• 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.

Excellent Guardian Article on Investment & Ownership

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryan

The Prophet
Member
Penned by the always-excellent David Conn. Spells it out in black & white really...

Tom Hicks and George Gillett take Liverpool further from new Anfield

Liverpool's new stadium prospects are now more remote than when Tom Hicks and George Gillett arrived


There are many bridges to cross before Liverpool's co-owners must decide whether to accept the Rhône Group's £110m offer for a 40% stake, but the bid lays bare the icy state the club are in.

The proposal's key detail is that not a penny of all those millions would go to Tom Hicks or George Gillett but, instead, would reduce Liverpool's £237m debts to Royal Bank of Scotland and the American bank Wachovia. Liverpool are only carrying that debt burden, or at least £185m of it, because the two Americans, who arrived as purported saviours in February 2007, borrowed the money to take over, then loaded the club with the responsibility to repay it.

Hicks and Gillett had said they would not "do a Glazer" and saddle the club with their own borrowings. But they did and now the new stadium they promised to build "as soon as reasonably practicable" cannot be contemplated until the debts they imposed are dramatically reduced.

Rhône's bid, the first firm investment offer the chief executive, Christian Purslow, is known to have received, would reduce Hicks and Gillett to a 30% stake each and pay nothing to them for the 20% they have ceded. Intimations from Hicks that the deal is not lucrative enough for him are unlikely to wash if no other firm bids are prompted by Rhône's offer. Hicks and Gillett are pinned to a deadline because RBS, which is 70% owned by the British public and last month announced a £6.2bn operating loss for the 2008-09 financial year, insists Liverpool must reduce their exposure to it by £100m by July.

Hicks and Gillett only ever came to Liverpool because of the unconvincing idea that to build the new stadium on Stanley Park, which has grown barnacles over a decade on the architect's drawing board, rich individuals were needed to stand behind the financing. Arsenal built the Emirates Stadium, a hugely more complex project in inner-city Islington than digging up a Victorian park will be in Liverpool, with no such personal funding or guarantees.

The Emirates was financed with £260m borrowed on the stadium's commercial merits, a genuine mortgage?style investment recognised as the stand-out sensible Premier League borrowing in a morass of "living the dream" and leveraged buyouts. Having reduced their net debt steadily to £190m, Arsenal are scampering to the end of their fourth season at the Emirates with a Premier League title in realistic sight, while Liverpool, whose takeover dragged them back far behind where they were in 2007, are scrapping earnestly for fourth place.

In their official offer document, Hicks and Gillett set out that they were paying £174.1m for Liverpool, plus £11m that the professionals, including NM Rothschild, the bank, were charging for their services. Hicks and Gillett borrowed all £185m from RBS and took on further borrowing facilities of £113m for investment in the club: £298m potentially borrowed in total. Before their takeover, Liverpool had net debts of £44.8m.

"The families are well aware of the importance of investment in new players to achieve on-pitch success," Gillett and Hicks said of their intentions, "and as such are prepared to commit resources to make appropriate investment in the playing squad."

Of the stadium they said: "Kop [the families' holding company] shares the wishes and ambitions of the fans for the club to be playing top-quality football in a new stadium … Kop recognises that the new stadium will be a catalyst for the regeneration of the local area … Kop has indicated its intention … to commence the process of building one of the leading stadia in Europe as soon as reasonably practicable. Both George Gillett and Thomas O Hicks have experience in developing and/or operating sports stadia."

Among those warm, woolly intentions was one firm commitment relating to the millions Hicks and Gillett had borrowed to buy Liverpool: "The payment of interest on, repayment of or security for any liability due under the [borrowing] facilities will not depend to any significant extent on the business of Liverpool."

That, we now know, did not turn out to be the case. The £237m still owed to RBS and Wachovia is, strictly, due from the holding company, but Kop owns no other business except Liverpool. The club are without question being made to pay the interest and service the debt. In the most recent accounts, for the year to 31 July 2008, interest of £36.5m was paid by Kop, and Kop's income was wholly derived from the club – from television, commercial activities, and enraged supporters.

At 31 January 2009, the total owed to the banks was £313m, which still included the £185m Hicks and Gillett borrowed to buy the club in the first place. Uncertainty over whether the pair would be able to extend their bank loans led to the auditors' famous warning of "a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt" over whether Liverpool would even be able to "continue as a going concern".

That the club's debt is now stated to be £237m indicates that Hicks and Gillett have been forced to put solid money in to reduce it, including £60m as part of last summer's refinancing. Their cash investment is now understood to be £130m, much more than they must have hoped when they borrowed all that money in the sunny bubble of the borrowing boom. Now, in a credit crunch, RBS insists it must reduce the outstanding debts burdening its own hideous balance sheet.

Purslow, a former banker appointed last June to break the Anfield deadlock and find new investment, is understood to have five other parties from around the world who have inspected Liverpool's books, and he will hope Rhône's shrewdly calculated offer prompts others to bid.

Under their proposal, the New York-based Rhône Group would not receive interest payments on their £110m, because it is real investment, for shares, not more debt. Purslow's plan is that Liverpool, with the debt thereby reduced, may then be able to finance building the stadium, which Liverpool predict would have an Emirates-like effect on the club's earning power.

Hicks and Gillett were, in truth, only ever intending to borrow for the new stadium; there is no chance of that until the club's existing debts are reduced and, all the while, the cost has been rising, now to an estimated £450m.

First conceived more than a decade ago, woven into wider regeneration plans for the Anfield and Breckfield neighbourhoods, the new stadium is a more distant prospect for Liverpool now than it was when Hicks and Gillett arrived three years ago promising to build it. The debts with which their takeover saddled the club have to be reduced, to restore the club closer to where it was financially before they arrived, so that money can finally be borrowed to finance a new era.

Such are the charms of the leveraged buyout, at Anfield and Old Trafford, about which the Football Association and Premier League remain resoundingly silent.
 
So with no investment we'll have to sell 100M worth of players to stay afloat?

Only one player comes to mind for that :'(
 
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=39340.msg1071050#msg1071050 date=1268793319]
So with no investment we'll have to sell 100M worth of players to stay afloat?

Only one player comes to mind for that :'(
[/quote]

Well either that or:

We borrow again
G & H dip into their own pockets
We somehow get an extension, which is delaying the inevitable.

So yes, we need investment before July.
 
Why didn't the Americans sell the club several years ago when they were offered a significant profit on their investment?

How can such clueless businessmen get so rich? The mind boggles.
 
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=39340.msg1071052#msg1071052 date=1268793607]
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=39340.msg1071050#msg1071050 date=1268793319]
So with no investment we'll have to sell 100M worth of players to stay afloat?

Only one player comes to mind for that :'(
[/quote]

Well either that or:

We borrow again I doubt we can refinance the loans a 2nd time can we?
G & H dip into their own pockets Isn't all their money tied up?
We somehow get an extension, which is delaying the inevitable. We already got one didn't we?

So yes, we need investment before July. Maybe we could sell the naming rights of the stadium early!


[/quote]
 
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39340.msg1071054#msg1071054 date=1268793750]
Why didn't the Americans sell the club several years ago when they were offered a significant profit on their investment?

How can such clueless businessmen get so rich? The mind boggles.
[/quote]

leveraged buyouts are the norm in business not the exception, the only clueless people are us for not seeing it coming and allowing it happen despite the past track record of the pair
 
Really, I cannot imagine what Moores was thinking when he sold to these cowboys. The DD was done so quickly that it felt like a sale of desperation.

Sure the family did a lot for the club / city, but by God this was a poor decision.
 
[quote author=Terrier link=topic=39340.msg1071118#msg1071118 date=1268810647]
Really, I cannot imagine what Moores was thinking when he sold to these cowboys. [/quote]


88M
 
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=39340.msg1071050#msg1071050 date=1268793319]
So with no investment we'll have to sell 100M worth of players to stay afloat?

Only one player comes to mind for that :'(
[/quote]



wall1.gif


He has to agree to it before he can be sold.......
 
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=39340.msg1071052#msg1071052 date=1268793607]
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=39340.msg1071050#msg1071050 date=1268793319]
So with no investment we'll have to sell 100M worth of players to stay afloat?

Only one player comes to mind for that :'(
[/quote]

Well either that or:

We borrow again
G & H dip into their own pockets
We somehow get an extension, which is delaying the inevitable.

So yes, we need investment before July.
[/quote]

The middle one is the most likely out of those three, but there's not a chance of it happening.

does that make sense ?
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39340.msg1071176#msg1071176 date=1268817963]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=39340.msg1071052#msg1071052 date=1268793607]
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=39340.msg1071050#msg1071050 date=1268793319]
So with no investment we'll have to sell 100M worth of players to stay afloat?

Only one player comes to mind for that :'(
[/quote]

Well either that or:

We borrow again
G & H dip into their own pockets
We somehow get an extension, which is delaying the inevitable.

So yes, we need investment before July.
[/quote]

The middle one is the most likely out of those three, but there's not a chance of it happening.

does that make sense ?
[/quote]

Ha, unfortunately it does.
 
And that's why the Rhone Group have the leverage in the negotiations. They're asking for a big chunk in the club for not anywhere near as much as the Yanks would have liked. They probably wanted 200m for that.

I wonder whether the Stadium is such a good idea at this stage. There were empty seats at Anfield on Monday, it was our lowest attendance during the Rafa years. Maybe because it was a Monday night game the away fans, and OOTers didn't show up but it would be very concerning if it was to happen again. If we can't sell out Anfield now then a new stadium could end up costing us money.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39340.msg1071184#msg1071184 date=126881870 a new stadium could end up costing us money.
[/quote]

New stadia are seldom free.
 
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39340.msg1071054#msg1071054 date=1268793750]
Why didn't the Americans sell the club several years ago when they were offered a significant profit on their investment?

How can such clueless businessmen get so rich? The mind boggles.
[/quote]

Because they anticipated a far bigger profit further down the line. The biggest figure they seem to have been offered was £500 mill.and yes, that's a stonking great wedge of cash all right, but the club is actually worth at least double that (source: Forbes.com). In that light, they won't sell even now (if it happens at all) because they want to, but because the banks insist.
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39340.msg1071120#msg1071120 date=1268810826]
[quote author=Terrier link=topic=39340.msg1071118#msg1071118 date=1268810647]
Really, I cannot imagine what Moores was thinking when he sold to these cowboys. [/quote]


88M
[/quote]

That plus the fact that, having dithered over previous enquiries and naffed them all off, he found himself with just the one offer on the table.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39340.msg1071184#msg1071184 date=1268818704]
And that's why the Rhone Group have the leverage in the negotiations. They're asking for a big chunk in the club for not anywhere near as much as the Yanks would have liked. They probably wanted 200m for that.

I wonder whether the Stadium is such a good idea at this stage. There were empty seats at Anfield on Monday, it was our lowest attendance during the Rafa years. Maybe because it was a Monday night game the away fans, and OOTers didn't show up but it would be very concerning if it was to happen again. If we can't sell out Anfield now then a new stadium could end up costing us money.
[/quote]

Yeh, fecking OOTers. Seriously though, you're right Rosco empty seats isn't good but it has come at the tail end of an atrocious season where, for the most part, the ground has been mostly full. There was even more than I expected for the Unirea game. Only good football on the pitch will ensure the stadium is ever full, if built. The two go hand in hand.
 
I agree completely Sunny. It's no coincidence that all the teams who fill big stadiums regularly- United, Arsenal, Real, Barcelona all play football that people would happily pay to see. We haven't done that with any consistency under Rafa or Houllier.

I was at the Emirates in January for the Bolton game (which was rearranged after the first date was cancelled) - 69,000 turned up on a Wednesday night. And everyone was entertained.

And on the OOTers point - I'd be willing to bet trips from Ireland are well down this year on account of the job losses for some and pay cuts for others.
 
Please forgive me in advance but, if we're struggling to keep up with the interest payments on £237m worth of debt, how are we going to be able to cope with them when we owe around £587m?
 
i'd imagine a fair amount of the extra 15000 seats could be sold as season tickets, i don't think there's any doubt there's an excess demand for those at the moment.

as for the pompey attendance, it doesn't seem too much to worry about at this stage, surely:

- they hardly brought any fans
- as has been said, we're in terrible form
- people still struggling with the recession

and i reckon people are far more bothered about seeing a winning team than one playing nice football per se. personally, the only requirement i have for enjoing the match is a win, and that's from someone who'd love to see us play more attacking football.
 
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=39340.msg1071211#msg1071211 date=1268820345]
Please forgive me in advance but, if we're struggling to keep up with the interest payments on £237m worth of debt, how are we going to be able to cope with them when we owe around £587m?
[/quote]

the idea is rhone invest a 100m and that will make us a better propersition for loan and then the loan for a stadium would be similar to the loan on a house i.e. you are spreading the repayments of a really long period of time.
 
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=39340.msg1071265#msg1071265 date=1268827122]
There was empty seats scattered all over the place. A big chunk in the Anfield Road End, and pockets all over the main stand.
[/quote]

These could as well come from Season ticket holders. So the income was there anyway.

Also a new stadium will give much more income from VIP section.
 
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=39340.msg1071268#msg1071268 date=1268827284]
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=39340.msg1071265#msg1071265 date=1268827122]
There was empty seats scattered all over the place. A big chunk in the Anfield Road End, and pockets all over the main stand.
[/quote]

These could as well come from Season ticket holders. So the income was there anyway.

Also a new stadium will give much more income from VIP section.


[/quote]


yep, people often seem to overlook the second point. i've been in a private box at arsenal and the amount of money they must rake in from it is huge: ours was maybe 12ft wide so you can imagine how many they'd squeeze in round the whole ground, and there are a few layers of them. then you've got the restaurants etc...

it does seem crazy that in 10 years we've been unable to get the funding in place...perhaps it was available but the previous owners were unwilling to see our future mortgaged, i guess that would make sense when you see the problems teams like soton and leicester have had.
 
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=39340.msg1071268#msg1071268 date=1268827284]

Also a new stadium will give much more income from VIP section.


[/quote]

excellent point
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=39340.msg1071290#msg1071290 date=1268830576]
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=39340.msg1071268#msg1071268 date=1268827284]
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=39340.msg1071265#msg1071265 date=1268827122]
There was empty seats scattered all over the place. A big chunk in the Anfield Road End, and pockets all over the main stand.
[/quote]

These could as well come from Season ticket holders. So the income was there anyway.

Also a new stadium will give much more income from VIP section.


[/quote]


yep, people often seem to overlook the second point. i've been in a private box at arsenal and the amount of money they must rake in from it is huge: ours was maybe 12ft wide so you can imagine how many they'd squeeze in round the whole ground, and there are a few layers of them. then you've got the restaurants etc...

it does seem crazy that in 10 years we've been unable to get the funding in place...perhaps it was available but the previous owners were unwilling to see our future mortgaged, i guess that would make sense when you see the problems teams like soton and leicester have had.
[/quote]

There's far more call for VIP/ corporate boxes in London for very obvious reasons, so there's not much chance we could ever expect to match that particular revenue stream.
 
Just did a quick search, the Emirates corporate hospitality holds 7000 on a match day. If the new Liverpool stadium had the same it wouldn't take much to fill that considering you have maybe 30 home games a season. It should be easy to sell suites to sponsors, local business and the big shot out of town business folk.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39340.msg1071420#msg1071420 date=1268844995]
United are finding it increasingly difficult to sell corporate boxes
[/quote]

Interesting. I thought that due to the limited availability selling boxes wouldn't be a problem.

You may be surprised to hear that this isn't the first time I've been wrong about something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom