• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Cunt owners claim £2m in expenses over 18 months

Status
Not open for further replies.

MaschedUp

Active
Member
Liverpool pay US owners millions in expenses

guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 June 2009 22.00 BST

Liverpool are being made to pay almost £2m to cover the travel, legal and other personal expenses of the club's owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett. The accounts published for the owners' holding company, Kop Football, for the year to 31 July 2008, show that Hicks charged £192,000 for "third party consulting, travel and other expenses," while Gillett charged £129,000 for "reimbursable travel, legal, personnel and other expenses".

The two men charged significant amounts of money for the same expenses, incurred by themselves personally "and affiliated companies", during the previous seven-month accounting period, which ran from 18 December 2006 to 31 July 2007, too. Hicks charged Kop £198,000, while Gillett charged £375,000.

The pair also claimed almost £1m for what are described in the accounts as "transaction-related expenses". Hicks and affiliated companies charged Kop £133,000 in this category, while Gillett's figure was much higher: £823,000. The total charged to Kop in expenses, for the owners and their affiliated companies, in 18 months from their takeover in early February 2007 to the accounts' end date of 31 July 2008, was £1.85m.

The accounts do not explain in further detail what "consulting, travel, legal, personnel and other expenses" were, or which were regarded as "reimbursable", and Hicks and Gillett were not available to respond with details yesterday. Nor was there any explanation of what constituted "transaction-related expenses". However, the only substantial transaction from December 2006 to July 2007 was the pair's takeover of the club itself. They borrowed £185m from the Royal Bank of Scotland to buy Liverpool in February 2007, and the club has been made responsible for paying the interest on that loan. Now it seems the club has also been made to pay for the pair's costs of doing the deal.

The accounts, published last week, showed that Kop owed a total of £313m to the Royal Bank of Scotland and ­Wachovia in January this year, and that £36.8m was payable in interest last year. Kop's only asset is Liverpool Football Club so the interest, and the reimbursement of expenses, have to come from the club's income, made from television, supporters paying to watch matches, and other commercial earnings. Hicks and Gillett did loan Kop £58.2m from their holding company in the Cayman Islands last year.

Not all the expenses claimed had been paid by July 2008. The accounts state that of the £523,000 charged by Hicks and his affiliates, £188,000 was still owed, which meant he had been paid £335,000 by Liverpool. Of the £1.327m Gillett claimed for his expenses, £255,000 was outstanding, so Liverpool had paid him £1.072m.

The revelation about the expenses has further incensed supporters' groups who have campaigned for Hicks and Gillett to sell up and leave. The groups accuse the pair of breaking their promise not to make the club pay for their own borrowings to take it over, as the Glazer family did at Manchester United. Liverpool was sold because the previous chairman, David Moores, and chief executive, Rick Parry, believed the club needed wealthy backers to build the long-planned new stadium on Stanley Park, yet the North American pair have not found the finance.

James McKenna, spokesman for the Spirit of Shankly fans' group, said: "Hicks and Gillett were the multimillionaires who promised not to do a Glazer and that work would start on the new stadium within 60 days. Yet now we find, as fans, not only are we paying for their takeover, but we are also paying for their costs of having done it, and, for coming over to visit the football club. They were supposed to bring investment to take the club forward, but it turns out we're even paying their travel costs."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/08/liverpool-tom-hicks-george-gillet

It just gets worse and worse. >🙁
 
That story is over a year old. Hmmm, I smell yet another media smear campaign, they're really laying into us at the moment, from all angles.

Have to laugh at the notion that there's no anti LFC agenda in the press. They'd love nothing more to see us collapse.
 
[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34060.msg884596#msg884596 date=1244500072]
That story is over a year old. Hmmm, I smell yet another media smear campaign, they're really laying into us at the moment, from all angles.

Have to laugh at the notion that there's no anti LFC agenda in the press. They'd love nothing more to see us collapse.
[/quote]

Is it?? Seems like its fairly recent to me.
 
It's all fair and well calling them "cunts", but the root cause of all this is Moores and Parry being so fucking ridiculously gullible that we've ended up with these two 'cunts' as our owners.

At what point are either of them going to come out and admit they made a truly fucking whopping error of judgement? After 3 years of searching?
 
[quote author=Gareth link=topic=34060.msg884628#msg884628 date=1244506152]
In an autobiography i'd imagine.

It'd be a fucking bestseller.
[/quote]

Entitled "Life Honoury President, my fucking arse!"
 
To be honest, I'd be pissed off if anyone but shareholders started moaning about expenses I charge towards a company I frickin' own. In this case, being a privately owned company they have the right to do whatever they want.
2m does sound ridiculous though.
 
i would be worried about these parasites. our profit was 10M this year, and they spent 2M on travel and legal expenses. wankers.
 
The accounts were published a while ago - why is this story only being written now? It just seems like they've picked out something at random (and oh so very topical) to bleat on about.

We all know the owners are shit and don't need a sensationalist story every two seconds trying to ram that point down our throats. Whether they claim 2M, nothing or a 100M doesn't really change our situation.

Oh, and totally agree with Ryan. Moores and co. have gotten off very lightly in all this.
 
It could be worse, we could be West Ham. Sold by a group in administration to a group that could be bankrupt by the end of the week :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/09/west-ham-takeover-collapse-iceland-digger

West Ham United's new owners may be forced into bankruptcy proceedings within 72 hours, casting doubt on assurances that it has brought stability to Upton Park.

CB Holding, a special-purpose vehicle whose 70% shareholder is the stricken Icelandic investment bank Straumur, took control of the Premier League club on Monday. Straumur said the move, first revealed by this column in April, was necessary because a moratorium – a suspension of payments to creditors – granted to the club's former owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson's investment company, Hansa, was due to expire on Tuesday.

In the event that Hansa had, as expected, been declared bankrupt West Ham would have been liable to Premier League sanctions. However, Straumur, which is effectively bust, has a similar moratorium over its own liabilities and must apply on Thursday to the District Court of Reykjavik for a six-month extension to that agreement.
 
Pathetic - Anyone who thinks this is not outrageous, regardless of "they own the club" need to take a long hard look at themselves. Those expenses come out of my pocket - your pocket , because we want to see our team do well we pay the price.

As has been stated many times previously on this site - why should WE pay for them to own our club !

Can you not see the irony - shame on anyone who thinks differently

Moores and Parry are a seperate issue that needs to be resolved, and they will be in the fullness of time
 
that's the leveraged buy out model / con artistry...

I still can't believe they had the balls to suggest they wouldn't do a Glazer....

I may be getting older, but I don't have time for these kind of wankers anymore...
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=34060.msg884668#msg884668 date=1244529043]
The accounts were published a while ago - why is this story only being written now? It just seems like they've picked out something at random (and oh so very topical) to bleat on about.

[/quote]

No they weren't... they were given to companies house yes, with a top line overview. However, they've only just been made available to stakeholders in the last week. I can't find them on the website though, and too lazy to check companies house.
 
[quote author=Mr_V link=topic=34060.msg885171#msg885171 date=1244568525]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=34060.msg884668#msg884668 date=1244529043]
The accounts were published a while ago - why is this story only being written now? It just seems like they've picked out something at random (and oh so very topical) to bleat on about.

[/quote]

No they weren't... they were given to companies house yes, with a top line overview. However, they've only just been made available to stakeholders in the last week. I can't find them on the website though, and too lazy to check companies house.
[/quote]

The guy on RAWK who analyses this sort of stuff made a post on the accounts last week. Was he not using the full accounts then?
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=34060.msg885173#msg885173 date=1244568712]
[quote author=Mr_V link=topic=34060.msg885171#msg885171 date=1244568525]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=34060.msg884668#msg884668 date=1244529043]
The accounts were published a while ago - why is this story only being written now? It just seems like they've picked out something at random (and oh so very topical) to bleat on about.

[/quote]

No they weren't... they were given to companies house yes, with a top line overview. However, they've only just been made available to stakeholders in the last week. I can't find them on the website though, and too lazy to check companies house.
[/quote]

The guy on RAWK who analyses this sort of stuff made a post on the accounts last week. Was he not using the full accounts then?
[/quote]

He could have had a copy of the accounts from an insider, or worked on the accounts himself. But I doubt he'd have had the full accounts, other than what was released to the public. I could be wrong though.
 
[quote author=Bologna link=topic=34060.msg885237#msg885237 date=1244577889]
c'est un cauchemar, mes amis
[/quote]

pas maintenant, mais ces "bozos" n'est ce pas le "vrai chose"....
 
Bien sur.

mais, pour les problemès avec l'argent, une résolution imminente sembler peu probable .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom