Liverpool ground to a halt

[liverbird04]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...27/sfnbo228.xml

 

"By Mihir Bose

 

Everton might get one over on their Merseyside rivals Liverpool by moving into a brand new stadium before them.

 

Liverpool's plans for a new ground have become so bogged down that they are in danger of losing up to £20 million of European funding, which has been earmarked for stadium infrastructure work.

 

The clock on this European funding, which comes via the north-west regional development agencies, is ticking and the club has been told that as this money is coming from this year's budget Liverpool must convice them that they are serious about this new stadium by the July 31, or the money will be allocated elsewhere.

 

However, progress on the new stadium has been so slow that costs have risen inexorably. Having started with an original estimate of £70 million the stadium could cost £190 million. One of the main problems has been finding an investor. On Tuesday rumours swept Merseyside of yet another consortium bid, which would be Liverpool's seventh potential bidder in the last year.

 

The latest rumoured bidder consists of Dermot Desmond, Celtic's largest shareholder, with John Magnier and JP McManus, once friends of Sir Alex Ferguson and investors in Manchester United.

 

Everton, in contrast, have no potential investors and a long-term stand-off in their boardroom between chairman Bill Kenwright and director Paul Gregg to deal with.

 

Despite this, the club is looking at three sites and confident they could build a 50,000-stadium, with an option to increase the capacity to 70,000, for around £100 million, at a cost of £1,500 a seat.

 

There are three potential sites, the first is near Aintree, which Peel Holdings, a major property developer of the region, may help to build. The other sites include one near Speke airport and another in Kirby, which will involve a Tesco development, the company's chief executive Sir Terry Leahy being a keen Everton supporter.

 

Everton's income of £60 million may be half that of Liverpool's, but their debt of £27 million is also a third of Liverpool's debt which is nearly £80 million.

But Goodison sources are confident that if all goes well they could be in their new home by 2009, unlike Liverpool who have said that even in a best-case scenario their new stadium will not be ready until 2010."

 

 

would appreciate someone explaining where that 80 million figure has come from ,cos I have seen that a few times now and never understand it.

Edited July 26, 2006 by liverbird04

[Maldini]

What a steaming load of sh*te, we never had an estimation of £70m and our debts are less than £20m.

 

That whole article reeks of groundshare lobbying.

[liverbird04]

Sounded a bit strange to me as well ,not heard that particular rumour about JP Mcmanus it just sounds totally made up.

 

The only rumour I heard which I posted on RAWK was that there could be a big decision made on Thursday apparently (I assume this thursday?) and that not long after something would be put out to the press . Don't know if anyone else has heard anythign even vaguely similar ,got a few replies on RAWK saying there might just be a little inkling in it but nothing more than that.

 

 

so just found the timing of this article quite interesting.I never really want to mention any rumours on the stadium cos you look like a nob when nothing happens anyway as per usual.

[liverbird04]

Mihir Bose is often spectacularly misinformed for an expert on football finances.

 

 

I remember an article from this person on newcastles finances as well.

[Guest toadboy]

Mihir Bose is often spectacularly misinformed for an expert on football finances.

 

Maybe so but Liverpool are carrying a substantial debt and I'm not talking about the 'real' debt, that stuff owed to the bank in the form of loans and overdraft, or the accounting debt of unfulfilled commintments such as tickets sold for fixtures/services not yet completed. We're looking at £40 million+.

 

Rick Parry stated, at the outset of the new stadium farce, that the club would press on and wouldn't get bogged down with grants etc. due to the time consuming and interferring nature of the beast. It would all be a commercial venture and the scheme/project would stand or fall on it's commercial merits. What happened? If planning was an issue then alternatives should have been persued.

 

The Peel option wasn't/hasn't been dismissed, Peel have played the public sitting on the fence card while discussing options with all parties. Peel also own Central Docks, I think you'll see this is all strategic positioned from them - a major capital project could lever in a shed load of activity for them on land that currently is practically worthless. Everton/Peel/Central Docks is arguably the option being chased, Everton stay in the north end, Peel tie up a chunk of dock road real estate putting £ pressure on dockside estate. Peel can raise land values relatively quickly this way.

 

Everton won't move to Kirkby, that would be their death knell - who'd go, where's the commercial activity, what happens when the developers see the power of the retail £ in the face of the football £ in a small town?

 

Liverpool...we'll stumble along chasing tuppence ha'penny grants to build the Parry dome, too small, bland and at the cost of Anfield for little return. Either do it properlly or sit back and join the ranks of City, everton, Villa, Newcastle etc.

 

The £70m estimation was for a 55,000 seater stadium for which plans were scrapped.

 

You'd better inform the board of our debt because according to the annual report for 2005 our debts are £17.14 million

 

The board are fully aware of the debt.

 

So is everyone else with a financial interest in the club.

 

It seems that you aren't.

[Guest Jack Bauer]

Are you Steve Morgan?

[Maldini]

Maybe so but Liverpool are carrying a substantial debt and I'm not talking about the 'real' debt, that stuff owed to the bank in the form of loans and overdraft, or the accounting debt of unfulfilled commintments such as tickets sold for fixtures/services not yet completed. We're looking at £40 million+.

What debt are you talking about then? Monopoly debt? Do not pass go, do not collect £20m NWDA money

[realtarragona]

Morgan reached that figure I think by including stuff like season ticket sales as we'd not actually offered the service for them yet.

[Maldini]

The board are fully aware of the debt.

 

So is everyone else with a financial interest in the club.

 

It seems that you aren't.

Damn right I'm not, so you're saying the club and their accountants have cooked the books then? I really don't understand what you're trying to say (or not say as the case may be) Can you explain what these debts are please?

[Guest toadboy]

Damn right I'm not, so you're saying the club and their accountants have cooked the books then? I really don't understand what you're trying to say (or not say as the case may be) Can you explain what these debts are please?

 

There are payments due to other parties than banks and not all 'debt' is the accounting debt of unfulfilled obligations.

 

A little tip. Player transfers.

 

The club and accountants certainly haven't cooked the books.

 

Never mind not understanding my posts, you don't seem to understand balance sheets either.

 

I suggest you do what you do best - stick to snide comments - and avoid issues you don't understand.

[Nebraska Red]

we're doomed, doomed I tells ya.

 

we should fold up and get out of town before the mighty Everton gets one over on us.

[liverbird04]

"There are payments due to other parties than banks and not all 'debt' is the accounting debt of unfulfilled obligations.

 

A little tip. Player transfers."

 

 

what about the transfers? expand please.

[Rushian]

There are payments due to other parties than banks and not all 'debt' is the accounting debt of unfulfilled obligations. A little tip. Player transfers.

 

This is the problem I have with Bose - he's including our staged payments for players, but not including Everton's. He's also included that season ticket "services to be rendered" addition of £20m. It's lazy journalism. Most of what he's written has been cribbed from the Daily Post a couple of weeks back.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Rushian

[R A Softlad]

Mihir Bose is often spectacularly misinformed for an expert on football finances.

 

Sounds like he's quoting Mr Morgan's fictional figures...

[Guest toadboy]

This is the problem I have with Bose - he's including our staged payments for players, but not including Everton's. He's also included that season ticket "services to be rendered" addition of £20m. It's lazy journalism. Most of what he's written has been cribbed from the Daily Post a couple of weeks back.

 

I agree.

 

The fact remains that Liverpool isn't a debt free and financial sound 'risk' at the moment. the sooner fans realise this the better. It will put our transfers dealings and stadium situation into perspective for them.

 

At the same time Everton's liabilities will be about equal with their turnover for the next few seasons, hardly a scenario were the toffs will be able to raise money from the banks, markets or Ocean Finance. Peel or some other land owner or developer are the key for them and even then they'll be schackled by some mad lease.

 

John Houlding, anyone?

[Rushian]

The fact remains that Liverpool isn't a debt free and financial sound 'risk' at the moment. the sooner fans realise this the better. It will put our transfers dealings and stadium situation into perspective for them.

 

Of course not, but then the whole of English football revolves around these IOUs. It's just a mass of money floating in the ether which is theoretically insured against the "guaranteed" Premier League future TV income. I think it was only three years back that they changed the rules to allow all transfers between Premier League clubs to be paid in equal installments over the lifetime of the contract, switching from the previous scenario of half up front, half a year later. Chelsea are probably the only club who don't have much in the way of future transfer installments on their books.

[Maldini]

I suggest you do what you do best - stick to snide comments - and avoid issues you don't understand.

I'll continue combining both thanks

 

I assume you got the £40m+ figure by combining the £17m net debt and the £26m in creditors to be paid back in more than a year? If not where did you get it from?

[Dule]

toadboy ive heard your argument before and i must admit it is a little bit of a worry. Originally i thought it was Morgan just trying to cook up a storm, but i dont beleive that this is the problem with Investment, it has more to do so with Moores not wanting to hand over the leadership of the club.

 

P.S no need to argue boys, both of you had your hearts in the right place

[SouthAfricaRed]

I agree.

 

The fact remains that Liverpool isn't a debt free and financial sound 'risk' at the moment. the sooner fans realise this the better. It will put our transfers dealings and stadium situation into perspective for them.

 

 

Yes Liverpool isnt Debt Free, but I'd rather be in our position than that of Man Utd or Arsenal

[R A Softlad]

i'd rather be in our position than anyone elses. Cos we are Liverpool. I thank you and I will now hand you back to drunk Kev.

[growler]

toadboy, not disputing your knowledge, but am disputing your anger and aggression.

 

Generally speaking though,

 

The facts are, the balance sheet is healthy for going concern with opportunity that we have face. You can take into account the long term debt if you like when looking at total debt. But then you also need to take into account guaranteed long term revenue, ie the increased revenue from the premier league from next season.

 

you can also assume (Without banking on it from a commercial decision point of view) that once the carlsberg deal is finished, we will have a highever revenue stream from our next deal. Increased revenue from greater success on the pitch .

 

you could even argue about the value of some of the assets (ie players) holding their value better than in the past.

 

Also, I think its clear that the club are well run and rafa bears that in mind. Otherwise why would be play hardball over a couple of mil?

 

The facts are there for all to see on the balance sheet, and any fan can tell you about the future plans at liverpool and the revenue streams over the next 3-5 years.

[Mike]

strange timing this article from Bose.

something has been of late afoot...

[Guest WaltonRed]

Are those two race horse men Liverpool fans?

 

I think they might be Celtic and Liverpool but I'm not sure

[Senrab_nhoj]

Of course not, but then the whole of English football revolves around these IOUs. It's just a mass of money floating in the ether which is theoretically insured against the "guaranteed" Premier League future TV income. I think it was only three years back that they changed the rules to allow all transfers between Premier League clubs to be paid in equal installments over the lifetime of the contract, switching from the previous scenario of half up front, half a year later. Chelsea are probably the only club who don't have much in the way of future transfer installments on their books.

 

 

Question,

 

Under normal accounting practice these future installments should be included under liabilities, both current and not current liabilities and therefore would be disclosed on the balance sheet and clearly visible as debt. Is this not the case for deferred transfer payments? would be very strange if these contracted amounts were not disclosed

[Guest redmilky]

toadboy is factually right actually. I'm not sure i agree with the conclusions inferred in this thread mind. I think we're broadly ok.