Tim

And if Barry doesn't sign that new contract villa risk losing him for about £2m. Can Rafa wait that long and save around £12m+? The longer this goes on the less chance villa have of getting their own way. I reckon we'll see him arrive late on in the transfer window for a knocked down price (plus some add ons) as villa start to realise how much money they are going to lose. Also, it's not only the £23k increase you have to take into account. By keeping him an extra year they are paying the full (reported) £70,000 per week. So if they sold him now they'd get approx £15m and save £2.4m in wages per year (so in effect it gives villa £17.4m to spend on transfers and wages). If they sold him in a year for a reduced price (say the £15m) they'd get that but would have spent £3.6m of it on keeping barry that extra year. So in effect getting less than £11.5m. Liverpool should start dropping the value of their bids.

the lme have contracts that go for 15 months and 27 months so the price of steel can be fixed in for that length of time.

I stand corrected, I thought there was a market on it.

I was trying to just give an example. I doubt there will be a futures market for steel itself at any point unless there were to be a very uniform delivery specification to come into place. With oil, gold etc it's all down to generic quantities isn't it? I suppose what I should have said was, the contractors agree with the suppliers a price for the steel, the suppliers go to the futures market to source the iron ore etc cost to lock in their margin.

But if you have bought oil futures to the tune of £10m 6 months ago for it to be delivered over the next 12 months you get the number of barrels that were part of the contract 6 months ago, not what £10m would get you at current or future prices. For example, you take out futures contracts for delivery of oil in 3 months, 6 months and 9 months at $100 per barrel (100,000 barrels in total). At the end of the 9 months you will have been delivered those 100,000 barrels whether prices increase or decrease as you have a contract for that volume of oil, not the value of oil. So if prices rise before delivery you could either sell the futures on at a profit, or take delivery in the future and sell the oil on either at current replacement cost or at a discount to current replacement cost to be a cost differentiator to rivals. It will be the same for the steel. The contractors will have entered into agreements for, for example, 6m tonnes of steel to be delivered at set dates, to set specifications, in the future. It is then down to the supplier to organise their raw material contracts to lock in a profit margin. There will probably be some variable cost (transportation, storage for delays, staff costs etc) but the bulk of it will be fixed price per tonne as the suppliers will be able to get fixed prices for raw materials. I got the info from someone on another site. That's why I put apparently, can only go on second hand information. With work starting in september on the foundations etc the steel will have to have been ordered, for that part atleast, by now.

For that bit I mean that they run the risk that the price of steel goes too high that it stops a sale. Ultimately it's all about risk management. For example at banks, before they put a new mortgage/savings product on the market they take out interest rate swaps that convert the fixed rate on the product to a variable rate. The aim is to manage the interest rate risk the company has. It isn't until after they have dealt this that they start doing the business on it over the following month/months. And these swaps are sometimes done a year or two in advance. Where I work we have done deals where we have sorted out the full profile of a commercial loan where the customer knows exactly what rates he will be paying into the future. We have then taken out swaps to lock in a margin to guarantee a profit, all other things being equal and the loan doesn't default. It was done as it guarantees the margin. A similar thing happens with commodities. Laing O'Rourke purchases £60m of steel for delivery in at varying points in the future Corus (I think it's them who are steel producers) purchase options to receive the raw materials at various points in the future. This locks in the margin made by Corus on the steel.

The steel won't be fabricated until just before it is needed anyway so that comment is a load of crap. Just because the planning permission was granted only recently doesn't mean everything stopped until that point. Contractors, architects and project manager were all assigned in january and work will have been on going since to ensure that things could go ahead at the earliest possible opportunity. Remember just 4 days after the full planning permission was granted (and everyone knows there was no hope in hell of it getting called in) preliminary work was started under the licence for a full start in early september. Companies will agree to fixed prices as it is guaranteed revenue/profit when they hedge the requirements correctly. By waiting they run the risk that the price of steel goes too high to stop a sale. It is better to take the guaranteed income than wait for theoretical income at the moment. There will be a schedule of requirements with those at Laing O'Rourke, Ramboll Whitbybird and KUD international to help ensure things arrive on time. The one thing that may not be finalised are the exact dimensions as last minute design changes are made to improve the design. Those will be delivered to the steel companies in due course.

well apparently the steel has already been purchased, by the suppliers at least. Given this is a very bespoke project, especially with some of the design features, this isn't going to be an off the shelf purchase. A company may think that steel prices will continue to rise, but it is their job to hedge their position for it. Companies prefer guaranteed revenues/profits than theoretical ones. If they can tie up a deal for a project of this size with the customer at a fixed price then they will do it. They will then hedge their position against rising costs by securing the necessary raw materials from the suppliers. It's called risk management. Look at the Emirates, that was built on budget because they fixed the price of the materials they would need and it was done in long in advance of the steel being needed.

An agreement for delivery of steel at given times may/will have already been agreed though. This agreement will fix the price of the steel and it is then upto the provider to hedge their risk against price rises etc by taking out contracts that give them the option to buy the requisite iron ore etc at the required times. Remember it's not like you are buying something off the shelf, it is all bespoke.

Based on that the club would make f*** all. At the very most I'd say they would be looking at £100k extra at most.

Warren Bradley is another who sees benefits in groundshare, but he's not been heard from since I told him he risked losing his job because of a serious conflict of interest if he continued pushing a groundshare in the name of the council.

Would still need fresh planning permission. Besides you know everton have issues with paying rent

The big problem with Arsenal at the moment is they are relying quite heavily on property development to help pay off a substantial amount of the debt. With the housing, and commercial property, market as it is at the moment they may be getting very nervous. They have also had an issue where the insurers who have made the bonds Arsenal issued AAA rated have had their credit rating downgraded, this is adding extra cost to Arsenal to maintain the AAA rating.

Stop being selective in the bits I mentioned. If you actually read through it properly you will see that I have mentioned numerous financial issues.

Having two clubs in 1 stadium means two ticket offices, two (or 3 in this case as I think the new stadium has two already) club shops, two trophy rooms/museums, two sets of administrative offices. Then there is the main practical issue. At the moment the stadium will hold 60,000, however it can then go upto approx 73,000. What happens if we want to increase to that but everton don't? With the stadium owned by both clubs would we be able to just go ahead with it? What about the cost of that extension? If everton can't afford, or don't want, it then do we pay for it all, get a bigger share of the stadium and refuse them access to the extended section for their games? It also means the club can only have their share of the stadium on the balance sheet. What happens if one club were to have financial issues with repaying the stadium debt (most likely everton). Do the balliffs reposes two of the stands? Who gets the money for corporate events on non-matchdays? Is it split down the middle?

Groundshare makes NO financial sense no matter what the daily post/echo/everton/broomhead say. Everton are struggling to find the money to fund their part of the Kirkby development when all they need at most is £100m. They will need over 50% more than that to have a shared stadium with us. They couldn't find £30m for the Kings Dock and they won't find the money for Kirkby (unless they borrow it from Tesco). A change to a groundshare stance means a change to the stadium design. That in turn means another application to the planning committee. However this time it won't be a simple change of design that will be assessed. The FULL consultation process would have to be done again and it is a guarantee that a dual club stadium would be called in by the DCLG for review. The groundshare debate has been killed more times than Highlander and Dr Who put together.

No, there were 3 facilities arranged at the refinancing in January. Facility A was the £245m for the purchase debt and £60m existing club debt Facility B was approx £45m working capital facility (I believe this is a revolving credit facility) Facility C (Stadium Facility specifically) approx £60m. The debt assigned for the stadium was specifically assigned for that purpose. It cannot be used for anything else otherwise the banks won't let the club drawdown on it. As for a time limit on the club having to start work, I would say that is garbage since neither the club nor the bank will have known when final planning approval would have been obtained.

Right the club already have approx £65m to start construction, this is approx 18% of the funding required for the build. If they got a deal the same as arsenal for naming rights (this money for arsenal replaced the £45m they got in advance from Nike for their kit sponsorship which was used to part fund the stadium) that would be £45m which represents approx 13% of the funding, leaving another 69% (or £240m) to get. With the Adidas deal due for renewal we may see something develop there. The club may also have saved some operation cashflows for the project too. We will have to wait and see though. But RBS wouldn't have loaned the money if there wasn't some tentative agreement in place for the remaining facility as long as conditions are met (ie cash investment from the club).

But I said it was transfer spending since the turn of the year. Plus there was another £4m or so spent in august on youngsters. As for Mascherano, there's conflicting reports. Some say £10m, others say £18m. As the accounts were signed off before the transfer was complete there's nothing in the accounts about it, which is a shame as it would have confirmed one way or another. For the purposes of above I went for the lower figure to hedge my bets a bit.

£10m Mascherano (assuming Mascherano was £10m, could be higher) £6m Skrtel £7m Dossena In = £23m £8m Sissoko Out = £8m Net £15m

And that is what most people will forget. The Skrtel money will have been from last summer (the Heinze money) but the Mascherano money will have been in this summers budget, the deal was just brought forward. Now how much that deal was remains to be seen though. But Sissoko was sold. But all told, since the the turn of the year the club have spent approx £15m net (assuming Mascherano was only £10m)

But that's not what happened here. The ball went behind the player who was deemed offside before being played back in his direction.

two things, one the ball didn't end up in the net, Sami cleared it so the whole point about it being offside is pointless. second, look at the replay again and you can clearly see Carragher stays off the pitch on purpose until the move has finished.

And yet Mr Ross ignores the other chants his clubs supporters sing, namely the hillsborough ones. But then it should be expected since everton have had the s*n do some in ground sponsorship not too long ago.

Forbes doesn't even know how to calculate EBITDA when the calculation is in the name of it.