Football 2010-2011

[eFestivals]

But the fact still remains, RBS taking on Liverpools debt in the current economic climate? I’m not sure. How will that reflect on them? What will the public/shareholders make of that etc? It’s a rick for RBS to take on the loss and it’s a mess for Liverpool if they’re put into admin.

You've got that bit wrong too.

RBS won't be taking on Liverpool's debt. They'll be swapping the debt for ownership of the club.

From Liverpool's point of view that wouldn't be a bad scenario (as long as admin doesn't come with it) - RBS need to re-coup much less than the club is worth, meaning that they'd be happy to sell on the cheap. And if they sell on the cheap then it means any buyer is likely to be prepared to put more money into the club for players, a new stadium, whatever.

But of course they won't necessarily sell on the cheap - in which case it's a good deal for the UK taxpayer, without being a bad deal for Liverpool by being a stupid selling price that the new owner is trying to get an impossible return on (which is basically the situation at Man Utd).

As long as Liverpool avoid admin and the current yanks are gone within the next few weeks (both of which the odds are in favour of IMO), then it's realistically a win for Liverpool.

[The Nal]

You've got that bit wrong too.

RBS won't be taking on Liverpool's debt. They'll be swapping the debt for ownership of the club.

From Liverpool's point of view that wouldn't be a bad scenario (as long as admin doesn't come with it) - RBS need to re-coup much less than the club is worth, meaning that they'd be happy to sell on the cheap. And if they sell on the cheap then it means any buyer is likely to be prepared to put more money into the club for players, a new stadium, whatever.

But of course they won't necessarily sell on the cheap - in which case it's a good deal for the UK taxpayer, without being a bad deal for Liverpool by being a stupid selling price that the new owner is trying to get an impossible return on (which is basically the situation at Man Utd).

As long as Liverpool avoid admin and the current yanks are gone within the next few weeks (both of which the odds are in favour of IMO), then it's realistically a win for Liverpool.

[eFestivals]

They still have 250+M that they'll need to recoup at the end of the day, either from the club, the yanks or through sale of the club. Call it a debt, asset or whatever, RBS dont want to run the club.

And if they sell it on the cheap, which they may, its opens up the market to any old c**t with a couple of hundred mill to come in and buy it. Thats the one thing Liverpool need to avoid.

Yep, they'd want to re-coup the money they're owed - but the money they're owed is less than the value of the club, so they have the option to sell on the cheap.

Yes, they could in theory sell to anyone, but I'd expect they'll be at least a little govt over-sight on who they sold to, because of RBS being govt owned and because a major football club is such a high-profile thing. If it was sold to the type of vulture you mention then that would ultimately come back onto the govt, and they'll want to avoid that happening.

Because the debt is much smaller than the club's value (I'd say it's hugely underpriced at even £300M, given it's £50M annual profit once the debts are removed), it gives a fair bit of leeway for them to choose the best person to sell it to - because a bargain price will bring in more offers. In fact, rumours I've heard is that Liverpool have been fighting off enquiries from people claiming to be offering much more than £300M since the sale was announced - it seems that too many people took hicks and gillett seriously when they talked of £800M, and didn't bother pursuing things because they felt the price would be too high.

[The Nal]

No doubt 300M is a steal for Liverpool, one of the biggest, most profitable clubs in the world. However, any buyer knows, that’s 300M to buy the club, and another 350M to build the stadium and maybe 80M minimum to but new players to make them competitive again. Not so cheap when you look at it like that.

Without a new stadium Liverpool are pissing into the wind. And they wont be allowed to redevelop Anfield.

They need to avoid this.

Its kicking off already...

11.38am: Hicks and Gillett representative admits to breach of contract but feels there is no urge for board to be reconstituted before Friday.

RBS dismisses this as 'absurd' given the company needs to repay £200m to the bank by Friday.

11.33am: RBS appeal to judge to 'restore a clearly constituted and functioning board' today. 'It cannot wait and it would be wrong for Mr Hicks and Gillett to profit from their tactics.'

No word of Gillett or Hicks putting in an appearance at court.

11.25am: BREAKING, from our reporter Sachin Nakrani: "Case started. RBS accuse Hicks and Gillett of trying to 'profit from the confusion their actions have caused'."

Edited October 12, 2010 by The Nal

[Steve P]

No doubt 300M is a steal for Liverpool, one of the biggest, most profitable clubs in the world. However, any buyer knows, that’s 300M to buy the club, and another 350M to build the stadium and maybe 80M minimum to but new players to make them competitive again. Not so cheap when you look at it like that.

Without a new stadium Liverpool are pissing into the wind. And they wont be allowed redevelop Anfield.

[eFestivals]

No doubt 300M is a steal for Liverpool, one of the biggest, most profitable clubs in the world. However, any buyer knows, that’s 300M to buy the club, and another 350M to build the stadium and maybe 80M minimum to but new players to make them competitive again. Not so cheap when you look at it like that.

Without a new stadium Liverpool are pissing into the wind. And they wont be allowed redevelop Anfield.

While there's those background costs, it's still a steal at £300M, given how profits will easily cover those stadium costs in less than 10 years.

(Yes, I realise that the reality is that it'll take more than 10 years because of continual investment in players sucking some of the profits, but a new stadium is an ongoing asset for much more than ten years - plus there's added profits from lighter maintenance on Anfield as it's phased out and almost no maintenance on the new stadium for a number of years)

I suspect that now people know it could be sold for £300M, it wouldn't be too difficult to find someone who'd pay £50M more, and perhaps even £100M more.

[eFestivals]

Not 1 decent youth player has come through in years, and without that their future is very bleak.

something I read recently said there's a lot of pressure from fans on Woy to make more use of their 'kids', particularly Jay Shearing (sp?), and particularly as some of his buys are already thought to be worse than those kids (Poulson was the name mentioned in the piece i read).

So maybe their position might change very soon in regard to players they bring thru.

[Steve P]

something I read recently said there's a lot of pressure from fans on Woy to make more use of their 'kids', particularly Jay Shearing (sp?), and particularly as some of his buys are already thought to be worse than those kids (Poulson was the name mentioned in the piece i read).

So maybe their position might change very soon in regard to players they bring thru.

[eFestivals]

But is the quality there to bring through? Having not really blooded any of them, it's one hell of an environment to bring these players into for their first real experiences of first team football, the pressure will be huge.

I don't personally know, but would guess there's some there worth bring thru, as they won the FA youth cup or something a couple of times didn't they?

=============

Liverpool being a snip at £300M is confirmed, with Lim having offered £360M (£320 for the club, plus £40 for players).

I'm sure they'll be others before the end of the week, tho of course whether any bidders actually have the dosh is another thing.

Edited October 12, 2010 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

I don't personally know, but would guess there's some there worth bring thru, as they won the FA youth cup or something a couple of times didn't they?

Edited October 12, 2010 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

it's getting 'interesting' at the high court.

H&G have mentioned two other bidders, "Meriton" (who I can find nothing about) who they're suggesting have made a bigger bid than NESV, and "Mill Financial".

The Mill bid is surely a red herring tho, as that's the company that H or G were trying to get to refinance them, so it's probably a cover for H&G to try and keep the club.

[The Nal]

it's getting 'interesting' at the high court.

H&G have mentioned two other bidders, "Meriton" (who I can find nothing about) who they're suggesting have made a bigger bid than NESV, and "Mill Financial".

The Mill bid is surely a red herring tho, as that's the company that H or G were trying to get to refinance them, so it's probably a cover for H&G to try and keep the club.

[Steve P]

Those Ferdinand's are a forgetful bunch

LINK

[Benj]

(I'd say it's hugely underpriced at even £300M, given it's £50M annual profit once the debts are removed), .

[The Nal]

Those Ferdinand's are a forgetful bunch

LINK

[eFestivals]

How much of that 50 million will disappear without the CL money? Another 3-4 could be lost via premier league placing.

And that 50 million is pretty much a transfer budget with the way football is going at the mo

The investment need to get them back up to 4th is going to be heavy, then you have to take into account the need for a new stadium.

I have no idea what the real worth is, I think the profit thing is just SOS propaganda, it will be really interesting to see what this 'Profit' is in next years figures without CL cash and the lower league placing.

I think (from memory) the last profit was £56M before debt repayments, but yeah, the lack of CL money will be a dent, but its only about £10M isn't it (and not all of that is lost, cos of Europa League)?

£50M is waaaaayyyy above the spend of the likes of Man Utd (tho of course there's the exceptionals of Shitty and Chelski - but no one is expecting that from Liverpool). So there's plenty of leeway there.

I don't agree with either points you make about investment in players or stadium - or at least, they're not the certainties you present them as. For all you know it could well be stadium-share time for you and those you hate.

The profit thing is real, there's no doubting that from the accounts.

Whatever the score, they're in far ruder health than you across the park.

[eFestivals]

Can only happen if NESV pull out though. they have a legally binding contract. Even if someone else offers a billion they cant accept.

well, that's the case if the judge rules with the board and not the owners, yep.

As I keep saying, it's a good thing for Liverpool if they're sold on the cheap and not a bad thing - it makes a new owner more likely to spend on players.

[Benj]

I think (from memory) the last profit was £56M before debt repayments, but yeah, the lack of CL money will be a dent, but its only about £10M isn't it (and not all of that is lost, cos of Europa League)?

£50M is waaaaayyyy above the spend of the likes of Man Utd (tho of course there's the exceptionals of Shitty and Chelski - but no one is expecting that from Liverpool). So there's plenty of leeway there.

I don't agree with either points you make about investment in players or stadium - or at least, they're not the certainties you present them as. For all you know it could well be stadium-share time for you and those you hate.

The profit thing is real, there's no doubting that from the accounts.

Whatever the score, they're in far ruder health than you across the park.

[Benj]

well, that's the case if the judge rules with the board and not the owners, yep.

As I keep saying, it's a good thing for Liverpool if they're sold on the cheap and not a bad thing - it makes a new owner more likely to spend on players.

[Benj]

Whatever the score, they're in far ruder health than you across the park.

[The Nal]

well, that's the case if the judge rules with the board and not the owners, yep.

As I keep saying, it's a good thing for Liverpool if they're sold on the cheap and not a bad thing - it makes a new owner more likely to spend on players.

[eFestivals]

Exactly, you'd still have to wonder if they're the best option though.

I have my doubts cos they're yanks and so far no yanks have been good for English football, but at the same time the record of NESV with the Red Sox is impressive.

At the end of the day I doubt they'll be as bad as H&G.

[eFestivals]

They could be at the end of the day, they're certainly not at the mo.

Everton only lost £7 million quid last year, not too far off them if you take away the European money and subsequent knock on losses that they will suffer.

It will be very, very interesting to see the numbers next year.

I'd have thought that the reduction in the wages bill will be much around the drop in income from the CL, etc. They've lost a fair few players on big wages in the last few years, and they've been replaced by players who are surely on much less.

[ampersand]

anyone would think england had an important game on tonight...

[eFestivals]

Provided they have the cash and they’re not just buying the club on the cheap because they’re cheap themselves. Broughton seems to think it would be a disaster if they went on the market for peanuts for exactly that reason. It’s a big risk.

I suspect it's for reasons like that that NESV has been accepted as buyers over others who might have made bigger bids.

NESV have a record that implies they'll be good for Liverpool, whereas the likes of Lim and Mill have no record at all.

Not only that, Lim is a known Utd fan so runs the risk of the fans turning on him too quickly if things don't go well from the off, while Mill merely want the club to try and turn a profit on the money they subbed Gillet - which is obviously a bad thing.