Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread [mod warning #11145, #32140 (see OP)]

Mr Alan · 15-10-2009 12:57AM

daithijjj wrote: »

The irony of all of this is, that it was actually worse before they took over.

so can we agree then that the above quote is untrue?

daithijjj · 15-10-2009 01:07AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

so can we agree then that the above quote is untrue?

No.

However, i have been awake for 21 hours so im not going to go into why i think that right here right now. I will be happy to do so another time though.

~Rebel~ · 15-10-2009 01:13AM

IMO;
Liverpool+Moores-30mill debt-Stadium > Liverpool+G&H-300mill debt-Stadium

The Standard Chartered thing is obviously a bonus, but I have no doubt whoever had taken over would have vastly improved on Parry's marketing of the club anyway.

We could so easily be in a position where we have the same debt, but where that debt is actually used for the stadium rather then just being a noose around the clubs neck for the sake of it. To get out of our current mess, we need to double our debt just to begin trying to make back the money through improved matchday revenue.

Mr Alan · 15-10-2009 01:14AM

please do.

the only positive i can think of is the shirt sponsorhip deal, but the fact that the addititional 19m a year that brings in is less than 50% of the interest only on payments for the americans loans kind of makes that pointless.

and the club is a few hundred million more in debt than it was before.

you're explanation should be good.

NukaCola · 15-10-2009 07:06AM

daithijjj wrote: »

The irony of all of this is, that it was actually worse before they took over.

So because they got a better sponsorship deal and Parry is now gone, the club is in a better state than it was 3 years ago?

Certain aspects may be better but are minute in relation to the lies and debts we have inherited from our so called owners. We are in a terrible financial position with regards loans and nothing to show for it. As said earlier

~Rebel~ wrote: »

IMO;
Liverpool+Moores-30mill debt-Stadium > Liverpool+G&H-300mill debt-Stadium

The Standard Chartered thing is obviously a bonus, but I have no doubt whoever had taken over would have vastly improved on Parry's marketing of the club anyway.

We could so easily be in a position where we have the same debt, but where that debt is actually used for the stadium rather then just being a noose around the clubs neck for the sake of it. To get out of our current mess, we need to double our debt just to begin trying to make back the money through improved matchday revenue.

The Rooster · 15-10-2009 08:54AM

deadhead13 wrote: »

ffs - Kyrgiaskos ruptured his cruciate ligament in the Greek v Luxembourg game. Could be out for 4 months.

At least. Bad news for him. I'd be surprised if he plays for us again.

Agger played 90 mins for Denmark

As did Benny for Israel
And Johnson for England
And Riera for Spain.

Torres was unused sub. Reina played on Saturday for Spain, but wasn't even on the bench yesterday - hopefully rotation rather than any kind of injury!

After being an unused sub for Ukraine v England at the weekend, Voronin didnt even make the bench last night. Dossena and Degen were not involved for Italy or Switzerland.

Skrtel did not play for Slovakia as he was suspended.

Mascherano played the full match as captain for Argentina, but Insua did not even make the bench (hopefully no knock involved).

Lucas played the full 90 for Brazil in their scoreless draw with Venezuela.

slingerz · 15-10-2009 09:50AM

deadhead13 wrote: »

ffs - Kyrgiaskos ruptured his cruciate ligament in the Greek v Luxembourg game. Could be out for 4 months.

if its a cruciate then its more like 9/10 months

missingtime · 15-10-2009 10:49AM

Bad luck for Kyrgiaskos but I'm glad to see Agger back playing.

With Kyrgiaskos out there is a good chance for Kelly to get a chance. He's a great prospect, very good at RB as well.

5starpool · 15-10-2009 11:44AM

As said above, if we had the current transfer budget (or lack thereof) and the current debt, but with a half built stadium, and the rest of it budgeted for within that debt framework, then there would be a hell of a lot less opposition to g&h, but all that debt being there with nothing to show for it is just unforgiveable. Better marketing and sponsorship deals, while very welcome in the revenue sense, are not a compensation for what is essentially the club paying for g&h to buy ther club while they wait for someone to come in and buy it so that they can make their 9 figure profit on it.

cantgetright · 15-10-2009 12:52PM

Interview with Gillett on sky

NabyLadistheman · 15-10-2009 01:25PM

The Rooster wrote: »

Lucas played the full 90 for Brazil

Good man Lucas. Great to see your improvement this season and good performances have been rewarded by your country. Well deserved

Bandit12 · 15-10-2009 01:29PM

cantgetright wrote: »

Interview with Gillett on sky

I'd say it will be more of the same BS that 's been coming out of his mouth for the last few years.

flahavaj · 15-10-2009 01:30PM

So whats the story lads are the Saudis taking over or what? Will ye be nicer to them than the Americans?

NabyLadistheman · 15-10-2009 01:34PM

flahavaj wrote: »

So whats the story lads are the Saudis taking over or what? Will ye be nicer to them than the Americans?

So long as they don't lie and put there own personal wealth ahead of club being successful. The Liverpool Way my friend

mike65 · 15-10-2009 01:40PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6872396.ece

Karmafaerie · 15-10-2009 01:53PM

daithijjj wrote: »

The irony of all of this is, that it was actually worse before they took over.
Moores had milked it for every last drop, or so his incompetence thought. DIC put a fair bid in and moores 'hummed and hawed' with ineptitude. Gillette came from nowhere and moores didnt do anything but take an extra 8 mil off the americans. Hicks only came along at the request of gillette who didnt have enough cash on his own.

Moores had an offer of 80mil for his shares from DIC, he u-turned overnight in business terms and took 88mil off the americans instead. The fact that our sponsors (carlsberg) were not asked to pay more for the privilege over a 17 year period is laughable. The americans have almost trebled what carlsberg were forking out annually with the deal with standard chartered. Parry is gone also, and those 2 things alone have left the club in much better shape imo.

Moores loved the club but was far too late selling up and his sidekick parry was a joke. Hicks was barely through the door and told us it was underperforming.

Put it this way. The americans have just brokered a deal for the club that will earn in 4 years, what moores and parry would have taken a minimum of 10 years to earn with carlsberg. Its an incredible coup for the club to be honest and shouldnt be elimnated from peoples views in regards to how the club is being run now and how it was 3 years ago.

You're figures are way off.
The propossed deal from Carlesberg was £14,000,000 a year.
Standard Charterd's is £20,000,000.

Hardly triple.

Edit: Just to clarify, the £14,000,000 I'm reffering to is the ammount that Carlesberg had agreed to increase the sponsership to next season.
They were paying much less (£8,000,000 a season IIRC) previous, but that was a deal signed 5 years ago, and can't be compared with modern sponsership levels.
I believe at the time it was the third highest in the prem.

The £14,000,000 a season would have made it the third highest again as you can't really consider Arsenal due to the dual ponsership of jersey and statium IMO.

The Muppet · 15-10-2009 02:05PM

Karmafaerie wrote: »

You're figures are way off.
The propossed deal from Carlesberg was £14,000,000 a year.
Standard Charterd's is £20,000,000.

Hardly triple.

Standard Chartered is performance related AFAIK, not sure of the details though.

Karmafaerie · 15-10-2009 02:07PM

The Muppet wrote: »

Standard Chartered is performance related AFAIK.

Link?

That's never been mentioned before.

The Muppet · 15-10-2009 02:13PM

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Link?

That's never been mentioned before.

I read it somewhere at the time of the announcment, not sure where.

Peyton Manning · 15-10-2009 02:16PM

The Muppet wrote: »

I read it somewhere at the time of the announcment, not sure where.

Im pretty sure the performance-based element is on top of the £20 million.

Karmafaerie · 15-10-2009 02:16PM

The Muppet wrote: »

I read it somewhere at the time of the announcment, not sure where.

Well never seen that myself, but I'd imagine all sponserships have similar clauses.

For example if Liverpool get relegated etc.
That seems fairly standard (pardon the pun;)) for all clubs.

The Muppet · 15-10-2009 02:19PM

A quick google throws up this.

Meanwhile, the Times reports that the terms of Liverpool's new football sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered are partly "performance-related".

Hailed as the most lucrative sponsorship agreement in the club's history, the four-year deal is reported to be worth about £80 million, but the newspaper claims that Liverpool's income will be dependent on their achievements in the English Premier League and UEFA Champions League.

http://www.brandsinfootball.com/news/story/hicks-seeking-new-investor-for-liverpool_19366403.html

deadhead13 · 15-10-2009 02:22PM

So £80 million is the max amount.

NabyLadistheman · 15-10-2009 02:35PM

This is a tired debate. Speculating on the finances of the club when god only knows whats going on

Fink Goddie · 15-10-2009 02:46PM

torresistheman wrote: »

This is a tired debate. Speculating on the finances of the club when god only knows whats going on

Yep i agree! yawn..................zzz

SlickRic · 15-10-2009 03:05PM

spending, rotation, G & H, lucas.

better?!

Fink Goddie · 15-10-2009 03:23PM

SlickRic wrote: »

lucas

Dont get me started :pac::pac:

stevoslice · 15-10-2009 03:26PM

don't get her started... ;-)

Sir Gallagher · 15-10-2009 03:36PM

torresistheman wrote: »

This is a tired debate. Speculating on the finances of the club when god only knows whats going on

Exactly, if a had too choose one reason why i despise G & H, it would be that since they've took over the club every fan and their mother fancies themselves as a bit of part-time accountant. It's a pain in the hole to listen to.

Fink Goddie · 15-10-2009 03:58PM

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Exactly, if a had too choose one reason why i despise G & H, it would be that since they've took over the club every fan and their mother fancies themselves as a bit of part-time accountant. It's a pain in the hole to listen to.

Especially when you are one and you come on here trying to get away from it

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread [mod warning #11145, #32140 (see OP)]

Comments