View Full Version : Liverpool shoot up the debt league


plekhanov
20-03-2007, 21:21
Well surprise surprise it would seem that far from being a free spending Abramovich type sugar daddy in the the new liverpool 'franchise' owners are leverage buyout profiteers very much like Glazer only on a smaller scale.

Indebted FC: born in Liverpool, owned in Dallas, Delaware and the Cayman Islands

Details of American duo's tax-efficient Anfield takeover blows sugar daddy myth out of the water

David Conn
Wednesday March 14, 2007
The Guardian (http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2033197,00.html)

The American businessmen Thomas O Hicks and George Gillett Jr have acquired control of the great football club they still bite their tongues not to call a franchise. The previous owners of over 80% of Liverpool have accepted the Americans' offer of £5,000 for each share, which means David Moores, the club's former chairman, will, within a fortnight, receive £89.615m for the 17,923 shares he agreed to sell last month. Hicks and Gillett will now take ownership of the club they plan to steer into increased global media revenues and a £200m, 60,000-seat stadium to be built in Liverpool's historic Stanley Park.

Hicks' and Gillett's offer document, sent to all shareholders, furnished some detail beneath the headlines of this acquisition whose future impact, on the club and on the wider game, will take time to be felt. For a start, the document thumps away the fantasy that these two men are sugar daddies who have flown into Liverpool to lavishly indulge a suddenly discovered sentimental attachment to "Reds". According to their financial adviser Robert Tilliss, of the Inner Circle Sports merchant bank based in New York, they see themselves as "custodians" of the club and want to take it "to the next level" as English football rises in financial value.

"American sports over the last 15 years have had tremendous money invested in stadia and they attracted new, sophisticated businessmen who have developed revenues from sponsorship, advertising and an upgraded supporter experience," said Tilliss. "English football clubs are the great brands of the world's No1 sport but their ownership was still quite parochial. The sport has a tremendous following in Asia, and Liverpool has great untapped potential in terms of building the value of the brand."

Tilliss was reluctant to be drawn on whether Hicks and Gillett would seek to make money themselves out of the club, but said: "If you get things right on the field, and invest in the stadium, the player roster and the youth academy, maybe eventually there will be a return of some sort."

Even billionaires do not habitually spend cash buying companies outright, and Hicks and Gillett are in fact borrowing £298m from the Royal Bank of Scotland to finance the deal. That comprises £185m to buy the club itself - £174.1m for the shares plus fees for Rothschild, their merchant bank in London, and for Inner Circle, lawyers, accountants and financial PR advisers, with other associated costs - and a further £113m borrowed to absorb Liverpool's £44.8m net debts, fund preliminary work on the stadium and provide working capital.

The interest is 1.5% above banks' current standard rate of 5.74%, so 7.24% in total, which on £298m means that interest of £21.5m will be payable to the bank this year. The document contains a standard assurance that Hicks and Gillett "will not depend to any significant extent on the business of Liverpool" to pay the interest, but the club could still be expected to service that debt. One professional close to the deal said the club could make regular payments towards the interest or pay Hicks and Gillett "a big dividend" at the end of the year to finance the borrowing. Rick Parry, Liverpool's chief executive, said it was "too early" to say how the financial arrangements would be worked out.

The extra £200m required to build the stadium will also come from banks, taking the total borrowings by Hicks and Gillett at Liverpool, backed by personal guarantees, close to £500m.

The Americans, well advised to talk in awed tones about their acquisition's great heritage, even gave the companies they formed to buy the club a resonant title: Kop. Named after the great stand from which Liverpool fans belted out You'll Never Walk Alone during last week's timely Champions League victory over Barcelona, the Kop Football Group will own Liverpool in a corporate structure ultimately based where Hicks and Gillett will have to pay the least possible tax on any gains they make.

Two Kop companies are based in Britain but they are owned by Kop Football (Cayman) Limited, registered in George Town in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands. It in turn is owned by Kop Investment LLC, registered in the US state of Delaware, which has low corporation tax and no capital gains tax. One of Hicks' and Gillett's advisers summed it up succinctly: "This was the most tax-efficient way to do it."

Parry said this was standard practice and the pair have never talked about what financial professionals call "an exit" - to ultimately make a personal gain by selling or floating the club. Their sons, Thomas O Hicks Jr and Foster Gillett, are directors of Kop, and the offer document repeats the sentiment that they want to make a "multi-generational family commitment" and be to modern Liverpool what the Moores family was between the 1960s and David Moores' tearful, handsomely paid exit.

Moores said he had taken the club as far as he could on his personal wherewithal, which he inherited as part of the Littlewoods dynasty, and the document reveals that he lent Liverpool £10m last summer while finances were stretched as the club awaited a takeover. Moores himself lent £2m and the other £8m came from a family trust of which he and his wife Marjorie are trustees. Parry said that while Liverpool were working on a takeover they did not want to take on extra debt, so the club's resources were fully engaged funding the wage bill and preparatory work on the stadium. Moores' loans provided some money for Rafael Benítez to spend on players, effectively paying for the Dutch striker Dirk Kuyt. Then in January only an unexpected £3m, from a sell-on clause when Milan Baros moved from Aston Villa to Lyon, enabled Benítez to buy the right-back Alvaro Arbeloa from Deportivo La Coruña on transfer deadline day.

Parry, smiling again now after his three-year search to find the club a buyer, has been criticised in his time as Liverpool fell behind Manchester United financially, but he and Moores have prided themselves on balancing tradition with commercialism, taking quiet pride at having made the "FC" in their club's badge larger in the same season that United removed theirs.

"Life will change," Parry said. "The new owners have been immensely respectful, researching the club's history, and the Barcelona tie could not have scripted a better demonstration of what makes the club so special. They felt the atmosphere of a fantastic night, between two great clubs."

Liverpool fans, who seem sanguine now that the long-awaited takeover is going through, also clearly relished their great European night and the chance to show Hicks and Gillett the passion that fires the brand. It was, without question, a clash between two great clubs, even if Barcelona are genuinely that - a club, a worldwide icon owned democratically by their local supporters - whereas Liverpool are now owned by a company which has a head office in Dallas, Texas, but is registered, so as not to pay much tax, in Delaware, by way of the Cayman Islands.
So there you have it far from splashing huge amounts of cash allowing benitez to sign all La Liga's best players, like some here claimed, the take over is going to mean £20m plus a year is going to be taken out of the club to service the debts incurred in the takeover, reducing not increasing the cash available for players.

JFKvsNixon
20-03-2007, 21:42
Currently Arsenal are £327m in debt after building their stadium. Liverpool are looking at a £175m debt for their stadium. Man utd are around £700m in debt after the Glaziers transfered their debt from buying Man utd to Man utd.

An intersting BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6388041.stm

CorkerSWFC
20-03-2007, 21:43
never mind how much money you have it doesn,t allways buy you success chelsea have prooved that this season every team gets found out in the end.
Liverpool more than most can at least say they won things on merit.

plekhanov
20-03-2007, 22:08
Currently Arsenal are £327m in debt after building their stadium. Liverpool are looking at a £175m debt for their stadium. Man utd are around £700m in debt after the Glaziers transfered their debt from buying Man utd to Man utd.

An intersting BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6388041.stm
That article is old, Liverpool were looking at c. £175m debt to build a new stadium after the take over Liverpool are now looking at that on top of the £298m debt Hicks & Gillett took on to buy Liverpool which Liverpool will have to service.

JFKvsNixon
20-03-2007, 22:14
That article is old, Liverpool were looking at c. £175m debt to build a new stadium after the take over Liverpool are now looking at that on top of the £298m debt Hicks & Gillett took on to buy Liverpool which Liverpool will have to service.

You are right, all I can say is thank heavens for rich Russians.

plekhanov
20-03-2007, 22:36
I fail to see anything good about them.

CorkerSWFC
20-03-2007, 23:12
To be fair football is all about money and the fan is the last thing on the bigwigs mind.

Guderian
21-03-2007, 00:47
You are right, all I can say is thank heavens for rich Russians.

A disgraceful comment. Chelsea are ****, and have no soul.

CorkerSWFC
21-03-2007, 00:50
liverpool manchester united arsenal can say there the top 3 clubs in england every1 knows that deep down , don,t worry yourselves.

JFKvsNixon
21-03-2007, 11:56
A disgraceful comment. Chelsea are ****, and have no soul.

I find these times and this comment particularly ironic.

I come from a part of the country that has no football history, the closest "big" club is 150miles away. So when we were young everybody used to support our local team and then also pick a "big" team to follow. All my friends picked Man utd, Liverpool or Spurs, but for some reason I picked Chelsea; who was at that time yo-yoing between the top two leagues. When I grew up I begun to appreciate Chelsea's history and style more and more, so I obviously stopped following them and started trying to support them as I could.

The beauty of supporting a club that wasn't one of the big ones was that when I was talking to people about football, they showed the appreciation that I didn't support one of the big teams. I was a "real" supporter not a "glory hunter". Also every time that chelsea was on on t.v. I would get loads of phone calls from people who I hadn't spoken to for ages, as I would always be associated with Chelsea because I was the only Chelsea supporter people knew.

Obviously times have changed, Abramovic arrived. I know the current situation will not not last for ever, but I would be fool not to enjoy it whilst it lasts. If Abramovic does go, we will be a better club than before he arrived as he has given chelsea huge amounts of money buying players and paying all our debts off. Intrestingly something lifelong supporter Mathew Harding never did, all the money he gave Chelsea was loans which had to be payed back with intrest.

So like I said, I don't care if some people don't think that "we are not a big club". So what, that was not the reason that I support them. How Chelsea is a club without a "soul" is beyond me, and how we are **** is beyond most people.

Robbie Loving
21-03-2007, 16:32
never mind how much money you have it doesn,t allways buy you success chelsea have prooved that this season every team gets found out in the end.
Liverpool more than most can at least say they won things on merit.

How have Chelsea proved that?

Won the league cup,
Quarter final of Champs League,
Semi-final of FA cup
2nd in premiership

Its a disaster hey?

BasilRathbon
21-03-2007, 17:04
Not the first time that "Liverpool" and "shooting up" have been mentioned in the same sentence, I'll wager......

plekhanov
22-03-2007, 07:56
never mind how much money you have it doesn,t allways buy you success chelsea have prooved that this season every team gets found out in the end.
Liverpool more than most can at least say they won things on merit.
Money doesn't guarantee success however a lack of money makes success (in winning anything but cups) all but impossible and £21m a year servicing debts will all but wipe out Liverpool's transfer budget.

Also if you hadn't noticed Chelsea have already won the League Cup this season, are 2nd in the league putting plenty of pressure on United and still well in the FA and European Cups, how exactly have they been 'found out'?

CorkerSWFC
22-03-2007, 08:24
How have Chelsea proved that?

Won the league cup,
Quarter final of Champs League,
Semi-final of FA cup
2nd in premiership

Its a disaster hey?

they have not done it on merit like liverpool did in the 70s and 80s.

CorkerSWFC
22-03-2007, 08:26
Money doesn't guarantee success however a lack of money makes success (in winning anything but cups) all but impossible and £21m a year servicing debts will all but wipe out Liverpool's transfer budget.

Also if you hadn't noticed Chelsea have already won the League Cup this season, are 2nd in the league putting plenty of pressure on United and still well in the FA and European Cups, how exactly have they been 'found out'?

The league cups a mickey mouse cup, and they havent got much to beat in the premiership have they,they won,t win europe and they will probably lose in the fa cup final, watch this space.

plekhanov
22-03-2007, 08:34
they have not done it on merit like liverpool did in the 70s and 80s.
What on earth are you talking about? The best team wins the league and Chelsea were clearly the best team for the last two seasons.

plekhanov
22-03-2007, 08:40
The league cups a mickey mouse cup
So it's also the only Silverware that's been decided so far this season and they won it.

and they havent got much to beat in the premiership have they,
On what grounds do you make that claim? Can you name a better league? Anyway so what? They can only beat the teams put up against them and from my perspective they are distressingly good at doing so.

they won,t win europe and they will probably lose in the fa cup final, watch this space.
And you know this how? Chelsea are as well placed as any to win those competitions.

LFCMadPaul
22-03-2007, 08:42
Money doesn't guarantee success however a lack of money makes success (in winning anything but cups) all but impossible and £21m a year servicing debts will all but wipe out Liverpool's transfer budget.

Also if you hadn't noticed Chelsea have already won the League Cup this season, are 2nd in the league putting plenty of pressure on United and still well in the FA and European Cups, how exactly have they been 'found out'?

So you honestly believe that Liverpool will be worse off when it comes to buying players, than they have been previously ?

This is Liverpools Chief Exec,

Rick Parry reflected on an historic day at Anfield as George Gillett and Tom Hicks spoke of their future plans for the Reds and declared: 'I can promise it’s going to be a lot of fun.'
The Liverpool chief executive is adamant the club have made the right decision in agreeing a deal with the two Americans and while he isn't guaranteeing instant success, he believes the energy and expertise Gillett and Hicks will bring to Anfield will set the Reds up for a bright future.

"The future is exciting," he said. "We've heard a lot about the finances and the resources, but the one thing I can promise is that it's going to be a lot of fun.

Does this sound like a man who knows that the club will not be competitive in the transfer market ??

You got your info from a newspaper !!!

Hicks & Gillette have previously explained in a interview, that this deal is nothing like the deal that Glazier used to buy out Man U. He did state that, the club has not been bought with borrowed money, as have Man U.
Im sure you will find a thread on that interview if you look hard emough !

I think i will believe actuall interviews, by the men involved, over your little newspaper cut out, thank you.

plekhanov
22-03-2007, 09:02
The article is based upon the offer document sent out to share holders by Gillet and Hicks themselves.

Also I think you'll find that the claim about debt was that "We have purchased the club with no debt on the club" meaning that the debt, initially at least, won't be in the name of the club not that the club wouldn't have to service the debt, which is what the Guardian article claims.

bladesufc1
22-03-2007, 09:06
yes, liverpool, man u arsenal have a longer history, but Chelsea are and will be the biggest club in the UK for some time into the future. There Youth Acadamy prooves that. they have the best young players anywhere and the money o make it happen.

just like sufc v's wednesday, yes wednesday have a bigger history, but United are miles ahead and will be for some time to come

plekhanov
22-03-2007, 09:13
yes, liverpool, man u arsenal have a longer history, but Chelsea are and will be the biggest club in the UK for some time into the future. There Youth Acadamy prooves that. they have the best young players anywhere and the money o make it happen.
Only if Abramovich stays interested, if he was to stop subsidising the clubs huge wage bill & transfer spending Chelsea would do a Leeds & be forced to try and sell most of their stars & prospects asap.

LFCMadPaul
22-03-2007, 09:54
The article is based upon the offer document sent out to share holders by Gillet and Hicks themselves.

Also I think you'll find that the claim about debt was that "We have purchased the club with no debt on the club" meaning that the debt, initially at least, won't be in the name of the club not that the club wouldn't have to service the debt, which is what the Guardian article claims.

And so i will ask you again,

In your honest opinion, do you think that Liverpool will be even less competitive in the transfer market, than they have been in previous seasons.
That is what you claim, with your statement regarding all of our transfer funds being eaten up with the dept repayments !
I look forward to your reply, which will be revisited once the summer spending has been completed.

plekhanov
22-03-2007, 10:00
And so i will ask you again,

In your honest opinion, do you think that Liverpool will be even less competitive in the transfer market, than they have been in previous seasons.
That is what you claim, with your statement regarding all of our transfer funds being eaten up with the dept repayments !
I look forward to your reply, which will be revisited once the summer spending has been completed.
:huh: Do you really need to ask if I think a team required to pay £21m a year to service debt will be less able to fund transfer spending than the same team without that debt?

Also how about you respond to my rebuttal of your pitiful claims about the reliability of the article and whether or not Liverpool will be placed in debt by the take over?

LFCMadPaul
22-03-2007, 10:09
:huh: Do you really need to ask if I think a team required to pay £21m a year to service debt will be less able to fund transfer spending than the same team without that debt?

Why would Liverpool want to sell, to make them become less competitive ?
Why would anyone buy out a club, finance a new stadium etc, to make them less competitive, therefore less profitable ? Get real.!

They have stated, money will be available (i remember a ice hockey player they purchased in the states - 100 + mill), now i'm not saying we will have the same amount, but they obviously do back there managers.

Quote from the Americans ...

George Gillett and Tom Hicks enjoyed a fruitful first meeting with Rafael Benitez this morning.
The duo, who had their offer for Liverpool FC accepted by David Moores today, emerged from an hour-long discussion with the Reds boss, satisfied that all parties share the same vision for the playing side of the club.

"We spoke to Rafa this morning and his thinking is very much similar to ours; the need to keep our core players, bring in some star players and develop young players," revealed Hicks at this afternoon's Anfield press conference.

"We've not got a budget for what we're going to do. Rafa and Rick will bring their plans to us and we'll support these."


NO BUDGET, means that Raffa has not got to work out who is affordable etc.
He has been told to bring a list of targets and they will try to sign him the players.

JFKvsNixon
22-03-2007, 20:05
Why would Liverpool want to sell, to make them become less competitive ?


How much were the share holders offered per share? The answer to that question is the answer to "why would Liverpool want to sell."

LFCMadPaul
23-03-2007, 09:40
How much were the share holders offered per share? The answer to that question is the answer to "why would Liverpool want to sell."

ok, we can debate the reasoning behind the sale all we like, but lets just see how much Liverpool get to spend this summer. Somehow, i think it will be substantially more than in previous seasons.
Going back to the OP, even if Liverpool are now "in dept" as he stated, we are still nowhere near as "in dept" as Man U, and they still manage to spend big when the right player comes along !!

sufc_tom
23-03-2007, 09:52
ok, we can debate the reasoning behind the sale all we like, but lets just see how much Liverpool get to spend this summer. Somehow, i think it will be substantially more than in previous seasons.
Going back to the OP, even if Liverpool are now "in dept" as he stated, we are still nowhere near as "in dept" as Man U, and they still manage to spend big when the right player comes along !!

You can have all the money you want - Benitez is almost as bad as Houllier for paying overinflated prices. 12 million for Crouch? 7 million for Pennant?

Although on the other side of the coin, Xabi Alonso is one of my favourite premiership players and Sissoko is growing into the role of the new Patrick Vieira of the premiership.

Guderian
23-03-2007, 10:18
You can have all the money you want - Benitez is almost as bad as Houllier for paying overinflated prices. 12 million for Crouch? 7 million for Pennant?

Although on the other side of the coin, Xabi Alonso is one of my favourite premiership players and Sissoko is growing into the role of the new Patrick Vieira of the premiership.

Patrick Vieira could find team mates with passes.
Something beyond Momo.

LFCMadPaul
23-03-2007, 17:24
You can have all the money you want - Benitez is almost as bad as Houllier for paying overinflated prices. 12 million for Crouch? 7 million for Pennant?

Although on the other side of the coin, Xabi Alonso is one of my favourite premiership players and Sissoko is growing into the role of the new Patrick Vieira of the premiership.

Liverpool payed 6 mill for crouch mate not 12, which hasn't turned out too badly as Newcastle among others are supposed to be prepared to pay 8 - 10 mill for his services. Agree about Pennant, and also Alonso and Sissoko.

LFCMadPaul
23-03-2007, 17:26
Patrick Vieira could find team mates with passes.
Something beyond Momo.

Agree, momo needs to work on his passing, but when it does improve he will become some player, im sure of that. But yeah, he needs to work alot on that aspect of his game.

LFCMadPaul
23-03-2007, 17:28
You can have all the money you want - Benitez is almost as bad as Houllier for paying overinflated prices. 12 million for Crouch? 7 million for Pennant?

Although on the other side of the coin, Xabi Alonso is one of my favourite premiership players and Sissoko is growing into the role of the new Patrick Vieira of the premiership.

Add his signings of Reine, Agger etc, he hasn't done so bad, although yeah, some signings have been flops i will admit ..... but most managers are guilty of expensive flops are they not ?

plekhanov
23-03-2007, 19:11
Why would Liverpool want to sell, to make them become less competitive ?
Ooh that's a tough one, why would David Moores for example want to sell the shares he bought for £12m for £89.615m? I just can't think of a reason :rolleyes:

Why would anyone buy out a club, finance a new stadium etc, to make them less competitive, therefore less profitable ? Get real.!

They have stated, money will be available (i remember a ice hockey player they purchased in the states - 100 + mill), now i'm not saying we will have the same amount, but they obviously do back there managers.

Quote from the Americans ...

George Gillett and Tom Hicks enjoyed a fruitful first meeting with Rafael Benitez this morning.
The duo, who had their offer for Liverpool FC accepted by David Moores today, emerged from an hour-long discussion with the Reds boss, satisfied that all parties share the same vision for the playing side of the club.

"We spoke to Rafa this morning and his thinking is very much similar to ours; the need to keep our core players, bring in some star players and develop young players," revealed Hicks at this afternoon's Anfield press conference.

"We've not got a budget for what we're going to do. Rafa and Rick will bring their plans to us and we'll support these."


NO BUDGET, means that Raffa has not got to work out who is affordable etc.
He has been told to bring a list of targets and they will try to sign him the players.
Talk about naive, the Glazers trotted out the same crap when they bought united it wasn't true then and it's not true now, similarly Gill & Ferguson who like Raffa & Parry stayed on message as anything else would get them fired, what else would you expect them to do?

plekhanov
23-03-2007, 19:20
ok, we can debate the reasoning behind the sale all we like, but lets just see how much Liverpool get to spend this summer. Somehow, i think it will be substantially more than in previous seasons.
Going back to the OP, even if Liverpool are now "in dept" as he stated, we are still nowhere near as "in dept" as Man U, and they still manage to spend big when the right player comes along !!
Manu have much bigger revenues than pool and were considerably more profitable before the takeover and our buying power has been significantly cut back since (what would you expect with £40M + a year going out the club to service debt?), last summer for example we sold Ruud and Obi Mikel for a total of about £24 and only brought in Carrick for £14m when we could really have done with a few more players. iirc United have a total transfer budget of about £20m max a year now it was much more before the takeover.

LFCMadPaul
23-03-2007, 19:36
Manu have much bigger revenues than pool and were considerably more profitable before the takeover and our buying power has been significantly cut back since (what would you expect with £40M + a year going out the club to service debt?), last summer for example we sold Ruud and Obi Mikel for a total of about £24 and only brought in Carrick for £14m when we could really have done with a few more players. iirc United have a total transfer budget of about £20m max a year now it was much more before the takeover.

yes i can see your point, allthough Liverpools revenue will increase once the stadium is built, however still not as much as Man U's. Liverpool should also generate more money from the states, which will also help. I just hoe the yanks stick to their promise of bringing in Raffas first choice targets, instead of his second and third choice players as he has had to do in the past with the exception of Alonso.