Tim

No being a drama queen. If an organisation can't have as something as simple as an email address that can't be reached then it's very poor. This was it not being able to be delivered, not the recipient not being able to receive it because their provider is down. Even if you someone can't receive emails you should be able to send emails to them without getting an undeliverable message.

not sending from work, sending from home. Sent a the email a few times and every time it bounced back every time. Anyway the contact us bit finally got it through to them.

info@shareliverpoolfc.com does not work.

Not had anything yet bar some messages saying can't deliver email. If this is an indictment of the way they are running shareliverpool then I personally want nothing to do with them. I'll try the 'Contact Us' form on the website (I swear that wasn't on there 2 days ago) and see if I get a reply. But I won't hold my breath. I suspect if I do get a reply it'll be along the lines of "we've had these figures independently verified and we believe them to give an accurate picture" and then not actually release any of the assumptions they've used.

In this climate it wouldn't make much of a difference. Besides they have fixed the interest on the purchase and initial debt element (£185m purchase debt, £60m assumed debt from purchase) until January 2011). In hindsight not the greatest thing to do, but hey hindsight is 20-20.

in other news, the pope reveals he's catholic. Note that's not at you ali, it's at Harris

Their commentary quotes just info@shareliverpoolfc.com but will try your suggestion. Don't think it'll work though.

I think it's safe to say I won't get a reply from shareliverpool since their email address doesn't even work. And they don't have any contact details on their website bar registering your interest. It's shocking that their email address doesn't even work.

Can only go by the last set of accounts available (Y/E July 2007) but the next cash outflow for transfers in the year to July 2007 was £46.2m, in the year to July 2006 it was £28.2m, that's nearly £75m in 2 years for transfer fees when the operating cashflows of the club were a cumulative £62m. It's why the debt was so high prior to the takeover, we had a high proportion of transfer fees to pay at the outset, rather than over contracts as is often the case with transfers from european clubs. The standard practice for transfers from uk clubs is to pay half upfront and half in 1 year. If they've asked to pay a smaller amount upfront, then I suspect it'll be to redress this imbalance and re-organise the cash management (hence the revolving credit facility for working capital).

The Momo sale was part of the £2m net expenditure between August 2007 and January 2008 (bought Skrtel, Plessis, Insua and Itandje and Leto in that period)

looks like he has way too much hair to be me.

nah, it says pa. Like you I initially thought over that horizon, I was still sceptical about it even then, but when I noticed the pa I knew something had to be up. Basically they are saying that the club is financially unviable whether the debt is there or not. I think it is based on ultimate, end of the world, put your head between your knees and kiss your a*** goodbye situation. They are assuming no mitigating actions to counter the downturn in performances etc. Also if the club are running up those sorts of losses straight away then it wouldn't be allowed to continue as a going concern unless the owners put in guarantees to underwrite any losses. They wouldn't need to get to 5 years, it'd all be over in 2. But I'll await a reply and see what they say, but I suspect that I know what a possible error made has been.

The initial £33m are in the accounts of Kop Football (Holdings) Limited for year ending July 2007 The remainder is £2m net expenditure, after the balance sheet date but before the accounts were signed off (so before the Mascherano transfer completion in February 2008). The Mascherano transfer which is anywhere from £10m to £18m. The summer transfers in: Keane £19.3m (rising to £20.3m) Dossenna £6m Cavalieri reported £3.5m Ngog reported £2.5m (although may have included another player in there) Riera reported £8m Total expenditure approx £39.3m out: crouch £9m to £11m (depending on source you believe) Riise £4m (rising to £4.5m) Carson £3.25m (rising to £3.75m I think) Guthrie £2.5m Finnan unknown, was it free or was the £8m riera fee net of finnan going the other way? Is there anyone else I've missed? Total out £21.75m (if using maximum amounts due) Net approx £17.5m Total net since the takeover £62.5m to £70.5m (depending on Mascherano fee and accuracy of any of the above. I do stand to be correct on the above (except the figure for the 4 months after takeover and the £2m net for august 2007 to january 2008)

Don't forget that they say that those losses as per year. So LFC are looking at losses in the region that Chelsea make on an annual basis. meredithmathieson, as for an email to shareliverpool, this is what I've just sent. I think it covers just about everything I would like to know, although I'll probably think of something extra later.

No, they've got basic things wrong. Transfer expenditure for example, they've said the club have spent £53m net since the club was sold. The club spent £33m net in the first 4 months of Hicks/Gillett ownership. In January/February 2008 the club spent upto £20m net, then in the summer the club spent in excess of £15m net. That's an awful lot to get wrong. The stadium facility is for the stadium only, it's written into the legal documentation that this is the case. As for pretty much everything I've posted these days being assumptions. How often have I posted in the last 6 months? I've probably posted less than half a dozen times, and most have been to correct inaccuracies or to give my opinion. Share Liverpool are confused in that commentary as to what they are looking at. In one paragraph it's the club itself, and then in another it's the group of companies. If they're going to do something like this then they need to concentrate on one area. There's nothing wrong with making assumptions, but to make some fundamental errors is not acceptable.

the transfer expenditure since they took over, the amount of the debt facility that was drawndown, what the £60m stadium facility can be used for. The fact that they think converting the inter-company loan (for the debt that was on the club prior to the purchase of the club) to equity will actually help. They say it'll reduce the club's interest obligations and "but also ensure that none of these funds are withdrawn from the club to help Kop Football fund it’s own interest cost". Well that is plainly rubbish as they could just take the funds anyway as the club is fully owned by Kop Football Limited. They also seem to think that if Kop Football defaulted then all the debt obligations fall on LFC. That is not the case, £185m of the debt is guaranteed by Hicks and Gillett. The club is only liable for debt secured against it's own assets. And all the debt that is secured against it's own assets is debt the club has actually incurred itself. There is also the fact that not all, if any, of the £60m stadium loan has been drawndown because work hasn't started on the stadium. And if it has been drawndown then it is only sitting in a ringfenced account that can't be touched unless it's stadium expenditure.

Rubbish, they haven't released any details on their assumptions for that model. Well if they have they haven't put any of it up on their website. They also got significant errors in the few details they did release in their commentary. They also seem to be getting themselves confused in the commentary as to whether they are talking about the club itself or the whole group structure. I wouldn't trust that piece by shareliverpool. It is a piece that appears to have been done by a novice.

It's against the Telecommunications Act of 1984.

the money for the first stage is there. I also still think they can get the loans for the remainder providing they can meet the equity finance conditions (ie a c£25m deposit). If Oliver Kay is to be believed, and I am usually sceptical of newspaper reports, RBS are more than willing to lend the money for the stadium, but only with £200m of guarantees from the owners. Do they want to do that? Probably not. Can they do that? Who knows but some rumours say they couldn't underwrite my student loan. If they are running out of assets to use as a guarantee then that will obviously cause a problem, but I do think they club can get the loans. It may cost a little bit more though. But if the Share Liverpool went for a different tact to begin with they might have a better chance of getting a foot in the door. Go to the club and say, "we have x members who can put forward £xm between them. Let us own x% of the stadium, or the club, with the funds being used for the stadium". It serves two purposes, one to get a holding in the club again (and possibly someone on the board) and two to help the stadium financing and thus reduce the need of loans. With no dividends needing to be paid it will be much cheaper than debt.

Realistically for Share Liverpool to have much of a chance it can only really be looking at a minor stake either in the club or providing a sizeable equity part for the stadium financing (possibly along the chelsea pitch owners style).

Of course the fact that Thomas Cook details were out before the SOS details mean nothing? It's a coincidence that the prices were similar. Wait until the next european aways and see what happens, maybe then it won't be a coincidence. Oh, and we haven't played anderlecht in 3 years and that was when Lonsdale were doing the official travel. And PSV was through Triangle. Thomas Cook have only been doing the european aways for the last 12 months or so in which time the away games have been Toulouse, Milan, Besiktas, Marseille, Arsenal, Chelsea and Porto

It's a bloody coincidence. Do you really think Thomas Cook would be trying to compete against something that arguably most liverpool fans don't know about? If they were trying to get people to use themselves instead of SOS then they'd undercut.

Wow, someone has found out how to use Paintshop and learned some new nasty nicknames.

Alan Nixon is a c***. How he still has a job is anyones guess. So Dubai are willing to overpay for City but not for Liverpool originally? It's a nothing story where Nixon has had to get something in to his employers quick.

They don't even own the one outside the ground. That belongs to JJB aswell I believe.