Tim

The sale of gerrard was only given as an example. I have already listed how the risk of the gamble was minimal due to the way revenues are likely to go next season onwards.

It was a risk but a minimal risk. Do not forget that from next season there is the small matter of the new premiership tv deal. Estimates put the potential rise in revenues for lfc at £10m to £15m per year for the 3 years of the deal. If we had not have qualified the reduced revenue would have been adequately covered by that increase next season. There is also the next shirt sponsorship deal that is due to start next season. If we get a deal that is atleast the size that spurs signed then revenues will increase by atleast £4.5m per season over the life of the deal. Get something similar to the mancs and we are looking at upto £10m per year increase.

Don't forget the £2m on Paletta, £4.5m (give or take) on Gonzalez and the initial £2.9m (rising to £5.8m dependent on appearances etc) on Agger that have all taken place since last september (gonzalez was originally coming on loan until he was denied a work permit, it was only subsequently that he was signed permanently). That all takes the spending to approx £15m+ before a striker is brought in.

One of the main issue that will arguably be looked at by both the club and banks will be the cashflow for the 2/3 years it will take to build the stadium. For those couple of years the club is likely to have an additional cash outflow of around £6.3m to £9m for each year of the build to cover interest due on any loans (obviously depending on loan size and interest rate). Unless the club can get a little bit extra into the kitty to help cover that it will quite obviously dent transfer funds for the next couple of seasons. Now the club have already been given a huge boost on that front for what would be the 2nd (and maybe 3rd if it goes to that) year of construction with the new television deal which could be worth around £15m more per season in turnover. That will help to maintain a sort of status quo as to what we currently spend (around £22m net per season on transfers when in european cup action). Add to that the prospect of a much improved sponsorship deal there will be a boost. But the cashflow for the next 12 to 36 months needs to be carefully planned. Of course this could all be solved if the club and banks agree to have the first couple of years interest deferred until the stadium opens. Else investment is an important key to that. Now that this season has more or less started the interest due on any loans obtained now won't be due for atleast 6 months to a year which would possibly coincide with the initial payment of a new sponsorship deal.

If true, and relating to current season ticket numbers, then we are talking about £160m.

Daniel Agger was also signed in January for £2.8m upfront and another £2.8m contingent on clauses. The club have spent around £12m net since the september last year. With it looking like another £10m available to spend it puts the potential net spend at £22m which is consistent with cashflow history for the club.

We are not owed any money on heskey (unless birmingham missed a standard payment, in which case they would be in breach of premier league rules). The deal was £3.5m up front with a further £1.5m (give or take a hundred grand) for each of the following two seasons if birmingham stayed up. They only stayed up for one of those two seasons so the remainder is lost.

It needs to be remembered that Rafa has spent £12m+, since last august, in bringing Agger, Gonzales and Bellamy to the club, not to mention Palletta. In the last 2 years the club have spent over £76m gross, £50m+ net.

I believe we had actually agreed a fee for simao until benfica changed their mind very late on and demanded more money.

Going out at the quarter final would have got roughly an extra £2.6m in turnover from gate receipts and UEFA money. Although it must be noted that we were 1-0 down after the first leg and didn't score ourselves in the second leg, so in simple terms it wouldn't have mattered (especially since simao wouldn't have been able to play in europe)

As part of their deal with Nike they had their sponsorship money brought forward to be all paid (bar some royalties) by this summer (which leaves them the next half dozen or so years with a reduced cashflow). They then had a fair bit of land that they have developed and sold to generate some short term funds to put in towards the stadium project. While the emirates deal they have actually messed up on considering the value of the latest big sponsorship deals to be announced.

Two things; 1. They can't redevelop the kemlyn again because the club have sold off the houses they owned on skerries road to developers a year or two back when redevelopment of anfield was thrown out. Most of these houses have now been cleaned up and sold/rented on. 2. The point behind investment is that it would save an equivalent amount in interest over the life of a loan. So £50m investment would save approx £50m in interest over the next 15 to 25 years if that £50m were to be taken out as a loan.

we were getting about £12m minimum from reebok with upto £5m extra based on success. We were due to get just about the maximum from last year before reebok decided to withhold some of it.

according to www.footballgroundguide.co.uk (which may not be that accurate) the red robin (near the cinema complex) is the main away fans pub.

Also worth noting that the debt to equity ratio of the club is around 16%. One thing i have been thinking about is the deferred income in the current liabilities. Chances are that much of this will be from season ticket revenue and possibly some sponsorship money. The club would obviously bring the money in upfront while the services they have yet to provide is staging a football match. Not something that is in much threat of not occurring. Knoxy, not sure if the bonuses are the full £10m but if you think about it in terms of atleast 25 members of the playing staff and management staff got bonuses that's £400k per person. Chances are more than 25 will have got a bonus. And as you say some of it may have been payable for reaching certain stages. I was careful to put "upto £10m saved" because I don't, obviously, have exact figures. Gravy here are the figures of additions to the squad (transfer values) and the cash expenditure on transfers. Additions 2002 - £38.8m 2003 - £16.8m 2004 - £19.2m 2005 - £46.1m Total - £120.9m Cash paid 2001 - £27.9m (£9.4m received) 2002 - £28.1m (£11.5m received) 2003 - £25.5m (£9.6m received) 2004 - £7.5m (£4.2m received) 2005 - £26.2m (£8.2m received) Total £115.2m Now do you think the club haven't been supplying the funds. The only realistic way of getting even more transfer funds is either to have a sugar daddy as owner or to get a stadium that holds more people.

All inventory is carried at lower of cost and net realizable value. While players transfer fees are carried at net book value but also get impaired if the clubs view is that their value is not representative. Add to that the fact that homegrown players values are not carried on the balance sheet. As for not being liquid I suppose that all depends. I'd say that certain members of our squad are very liquid assets. The only things restricting them leaving are the fact we don't want to sell them and the transfer windows. As for needing capital yes we do need capital but not for transfers. Any investment brought into the club shouldn't be used on transfers in my opinion. It should go on helping to pay for the new stadium. That would benefit the club more than spending it on transfers and being back to square one a couple of years down the road. The very nature of the way the football clubs works means they get only cash in and very rarely sell's things on credit. The balance sheet is at one day, not reflecting a full financial year like the P&L and cashflow. Sorry but if you've been a chartered accountant for 32 years then you should atleast know this. Don't take one balance sheet in isolation. The club generates anywhere from £15m to £25m in spare cash each season, depending on whether we are in the european cup or not. All bar a small amount is spent on transfers. As for the balance sheet in general, we have £43m of net assets overall. Why don't you point that out? You want to see a bad balance sheet? Look at everton's. Now they are in the s***.

Net Current Assets/Liabilities can send a bit of a wrong message. For example. I think everyone in the UK would agree that Tesco are a successful business and would have very little chance of going bust, or have no money to spend. YET they currently have Net Current Liabilities of £2.4bn (us bn). The reason why they, like us, have net current liabilities is because the current assets they generate are cash based. ie their when they make sales it is in cash, or on credit which they effectively get within the month, but it is normally after they have to get stock in. When the accounts are done they are at the slowest part of the year for cash generation. The club made £17m from operating activities last year. (about £7.5m less than it should have due to reebok not paying). £20m was paid out on transfer fees. Players totaling £46m were bought in the year. And if you are interested this is an analysis of the finances I did on RAWK http://www.ynwa.tv/forum/index.php?s=&show...dpost&p=1186006 If we didn't win in istanbul we wouldn't have had to pay out on bonuses for players and management. Would probably have saved upto £10m in wages verses a loss of only £5m from prize money and sponsorship bonus. In the short term this wouldn't have harmed the club, being out of the european cup this season would have though. Although we would still have had some money to spend. Had we not won in instanbul maybe rafa wouldn't have bought Sissoko, for example.

It's since been pointed out to me that they have accelerated the depreciation of the stadium, it's just that they moved it. Stupid mistake to make on my part but it happens. They've moved the depreciation from exceptional items to depreciation in admin expenses. I think we get the same percentage as last season. Also the percentage only applies to the first half of the media pool. So we will get about £3m from that part this season, like last, although had we been entered through as champions instead of everton being given the qualifying spot we would have got 30% of the first half of the pool (£6m). Being the 5th entrant shouldn't come into it really since only 4 english sides went into the group stage. If each of us, chelsea and arsenal go to the same stage of the competition this season we will each get slightly more than last season since there will have been 2 games less played this by english sides than last season (we would get around £0.5m extra). For the rest of this season and next finishing 2nd in the league would give us an extra £4.5m than this season from the media and premiership revenues (£1.5m for finishing 3 places higher in league, £3m for a 30% share of media pool)

Different scenario. This game was postponed in august due to our commitments in europe. The Premier League have "no reason" to move the blackburn fixture. And I'm not sure about having the charlton game in april due to the possibility of other games being postponed (west ham away gets postponed if we get to the FA Cup semi's. Plus there is potential of europe then too.

That can't be right. That is the cup replay night if it's needed. Can't see the club agreeing to a date that may have to be postponed incase a replay is needed.