LFC SOLD to NESV.
- Thread starter Terrier
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
How come? If you default on your mortgage, the building society doesn't have to make you bankrupt in order to repossess the house.
How come? If you default on your mortgage, the building society doesn't have to make you bankrupt in order to repossess the house.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1180318#msg1180318 date=1285187323]
Here's the relevant page of the accounts. The figure Crump is quoting is the figure is a preliminary figure in the accounts that is simply what you get when take away the cost of the wages and other administrative expenses at the club from the revenue (the 27 odd million in the left hand column). After that we need to take into account depreciation,player trading, interest and tax. So all your actually saying is we're profitable if you don't look at the whole picture, or even 25% of the picture. It's illogical, since you're going to have depreciation, player trading and tax every year. The interest is the one thing you could argue we might not have after a takeover. The third column is the most relevant one
[/quote]
I'll be honest not only can i not read that because it came out weird on the screen but i probably wouldnt get it anyway, it seems thats why we need accountants so that we can make money really hard to understand.... anyway i didnt see this anywhere in the thread .... maybe it was amortised....from the guardian.... if its been in before sorry.
Christian Purslow wishes that money was being spent on players rather than servicing debts. Photograph: Tim Hales/AP
Liverpool's managing director, Christian Purslow, admitted today that the club can barely service the debts and interest which were loaded on to the club by Tom Hicks and George Gillett when they took over Liverpool in February 2007.
"Can we afford to meet [our loans, interest costs and bank charges]?" Purslow said. "Just about. Do I wish that every penny spent on interest was available to spend on players? Passionately."
In a series of strikingly frank answers to emailed questions from anxious supporters published on Liverpool's official website, Purslow acknowledged that the "leveraged buyout" employed by Hicks and Gillett, loading their own £185m loans onto the club to repay, is a severe financial problem.
That principle has been consistently denied at Manchester United, where the chief executive, David Gill, has argued the £716m debts and £400m interest, costs and bank charges imposed by the Glazer family's takeover are not a burden on the club. "We are highly profitable," Purslow said. "The issue is that too much of that profit is being used to service loans put into place when the club was bought."
In the first public acknowledgement of the boardroom divide at Liverpool between Hicks and Gillett and the three directors who can outvote them, Purslow said he, the chairman, Martin Broughton, and commercial director, Ian Ayre, would reject any proposal from the owners to replace the club's £237m bank debts with further borrowings from elsewhere.
"Can you, Ian Ayre or Martin Broughton oppose the refinancing of the debt by the current owners?" one supporter asked. Purslow replied: "Any incurrence of indebtedness by Liverpool Football Club needs full board approval. The non-owner directors have made it clear that's not what we want to see happen."
Asked whether the owners could refinance the debts and secure new borrowings against the club's assets – the players, stadium or training ground – Purslow stated: "That would require board approval and the other members of the Board have made it clear that's not what we want to see happen."
Throughout, however, Purslow stressed Liverpool is not close to being insolvent, saying it made record income in the year to July 2010, and will not sell players, including Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres, to pay off debt.
Purslow said all the directors, including Hicks and Gillett, are committed to selling Liverpool, and a "small number of potentially interested parties," whom he declined to name, are carrying out due diligence. Deutsche Bank, rumoured to be in refinancing talks after Hicks was apparently spotted outside their New York offices, are understood not to be involved.
Purslow hinted at the power wielded by Royal Bank of Scotland, to which Liverpool owes the bulk of the £237m, when he confirmed that the board's reorganisation into its current structure, in which Hicks and Gillett can be outvoted, followed the owners' rejection of a proposal by Rhône Group at Easter to pay £100m for 40% of the club. RBS is said to have pushed after that for the club to be sold.
Like the bit about the small number of interested groups etc.... cool....
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1180318#msg1180318 date=1285187323]
Here's the relevant page of the accounts. The figure Crump is quoting is the figure is a preliminary figure in the accounts that is simply what you get when take away the cost of the wages and other administrative expenses at the club from the revenue (the 27 odd million in the left hand column). After that we need to take into account depreciation,player trading, interest and tax. So all your actually saying is we're profitable if you don't look at the whole picture, or even 25% of the picture. It's illogical, since you're going to have depreciation, player trading and tax every year. The interest is the one thing you could argue we might not have after a takeover. The third column is the most relevant one
[/quote]
I'll be honest not only can i not read that because it came out weird on the screen but i probably wouldnt get it anyway, it seems thats why we need accountants so that we can make money really hard to understand.... anyway i didnt see this anywhere in the thread .... maybe it was amortised....from the guardian.... if its been in before sorry.
Christian Purslow wishes that money was being spent on players rather than servicing debts. Photograph: Tim Hales/AP
Liverpool's managing director, Christian Purslow, admitted today that the club can barely service the debts and interest which were loaded on to the club by Tom Hicks and George Gillett when they took over Liverpool in February 2007.
"Can we afford to meet [our loans, interest costs and bank charges]?" Purslow said. "Just about. Do I wish that every penny spent on interest was available to spend on players? Passionately."
In a series of strikingly frank answers to emailed questions from anxious supporters published on Liverpool's official website, Purslow acknowledged that the "leveraged buyout" employed by Hicks and Gillett, loading their own £185m loans onto the club to repay, is a severe financial problem.
That principle has been consistently denied at Manchester United, where the chief executive, David Gill, has argued the £716m debts and £400m interest, costs and bank charges imposed by the Glazer family's takeover are not a burden on the club. "We are highly profitable," Purslow said. "The issue is that too much of that profit is being used to service loans put into place when the club was bought."
In the first public acknowledgement of the boardroom divide at Liverpool between Hicks and Gillett and the three directors who can outvote them, Purslow said he, the chairman, Martin Broughton, and commercial director, Ian Ayre, would reject any proposal from the owners to replace the club's £237m bank debts with further borrowings from elsewhere.
"Can you, Ian Ayre or Martin Broughton oppose the refinancing of the debt by the current owners?" one supporter asked. Purslow replied: "Any incurrence of indebtedness by Liverpool Football Club needs full board approval. The non-owner directors have made it clear that's not what we want to see happen."
Asked whether the owners could refinance the debts and secure new borrowings against the club's assets – the players, stadium or training ground – Purslow stated: "That would require board approval and the other members of the Board have made it clear that's not what we want to see happen."
Throughout, however, Purslow stressed Liverpool is not close to being insolvent, saying it made record income in the year to July 2010, and will not sell players, including Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres, to pay off debt.
Purslow said all the directors, including Hicks and Gillett, are committed to selling Liverpool, and a "small number of potentially interested parties," whom he declined to name, are carrying out due diligence. Deutsche Bank, rumoured to be in refinancing talks after Hicks was apparently spotted outside their New York offices, are understood not to be involved.
Purslow hinted at the power wielded by Royal Bank of Scotland, to which Liverpool owes the bulk of the £237m, when he confirmed that the board's reorganisation into its current structure, in which Hicks and Gillett can be outvoted, followed the owners' rejection of a proposal by Rhône Group at Easter to pay £100m for 40% of the club. RBS is said to have pushed after that for the club to be sold.
Like the bit about the small number of interested groups etc.... cool....
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
Ha, that argument between Crump and Rosco really *was* oddly fascinating. A bit like watching Spassky v Fischer when you don't understand the rules of chess. Or something.
I was rooting for Crump, but I have the feeling he was a bit lucky to scrape a draw in that one.
Anyway, more fun than the football...
Ha, that argument between Crump and Rosco really *was* oddly fascinating. A bit like watching Spassky v Fischer when you don't understand the rules of chess. Or something.
I was rooting for Crump, but I have the feeling he was a bit lucky to scrape a draw in that one.
Anyway, more fun than the football...
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181086#msg1181086 date=1285247352]
Ha, that argument between Crump and Rosco really *was* oddly fascinating. A bit like watching Spassky v Fischer when you don't understand the rules of chess. Or something.
I was rooting for Crump, but I have the feeling he was a bit lucky to scrape a draw in that one.
Anyway, more fun than the football...
[/quote]
let's be honest here, it's more entertaining than watching us play...
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181086#msg1181086 date=1285247352]
Ha, that argument between Crump and Rosco really *was* oddly fascinating. A bit like watching Spassky v Fischer when you don't understand the rules of chess. Or something.
I was rooting for Crump, but I have the feeling he was a bit lucky to scrape a draw in that one.
Anyway, more fun than the football...
[/quote]
let's be honest here, it's more entertaining than watching us play...
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181086#msg1181086 date=1285247352]
Ha, that argument between Crump and Rosco really *was* oddly fascinating. A bit like watching Spassky v Fischer when you don't understand the rules of chess. Or something.
I was rooting for Crump, but I have the feeling he was a bit lucky to scrape a draw in that one.
Anyway, more fun than the football...
[/quote]
I thought Rosco explained it pretty well to be honest, and crump was on the ropes for most of it, but the entire process is just baffling. Mind you i suppose it keeps the accountants in work and of the streets so... personally i find that complicated things are just that little bit lacking in thought, as though if somebody clever had thought about it it wouldnt be so fucking hard in the first place! As a physicist I always find the best things are actually pretty simple.
Pile of dodgy confusing bullshit is what i was thinking...
As for the article It's kind of shocking to read the interview in which the chief exec comes out and calls a spade a spade regarding what the yanks have done to us financially and to think they appointed him, theres loyalty for you! To think that so many have been calling him out as a snake etc... fingers crossed we get sold sooooon. I wonder when and if a crisis will hit at Man Utd what with there debt mountain!! I thought ours was bad and was fucking us up.... 400M in costs!! crikey!
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181086#msg1181086 date=1285247352]
Ha, that argument between Crump and Rosco really *was* oddly fascinating. A bit like watching Spassky v Fischer when you don't understand the rules of chess. Or something.
I was rooting for Crump, but I have the feeling he was a bit lucky to scrape a draw in that one.
Anyway, more fun than the football...
[/quote]
I thought Rosco explained it pretty well to be honest, and crump was on the ropes for most of it, but the entire process is just baffling. Mind you i suppose it keeps the accountants in work and of the streets so... personally i find that complicated things are just that little bit lacking in thought, as though if somebody clever had thought about it it wouldnt be so fucking hard in the first place! As a physicist I always find the best things are actually pretty simple.
Pile of dodgy confusing bullshit is what i was thinking...
As for the article It's kind of shocking to read the interview in which the chief exec comes out and calls a spade a spade regarding what the yanks have done to us financially and to think they appointed him, theres loyalty for you! To think that so many have been calling him out as a snake etc... fingers crossed we get sold sooooon. I wonder when and if a crisis will hit at Man Utd what with there debt mountain!! I thought ours was bad and was fucking us up.... 400M in costs!! crikey!
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=peterhague ]
the thing is, i'm an accountant and even i can't understnd what they're arguing about.
Rosco's right in that amort. is just depreciation for intangibles, and crump's right in that it's just a method of splitting a capital outlay over the periods of use, ie a non-cash item.
i don't know how they're disagreeing from such a solid base of agreement!
[/quote]
I think they were arguing if LFC is a profitable business w/o the burden of hefty interest payments.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1180318#msg1180318 date=1285187323]
[/quote]
I think the figure "players amortization" really didn't give you much information of the club's financial situation. For a car, you can expect it's life expectancy rather easily and it's value pretty much always going downhill. For a football player, it's really difficult to value. Their value dramatically fluctuate year by year. It's just an "accounting figure" and it doesn't affect much how you run a business.
I think group operating profit before "players amortization and trading" is the key figure. Let assume 2009 is a typical financial year for the club. For year ended July 2009, we had 27.4M profits. It means we made profits after we got revenue from the stadium tickets, tv money, sponsorship blah blah blah ............ minus players salary, stadium costs blah blah blah . It showed we are a profitable business. HOWEVER, football club is an unique business. It required constant re-investment (i.e players) to keep the constant revenue coming. So how much does it need to re-invest annually to keep the revenue constant? More than 27.4M, it's a profitable business. Less than 27.4M, it's not a profitable business. That's assume it's debt/interest free. Let say u buy the club for 400M and need 6% annual return, that's 24M per year and you have 3.4M to re-invest on the club to make the constant revenue coming.
That's just a layman prospective.
[quote author=peterhague ]
the thing is, i'm an accountant and even i can't understnd what they're arguing about.
Rosco's right in that amort. is just depreciation for intangibles, and crump's right in that it's just a method of splitting a capital outlay over the periods of use, ie a non-cash item.
i don't know how they're disagreeing from such a solid base of agreement!
[/quote]
I think they were arguing if LFC is a profitable business w/o the burden of hefty interest payments.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1180318#msg1180318 date=1285187323]
[/quote]
I think the figure "players amortization" really didn't give you much information of the club's financial situation. For a car, you can expect it's life expectancy rather easily and it's value pretty much always going downhill. For a football player, it's really difficult to value. Their value dramatically fluctuate year by year. It's just an "accounting figure" and it doesn't affect much how you run a business.
I think group operating profit before "players amortization and trading" is the key figure. Let assume 2009 is a typical financial year for the club. For year ended July 2009, we had 27.4M profits. It means we made profits after we got revenue from the stadium tickets, tv money, sponsorship blah blah blah ............ minus players salary, stadium costs blah blah blah . It showed we are a profitable business. HOWEVER, football club is an unique business. It required constant re-investment (i.e players) to keep the constant revenue coming. So how much does it need to re-invest annually to keep the revenue constant? More than 27.4M, it's a profitable business. Less than 27.4M, it's not a profitable business. That's assume it's debt/interest free. Let say u buy the club for 400M and need 6% annual return, that's 24M per year and you have 3.4M to re-invest on the club to make the constant revenue coming.
That's just a layman prospective.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
Yeah I did ask my accountant to assplain the whole thing to me this morning in case I was missing anything and unsurprisingly I was.
I was saying that the amortisation was an actual representation of the amounts we pay for dudes split into it's life of the contract and so it's not an actual amount spent in any given financial year etc, and Rosco was saying bollocks, it's depreciation on the asset and thus it has a real impact on a financial year. Well the truth seems to be related to both. Rosco was in the most part right on deprecaition, but it doesn't have any bearing on the cash position, and the formula used to calculate it just shifts the tax burden year on year - and is the cost of the contract split - which is what I was on about.
For the most part you can completely ignore it. I mean the post above from justdoit says that 27.4m is the profit to play with for satisfying shareholders returns and player additions - but it isn't. Because that figure is after the event of the players ins and outs already. That year we may have made or may have lost on player sales but that was before we ended up at 27.4.
The 27.4 being after the event of player sales and buys means the only impact in terms of cash on that amount is interest / taxes. The amortisation is just a figure that says our assets have lost value according to a formula. But most of our assets in the past few years have increased. I'm thinking the likes of Torres and Alonso. Even most of Masch's fee will all have been realised as profit even thought it wasn't mush more than we paid as so much of it was written off in previous years.
This is the bit I don't get so soz. I do run a couple of businesses that have quite a few staff but I don't put any notional amounts down for depreciation on massive assets as neither business operates like that.
Yeah I did ask my accountant to assplain the whole thing to me this morning in case I was missing anything and unsurprisingly I was.
I was saying that the amortisation was an actual representation of the amounts we pay for dudes split into it's life of the contract and so it's not an actual amount spent in any given financial year etc, and Rosco was saying bollocks, it's depreciation on the asset and thus it has a real impact on a financial year. Well the truth seems to be related to both. Rosco was in the most part right on deprecaition, but it doesn't have any bearing on the cash position, and the formula used to calculate it just shifts the tax burden year on year - and is the cost of the contract split - which is what I was on about.
For the most part you can completely ignore it. I mean the post above from justdoit says that 27.4m is the profit to play with for satisfying shareholders returns and player additions - but it isn't. Because that figure is after the event of the players ins and outs already. That year we may have made or may have lost on player sales but that was before we ended up at 27.4.
The 27.4 being after the event of player sales and buys means the only impact in terms of cash on that amount is interest / taxes. The amortisation is just a figure that says our assets have lost value according to a formula. But most of our assets in the past few years have increased. I'm thinking the likes of Torres and Alonso. Even most of Masch's fee will all have been realised as profit even thought it wasn't mush more than we paid as so much of it was written off in previous years.
This is the bit I don't get so soz. I do run a couple of businesses that have quite a few staff but I don't put any notional amounts down for depreciation on massive assets as neither business operates like that.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1181095#msg1181095 date=1285247728]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181086#msg1181086 date=1285247352]
Ha, that argument between Crump and Rosco really *was* oddly fascinating. A bit like watching Spassky v Fischer when you don't understand the rules of chess. Or something.
I was rooting for Crump, but I have the feeling he was a bit lucky to scrape a draw in that one.
Anyway, more fun than the football...
[/quote]
let's be honest here, it's more entertaining than watching us play...
[/quote]
LOL
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1181095#msg1181095 date=1285247728]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181086#msg1181086 date=1285247352]
Ha, that argument between Crump and Rosco really *was* oddly fascinating. A bit like watching Spassky v Fischer when you don't understand the rules of chess. Or something.
I was rooting for Crump, but I have the feeling he was a bit lucky to scrape a draw in that one.
Anyway, more fun than the football...
[/quote]
let's be honest here, it's more entertaining than watching us play...
[/quote]
LOL
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
Righto!!
fuck it i think i get it now, thanks mainly to justdoit.
So we made a profit of 27.4M before you pay interest off and before you take into consideration the accounting method, amortisation, which takes into consideration the devaluing of your assets is the players natural decrease in value as they approach free agency/old age... hold on is that right??
So then in the most tangible understandable sense we are in fact profitable and the chunks being taken out of us are in fact the fault of the Yanks debts placed against us??
Or not... help....
fuck accountancy it is SHITE
Righto!!
fuck it i think i get it now, thanks mainly to justdoit.
So we made a profit of 27.4M before you pay interest off and before you take into consideration the accounting method, amortisation, which takes into consideration the devaluing of your assets is the players natural decrease in value as they approach free agency/old age... hold on is that right??
So then in the most tangible understandable sense we are in fact profitable and the chunks being taken out of us are in fact the fault of the Yanks debts placed against us??
Or not... help....
fuck accountancy it is SHITE
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=41783.msg1181140#msg1181140 date=1285253649]
Righto!!
fuck it i think i get it now, thanks mainly to justdoit.
So we made a profit of 27.4M before you pay interest off and before you take into consideration the accounting method, amortisation, which takes into consideration the devaluing of your assets is the players natural decrease in value as they approach free agency/old age... hold on is that right??
So then in the most tangible understandable sense we are in fact profitable and the chunks being taken out of us are in fact the fault of the Yanks debts placed against us??
Or not... help....
fuck accountancy it is SHITE
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=41783.msg1181140#msg1181140 date=1285253649]
Righto!!
fuck it i think i get it now, thanks mainly to justdoit.
So we made a profit of 27.4M before you pay interest off and before you take into consideration the accounting method, amortisation, which takes into consideration the devaluing of your assets is the players natural decrease in value as they approach free agency/old age... hold on is that right??
So then in the most tangible understandable sense we are in fact profitable and the chunks being taken out of us are in fact the fault of the Yanks debts placed against us??
Or not... help....
fuck accountancy it is SHITE
[/quote]
Yes.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=crump link=topic=41783.msg1181126#msg1181126 date=1285251922]
For the most part you can completely ignore it. I mean the post above from justdoit says that 27.4m is the profit to play with for satisfying shareholders returns and player additions - but it isn't. Because that figure is after the event of the players ins and outs already. That year we may have made or may have lost on player sales but that was before we ended up at 27.4.
[/quote]
Profit/loss of players ins and outs was actually reflected on "profit on disposal of players registrations". So 27.4 should be "before" figure.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1180462#msg1180462 date=1285190550]
Here's what the accounts state:
[/quote]
For your question about players increase in transfer value. From the notes above, I suspect that it will not be reflected on the financial accounts. Only if they found impairment (dont know how they define it but I suppose serious injuries) they would write down the players' value. It's what we called "prudent approach".
[quote author=crump link=topic=41783.msg1181126#msg1181126 date=1285251922]
For the most part you can completely ignore it. I mean the post above from justdoit says that 27.4m is the profit to play with for satisfying shareholders returns and player additions - but it isn't. Because that figure is after the event of the players ins and outs already. That year we may have made or may have lost on player sales but that was before we ended up at 27.4.
[/quote]
Profit/loss of players ins and outs was actually reflected on "profit on disposal of players registrations". So 27.4 should be "before" figure.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1180462#msg1180462 date=1285190550]
Here's what the accounts state:
[/quote]
For your question about players increase in transfer value. From the notes above, I suspect that it will not be reflected on the financial accounts. Only if they found impairment (dont know how they define it but I suppose serious injuries) they would write down the players' value. It's what we called "prudent approach".
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
RBS should not be worried about taking us over. Within short time they will have a bidding war on their hands. And they do have the administration intact. There is no problem selling Liverpool football club for 250 mill pounds. The problem is to sell it for 600 mill pounds.
RBS should not be worried about taking us over. Within short time they will have a bidding war on their hands. And they do have the administration intact. There is no problem selling Liverpool football club for 250 mill pounds. The problem is to sell it for 600 mill pounds.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=justdoit link=topic=41783.msg1181145#msg1181145 date=1285254129]
[quote author=crump link=topic=41783.msg1181126#msg1181126 date=1285251922]
For the most part you can completely ignore it. I mean the post above from justdoit says that 27.4m is the profit to play with for satisfying shareholders returns and player additions - but it isn't. Because that figure is after the event of the players ins and outs already. That year we may have made or may have lost on player sales but that was before we ended up at 27.4.
[/quote]
Profit/loss of players ins and outs was actually reflected on "profit on disposal of players registrations". So 27.4 should be "before" figure.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1180462#msg1180462 date=1285190550]
Here's what the accounts state:
[/quote]
For your question about players increase in transfer value. From the notes above, I suspect that it will not be reflected on the financial accounts. Only if they found impairment (dont know how they define it but I suppose serious injuries) they would write down the players' value. It's what we called "prudent approach".
[/quote]
If that's right, then what about the 20 odd million we have spent on players net listed in the intangible assets bit?
[quote author=justdoit link=topic=41783.msg1181145#msg1181145 date=1285254129]
[quote author=crump link=topic=41783.msg1181126#msg1181126 date=1285251922]
For the most part you can completely ignore it. I mean the post above from justdoit says that 27.4m is the profit to play with for satisfying shareholders returns and player additions - but it isn't. Because that figure is after the event of the players ins and outs already. That year we may have made or may have lost on player sales but that was before we ended up at 27.4.
[/quote]
Profit/loss of players ins and outs was actually reflected on "profit on disposal of players registrations". So 27.4 should be "before" figure.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1180462#msg1180462 date=1285190550]
Here's what the accounts state:
[/quote]
For your question about players increase in transfer value. From the notes above, I suspect that it will not be reflected on the financial accounts. Only if they found impairment (dont know how they define it but I suppose serious injuries) they would write down the players' value. It's what we called "prudent approach".
[/quote]
If that's right, then what about the 20 odd million we have spent on players net listed in the intangible assets bit?
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
Me. But Im not getting into this serious shit.
Me. But Im not getting into this serious shit.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=41783.msg1181149#msg1181149 date=1285254591]
RBS should not be worried about taking us over. Within short time they will have a bidding war on their hands. And they do have the administration intact. There is no problem selling Liverpool football club for 250 mill pounds. The problem is to sell it for 600 mill pounds.
[/quote]
Amen brother.
I think for the first time in a long time now im actually optimistic that we can get some investment. Its a shame those couldnt do it for us earlier but... it seems they may well get their comeuppance for their ineptitude.
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=41783.msg1181149#msg1181149 date=1285254591]
RBS should not be worried about taking us over. Within short time they will have a bidding war on their hands. And they do have the administration intact. There is no problem selling Liverpool football club for 250 mill pounds. The problem is to sell it for 600 mill pounds.
[/quote]
Amen brother.
I think for the first time in a long time now im actually optimistic that we can get some investment. Its a shame those couldnt do it for us earlier but... it seems they may well get their comeuppance for their ineptitude.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1181159#msg1181159 date=1285255391]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[/quote]
No ways. I just need them all the time. My only point has been that while there's 27m quid profit there then someone will fancy us at the right price.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1181159#msg1181159 date=1285255391]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[/quote]
No ways. I just need them all the time. My only point has been that while there's 27m quid profit there then someone will fancy us at the right price.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
Nice, comprehensible piece by the BBC's business editor:
Nice, comprehensible piece by the BBC's business editor:
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1181159#msg1181159 date=1285255391]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[/quote]
Guilty as charged
erm since I am not following UK personality, who in the world is JK?
as to the sauce, it is Whore Chester Shy Er lah
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1181159#msg1181159 date=1285255391]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[/quote]
Guilty as charged
erm since I am not following UK personality, who in the world is JK?
as to the sauce, it is Whore Chester Shy Er lah
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=crump link=topic=41783.msg1181150#msg1181150 date=1285254640]
If that's right, then what about the 20 odd million we have spent on players net listed in the intangible assets bit?
[/quote]
Sorry I dont get it. You are asking me where the figure 23,865 was reflected on the profit and loss account?
[quote author=crump link=topic=41783.msg1181150#msg1181150 date=1285254640]
If that's right, then what about the 20 odd million we have spent on players net listed in the intangible assets bit?
[/quote]
Sorry I dont get it. You are asking me where the figure 23,865 was reflected on the profit and loss account?
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1181159#msg1181159 date=1285255391]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[/quote]
I'm assuming thats some kind of dig Avemenon but... the truth its hardly the coolest area of work tbh... fuck did i type Physicist!.... I meant Dolphin trainer.
Yeh that... Dolphin trainer and Race car driver.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1181159#msg1181159 date=1285255391]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[/quote]
I'm assuming thats some kind of dig Avemenon but... the truth its hardly the coolest area of work tbh... fuck did i type Physicist!.... I meant Dolphin trainer.
Yeh that... Dolphin trainer and Race car driver.
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=justdoit link=topic=41783.msg1181165#msg1181165 date=1285255825]
[quote author=crump link=topic=41783.msg1181150#msg1181150 date=1285254640]
If that's right, then what about the 20 odd million we have spent on players net listed in the intangible assets bit?
[/quote]
Sorry I dont get it. You are asking me where the figure 23,865 was reflected on the profit and loss account?
[/quote]
Well I reckons it's in the player trading / amortisation column, which would make the amortisation the balance of the 45 minus that. Is that right?
Either way where does that other 3m come from?
[quote author=justdoit link=topic=41783.msg1181165#msg1181165 date=1285255825]
[quote author=crump link=topic=41783.msg1181150#msg1181150 date=1285254640]
If that's right, then what about the 20 odd million we have spent on players net listed in the intangible assets bit?
[/quote]
Sorry I dont get it. You are asking me where the figure 23,865 was reflected on the profit and loss account?
[/quote]
Well I reckons it's in the player trading / amortisation column, which would make the amortisation the balance of the 45 minus that. Is that right?
Either way where does that other 3m come from?
Re: Merged Topics: Club Refinance Thread
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181162#msg1181162 date=1285255673]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1181159#msg1181159 date=1285255391]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[/quote]
Guilty as charged
erm since I am not following UK personality, who in the world is JK?
as to the sauce, it is Whore Chester Shy Er lah
[/quote]
The UK Jerry Springer.
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181162#msg1181162 date=1285255673]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1181159#msg1181159 date=1285255391]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=41783.msg1181156#msg1181156 date=1285255177]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1181151#msg1181151 date=1285254642]
Fucking hell, how many accountants have we got on this site?
[/quote]
have mercy
accountants need football to give them excitement & meaning in life!
[/quote]
I'd forgotten about you.
So that's you, Jack, Portlly, Vlads?, crump?.
I didnt figure Molby for a physicist though.
I know Ross is in the sad world of law, like me.
Or at least I was.
Now I'm in the sad world of Jeremy Kyle.
[/quote]
Guilty as charged
erm since I am not following UK personality, who in the world is JK?
as to the sauce, it is Whore Chester Shy Er lah
[/quote]
The UK Jerry Springer.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked