Personally, I think £73million is ridiculous for any player, and Kaka is one of the best in the world. And, I agree, I have a feeling that he'd disappoint in England, wouldn't be the first time a Serie A - Premiership move hasn't gone quite as well as expected.

 

Well we are in the age of silly money. Real Madrid especially are stupid for this.

 

This summer's gonna be interesting between Man City and Real Madrd to see which makes the biggest fool out of themselves.

Well we are in the age of silly money. Real Madrid especially are stupid for this.

 

This summer's gonna be interesting between Man City and Real Madrd to see which makes the biggest fool out of themselves.

 

Admittedly its only the Daily Nazi but apparently Eto'o is on his way to City for 20m plus wages per week well into 6 figures, that happens and after they have got Barry and a couple of other players then it is probably a battle between the current Sky 4 as to who comes SECOND in the premiership next season, Eto'o is a predator, would get 30 or 40 goals a season for City, I am far more worried about them getting him than I am Chelsea or anyone getting Kaka

Could Hughes be trying to to replicate a Barca style team? Robinho, Eto'o and someone else as a front 3 (SWP at the moment but he's rubbish), De Jong holding with Barry to the left and Ireland to the right...

Eto'o going to Barca would not mean they would win the league. :lol: Far from it. Eto'o is a good player, a very good player, but one player does not make a team. Imo he only scores as many goals as he does for Barca because of the quality of service he receives from Xavi and Iniesta... no chance he'll get that type of service with better defences in the Premier League.

Have read in various papers that Liverpool are going to sign Distin, Tuncay and Gary O'Neil. Don't exactly set the pulse racing ... though neither did Agger and Skertel when Liverpool signed them and I think they're good players.

Edited June 4, 200916 yr by jaynesangel

Well we're being linked to a lot of players at the moment.

 

Distan for the £2m he's been quoted at would be a good choice. He'd only be 4th choice, but he's a proven Premier League player and then it'd give time for San Jose and Kelly to go on long season loans. Tuncay would be a f***ing steal as well. Again for the price he's been quoted at, he'd give us a little bit of creativity, proven EPL player and won't mind playing second fiddle to Torres all for about £4m. Not bad, not bad. We're being heavily linked to Silva again as well. This is a deal I think will happen.

Well we're being linked to a lot of players at the moment.

 

Distan for the £2m he's been quoted at would be a good choice. He'd only be 4th choice, but he's a proven Premier League player and then it'd give time for San Jose and Kelly to go on long season loans. Tuncay would be a f***ing steal as well. Again for the price he's been quoted at, he'd give us a little bit of creativity, proven EPL player and won't mind playing second fiddle to Torres all for about £4m. Not bad, not bad. We're being heavily linked to Silva again as well. This is a deal I think will happen.

 

As ever it is all hot air with the transfer season until players sign or not. I just hope Liverpool don't lose Alonso to the clutches of Real Madrid, whom I hope spend all their money on Kaka and C Ronaldo instead.

As ever it is all hot air with the transfer season until players sign or not. I just hope Liverpool don't lose Alonso to the clutches of Real Madrid, whom I hope spend all their money on Kaka and C Ronaldo instead.

 

I was reading earlier that Perez has a list of targets; Kaka, Villa, Ribery, Ronaldo, some other player and Silva. And he wants to get them all signed up in that order. I dunno whether he'll come in Alonso, I hope not. But either way, I think we'll buy a new centre midfield player this summer though...

I would be so sad if Alonso left us...I don't think some fans realise just how much we miss him when he's injured or left out. He plays such a big impact, I think he'd be a huge loss, would be terrible for Liverpool.

According to reports Liverpool owners have lost £42m last year, of which £36m was interest payments on loans of £350m which have to be either repaid on 24th July or refinanced. If they can't refinance then they could be in big trouble.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ool/8085745.stm

They'll either re-finance or get another extension. They're grafty buggers.

 

I'm hoping that they get on their horses and ride into the sunset though. Useless pair of cowboys.

They'll either re-finance or get another extension. They're grafty buggers.

 

I'm hoping that they get on their horses and ride into the sunset though. Useless pair of cowboys.

 

But might not be very easy to refinance in this present crisis, what banks are gonna lend that amount. They might have to pay a very high interest rate.

But might not be very easy to refinance in this present crisis, what banks are gonna lend that amount. They might have to pay a very high interest rate.

 

Well, i'm no economics expert, but I think they'll be able to re-finance. But before that i'm hoping someone comes in with an offer for the club. I dunno whether they'd sell though as they'll wanna make a profit on the club, and that's not forgetting the new owners will inherit all the debt so it's a bit of an odd situation. The other awful thing is the owners don't want to sell, but here's hoping they get a lot of $h!t over the next month and a half.

 

All this talk though in the media... it's just OTT. It's like for some reason apparently until yesterday Liverpool, and the people involved at the top of the club had no idea about the debt and potential $h!t we're in. Also, I don't think Benitez would have signed a new contract without knowing something.

Well, i'm no economics expert, but I think they'll be able to re-finance..

 

I'm sure they will, because it's Liverpool and there's such a stong brand name. If they were a normal company no bank would touch them with a barge pole though. Nearly £300m in debt with these recent figures suggesting they make pre-tax profit of just £10m a year. Banks would normally lend to a company if they could use all their profits to pay back their debt in a maximum of 3-4 years, not 30. One advantage is that the owners have assets elsewhere that they could sell, but they really don't strike me as the type and I think this could end up being a make or break season for Liverpool. If you don't win the league then you might be looking at doubling the 18 years unless you find an owner with the wealth of Man City, but that's still completely unsustainable.

 

Of last years 20 Premiership clubs, a maximum of 8 are in an "ok at best" financial situation; Arsenal, Blackburn, Bolton, Everton, Hull, Sunderland, Tottenham, West Ham

Edited June 6, 200916 yr by RabbitFurCoat

I'm sure they will, because it's Liverpool and there's such a stong brand name. If they were a normal company no bank would touch them with a barge pole though. Nearly £300m in debt with these recent figures suggesting they make pre-tax profit of just £10m a year. Banks would normally lend to a company if they could use all their profits to pay back their debt in a maximum of 3-4 years, not 30. One advantage is that the owners have assets elsewhere that they could sell, but they really don't strike me as the type and I think this could end up being a make or break season for Liverpool. If you don't win the league then you might be looking at doubling the 18 years unless you find an owner with the wealth of Man City, but that's still completely unsustainable.

 

Of last years 20 Premiership clubs, a maximum of 8 are in an "ok at best" financial situation; Arsenal, Blackburn, Bolton, Everton, Hull, Sunderland, Tottenham, West Ham

 

There's no need to sell players though, as we won't go into administration. Now the cowboys are idiots, but if they started selling their best players than I am pretty sure one of them would end up literally, dead. Basically if we don't make the Champions League we're f***ed. But here's hoping Gillet and Hicks go back stateside as this investment they're wanting in to the club ain't gonna happen unless they sell up.

Ribery on his way to Real Madrid for £60m? LOL

 

Will be interesting to see how many times the transfer record will be broken throughout the June-August transfer window..

It's madness money. Real Madrid though. The gamble that Real Madrid are taking with the new age Galacticos is quite weird really. If it doesn't pay off then they're royally screwed to put it lightly. Here's hoping Barcelona screw them once again.

 

But the Man City and Real Madrid nonsense at the moment is just stupid. God knows what Man City will be like after the World Cup next year... the worst part if the ransfer window hasn't even officially opened yet. :manson:

I'm sure they will, because it's Liverpool and there's such a stong brand name. If they were a normal company no bank would touch them with a barge pole though. Nearly £300m in debt with these recent figures suggesting they make pre-tax profit of just £10m a year. Banks would normally lend to a company if they could use all their profits to pay back their debt in a maximum of 3-4 years, not 30. One advantage is that the owners have assets elsewhere that they could sell, but they really don't strike me as the type and I think this could end up being a make or break season for Liverpool. If you don't win the league then you might be looking at doubling the 18 years unless you find an owner with the wealth of Man City, but that's still completely unsustainable.

 

Of last years 20 Premiership clubs, a maximum of 8 are in an "ok at best" financial situation; Arsenal, Blackburn, Bolton, Everton, Hull, Sunderland, Tottenham, West Ham

 

Arsenal are in debt to £416m, so I fail to see how they are in better position than Liverpool.

 

Remember Liverpool had a debt of £0.00 until those muppets Statler & Waldorf bought the club with loans and saddled the club with debt. :angry:

 

http://www.alivenotdead.com/attachments/2008/08/45107_200808152023021.thumb.jpg

 

What they did to the club was a bit like stealing your car, and then charging you to pay for their petrol. It should never have been allowed to happen and the likes of Hicks and Moores should be totally ashamed of themselves for selling out to these yankee cowboys, when they should have sold out to DIC.

 

Sunday Times June 7, 2009

We can outspend United, claim Liverpool

 

Despite their recently published levels of debts, the Merseyside club say that only Chelsea have more cash to splash

Nick Harris

 

LIVERPOOL have reacted bullishly to claims that they are on the point of financial meltdown by insisting they expect to be able to outspend both Manchester United and Arsenal in the transfer market this summer.

 

A senior Liverpool source told The Sunday Times last night: “We have more spare cash to spend than any club except Chelsea.”

The source, who has detailed knowledge of the 2007 takeover at Anfield by the American businessmen Tom Hicks and George Gillett and insight into how they have run the club since, also says:

 

¤ the transfer budget will be a minimum of £20m plus sales this summer and that manager Rafael Benitez “is free to exceed it” if he can “make a convincing case”

¤ Liverpool are not subject to some of the financial constraints on transfer dealings that limit Manchester United and Arsenal, who are more indebted to outsiders including banks and institutions

¤ Benitez is “an amazing guy who knows he has a healthy transfer budget to augment one of the world’s strongest squads”.

 

The source also suggested Hicks and Gillett had two regrets over their takeover. First, they reneged on an initial promise not to put some of their buyout debt directly onto Liverpool; and second, they are unable to start work on the new Stanley Park stadium “because the world’s fallen apart financially”.

 

They both want to remain at Liverpool, ideally in partnership with a new investor — yet to be found — with deep pockets to help fund the stadium. However, more than £58m channelled into Kop Football Ltd (Liverpool’s UK holding company) from an arm of the Hicks-Gillett operations based in the Cayman Islands is “evidence in cash” of the owners’ commitment. That money is part of £421.6m owed by KFL to all creditors combined at the end of July 2008.

 

Premier League debt is back in the spotlight after Deloitte’s annual review of football finance showed top-flight clubs owe in total £3.1bn, two-thirds by the “Big Four”. Chelsea owe Roman Abramovich £701m. Manchester United owe banks and hedge funds £649m and other creditors about £50m more. Arsenal owe £416m, spent largely on the Emirates Stadium and on property development at Highbury.

 

Kop Football Ltd posted losses of £42.6m for the year to July 2008, mainly down to interest payments of £36.5m on loans taken out by Hicks and Gillett to buy Liverpool.

Arsenal are in debt to £416m, so I fail to see how they are in better position than Liverpool.

This is true. But last year they had a turnover of £223m compared to Liverpool's £159m. Of all Premiership clubs Arsenal have the lowest wage bill in relation to their turnover, at just 45%. If Arsenal had to repay their debts, then at current levels, would be able to pay them back far quicker than Liverpool could.

Edited June 7, 200916 yr by RabbitFurCoat