Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Boggles

spockety wrote: »

*sigh*

If Rafa says he's not for sale, and the owners sell him for 30/40/50 million it will be done knowing that they definitely lose Rafa in the process. He will walk.

50 million though, for a club riddled with debt, the ease of pressure might far outway the loss of one player.

As for Rafa walking, I'm afriad it would be a tad hypoctrical considering he just signed a 25 million pound contract, which has to serviced too.

whatawaster

spockety wrote: »

I heard him do a radio interview, I think it was actually linked off this thread, where he categorically states that he does not want to sell Xabi Alonso.

He has said that Xabi is not for sale and we want to keep him. But I don’t think he’s been this forceful. I think he rates Mascherano as the more pivotal to the team (I agree with this, but think they are both very important).

There was, by the way, a story in AS I think about Alonso saying Rafa had upped his asking price to between 40 to 50 million plus Negredo and Buena. Probably nonsense and I doubt Real would pay that. But nonetheless at that price I would bid a reluctant farewell to Xabi.

Spud83

spockety wrote: »

*sigh*

If Rafa says he's not for sale, and the owners sell him for 30/40/50 million it will be done knowing that they definitely lose Rafa in the process. He will walk.

I don't really know why the sigh. I basically agreed with you. However just because the outcome (rafa walking) would be shit does not mean the owners would not be willing to do it.

whatawaster

lint316 wrote: »

Perez said he wont be making an offer for Xabi because he knows Rafa doesn't want to sell him

You believe anything that man says?

Eire-Dearg

“Priceless” Mascherano going nowhere - http://tinyurl.com/kqet36

Boggles

Eire-Dearg wrote: »

“Priceless” Mascherano going nowhere - http://tinyurl.com/kqet36

According to that Rafa spoke to him last week, alot can change in 7 days as we have seen on Monday.

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

50 million though, for a club riddled with debt, the ease of pressure might far outway the loss of one player.

As for Rafa walking, I'm afriad it would be a tad hypoctrical considering he just signed a 25 million pound contract, which has to serviced too.

Same is true of any top club in England, if that were the way it worked perhaps Utd will sell Ronaldo,Evra,Vidic to service their debt?

Nice theory, but it won't happen.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Same is true of any top club in England, if that were the way it worked perhaps Utd will sell Ronaldo,Evra,Vidic to service their debt?

Nice theory, but it won't happen.

The difference is United can service their debt as they have massive revenues, also they are not looking to build a new stadium, etc.

Eventually something will have to give.

event

Mr Alan wrote: »

Same is true of any top club in England, if that were the way it worked perhaps Utd will sell Ronaldo,Evra,Vidic to service their debt?

Nice theory, but it won't happen.

if united were offered 50 million for vidic or evra, i reckon they'd sell

could easily happen

Dub13

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

Agreed. Rafa may be willing to put up with not having much funds (wait and see how much he has this summer), but I could never see him putting up with not having control over who leaves.

Though its not that big a step, the owners seemed to put there own valuation on Barry last year, maybe they would put their own valuation on Masch, Alonso etc.

I don't think they would risk Rafa walking out though.

I think there is a big difference between not thinking you are getting value for money on a player and selling one of your players behind the managers back.

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

The difference is United can service their debt as they have massive revenues, also they are not looking to build a new stadium, etc.

Utd cannot service their debt, PHB or someone can fill you in on exact details but Utds current situation is really dire, in much the same way ours is, neither club can "service the debt" they are both just trying to keep their head above the water.

Boggles wrote: »

Eventually something will have to give.

agreed.

Boggles

Dub13 wrote: »

I think there is a big difference between not thinking you are getting value for money on a player and selling one of your players behind the managers back.

Your assuming cloak and dagger stuff though.

As good as Masch is at what he does, he can be replaced. 50 million IMO would be too good to turn down, 25 m replacement and the managers wages paid for the length of his contract.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Utd cannot service their debt......PHB or someone can fill you in on exact details but Utds current situation

United debt is being serviced, can they continue to service it in the next 3-5 years, well that depends on alot of factors, even the mighty PHB can't answer that one.

Just announced first Club to break the £300 million turnover mark, £80 million new sponsorship, the omens are good that they can continue to pay off the banks. Add to that United are worth in excess of a Billion Pounds (Forbes), it's not like they are battling negative equity.

Mr Alan wrote: »

, is really dire, in much the same way ours is, neither club can "service the debt" they are both just trying to keep their head above the water.

No Liverpool CAN'T service there debt and ARE operating at a loss (50 million last year, ? this year) and they have until the end of this month to come up with refinace AFAIK, just to restructure their current loans, on top of that they have to borrow 300-400 million to build a stadium which will bring what they owe with interest past a billion pounds.

Unless the rich Arab inters the fray, it will be a case of having to move back to move forward.

copacetic

Boggles wrote: »

No Liverpool CAN'T service there [sic] debt

rubbish, we have had absolutely no problems meeting the payments.

Boggles

copacetic wrote: »

rubbish, we have had absolutely no problems meeting the payments.

Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul is not "no problems"

Mr Alan

i don't wanna get drawn on this, but Utds "books" are the stuff of fiction boggles they totally ignore the PIKs the club/glazers have, PHB will hopefully comment when he arrives. I wouldn't know enough about it to comment beyond what i have already said.

Needless to say i don't think there is any danger of our owners selling star players to pay off some debt, as much as you might hope there is.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

i don't wanna get drawn on this, but Utds "books" are the stuff of fiction boggles they totally ignore the PIKs the club/glazers have, PHB will hopefully comment when he arrives. I wouldn't know enough about it to comment beyond what i have already said.

United are a private company, PHB does not work for them AFAIK.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Needless to say i don't think there is any danger of our owners selling star players to pay off some debt, as much as you might hope there is.

Alan the last thing I want is the Argentian at Barcalona.

And to be fair, what you think is your own business, I said what I think backed up by the figures released and what "the experts" are saying.

The situation is dire, don't shoot messenger.

Mr Alan

Boggles, you might wanna read this.

On the surface things look rosy enough. United remain the most effective money-maker in the world's richest league, generating record turnover of £256 million in 2007-08, a wonderful season on the pitch that ended with retention of the Premier League title and victory in the Champions League final.

Those titles generated a 50 per cent increase in media revenues to £90.4 million, augmented by £101 million in match-day revenue from Old Trafford, up around 10 per cent on 2007, and commercial income rose by 14 per cent to £64 million. Taken together this generated an operating profit in the football club accounts of £66 million.

Look deeper however and the picture that emerges confirms the trends established during the Glazers' relatively short tenure. United remain the pre-eminent money-maker in English football, but profits at the football club level are wiped out by the need to service rising levels of debt.

While the football club showed an operating profit, Red Football Ltd recorded a loss of £21.4 million, and Red Football Joint Ventures Ltd a loss of £44.8 million, due in large part to interest costs during the year of £68.8 million.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/5130064/Manchester-United-debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.html

Yep, things sure are rosey at old Trafford :rolleyes:

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

I said what I think backed up by the figures released and what "the experts" are saying.

The situation is dire, don't shoot messenger.

And last year the "experts" were saying that Ronaldo was deffinately a Real player.
That Rafa would be gone within a week.
etc....

Newsflash Boggles.
Actual experts don't talk to the Scum/Mirror/Star.

L'prof

Boggles wrote: »

Just announced first Club to break the £300 million turnover mark, £80 million new sponsorship, the omens are good that they can continue to pay off the banks. Add to that United are worth in excess of a Billion Pounds (Forbes), it's not like they are battling negative equity.

Just how accurate is Forbes? From here it says:

United are worth £1273m and their debt is £687m
Arsenal are worth £817m and their debt is £874m
Liverpool are worth £687m and their debt is £406m
Chelsea are worth £544 and their debt is £501m

I've converted all currencies from the XE on the date of that article. Are those figures correct, I'm mainly talking about the debt?

Karmafaerie

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

Agreed. Rafa may be willing to put up with not having much funds (wait and see how much he has this summer), but I could never see him putting up with not having control over who leaves.

Though its not that big a step, the owners seemed to put there own valuation on Barry last year, maybe they would put their own valuation on Masch, Alonso etc.

I don't think they would risk Rafa walking out though.

They wouldn't accept his valuation of Barry, at the behest of Coco Parry.

Karmafaerie

jasonorr wrote: »

Just how accurate is Forbes? From here it says:

United are worth £1273m and their debt is £687m
Arsenal are worth £817m and their debt is £874m
Liverpool are worth £687m and their debt is £406m
Chelsea are worth £544 and their debt is £501m

I've converted all currencies from the XE on the date of that article. Are those figures correct, I'm mainly talking about the debt?

They're wrong.
Chelsea owe Abramovich close to twice that.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Boggles, you might wanna read this.





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/5130064/Manchester-United-debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.html

Yep, things sure are rosey at old Trafford :rolleyes:

Alan Print the whole article, not the choice bit that make it looks like they know what they are talking about. :rolleyes:

One of the questions the article raises I can answer since it was published, Can shirt sponsorship be secure, yeah it can 80 million, next.

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Newsflash Boggles.
Actual experts don't talk to the Scum/Mirror/Star.

Either do i. :rolleyes:

L'prof

Karmafaerie wrote: »

They're wrong.
Chelsea owe Abramovich close to twice that.

That probably isn't included as he's still the Chelsea owner, but if he left...

You think Arsenal owe £874m?

Highsider

jasonorr wrote: »

Just how accurate is Forbes? From here it says:

United are worth £1273m and their debt is £687m
Arsenal are worth £817m and their debt is £874m
Liverpool are worth £687m and their debt is £406m
Chelsea are worth £544 and their debt is £501m

I've converted all currencies from the XE on the date of that article. Are those figures correct, I'm mainly talking about the debt?

Read the other day that United's debt is close to 900m. Think the figure was 878m. Also did'nt realise Arsenal owed that much :eek:

Mitch Connor

Boggles wrote: »

Alan Print the whole article, not the choice bit that make it looks like they know what they are talking about. :rolleyes:




Either do i. :rolleyes:

United are meeting the current interest payments that they currently HAVE to meet. However, they are not paying anything off the PIK's, and are simply rolling the interest owed on them up. If they do not refinance them, they will have massive repayments due on them in lump sums 70million to 150million over a number of years. As it is, they have currently not been able to refinance these debts.

United are doing 'ok' at the moment but the mountain of debt is only ever rising, and as it rises the harder it becomes to even service them.

whatawaster

Boggles wrote: »

Alan Print the whole article, not the choice bit that make it looks like they know what they are talking about. :rolleyes:

One of the questions the article raises I can answer since it was published, Can shirt sponsorship be secure, yeah it can 80 million, next.

The point still remains - the debt is not being reduced. Just the interest paid. Just like Liverpool.
Liverpool's shirt sponsorship is to end next year i think, and hopefully with a fully functioning CEO we'll negotiate a much improved deal too.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

Either do i. :rolleyes:

But you've no problem quoting them on Liverpools "dire situation" do you?!:rolleyes:

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

But you've no problem quoting them on Liverpools "dire situation" do you?!:rolleyes:

Where did I qoute any of those 3 papers?

Karmafaerie

whatawaster wrote: »

The point still remains - the debt is not being reduced. Just the interest paid. Just like Liverpool.
Liverpool's shirt sponsorship is to end next year i think, and hopefully with a fully functioning CEO we'll negotiate a much improved deal too.

Our sponsership deal, and our deal with Addidas are both up this season.
And Ian Ayre made it clear in a recent Q/A session that the current sponsership deals weren't made on his watch.
As in that he'll do better.

Boggles

whatawaster wrote: »

The point still remains - the debt is not being reduced. Just the interest paid. Just like Liverpool.
Liverpool's shirt sponsorship is to end next year i think, and hopefully with a fully functioning CEO we'll negotiate a much improved deal too.

But that's business, if you buy a house the first 10-15 years you are just paying off the interest.

If United sold up in the morning the Glaziers would have more than double their money.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

Where did I qoute any of those 3 papers?

Where did you get your info on Liverpools situation?

And to be clear, I'm not just talking about those 3 papers.

L'prof

Highsider wrote: »

Read the other day that United's debt is close to 900m. Think the figure was 878m. Also did'nt realise Arsenal owed that much :eek:

I'm not so sure it's accurate as it's ever been reported as such, but maybe the Highbury Square development could have something to do with it as they're waiting to sell 711 (some of which have already been sold) apartments starting from £250k, which is due to be finished next year.

spockety

Boggles wrote: »

But that's business, if you buy a house the first 10-15 years you are just paying off the interest.

If United sold up in the morning the Glaziers would have more than double their money.

The true value of an asset is determined at the point a sale is made.

Is there a buyer out there for a 1 billion Man Utd? I'm not too sure.

And if you buy a house, for the first 10-15 years you are mostly paying interest, but there is still some of the capital being wiped.. otherwise the term would never end.

Karmafaerie

jasonorr wrote: »

That probably isn't included as he's still the Chelsea owner, but if he left...

You think Arsenal owe £874m?

Well they did borrow £300-400 to build th Emirites.

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

One of the questions the article raises I can answer since it was published, Can shirt sponsorship be secure, yeah it can 80 million, next.

You think a few extra million from shirt sponsorship is gonna make a dent in Utd ever increasing debt!? Boggles, we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds, that is increasing every year, and Utd have no realistic way of increasing their incomes....yet you are bragging about an additional £3m a year you got in a shirt sponsorship?!

jesus you're more deluded than i previously gave you credit for.

so lets just get it straight, the world according to boggles:

Liverpool are gonna have to start stripping assets, sell the groud, sell the players etc etc cause they are so riddled with debt.

Utd, debt? wat debt?

Nice suit

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

But that's business, if you buy a house the first 10-15 years you are just paying off the interest.

If United sold up in the morning the Glaziers would have more than double their money.

Yes that's business.
But it's the exact same as Liverpool.
(The yanks bought Liverpool for half of it's current value, and haven't even built a stadium yet!)

You can't have it both ways.

You're saying it's business for Utd, and dire for Liverpool.:rolleyes:

L'prof

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Well they did borrow £300-400 to build th Emirites.

I think it was £350m, you think they already owed £525m? As I said above, maybe it has something to do with Highbury Square.

EDIT: Anyway, kind of off-topic...think I'll take it to the Arsenal thread.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Where did you get your info on Liverpools situation?

And to be clear, I'm not just talking about those 3 papers.

What are talking you about??

Boggles

Oh dear, I see "What did you say about our Club" brigade is in full effect.

I'll let ye rest abit and untwist those panties.

spockety

It's official, Masch's agent can go and sh*te.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N164698090610-1121.htm

Rafa Benitez today dismissed speculation linking Javier Mascherano with a move away from Liverpool.
The Argentina international's agent was yesterday quoted as saying our No.20 would be prepared to talk to newly crowned European champions Barcelona.

However, Benitez is adamant Mascherano is not for sale at any price and insisted the 25-year-old is happy to stay at Anfield.

"Mascherano has no price," said the Liverpool boss.

"Barcelona could not afford to match his value to Liverpool Football Club.

"We do not want to sell and Javier is very happy here.

"I have spoken to Javier two or three times this summer – the last time was only last week – and he was very happy, very positive.

"He gave me the private number of his agent, Walter Tamer, and again the conversation was very positive and was all about football.

"Walter told me that two clubs with big, big names were asking after Mascherano – and I told him to forget it, that Javier was happy in Liverpool and he was not for sale.

"So I was surprised to see the agent's comments today.

"He has a long contract and any club can forget about bidding for him. They can offer £40m or even £50m, we don’t want to sell."

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

Oh dear, I see "What did you say about our Club" brigade is in full effect.

I'll let ye rest abit and untwist those panties.

translation;

Boggles wrote:

uh oh, everyone has pointed out that i'm talking ****e, better get out of here

jesus_thats_gre

Boggles wrote: »

Oh dear, I see "What did you say about our Club" brigade is in full effect.

I'll let ye rest abit and untwist those panties.

The situations at United and Liverpool are pretty much identical.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

What are talking you about??

I'll try and be as clear as possible, as you're clearly having your usual problem (the one where when you realise that you are wrong, you just keep on ignoring people and hope they go away).

You said a number of times, that Liverpool are in a dire financial situation.

Boggles wrote: »

50 million though, for a club riddled with debt, the ease of pressure might far outway the loss of one player.

Boggles wrote: »

No Liverpool CAN'T service there debt and ARE operating at a loss (50 million last year, ? this year) and they have until the end of this month to come up with refinace AFAIK, just to restructure their current loans, on top of that they have to borrow 300-400 million to build a stadium which will bring what they owe with interest past a billion pounds.

Unless the rich Arab inters the fray, it will be a case of having to move back to move forward.

Boggles wrote: »

I said what I think backed up by the figures released and what "the experts" are saying.

The situation is dire, don't shoot messenger.

The only people spouting this crap are the media, so unless you Boogles are involved in the administration of LFC, you are reffering to the media to try and proove your completely wrong point.


There.
Nice and clear.
Or would you prefer if I drew you a picture.

Boggles

Again gentleman, people are attacking me and not what I am posting.

Lord Rafa himself has come out and talked about the financial trouble, but when I mention it I'm talking shíté?

I suggest ye take 5 minutes go over my posts, pick out what you disagree with or know to be bullshít, come back and we will discuss it like adults.

Agreed? I'll address it this evening.

dardoz

Karmafaerie wrote: »

There.
Nice and clear.
Or would you prefer if I drew you a picture.

God I haven't laughed so hard on this forum since...... EVER

jesus_thats_gre

Boggles wrote: »

Again gentleman, people are attacking me and not what I am posting.

Lord Rafa himself has come out and talked about the financial trouble, but when I mention it I'm talking shíté?

I suggest ye take 5 minutes go over my posts, pick out what you disagree with or know to be bullshít, come back and we will discuss it like adults.

Agreed? I'll address it this evening.

I have addressed your post. There is little to differentiate what is going on at Liverpool or United Football Clubs. Both have been burdened with varying amount of debt with both having a similar enough debt to value ratio.

We can all have as many opinions as we like but the fact that the banks are looking like they are going to allow the lads to re-finance is the only thing that really counts. In the current climate, the banks would not allow them to do so unless the banks were of the opinion that the debt was serviceable and that the clubs long term future was/is secure.


Finally, I could copy and paste your posts from this thread into the United thread and swap Mascherano's name for Ronaldo's and garner the exact same responses from United fans as you have been getting from the Liverpool fans here.

5starpool

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

I have addressed your post. There is little to differentiate what is going on at Liverpool or United Football Clubs. Both have been burdened with varying amount of debt with both having a similar enough debt to value ratio.

We can all have as many opinions as we like but the fact that the banks are looking like they are going to allow the lads to re-finance is the only thing that really counts. In the current climate, the banks would not allow them to do so unless the banks were of the opinion that the debt was serviceable and that the clubs long term future was/is secure.


Finally, I could copy and paste your posts from this thread into the United thread and swap Mascherano's name for Ronaldo's and garner the exact same responses from United fans as you have been getting from the Liverpool fans here.

I agree 99% (accurate to 1%).

xabi

Can we start a new thread for those wanting to discuss the financial aspects of the club and leave this one for football? Some crap posted here in the past few days!!

X.

DeadSkin

xabi wrote: »

Can we start a new thread for those wanting to discuss the financial aspects of the club and leave this one for football? Some crap posted here in the past few days!!

X.

So, eh, xabi, are you stayin' or goin' :pac: