Tim

Granada were given a big section of the commercial side to deal with previously. Now that they don't have an interest in the club (not 100% sure on whether .tv is fully in house now or if that remained a joint venture). As for the commercial side of things, the only area the club are really lacking in is the value of the shirt sponsorship and the corporate hospitality. The latter is more down to available facilities than anything else. Kit deal with adidas is 2nd most lucrative in england, while merchandise sales are only behind the mancs, but then they also get upto 30,000 more potential customers near their club shop on a matchday than we do at fiverworld.

A big chunk of the money from the european run will have gone on staff bonus payments. When we won it in 2005 the wage bill went up by around £10m. While there are also all the new contracts to take into account that will be paid for from the new premiership tv deal. I'd say at a conservative estimate the new contracts are adding atleast £3.5m per season (based on a rough £10k a week pay rise for 6 players). Add to that the increased wage cost, supposedly, for Torres compared to what bellamy will have been paid, probably another £1m+ a season. There is also the £9m spent on kuyt that was taken from the seasons group stage earnings, not to mention all the legal costs of the takeover.

That was actually before the takeover was officially complete. At the time they had the assurances of about 62% of the shares but still required a fair bit more before the takeover completed. In fact it's only in recent weeks that they fully acquired the full shares.

You know what I find f***ing pathetic, little petty fans who can do nothing but f***ing complain.

There's £3m difference between the two so I'd say yes. If £8.5m then the club have made an accounting (and tax) profit on cisse.

ok so that knocks about £5m off of the net spending, while I forgot about Arbeloa and the others the club have brought in (like duran and Insua). Swings and roundabouts.

Moores only lent the club the money because the club couldn't sell Cisse after his leg break. Had that not happened Kuyt would have been bought with the proceeds from that sale. Whether moores would have then lent the money to get alves no-one will know. Before the Kuyt transfer last summer the club spent around £28m net on transfers. Since then the club have bought Kuyt (£10m), Torres (£20m approx), Mascherano (Loan but £1.5m supposedly), Lucas (reportedly £6.75m), Leto (£2.5m), Nemeth & Simon (£1.5m). That's £42.25m gross spending on players since the last financial year end (31st July 2006). Since then the club have also sold Kirkland (£3m approx), Pongolle (£2.7m), Garcia (£3m approx depending on who you believe). That's only £8.7m recouped only giving a net spend of £33.55m this financial year. Ok bellamy and cisse may go for a combined £16m which will bring the net spend down to £17.55m but then the club will spend again to bring in more players.

It may still be that they were submitted then (although probably unlikely), as a planning application for a temporary carpark behind the albert was put to the council on the 12th June but only appeared on www.liverpool.gov.uk in the planning section in the last week.

Don't forget that £10m of the revenues from the european cup run was spent on Kuyt. And if Mascherano is bought then that'll be another hefty transfer fee to pay ontop of the amount already paid for this short term contract. In term's of cash values the last two reported financial periods has seen net cash outflows of £20m and £28m (with gross purchases in those two years exceeding £40m each year). The club also still owe around £20m in transfer fees before the transfer activity that started with Kuyt's purchase. The club also have a hefty legal bill to pay this year because of the takeover, plus any extra bills regarding the new stadium. You may say that bellamy and cisse will probably be sold, but Cisse being sold is just from what would have happened last year but for his injury, and all that will have changed is that Kuyt would have been at the club a few months earlier (thus not changing the net spend last year). Getting rid of bellamy will free up both wages and cash to bring in another player. And don't forget the wage bill next year will be significantly higher than this year due to 5 main players getting much improved contracts. You've a choice really, run the club so it can sustain itself, or have Gillett and Hicks do a abramovich, or at worst a leeds. In my opinion there is probably a normal budget for transfers in the region of £30m (net). Whether Gillett and Hicks need to add to this depends on whether Rafa can get his other targets with the normal budget. It is all about balancing the books and ensuring that the cashflow model doesn't leave the club up s*** creak at times when they need to have cash available, especially during the stadium build.

That's without taking into account gate receipts, could probably add upto £7m more for gate receipts.

not exactly the clearest explanation I know, but trust me the club have spent (including money still owed) over £80m net since rafa took over.

Depends on how you look at it. The amount spent on players is easy to get, just take the additions for the year from the intangible assets reconcilliation. The amount received is probably best taken from the gross cashflow reconcilliation in the notes to the accounts. The amount of actual cash expenditure, and amounts still owed by the club will also give a good indication. for example using that (notes 15, 16 & 23) the club have paid (net in cashflows) £50m in the last two financial years (again excluding kuyt, lucas and any sales since 31st July 2006) with atleast another £14m minimum still owed on transfers (reality is probably around the £20m mark). If we were to add in the kuyt, lucas and sales (pongolle and kirkland) the club would be looking at and extra £10m on top, atleast.

yep, from the last two financial accounts £87m+ in intangibles were added to the balance sheet, that's not including the kuyt and lucas transfers. Add those two in and we're talking £100m gross spending atleast. Meanwhile in terms of sales the club have received about £20m in those two financial years. Not the most accurate method but more accurate than using newspaper estimates.

And? Does that not count as part of the transfer spending? Are there rules as to what can be counted as "real" transfer spending?

Everything is in the accounts, just have a look through them and you will see that the club have spent about £80m net since rafa took over. But then if you don't want to believe it just so you can continue having a go at parry then that's your perogative.

The club have spent over £80m net since rafa took over.

someone would think it was an anniversary year or something. Wait a minute it is, 30 years since Rome.

Parry was the one who first spotted the issue with regards Mascherano's and Tevez's transfers to west ham so he was always going to be called in. And who cares what west ham's supporters think, they should be having a go at the clubs previous owners not our club.

What Hick's actually said, in response to a Mihir Bose question, was "Dividends are paid out of profits, so if there are no profits there are no dividends, so, we put the money in so if there are profits we'll take a dividend to pay the interest" You cannot take out dividends if you do not have any distributable profits (apparently the club will make a £9m loss this year, primarily due to the legal fees for the takeover and the increased player spending, and next year will be a lean year too in terms of profits, probably because of increased spending). If we are making big enough profits for them to be taking such dividends then it would mean that financially the club would be on a very sound footing.

NYR catches up with Fyds gopher

A 68,000 capacity stadium would probably bring in around £30m to £40m+ more per season from league games alone in ticket revenues compared to current revenues. Only because they can't build on the north (??) stand due to the railway behind the stand.

Don't forget there are a number of those former shareholders who can get upto 4 tickets for the final. That's a minimum of 3,400 available to them, with it potentially going up probably another 1,000 or so more. The club need to withhold the maximum number that can be sold to 7+ credits/shareholders incase they get taken up, with any not taken up then being sold to 6 credits. The likelihood is more tickets will be made available early next week for another selection from the ballot. Maybe not too many tickets but there will be some more available.

It's their own fault they are in that position so tough f***ing s*** on them. What they forget is most of those players who were rested saturday played 120 minutes of football on tuesday night. And as for it being against the rules, f*** off, in life you look after number 1, not some s***ty clubs who have ideas above their station. And everton will be the ones screaming loudest if they finish 5th and we finish 4th

It looks nothing like arsenals and benficas. For a start arsenals and benficas have very distinct tiers for all round the stadium, the initial designs of ours do not.

we got about £40m to £45m for winning the trophy in 2005 on the back of the uefa money, sponsorship bonuses, a £4m increase in merchandise sales and £4m for the super cup and the japan trip. I think that so far this season we've taken atleast £25m before bonuses and the merchandise sales. Winning it will add ATLEAST another £6m in revenue but it must be noted that bonuses to players/staff will cut down the amount of profit made.