Is this London slang? Google translate fails utterly. Anyone on this?
Transfer Rumours 21/22
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Just wondering. Melwood, presumably they'll build a load of houses on it and get a lot of that 50m back? I'm just guessing by the way, but it's decent round there and I'd guess new builds would make a few quid.
They sold the land to a developer (Torus, not-for profit developer - they put their profits into their charitable arm which runs community facilities like FireFit in Toxteth). We'll have got some cash for it but I'd be surprised it was more than a few million (you could probably find out via Land Registry if you knew the title numbers). Torus won't be looking at making huge profits on the houses so I suspect they won't have paid much for the land. They're supposedly preserving some of the facilities for the Fowler Academy and Carragher's 23 Foundation to use. I suspect the more profit-motivated developers may have been put off by likely push-back from locals with the site being in the middle of existing residential. Torus's proposals, which keep some of the facilities for community use, will be more palatable and likely to get planning consent.
Some detail on Torus and Melwood here, this is from earlier this year and before the Fowler/Carragher announcement which was a couple of months ago from memory - https://www.torusconsultations.co.uk/melwood/
EDIT - just checked and the sale went through in the last set of accounts - total proceeds from sale of assets was £9.5m (this could include some other stuff but it will mostly be Melwood, less legal fees etc). The rumoured sale price at the time was £10m so that stacks up, more than I thought they'd get TBH.
Last edited:
Jesus Christ. How many times have we had this conversation on the forum? Barca do NOT. Repeat DO NOT owe us any more money for Philippe Fucking Coutinho. Educate yourself a bit and people won't think you're a reprobate. There are a number of sources on this forum which have gone to the trouble to explain all this.
I wouldn’t have thought that planning at Melwood would have refused regardless of who the developer was. If it is primarily a residential area anyway then it is just a case of putting more houses in an area that already has a lot of houses - as long as they aren’t massively high, have enough parking, community facilities and probably the odd green space thrown in.
The public consultations really only result in a few compromises. As long as developers are not going against anything in local council plans then on big sites like that they can usually force it through on appeal if they need to, and councils never like to turn things down if they know it will go against them on appeal.
The public consultations really only result in a few compromises. As long as developers are not going against anything in local council plans then on big sites like that they can usually force it through on appeal if they need to, and councils never like to turn things down if they know it will go against them on appeal.
Agreed, and if the club were smart they'd have got outline planning permission before they sold it to maximise the sale price (Edit, just saw Woland said they did). But an organisation like Torus will have got an easier ride than most commercial developers would have done as they'd be seen as more "acceptable" politically.
Burnley only buying him to put out the cones
Did they pay all the money they owed...No We had to sell the debt on, but they still owe the money, only no not to us, but they did try to stiff us
Are you fucking stupid?
We didn't have to sell the debt on. We did it so we get the cash up front. We used a specialist finance company which a lot of football clubs now do when freeing up transfer cash. They don't owe money to us, they owe it to the finance company we sold the debt on. Do you understand? No one was stiffed.
unfortunately it is 82.500 Euros
But yes 82.5 Euros a week would be a even more temping price
If you have to ask that question then you haven't been paying attention.
You try to give people the benefit of doubt. Obviously for some it's not worth doing
What was being reported wast that Braca did not play Coutinho for in 2020/2021 because it would trigger a cuase by which they had to play LFc x-amount of millions
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/barcelona-will-not-play-philippe-23481281
https://www.football-espana.net/2021/07/18/barcelona-philippe-coutinho-liverpool-payment
both stories are from 10 Feb 2021 which is what I was refering to and why I said the tried to stiff us
Am I fucking stupid....?
Let me answer that by asking, "Are you as smart as you think you are..?"
Ok let me explain for the last time. Ignore the mirror, ignore ESPN or any other shit Spanish website. Liverpool sold the transfer debt to a finance company. The clauses and extra payments from Barca for appearances don't count. It is the finance company who would get that money from Barca. So Barca won't/aren't stuffing us by not playing Coutinho they are screwing the finance company we sold the debt to. Comprende?
from the echo
But while the accounts show that the debt to Liverpool remains, the Reds have actually received the cash after selling the debt to a third party financial institution.
Ok I will concede I have it wrong debt wise, But when I asked if you where as smart as you think you are, I meant that you seem to either miss, or just ignored the main part of the post which was given that Barca was willing to pay half his wages (165-400 thousand Euros aweek depending on where you look) meaning we could pick him up for the year at half that rate would it not be worth the punt.to sign him on loan for the season...?
Thank you I did not know that
I remain of the view that it probably wasn't our idea to sell the debt. We'd never done this before on any other transfer and if we needed to borrow money it would be cheaper to go to the bank. Clubs sell transfer debt or borrow against future media revenue only when they really have to because they can't borrow from the bank. This is football's equivalent of a pay-day loan. Relatively speaking it's expensive and it's nothing more than a short-term fix.
Barca needed more time to pay. They were in a mess, they knew it. They'd spent beyond their means.
So I think Barca approached a lender to buy the debt off Liverpool (so Barca would then owe the lender) but then asked the lender to extend the repayment terms to give them more time to pay (hence why there is still money outstanding in their last accounts, even though with Suarez, for example, it was all paid within 2 years and a day).
An expensive way of doing things but they would get to present, in their accounts, what was basically debt to a financial institution as if it were still a transfer debt, thus attracting less scrutiny of how messed up their finances were (because a lot of analysts wouldn't view transfer debt as borrowings).
We would have had to consent to sell the debt but would get paid early, rather than risking not getting paid at all because Barca were in a mess, so why wouldn't we do it?
This magical figure that keeps getting quoted speculatively seemingly relates to €40m of contingent payments for various things - appearances, league wins etc. But to be clear, I've NEVER seen a deal where contingencies needed to be fully satisfied before anything is paid - contingencies ALWAYS get paid as soon as the conditions are met. So if Barca are holding back on giving Coutinho another game, it's so they won't trigger another €2-3m (being part of the maximum total of €40m), they will already have paid the majority of that €40m piecemeal, as and when the conditions were met.
Barca needed more time to pay. They were in a mess, they knew it. They'd spent beyond their means.
So I think Barca approached a lender to buy the debt off Liverpool (so Barca would then owe the lender) but then asked the lender to extend the repayment terms to give them more time to pay (hence why there is still money outstanding in their last accounts, even though with Suarez, for example, it was all paid within 2 years and a day).
An expensive way of doing things but they would get to present, in their accounts, what was basically debt to a financial institution as if it were still a transfer debt, thus attracting less scrutiny of how messed up their finances were (because a lot of analysts wouldn't view transfer debt as borrowings).
We would have had to consent to sell the debt but would get paid early, rather than risking not getting paid at all because Barca were in a mess, so why wouldn't we do it?
This magical figure that keeps getting quoted speculatively seemingly relates to €40m of contingent payments for various things - appearances, league wins etc. But to be clear, I've NEVER seen a deal where contingencies needed to be fully satisfied before anything is paid - contingencies ALWAYS get paid as soon as the conditions are met. So if Barca are holding back on giving Coutinho another game, it's so they won't trigger another €2-3m (being part of the maximum total of €40m), they will already have paid the majority of that €40m piecemeal, as and when the conditions were met.
@Beamrider owning the last few pages of this thread. Thanks for the detailed posts.
It's not really a valid point.
Some owners are constrained by finances, some are constrained by how much blood they can spill
How have our owners benefited? What dividends have they taken from the club?
- Status
