Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC" part 3

It's the loan repayment for the stadium. The banks aren't budging on the agreed repayments before coronavirus which is why levy is now looking to sell Kane.

Could be united or Liverpool but their wages to turnover are easily manageable.

Manchester United turnover 662m wages 327m net debt 204m
Liverpool turnover 533m, wages 310m, net debt 158m

That is all true but I'm not sure it's relevant mate. Spurs stadium issue is a bit of a problem (though if they have a long term fix, it's not). The article is about loss of earnings though, not about outgoings.

As for United/Liverpool, for this article is true, it works upon an assumption that 90% of sponsorships are not being paid while this goes on. There's obviously no European money (and that may not come) no gate money, no box money, potentially a reduction in TV money (though we will probably get this if we can agree to write off this season and start next). Either way, when you start factoring those things in, you've got very little turnover, and massive expenses. Everyone is in the same boat regarding income, but obviously the sides with the biggest salaries (by far and away the biggest expensive for all teams) are the most exposed.
 
Sorry that should be 9 million a week.

How do we know it's Spurs then? Have you actually got any evidence for this? Or are you just terrified it could be Liverpool?

Don't worry, even if it is Spurs, if the subtext of the report is true, Liverpool (and United/Arsenal) will also be in big big trouble.

Why would I be terrified its them? Oh sorry has someone said something that goes against your usual unfounded statements? Automatically I'm a RS? I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what you said but I was actually responding to a post a few posts before yours who said "Its Spurs". I have no evidence either way and don't claim to be "in the know". I hope it is them, by god I do but I'm a realist.

You need to calm down. You are too desperate for them lot to fall away that its clouding your thinking.
 
Tottenham Hotspur has announced record revenue for the 2018-19 season, with overall turnover growing by £80m (€85m/$92m) off the back of the club's appearance in the 2019 Uefa Champions League final. The figure of £460m is the fourth-highest in the Premier League for the previous season.


It seems its defo Spurs.

The figure mentioned is not big enough for £9million per week. And that is including all revenues streams being lost.

I mean maybe it's Spurs but given their turnover isn't high enough seems odd. Either way, hard to see a world where Spurs lose every penny of their income, and United/Liverpool/Arsenal are not in severe difficulties too. City will survive as their sponsors will keep paying.
 
The figure mentioned is not big enough for £9million per week. And that is including all revenues streams being lost.

I mean maybe it's Spurs but given their turnover isn't high enough seems odd. Either way, hard to see a world where Spurs lose every penny of their income, and United/Liverpool/Arsenal are not in severe difficulties too. City will survive as their sponsors will keep paying.

We dont how the 9m per week is measured.

They could be using wage bill as an outgoing, then adding the lost earnings from gate receipts, tv money, plus loss of sponsorship, it doesnt all have to be 9m in LOST earnings, just that they are running at a loss of 9m per week.

Using that metric, it could be us.
 
Catcher mate do you do the books for all the clubs in the league? You seem to know a hell of a lot without any evidence to back it up. Im not challenging you Im asking how you know all of this.
 

Why would I be terrified its them? Oh sorry has someone said something that goes against your usual unfounded statements? Automatically I'm a RS? I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what you said but I was actually responding to a post a few posts before yours who said "Its Spurs". I have no evidence either way and don't claim to be "in the know". I hope it is them, by god I do but I'm a realist.

You need to calm down. You are too desperate for them lot to fall away that its clouding your thinking.

I don't think you are a Liverpool fan, you just seem very keen to place a defence of this, with often quite spurious points.

I have also challenged everyone who has said its Spurs, on the basis their entire turnover is not £9m per week.

There isn't a clouding of judgement here, I have tried to work through it methodically and objectively. Starting with who has a turnover greater than £9m p/w (about £470m+ in turnover p/a) and of the 3 teams evaluated each individually. I think it's likely a side who looked to furlough would be facing acute difficulties. Liverpool fit that profile of the 3.

If it is Spurs though, it is likely any other side in the top 6 are very likely to be experiencing similar financial difficulties, particularly any who have also planned to furlough initially.
 
I don't think you are a Liverpool fan, you just seem very keen to place a defence of this, with often quite spurious points.

I have also challenged everyone who has said its Spurs, on the basis their entire turnover is not £9m per week.

There isn't a clouding of judgement here, I have tried to work through it methodically and objectively. Starting with who has a turnover greater than £9m p/w (about £470m+ in turnover p/a) and of the 3 teams evaluated each individually. I think it's likely a side who looked to furlough would be facing acute difficulties. Liverpool fit that profile of the 3.

If it is Spurs though, it is likely any other side in the top 6 are very likely to be experiencing similar financial difficulties, particularly any who have also planned to furlough initially.

How am I 'very keen' ???? Im just disagreeing with you. I'm not really that bothered unless its not us. Ideally its them lot but I really don't care. if you aren't grey yet you will be soon pal.
 
I don't share this fatalism mate. Look there's no doubt some biases exist and certainly the campaign against H & G helped in allowing a court to allocate their debt to them (though FSG will be very unlikely to make that mistake again). They have been very good at cultivating this myth they are unstoppable. They're not. They have a lot of voices in the media, but if financially difficulties are hit, favourably media treatment will mean very little.

They didn't actually sign anyone last summer. I have done a bit on the Coutinho transfer (essentially the reported figure of £100 from Barca is the more likely one) and they sold it on to a debt company who would probably give them circa75-80p in the pound for an upfront payment. With that £75-£80m they probably put a down payment on the splurge of signings they've made. Two great runs to European finals, and record commercial deals have helped, but they are absolutely at the limits and wanted to sell Mane last year but couldn't. No transfer were bought in.

The eejits who support them seemed to think they were signing Mbappe too this summer. I have consistently said, it won't happen. It will not happen. If pressure starts to be placed upon them, there's no vine right to come up smelling of roses. Far bigger companies, with bigger brands and better connections than them will go bust in this recession. The idea Liverpool fall down a league table a few places is very plausible. I mean Arsenal, multiple title winners have done exactly that under American ownership.

As for us, yes in a conventional sense we are in terrible shape financially. About all you could say, is we are not exposed with commercial deals as we never had many to begin with. I work from the assumption that we have a billionaire owner who has shown time and again he is happy to help us out of a difficult situation. I wouldn't run the business the way he does, but I think he's quite comfortable knowing he has to bail us out. I suspect a mixture of long term thinking, bad decisions and ultimately enjoyment mean he's quite happy to keep doing it.

The other point you make is a good one. Our priorities won't have changed this window. We are still trying to offload deadwood. We are still trying to buy players who are younger for good value. That will have got easier. As for the dead wood, they are still almost impossible to shift. Maybe just maybe there may come a resolution from this, that contracts can be cancelled unless people don't accept a 30%. Something like that would be perfect. Essentially an agreement where all contracts are reduced 30% and players have the right to break them if they wish. We can just clear a load off. That's me being optimistic though!

I can buy the scenario that they’d struggle to buy Mbappe. They’ve just spent world record fees on three positions so I doubt they’ve got another one lying around but it’s a far cry from that and financial ruin. I would love what you’re saying to come to pass but I think it’s far likely FSG come a cropper for playing in the grey in terms of cheating (which they have history for) concerning the hacking then they ever will because of financial impropriety. (I’m convinced doping and match fixing also occur and FSG would sanction that as well but as of yet there’s no evidence in the public domain for this).

As you’ve also said they’ve potentially got numerous routes out of their problems also. Their suspicious relationships with all three south coast teams means that I’m sure at some point some bang average youth team player of theres will be getting sold to Bournemouth or Southampton for 20 million, and if they can’t shift enough of those money makers they can sell any one of their first 11 for over 50 million quid easily.

On the other hand we have a limited number of saleable assets mostly Richarlison, Calvert Lewin, Holgate and maybe Digne if he got back into form. For nearly everyone else we’d probably be looking at a loss.

There’s always the prospect that they’ve done what H&G did and mortgaged themselves to the hilt paying players money they didn’t have and also paying for a stadium expansion, but their profits were huge last season.

I just can’t see it, would love nothing more though than for them to suffer two financial meltdowns within a decade.
 

We dont how the 9m per week is measured.

They could be using wage bill as an outgoing, then adding the lost earnings from gate receipts, tv money, plus loss of sponsorship, it doesnt all have to be 9m in LOST earnings, just that they are running at a loss of 9m per week.

Using that metric, it could be us.

The article was working on the assumption of a £9m loss of revenue each week. However you want to measure it, we don;t make anywhere near 9million per week to lose.

It's also stating that would be each week for the entirety of the time football was lost, as they also discuss a £100m loan to cover it (which equates perfectly to the 3 month period it's been not played for).

It has to be a side with a revenue of greater than £470m per a
 
I wouldn't read too much into these articles anyway. There have been tonnes lately i both the news and sport that have lacked in any substance. They get their clicks etc then move onto the next load of rubbish.

The Vidal link to Newcastle for example. They haven't even been sold yet. Its all a load of turd.
 
£9m loss of revenue each week.

Thats not what a Loss is though.

I havnt seen the article, but I would guess that the clubs total outgoings have been made weekly, then measured against expected yearly income, now largely reduced.

That then is headlined as a £9m weekly loss. This week.
 
The article was working on the assumption of a £9m loss of revenue each week. However you want to measure it, we don;t make anywhere near 9million per week to lose.

It's also stating that would be each week for the entirety of the time football was lost, as they also discuss a £100m loan to cover it (which equates perfectly to the 3 month period it's been not played for).

It has to be a side with a revenue of greater than £470m per a
A Premier League giant is reportedly losing £9m per week while in lockdown

2m in wages
4m in sponsorship
1m in gate receipts per month
2m in Sky money

I see no reason why it couldnt be us, infact using that metric it could be most clubs in the league.

You keep adding 9m x 52 to determine turnover, but its not all coming from incomings.
 
Liverpool and United have a huge match day income and big sponsorship deals that they like to shout about from the rooftops and Liverpool especially like to tell everyone the headline figure but a massive amount of this is based on incentives. They’ll be feeling this really hard with no games being played and targets not being met. If Liverpool don’t win this league or any major (serious) trophy, they’ll take a huge hit.

We got laughed at for just living of TV money and not having a big match day income or big sponsor deals. Obviously it needs sorting long term but right now, with the TV money looking quite safe, it’s a great position to be in, in relation to others.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Back
Top