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

[BirkenheadBlue]

Hahaha. It'll be interesting to see what sort of knots UEFA tie themselves in to allow Liverpool's entry next season.

 

[ToffeeDan]

^ haha, so they've officially failed the UEFA FFP maximum loss permitted in the first 2 year monitoring period then. LMAO get writing to Platini lads lol

And ask them which other clubs might get removed - just so as we can let Luis know like..

 

[tsubaki]

Hahaha. It'll be interesting to see what sort of knots UEFA tie themselves in to allow Liverpool's entry next season.

Assuming we finish 5th or 6th, we would be absolute mugs not to take UEFA / the FA to court if City and the RS get into the CL despite being demonstrably in breach of FFP.

 

[Coach]

LFC figures:

2011 -£49.3m
2012 -£40.5m
2013 -£49.8m

not looking good is it.

As FLH says on the face of it they have failed FFP - but they might still scrape by when pre June 2010 long term contracts are excluded from the figures.

 

[Huyton Layne]

Uefa's as bad as FIFA. There's no way they'd harm their brand by banning another big brand from their lucrative tv show.

 

[tsubaki]

As FLH says on the face of it they have failed FFP - but they might still scrape by when pre June 2010 long term contracts are excluded from the figures.

Doubt it - almost everyone at the club has had a new deal since then (of the big earners - Suarez every season, Gerrard in 2012, "As hard as Wolverine and his adamantium claws" Skrtel in 2012, Agger in 2012, Glen "a thousand Colemans " Johnson in 2011).

 

[toffeejack]

Assuming we finish 5th or 6th, we would be absolute mugs not to take UEFA / the FA to court if City and the RS get into the CL despite being demonstrably in breach of FFP.

This

Uefa's as bad as FIFA. There's no way they'd harm their brand by banning another big brand from their lucrative tv show.

and this

 

[ToffeeDan]

Just spent an entertaining 5 minutes reading the morons on RAWK getting themselves tied up in knots trying to understand the accounts. Now it's easy for me to mock - I'm an accountant - but hey, I know sod-all about nuclear physics so I wouldn't even begin to comment on that subject. They don't seem to understand basics like writing down the cost of a player's transfer fee over the life of the contract or - better still - whether money owed from transfer fees have been accounted for - "will they be included next year"!?! Even a beginner would understand that the agreement of a sale (of a footballer's contract in this case) is an indication (barring any bad debt) of future income and has therefore been included.. I could go on but you'll get fed up...they are wittering on about player values and new contracts - all pretty irrelevant on a balance sheet.

 

[Coach]

Doubt it - almost everyone at the club has had a new deal since then (of the big earners - Suarez every season, Gerrard in 2012, "As hard as Wolverine and his adamantium claws" Skrtel in 2012, Agger in 2012, Glen "a thousand Colemans " Johnson in 2011).

They will also discount "Stadium costs" no doubt.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

LFC figures:

2011 -£49.3m
2012 -£40.5m
2013 -£49.8m

not looking good is it.

As FLH says on the face of it they have failed FFP - but they might still scrape by when pre June 2010 long term contracts are excluded from the figures.

I doubt it mate, as they're only excluded from the first years monitoring period i.e. 11/12, a quick glance that their squad of the time shows that it effects about 1/4 of the total & they've got £50m to find in order to get under the 45M Euro limit

 

[malfosse]

OOPS.. IT MIGHT ALL BE IN VAIN..

http://www.theguardian.com/football...-financial-fair-play-50m-annual-loss-accounts


Liverpool announce annual loss of nearly £50m in new club accounts
• £49.8m lost before tax in figures to end of May 2013
• Club's ability to obey Uefa's financial fair play rules in doubt

Liverpool football club made a £50m loss in the 2012-13 financial year, according to the club's annual accounts. The figures, for the year to 31 May 2013, show that the club made an operating profit of £15m but were pushed into the heavy loss by the writing down of players' contracts, an accounting requirement, and a £13m loss on the sale of players.
The accounts pre-date the summer signings which included goalkeeper Simon Mignolet, £9m from Sunderland, and Mamadou Sakho, £18m from PSG, and the £15m sale of Andy Carroll to West Ham, for whom Liverpool paid £35m in the early months of ownership by the Boston-based Fenway Sports Group. The total net spending on these players in the last year to augment Brendan Rodgers's squad was £53m, the accounts state.

FSG in 2012-13 made a loan to Liverpool of £47m to repay a £38m loan taken out to develop stadium plans, and reduce bank debt by £9m. That was in addition to the £22m FSG had, net, loaned to ballast the club's finances since they took over from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in 2010, taking FSG's outstanding loans to Liverpool to £69m. The £200m the club owed to Royal Bank of Scotland at the time of the bitterly contested takeover was paid off by FSG effectively as the price of taking over the club.

The club's income showed a relatively modest increase to £206m in 2012-13 from the £169m reported for a ten month period in the last accounts to May 31 2011. That was mostly accounted for by significantly increased commercial income, risen from £64m to £98m due to sponsorship deals which are a priority for the managing director Ian Ayre under FSG's ownership. FSG have from the beginning of their ownership been focussed on the worldwide following Liverpool have, and intent on pursuing the international multiple sponsorships pioneered by Manchester United.

Liverpool's wage bill, £132m, was not excessive for the current financial size of the club, representing 64% of turnover, towards the upper end of what is generally considered healthy. Nor does that scale of pay, mostly to the players, put Liverpool in the top bracket of Premier League clubs. Manchester United, who won the title in Sir Alex Ferguson's final year, paid £181m in wages in 2012-13, while Manchester City's wage bill under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi was £233m, over £100m more than Liverpool's.

The highest paid director at Liverpool was paid a salary package of £1.035m; it is presumed to be Ian Ayre, as he is the only full-time director on the board of the club. The other directors are John Henry, Tom Werner and David Ginsberg, all of FSG, owners of the Boston Red Sox baseball franchise, and Michael Gordon, who founded the Vinik investment firm in Boston and is also a Red Sox board member.

Ayre praised FSG as "smart investors" who are continuing to invest in Liverpool, with their loans, "to realise the true value of their investment long term." He also said that with the much-improved performances on the pitch under Rodgers and increasing commercial income, the club is heading towards financial stability, although the 2012-13 figures show the deficit from not competing in the European Champions League.

"These results demonstrate that the financial health of the club continues to make good progress," Ayre told the Liverpool Echo. "We have taken a measured approach to bring back financial stability to this great club by ensuring it is properly structured on and off the pitch."

I will wait a while, until the they are kicked out of the CL before I start my euphoria, as they have a habit of wriggling out of things. If they are not allowed to enter I would like to say something "I am sorry GOD, for doubting you, I should have been looking at the bigger picture"

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

They will also discount "Stadium costs" no doubt.

Ahhhh, now it makes sense. I wondered last year why they'd written off another huge chunk of cash on 'stadium costs' for a project that never saw a spade.

 

[malfosse]

Ahhhh, now it makes sense. I wondered last year why they'd written off another huge chunk of cash on 'stadium costs' for a project that never saw a spade.

Oh ffs GOD.

 

[ToffeeDan]

Ahhhh, now it makes sense. I wondered last year why they'd written off another huge chunk of cash on 'stadium costs' for a project that never saw a spade.

No way is that consistent in the accounting sense.. maybe they can get away with a couple of million on consultancy and costs for architects, surveyors and so on.. but that's got to be about the limit if you don't proceed with a £200M project. Absolutely no company would waste much more than 1-2% on the initial feasibility stage - would you commit let's say £10M on something of this magnitude and then go, nah.. forget it? - and just write it off. Admittedly that kind of money can be spent and then objections or a downturn in the economy can force a company to reconsider it's future developments but they've not exactly done a great deal have they - invested in land, labour or materials!?

 

[tsubaki]

They will also discount "Stadium costs" no doubt.

They (and City, who have some absolute belters in their accounts) can try whatever they want, for all that FIFA might back down when it comes to sanctioning "big clubs", any independent tribunal that looks at this (as they did with regards to Tevez) will no doubt side with the clubs that have followed the spirit and letter of FFP.

Plus of course dont forget that United will probably finish outside the top four and will therefore stand to benefit from kicking out non-FFP complaint clubs.