G&H can't finance the trial against RBS
- Thread starter Insignificance
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
We're getting into conspiracy territory again. Who was the 45m paid to?
I'm not beating them with that stick though am I ? I'd rather the club was managed in a more cost effective way. All I'm saying is they have tried to sell our better players and we still have some under performing top earners some brought in under their watch
I didn't mean you Sunny, I should have worded that different. Yeah I know, but this is where it's hard to draw the line between it being the owners fault and managerial errors. They entrusted us to reinvest what transfer funds we received, plus what they put in. Is it their fault we then pissed that up on Downing, Carroll and co? No wonder there was an overbearing element of caution in the Summer when it came to transfers, and even then we've still spent fairly significantly.
Yeh yeh conspiracy. Justify a £45m spend on next to nothing. I've a mate who's an architect who works worldwide on some massive projects and his view on this is that there's no way that type of spend can be in anyway be justified. And he knows a lot more on this type of stuff than both me and you Ross although you'll probably claim otherwise. I'll see if I can find what he wrote.
It is partly their fault yes and it is Dalglish and Comolli
I agree with Sunny about their role in Carroll's transfer. Nobody wants to see owners interfering too much with transfer policy, but it's still part of their responsibility (and their own self interest ffs) to veto deals that are so highly questionable as that. They were too desperate to prove to fans they weren't like H&G, and they should've been more self-confident.
But the legal action is towards RBS? They will claim money from the bank and dont give a fuck about the club?
I think most fans understand a bit of the side of things that goes on on the pitch, but not the business side off it. They think money grows on trees, players and agents sign contracts for free and out the goodness of their hearts, clubs cost nothing to run, stadiums are free to build and can be designed, planned and built overnight.
It looks strange alright, but they may have entered contracts they couldn't get out of for materials and contractors or whatever.
People have tried to suggest for ages G&h took the money - yet accountants saw nothing wrong with the books. Evidence is needed
As far as I recall ( I am getting on a bit ) these charges were written off in the 2010/11 accounts. Who invoiced the charges in these pre FSG accounts mmmm Hicks appointed design team - nothing fishy there then-
Wrong target mate - 48mill on stadium development is ridiculous - paid to a Texas based design consultancy, would it be unlikely that some of that found its way back into Mr Hicks back pocket? The good news going forward is now that this has been flushed out the accounts and has been written off we should be in a pretty strong financial position going forward although this wont show up in the accounts for 18 months. I dont buy all the doom and gloom on here as far as the finances are concerned I would expect the next accounts to show them well under control.
No, they see that Liverpool managed to spend 20 odd million a season under Moores when we earned fuck all from additional corporate stuff and the TV deals were half the size they are now.
Lets ignore that the wage bill is now three times higher than it was under Moores, then we can keep up the pretence
Wages tend to go up pretty directly with revenues. I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong, but one of the more astonishing facts I've read in the last couple of years is that our total turnover in the year to July 99 (from which point Houllier first started spending big) was just £45m.
Hmmmmmmmm, that sounds highly, highly, dodgy to me. Hasn't our revenue been fairly static around that point for a few years now? Which would imply that somewhere we've lost £50m in terms of stable income.... sounds completely implausible.
Think you need to break down those figures a bit closer.
Think you need to break down those figures a bit closer.
I thought we'd had the figures for 2012 already?
Did we really spend 20 million a season when we did not have Champions League income. I am not questioning your statement. This is a honest question ?
Even if we did I presume one big reason why we were able to spend that much is the wages. I am sure the wages we hand out have increased significantly since the Moores era. I am also assuming one big reason why we have not spent a bit more is not because of the transfer fees we paid, but because we have too many players who are not justifying the wages they are on.
I've checked the figures for 2011 and the £77m doesn't include any transfer income, it's a separate line in the accounts.
That kind of stuff goes on ALL the time though.
It would be a surprise if Hicks didn't benefit at all from that 40 odd mil billed to LFC.
Type out what it says under income
There's a separate line near the bottom of the P&L stating £43m profit from player transfers.
The £50m can't be in both of them.
The £50m can't be in both of them.
Yes, it's a P&L on disposal type of item. Check the accounts!
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
