Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 186

Thread: Liverpool posting beter Finances

  1. #1 Thumbs up Liverpool posting beter Finances 
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,331
    Love to see where the FSG haters are now... I for one am so pleased with the job they are doing, they have grown and started to get more experienced with the game and have been looking to get us back to the Top,

    Have a read on this:

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...anks-to-owners

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport...w-club-6768260
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #2  
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    744
    Now watch people calling for twenty and thirty million pound players all over the pitch. Lets just have a solid summer window in the way we have been doing. If you go too mad with loads of players with high price tags you only end up like spurs. You have a collection of highly priced and paid individuals and not a team as we have now. Well done FSG and Brendan.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #3  
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    68
    We're in the right hands, that's for sure. Trust in what's going on and just keep on supporting.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #4  
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by watchya View Post
    Now watch people calling for twenty and thirty million pound players all over the pitch. Lets just have a solid summer window in the way we have been doing. If you go too mad with loads of players with high price tags you only end up like spurs. You have a collection of highly priced and paid individuals and not a team as we have now. Well done FSG and Brendan.
    Agreed, we still have debt and the loan to pay back FSG, but we are moving in the right direction, and tbh Hicks and Gillet really did ruin the club in terms of financial ground and we were only keeping up because of CL...

    If we make CL we will attract players as we can also offer first team experience but this time we will not throw money away we have taken a hard stance on what we pay and that must not change!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #5  
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by =Mike= View Post
    We're in the right hands, that's for sure. Trust in what's going on and just keep on supporting.
    Yeah our owner has a bit of a rep building now, Henry with his tweets regarding the Arsenal bid and now recently saying they had a clause but we just didn't feel like selling our best player to you.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #6  
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    539
    I like FSG so don't get me wrong here but these numbers are just not that impressive.

    The prior period comparison is to a 10 month period. If we net that up to 12 months, revenue did not grow from May 2012 to May 2013.
    Our loss was 50m. If we net up the loss from the 10 month previous period, we are seeing our losses increase from that period.

    A growth of 9% since FSG took over is only just above inflation. Anything less would be extremely poor, so I wouldn't say impressive.

    We haven't reduced our debt since the prior period, just moved it from the banks to the owners. I agree that this is good for us as we are not incurring interest, but is only truly beneficial if FSG are here for the long run (which I believe they are). Having said that, without actually looking at the numbers, I believe FSG have reduced our debt significantly since they took over in 2010.

    May 2014 probably won't look much better, but hopefully CL money will inject some good revenue into the club for next year.
    Last edited by Steve_U; 4-3-14 at 09:46.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #7  
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve_U View Post
    We haven't reduced our debt since the prior period, just moved it from the banks to the owners.
    Was 46 million of that transfer with regards to scrapping the new stadium plans? Which can only ever happen once surely?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #8  
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by =Mike= View Post
    Was 46 million of that transfer with regards to scrapping the new stadium plans? Which can only ever happen once surely?
    As far as I understand, 38mil related to that. It is once off, but it still needs to be paid. Glad it's parked in the owners books now so we aren't still incurring interest.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #9  
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    579
    That's what FSG are doing, we are lucky to have them. They don't spend when it is not need to. I like the way they are directing the club even though they didn't boight a DM in january.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #10  
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by watchya View Post
    Now watch people calling for twenty and thirty million pound players all over the pitch. Lets just have a solid summer window in the way we have been doing. If you go too mad with loads of players with high price tags you only end up like spurs. You have a collection of highly priced and paid individuals and not a team as we have now. Well done FSG and Brendan.
    Yeah let us go for Messi Lol !
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #11  
    -SilkySkills- is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    30,965
    We missed out on players but we have less debt, fantastic
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #12  
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    23,125
    Circa 50 million loss, doesn't that impact negatively on FFPR?
    Nothing is impossible whilst it's still possible..........
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #13  
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,625
    Quote Originally Posted by RedTrilogy View Post
    Circa 50 million loss, doesn't that impact negatively on FFPR?
    It will impact but who knows to what extent. Financial losses are different to losses under FFP.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #14  
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,331
    Whats more fantastic is that the deals we have signed this season will come into effect only from the start of next season so we are slowly heading there but at least like the team we are looking upwards
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #15  
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,331
    I expect a few sales to players that are on high wages and entering their final stages as well as players that are not considered by the manager:

    Johnson Agger (Hope NOT) , Reina Coates, and maybe we wil loan out a few players to give them experience as well,
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #16  
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    23,125
    Quote Originally Posted by LFC-Marcel-YNWA View Post
    I expect a few sales to players that are on high wages and entering their final stages as well as players that are not considered by the manager:

    Johnson Agger (Hope NOT) , Reina Coates, and maybe we wil loan out a few players to give them experience as well,
    Agger only recently penned a new deal didn't he?
    Nothing is impossible whilst it's still possible..........
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #17  
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by RedTrilogy View Post
    Agger only recently penned a new deal didn't he?
    So did Shelvy but that didn't stop us from selling him...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #18  
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by watchya View Post
    Now watch people calling for twenty and thirty million pound players all over the pitch. Lets just have a solid summer window in the way we have been doing. If you go too mad with loads of players with high price tags you only end up like spurs. You have a collection of highly priced and paid individuals and not a team as we have now. Well done FSG and Brendan.
    I still think we had poor summer transfer windows. No doubt about that. It is the manager and players who deserve the credit. for managing with what they have. We have been a little lucky not to be in Europa as well.

    But our transfer windows, our efficiency in closing deals and getting good players needs to improve. We can't go into another season with a squad of this size or quality.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #19  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,113
    At a quick glance it would seem the wage bill for Liverpool FC in 2012-13 (the first year of Brendan Rodgers) is 132m.

    This would mean a very small increase from the previous year of 131m from the Kenny Dalglish season.

    I would assume it means that for the last few seasons FSG have decided to stabilise the wage bill until there was greater revenue.

    It also means that there has never been a year where the wage bill has ever decreased in modern times.

    It has never been "slashed" as many people have claimed, hopefully more value for money after various players left last season.

    This is a quick graphic look at the top clubs wage bills in the Premier League


    mins 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
    Chelsea 109 114 133 149 153 173 168 176
    Man United 77 96 92 121 123 132 153 162
    Arsenal 66 83 90 101 104 111 124 143
    Liverpool 64 69 78 90 96 114 129 131 132
    Man City 38 34 36 54 83 133 174 201
    Tottenham 33 41 44 53 60 67 91 90.2
    Everton 63.4
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #20  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,113
    A quick look at the timeline of David Conn's twitter reveals his first impressions. He is the main football finance journalist for the Guardian


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool's net debt in 2012-13 was 114m; that includes the 69m which @John_W_Henry's FSG have lent to the club.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool bank loan reduced from 70m in 2011-12 to 48m last year; partly due to FSG loaning club money to pay some off.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    John Henry's Fenway Sports Group have invested in Liverpool with loans, up to 69m by May 2103; they're not charging the club interest.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    FSG loan to Liverpool of 47m in 2012-13 was to repay a 38m loan taken out to develop stadium plans, and reduce bank debt by 9m.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool total wage bill 2012-13 (players and staff but players obviously most of it): 132m. Not that massive for Premier League.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    One Liverpool director paid 1m (1,035,000) salary in 2012-13. Presume it is Ian Ayre as he is the only full-time non-FSG director.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool did make operating profit of 15m in 2012-13; loss of 50m from loss on selling players and writing down players' contracts


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool turnover (income) in 2012-13: 206m. Commercial (sponsors) up to 98m. TV 64m; matchday 45m (tickets not cheap at Anfield)


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    .@Cfcaway Yes, @John_W_Henry's FSG owners loaned a further 47m to Liverpool on top of 22m they had loaned in previously.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Just looking at Liverpool FC accounts for 2012-13. Quite surprised they made a 50m loss; looking to see why.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #21  
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Coffeelover View Post
    At a quick glance it would seem the wage bill for Liverpool FC in 2012-13 (the first year of Brendan Rodgers) is 132m.

    This would mean a very small increase from the previous year of 131m from the Kenny Dalglish season.

    I would assume it means that for the last few seasons FSG have decided to stabilise the wage bill until there was greater revenue.

    It also means that there has never been a year where the wage bill has ever decreased in modern times.

    It has never been "slashed" as many people have claimed, hopefully more value for money after various players left last season.

    This is a quick graphic look at the top clubs wage bills in the Premier League


    mins 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
    Chelsea 109 114 133 149 153 173 168 176
    Man United 77 96 92 121 123 132 153 162
    Arsenal 66 83 90 101 104 111 124 143
    Liverpool 64 69 78 90 96 114 129 131 132
    Man City 38 34 36 54 83 133 174 201
    Tottenham 33 41 44 53 60 67 91 90.2
    Everton 63.4
    It was on the anti FSG brigade who made up rumours of asset stripping etc, unfortunately, plenty of people who didn't have the knowledge to understand the finance just believed them. Probably because they have been hurt in the past with American owners and they just knee jerked, thought they where 'all the same'.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #22  
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    4,853
    Figures look decent to me.

    There is still a good amount of "cleaning house" going on.

    That explains the loss...

    The operating profit is welcome...and very encouraging.

    IMO...Club is in safe hands.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #23  
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Coffeelover View Post
    A quick look at the timeline of David Conn's twitter reveals his first impressions. He is the main football finance journalist for the Guardian


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool's net debt in 2012-13 was 114m; that includes the 69m which @John_W_Henry's FSG have lent to the club.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool bank loan reduced from 70m in 2011-12 to 48m last year; partly due to FSG loaning club money to pay some off.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    John Henry's Fenway Sports Group have invested in Liverpool with loans, up to 69m by May 2103; they're not charging the club interest.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    FSG loan to Liverpool of 47m in 2012-13 was to repay a 38m loan taken out to develop stadium plans, and reduce bank debt by 9m.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool total wage bill 2012-13 (players and staff but players obviously most of it): 132m. Not that massive for Premier League.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    One Liverpool director paid 1m (1,035,000) salary in 2012-13. Presume it is Ian Ayre as he is the only full-time non-FSG director.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool did make operating profit of 15m in 2012-13; loss of 50m from loss on selling players and writing down players' contracts


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Liverpool turnover (income) in 2012-13: 206m. Commercial (sponsors) up to 98m. TV 64m; matchday 45m (tickets not cheap at Anfield)


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    .@Cfcaway Yes, @John_W_Henry's FSG owners loaned a further 47m to Liverpool on top of 22m they had loaned in previously.


    David Conn ‏@david_conn

    Just looking at Liverpool FC accounts for 2012-13. Quite surprised they made a 50m loss; looking to see why.
    Quite simply because the stadium loan repayment went through this period and we alos had a impairment of players for 10m (where we have had to write of some book value of players because they are crap) so there's your 50m loss
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #24  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,113
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    It was on the anti FSG brigade who made up rumours of asset stripping etc, unfortunately, plenty of people who didn't have the knowledge to understand the finance just believed them. Probably because they have been hurt in the past with American owners and they just knee jerked, thought they where 'all the same'.
    I believed that the people who thought that the "slashing" of the wage bill were supporters of FSG as well since there was a belief that a lot of overpaid footballers were shown the door and the size of the squad trimmed in that first season of Brendan Rodgers.

    I did think it would be slightly lower because two of our high earners only joined in January and I thought that might be reflected.

    It just amuses me how people always jump to assumptions about the finances.

    I have not had the time to look at the other wage bills of the top clubs this season but I will get around at some stage to add them. I believe both Manchester City and Arsenal have gone up but do not have them at hand.

    Bottom line is that Liverpool still have the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League unless Tottenham have suddenly raised theirs by an obscene amount.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #25  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,983
    There were rumours last week that they're looking to sell up if we qualify for the Champions League. I don't know if they have any grounds to them but I'd be gutted if that ever happened now. I'd rather be the stable club that we are now, signing raw gems with lots of potential and getting our fantastic coaching staff to polish them up a bit and see them shine rather than be owned by a sugar daddy.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #26  
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Coffeelover View Post
    I believed that the people who thought that the "slashing" of the wage bill were supporters of FSG as well since there was a belief that a lot of overpaid footballers were shown the door and the size of the squad trimmed in that first season of Brendan Rodgers.

    I did think it would be slightly lower because two of our high earners only joined in January and I thought that might be reflected.

    It just amuses me how people always jump to assumptions about the finances.

    I have not had the time to look at the other wage bills of the top clubs this season but I will get around at some stage to add them. I believe both Manchester City and Arsenal have gone up but do not have them at hand.

    Bottom line is that Liverpool still have the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League unless Tottenham have suddenly raised theirs by an obscene amount.
    I said from day one there is no evidence what so ever that FSG have reduced the wage bill or 'asset stipped' the club. It was in fact the complete oposite, FSG increased the wage bill and pumped money into the club to pay of bank debt. Those were and still are the facts here.

    Liverpool's wage bill is relevant, 130m wage bill vs 200m turnover is ok. nothing to worry about at all. IMO account look OK, a larger loss than I predicted (30m) but still not to bad all considering.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #27  
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    Quite simply because the stadium loan repayment went through this period and we alos had a impairment of players for 10m (where we have had to write of some book value of players because they are crap) so there's your 50m loss
    sorry bud. stadium loan repayment won't affect your loss.

    your 2nd point is correct. selling players at lower than cost etc accounts for the majority of the loss
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #28  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,113
    I am sure there will be many articles written on the newly released financial figures from Liverpool FC. Here is the Guardian. Original can be found at http://www.theguardian.com/football/...-loss-accounts

    David Conn
    theguardian.com, Tuesday 4 March 2014 11.03 GMT



    Liverpool football club made a 50m loss in the 2012-13 financial year, according to the club's annual accounts. The figures, for the year to 31 May 2013, show that the club made an operating profit of 15m but were pushed into the heavy loss by the writing down of players' contracts, an accounting requirement, and a 13m loss on the sale of players.

    The accounts pre-date the summer signings which included goalkeeper Simon Mignolet, 9m from Sunderland, and Mamadou Sakho, 18m from PSG, and the 15m sale of Andy Carroll to West Ham, for whom Liverpool paid 35m in the early months of ownership by the Boston-based Fenway Sports Group. The total net spending on these players in the last year to augment Brendan Rodgers's squad was 53m, the accounts state.

    FSG in 2012-13 made a loan to Liverpool of 47m to repay a 38m loan taken out to develop stadium plans, and reduce bank debt by 9m. That was in addition to the 22m FSG had, net, loaned to ballast the club's finances since they took over from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in 2010, taking FSG's outstanding loans to Liverpool to 69m. The 200m the club owed to Royal Bank of Scotland at the time of the bitterly contested takeover was paid off by FSG effectively as the price of taking over the club.

    The club's income showed a relatively modest increase to 206m in 2012-13 from the 169m reported for a ten month period in the last accounts to May 31 2011. That was mostly accounted for by significantly increased commercial income, risen from 64m to 98m due to sponsorship deals which are a priority for the managing director Ian Ayre under FSG's ownership. FSG have from the beginning of their ownership been focussed on the worldwide following Liverpool have, and intent on pursuing the international multiple sponsorships pioneered by Manchester United.

    Liverpool's wage bill, 132m, was not excessive for the current financial size of the club, representing 64% of turnover, towards the upper end of what is generally considered healthy. Nor does that scale of pay, mostly to the players, put Liverpool in the top bracket of Premier League clubs. Manchester United, who won the title in Sir Alex Ferguson's final year, paid 181m in wages in 2012-13, while Manchester City's wage bill under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi was 233m, over 100m more than Liverpool's.

    The highest paid director at Liverpool was paid a salary package of 1.035m; it is presumed to be Ian Ayre, as he is the only full-time director on the board of the club. The other directors are John Henry, Tom Werner and David Ginsberg, all of FSG, owners of the Boston Red Sox baseball franchise, and Michael Gordon, who founded the Vinik investment firm in Boston and is also a Red Sox board member.

    Ayre praised FSG as "smart investors" who are continuing to invest in Liverpool, with their loans, "to realise the true value of their investment long term." He also said that with the much-improved performances on the pitch under Rodgers and increasing commercial income, the club is heading towards financial stability, although the 2012-13 figures show the deficit from not competing in the European Champions League.

    "These results demonstrate that the financial health of the club continues to make good progress," Ayre told the Liverpool Echo. "We have taken a measured approach to bring back financial stability to this great club by ensuring it is properly structured on and off the pitch."
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #29  
    AnfieldSouth41 is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,967
    Great news.

    and next years accounts will be even bigger.

    And the Season after if we have CL revenues to show


    CL and the new stadium is the key now, get both and we can be one of the big powers in Europe.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #30  
    AnfieldSouth41 is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,967
    However 132m does seem on the high side given we have an extremely small squad compared to our competitors.


    Does anyone have the wage bill figures for Chelsea, Utd, City, Arse, Spurs in teh same accounting period ?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •