to confess that I'll be happy when it happens. Their newer fans are perhaps the most classless and clueless idiots of any team in any league in England.
Arsenal's debt has meant they've not been able to spend on transfer fees without incurring more debt. It's lovingly packaged as Wenger not wanting to spend, but the harsh reality is that the new stadium means that transfer spending is at the cost of more debt for the club. The result? They've won **** all for how long now?
Spurs and Manchester City have been the two biggest spending clubs in Britain for the past two seasons. Manchester City can spend money until their owners run out of oil or get bored. Spurs are on the financial edge. Villa too have pushed their finances as far as is safe to try and get that fourth spot.
So Liverpool - massive debt (we're currently barely balance sheet solvent) caused by throwing money at transfers? Nope. We've made a profit on transfers since summer 2007. Massive debt from buying a new stadium and so investing for the future? Nope. We've spent 45 million on plans for a new stadium but it's no closer than it was four years ago. The debt is purely that two Americans came over and said they had the cash and our previous owner thought they were telling the truth. Instead they were taking out a mortgage and now can't afford to pay it back which is ******** us as a football club. Hardly karma - **** we had Souness as a manager and haven't won the league for two decades.
Crazy thing is that without that debt we're a very, very profitable football club - take out the debt repayments and we've made a profit of 40 million for the past two seasons.
Fun times - no new owner, and next summer we will probably be in administration.
YouTube- Who stole the soul.wmv
again mate i cant stress this enough its all ifs and buts??? and surely chelsea would be a better prospect even if roman wanted to sell, we win things got a pretty good sqaud and we have no debt. their is no reasonm for roman to sell and he hasent said he wants to or not so its just wishfull thinking im afraid mate.