Love to see it.
They are the cunts we accuse them of being.
How much of the Nico payoff will go to us to settle the Coutinho account?
Football Finance
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Love to see it.
They are the cunts we accuse them of being.
How much of the Nico payoff will go to us to settle the Coutinho account?
@Beamrider I hope you don't mind me asking and you don't mind answering...
The Dynasty Capital bought a small %of the club, where did that money go? I hear it was much as £160m? I thought it would be used to take all the intra company debt off the books. However, when I google, its shows the club still owes £70m to FSG. If you include intracompany debt and external debt, where does the club stand? With 3 windows of net 0 spending, in you're opinion does that mitigate the loss made when we didn't qualify for the CL?
The Dynasty Capital bought a small %of the club, where did that money go? I hear it was much as £160m? I thought it would be used to take all the intra company debt off the books. However, when I google, its shows the club still owes £70m to FSG. If you include intracompany debt and external debt, where does the club stand? With 3 windows of net 0 spending, in you're opinion does that mitigate the loss made when we didn't qualify for the CL?
At the time (September 2023), the Dynasty investment was described as a minority investment in LFC (i.e. NOT in FSG, just us). The club's official website stated that "The minority investment will primarily be used to pay down bank debt incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and capital expenses made to enhance Anfield, build the AXA Training Centre, repurchase Melwood training ground and, most recently, acquisitions during the summer transfer window."
I don't dispute any of that.
The rumoured range of investment was between £64m and £128m - I'm guessing this is something dollar-related and the description of the investment may imply that range in US finance speak. I say that because it's a wide, but quite specific, range of values.
Bear in mind that the debt figures you mentioned are from the May 2023 accounts - so most of the capital expenditure had been spent, other than finalising Annie Road (although there could have been £20m+ still to spend to finish that project as the expenditure is often end-loaded into the close season and the contractor had gone bust).
The debt to FSG is, I believe, the residual debt from the Main Stand and we've not repaid any of that since 2020. If there is surplus cash on hand, they'll repay some of it, but if there is a need for investment in the club then they'll leave it outstanding.
The club's net debt per accounts at 31 May 2023 was £145m (£71.4m FSG, £87.1m bank, less £13.5m cash). The bank debt is typically quite low at the end of May as season ticket money for the following year has been collected. Over summer, the club still incurs most of its normal costs (wages and overheads) but there is not much match-related income. We will bill most of our sponsorship / partnership revenue for the following season to be paid in June so we can cover those costs - obviously the shirt sponsorship / kit deals will be chunky numbers.
The summer 2023 transfer window saw us sell Hendo and Fabinho, and buy Mac, Szob, Gravy and Endo. Given that Mac and Szob were on release fees, it's possible we would have had to pay the whole fee up-front, rather than just 1/3. That means in cash terms we may have paid out an extra c. £60m for them compared to a normal window (but then we'll have paid £30m less last summer and won't have a £30m payment due this summer either). That would have put a strain on bank facilities in 2023 and was probably what drove the Dynasty deal.
So Dynasty should have cured the shortfall in Autumn 2023, and we should now have more scope for outlay.
BUT - the Dynasty investment ought to have gone into LFC as a share injection. And if it had done, we should have made a filing with Companies House to record the share issue. We haven't done so. Nor has our holding company (UKSV Holdings). And neither company has recorded Dynasty as a shareholder. It's possible the Dynasty investment came in a level above (UKSV I LLC, a US company) but US companies don't publish their accounts publicly so I can't tell.
It's also possible that the club just forgot to file the relevant paperwork, and I genuinely would't rule that out.
Finally, with regards to the loss we will have made in 2024, I really don't think it will be that big a number. My best guess would be £30-40m. We will know soon as the club needs to file its accounts by 28 February.
But in summary, I think the main things holding us back from spending at the moment are the need to resolve the contract three and / or that the players we want / need aren't available and we're not going to settle for 2nd choices.
I don't think it's for a lack of money to spend, and I don't think there is some kind of financial conspiracy going on under our noses.
Thanks for that, so are you saying the cash injection may not have happenned
He’s saying “maybes aye… maybes naw”, no way to be sure, but don’t worry, we’ll have funds to spend in the summer one way or the other.
Do you know what ? I like not spending and winning, getting used to it now, hopefully we dont buy anyone in the summer.
I don't doubt that the cash came in and I don't believe the club would have said what they'd spend it on if they didn't do that.
But either:
There was a share injection at LFC level that wasn't reported; or
The money came in some other way (a loan from parent or a straight capital contribution).
I'd have expected a share injection.
We will know at the end of the month / beginning of next month when the accounts are published.
You’ll ascend to levels of top redness that us mere mortals can only dream of.
Fuck's sake man, get your act together.
I know, right... joke.
Thats what I saw.... Debts increased which is why i was asking where the cash injection had gone? if you are saying that FSG could have used the cash injection to plug the financial gap for not qualifying for Europe then it would manifest itself with the bank debt showing this as either being constant or lower right? Right now from what you can see you cannot see clear evidence of a cash injection from a 3rd party, right?
I don't pay my SCM exclusive top band platinum tier membership fees for this level of information.
The debt figures you saw were before the cash injection (accounts are to 31 May 2023, the Dynasty investment was September 2023, the day after the accounts were signed so it's not even mentioned, never mind accounted for).
The cash injection will be in the 31 May 2024 accounts, which are due to be filed on 28 February 2025, and will be available to the public a few days after that. There's usually a press release with key figures / spin at the time of filing.
EDIT
And what the figures are showing is an increase in net debt of nearly £50m in 2023, which is why they accepted the Dynasty investment, to get that back under control. If you compare us with Tottenham / Arsenal, they funded the long-term costs of their capital programmes with long-term debt, whereas our spend was more moderate and has effectively been repaid by a co-investment, rather than taking on long-term debt. Tottenham have huge debts, but they are affordable. We could afford to service our debts too, but the issue was likely that we'd have had to move a chunk of it into a long-term borrowing structure. Basically, we used our overdraft to pay for stuff, rather than getting a mortgage.
Thanks mate...
Lets see how much impact the Dynasty Injection has had. The Redbird investment covered the Liverpool purchase or you could say the Penguin purchase
Fixed.
I am being serious - if that c*nt guy posts anything like "Here we go " - related to us getting in a new player - I am going to respond:
"Why have we signed someone ? - what's the point - mate (referring to player coming in) - can you just f*ck off ? we don't need you - if you are a:
option1: - defender just head to Arsenal, Arteta can't get enough of your kind.."
option2: - striker just don't go to Arsenal - they have striker allergy, don't goto Chelsea they will turn you into a dick, head to Spurs mate they just attack attack"
option3:- midfielder - head to City mate - they got no legs in midfield, they will love you"
option4:- CDM - ah - look you are definitely not the right player, we just love looking for a CDM' and not getting one, kind of like it now - not having one - so can you fuck off ?
transfer window is closed..... It was clear early on we would get no one. Right now its important to get Salah and VVD signed up. Come Summer, we know where stand.
Our weak links are
Quansah, Robbo and Trent at the moment...
Going down swinging of know they are ok?
Going down swinging methinks. When the league quickly voted to amend the rules, all that did was to tighten the noose around City's neck. It didn't do anything to potentially absolve them of culpability rather it said, yeh okay fair enough - lets include low interest shareholder loans in the APT regulation equation. Meaning that even now with fully amended regs, they're still fucked. I think they wanted to slow the amendments down so that they could use them to erase their financial shenanigans.
Wrong bitches. They're still coming for you.
Wrong bitches. They're still coming for you.
Today Pep has said "In one month, I think there will be a verdict and a sentence. After that, we will see my opinion of what happened so far."
There'll only be a sentence if they find you guilty pal, sounds like that's what you're expecting, which is odd, as you've always told us the club did nothing wrong.
There'll only be a sentence if they find you guilty pal, sounds like that's what you're expecting, which is odd, as you've always told us the club did nothing wrong.
From the BBC. I genuinely have no idea what this means as I don't know what this tribunal hearing is all about (i.e. what its authority is). For all I know this could be the equivalent of one of those Russian annexation referendums. It will no doubt be appealed by the PL.
As far as I am concerned, the Premier League is a private competition. Clubs can enter it based on sporting achievement and a commitment to sign up to its rules. If you don't like those rules then you should go and play elsewhere. What next? Will we have a tribunal that goals after regulation stoppage time don't count? 5 points for a win?
-------
The Premier League's rules governing sponsorship deals from the period between 2021 and 2024 are "void and unenforceable", a tribunal has ruled.
Last year, an independent arbitration panel found against aspects of the league's Associated Party Transaction regulations (APTs) after a lawsuit instigated by Manchester City.
The rules were formed by the Premier League to prevent clubs from profiting from commercial deals with companies linked to their owners that are deemed above "fair market value".
In November, the Premier League voted through amendments to the rules despite opposition from Newcastle, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa, as well as City.
Friday's ruling is not in judgement of the November amendments which still stand but are the subject of a legal challenge.
Any club who had a case heard under their rules is now in a position where they could launch a damages claim.
One source has suggested this could make the Premier League – and effectively therefore its clubs – liable for tens of millions of pounds.
This will also put a focus on chief executive Richard Masters, who confirmed the changes in November despite being cautioned against implementing them by City and Aston Villa amongst others.
As far as I am concerned, the Premier League is a private competition. Clubs can enter it based on sporting achievement and a commitment to sign up to its rules. If you don't like those rules then you should go and play elsewhere. What next? Will we have a tribunal that goals after regulation stoppage time don't count? 5 points for a win?
-------
The Premier League's rules governing sponsorship deals from the period between 2021 and 2024 are "void and unenforceable", a tribunal has ruled.
Last year, an independent arbitration panel found against aspects of the league's Associated Party Transaction regulations (APTs) after a lawsuit instigated by Manchester City.
The rules were formed by the Premier League to prevent clubs from profiting from commercial deals with companies linked to their owners that are deemed above "fair market value".
In November, the Premier League voted through amendments to the rules despite opposition from Newcastle, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa, as well as City.
Friday's ruling is not in judgement of the November amendments which still stand but are the subject of a legal challenge.
'A huge blow to the Premier League'
This decision is a huge blow to the Premier League and effectively it means their APT rules up to November 2024 were unenforceable.Any club who had a case heard under their rules is now in a position where they could launch a damages claim.
One source has suggested this could make the Premier League – and effectively therefore its clubs – liable for tens of millions of pounds.
This will also put a focus on chief executive Richard Masters, who confirmed the changes in November despite being cautioned against implementing them by City and Aston Villa amongst others.
I'm off out for a bit so leave any questions here, but I don't think this has any impact on 115 / 130. The timescale referred to seems to limit the decision to the process of vetting connected party deals in advance, NOT to the underlying concept that those deals have to be on market value terms.
And the previous arbitration found fault with the process / timelines, and the disclosure of detail to clubs. It didn't make any comment on whether assessments were correct or not. City will obviously try to obfuscate around this, but it should not be allowed to undermine any 115 / 130 ruling.
And the previous arbitration found fault with the process / timelines, and the disclosure of detail to clubs. It didn't make any comment on whether assessments were correct or not. City will obviously try to obfuscate around this, but it should not be allowed to undermine any 115 / 130 ruling.
My biggest question will be what beers are you drinking?
Vouvray tonight
I’m not a fan of white but I hope you enjoy it 👍
