http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8084182.stm

The parent company of Liverpool FC, owned by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, lost £42.6m in the year to August 2008.

The loss was mainly due to the £36m of interest payments that Kop Football Holdings had to make to service the debt taken on to buy the club.

Its auditors warned that the need to refinance loans by 24 July cast "significant doubt" on the future of the group as a going concern.

But they added the club's owners were confident they would secure the funds.

The US owners bought Liverpool in February 2007, promising to build a new stadium.

Player sales

In their accounts, they say they are "committed to building a new stadium and actively seeking funding to complete the project".

But they admit that "the opening of the new stadium will be delayed until 2012".

The parent company's loss came despite the £10.2m pre-tax profit reported by the football club in the same period.

The profit was helped by increased television revenues and the sale of players such as Peter Crouch, John Arne Riise and Scott Carson.

The results for the parent company showed net debt on 31 July 2008 of £300m.





least we have the fanbase to keep our debt serviced,and buy new players...............just


looks like some are not so lucky

It's nothing we didn't allready know Kwack,we know that if they stay we are fooked in the long run.

exactly every lfc fan wants them out anyway, we know they only bought the club to make a quick buck. this can be seen with the amount of dividends they paid out to themselves last season (bloody thieves...)

hopefully its a matter of time before they are forced to sell

sooner they fook off the better

lfc fans are like newcastle fans.

think they know whats best for there club but in all fairness they aint accountants, business men or involved in any form of financial work....most of them anyways.

if your new owner goes, whos next, some guy from dubai there to use your club as a play thing?

so you think to guys who have 300mill of debt put onto the club and have to pay 35 mill of intrest are good for a football club?

yeah dream on

newcastle were relegated...if they had a decent owner who could fund the team properly they could have signed some quality players and may have survived

we need some new owners in sharpish

didnt say they wer, i said you all want some super rich money bags to come in, but chelsea have that, and there debts 711million, so that would likely increase your debts, basically giving you no chance if your super rich owner was to leave.

we have owners who have put massive debt on our club, but difference is man utd is a money making machine, and easily manage our debt, liverpool are not, and your owners are not responsible for it all, surely you have marketing people etc etc.

these americans are multi millionaires who run several businesses and sports franchises so i would say these people have a pretty good idea how to run a club.

now if your owners had previously ran emron or GM then maybe saying theyre bad would be a good thing.

everyone is effected by this recession, rich and poor.

liverpool fans will never be happy, and will complain no matter who comes in, even if they wer some super rich person with endless amounts of money you would find someway to complain lol.

and newcastle had many quality players, they wer just shit as fuck

right now id be happy with no debts

the yanks have all the money then why did they take out loans to buy the club?

they dont care about the club and just want to line their own pockets

both of you have valid points

i agree super rich business man is too naive to demand, they could turn out to be an idiot like roman and try to be in charge of which players come in but one think people are forgetting is what movieman is saying.

they have put nothing into the club, all of the transfer buys have been made in installments and has come from the bank. on top of that we have a small stadium which just cant compete with the big boys.

we need these guys out asap because i fear we will end up like valencia, their owner ignored their debt and went ahead and tried to build a huge stadium but couldnt sell of the old land and now they are royally screwed.

we have a 800m dollar debt nearly and its only going to go up unless we can get a new investor in to build the stadium. look at united they got a huge debt but their huge stadium still makes them good profit.

how can we carry on bringing in good players with a huge debt and a small stadium?

we need a third investor or new owners as soon as possible, we had a great stadium plan but how can we afford to the 80m money up front needed to get the work done if the owners are barely able to keep the club from sinking.

your unlikely to get a new stadium, and the soonest you will get it if at all is 2012 now

mate only 3 outcomes

we get a third investor and new stadium done by the time you said

we get new owners and new stadium and done by the time you said

option 3, yanks stay in and we will never get a new stadium

they are eating up our money, the dividends they took out were at around 35m last season, that is more than united ffs! shows how greedy the yanks are

Option 4 .............Arabs

i like 4 best

...if that happens you'll become a billionares toy,great in the short run, but what happens if they get bored and decide to pull out,the club will be left in ruins from which they will not be able to come back from...

it is what we want.....not some investment bank no face group.

yeah but thats what annoyed me, Sheikh Mohammed, the ruler of Dubia who wanted to buy lfc has been a liverpool for over 30 years. he started supporting them in the 70s and has always said he is a huge fan. we almost had the perfect owner, a billionaire fan....but the damn greedy yanks fucked it up

depends on who tbh if we get a liverpool fan ala the sheik then we may be ok...but atm anything is better than the cowboys

I fixed that for you.

haha i actually forgot they bid the first time with the americans.

i believe the reason parry suggested the yanks is because dubia wanted a new chief executive....if only pool learned their lesson the first time in not taking dubia but when those guys came back after the poor treatment moores and parry gave them, the yanks were just as stubborn

i get so pissed off when i think about where we could be had we had dubia

It had fuck all to do with what was best for the club or Parry and everything to do with the extra £10m that would go into Moores sliver lined pockets,when the yanks are gone it'll be time to turn our attentions to Moores and let him know he's no longer welcome at Anfield.

i dont want united owned by arabs, we make more money than every english club by far, so we dnt want or need no arab billionaires

not necessarily arabs but being a PLC we surely would be better off owned by a solvent "entity", rather than some shifty yank, who has bought a solvent club on borrowed money and are just servicing the intrest on the debt every year?

its not even going down so they have to keep restructuring it to keep it level..........paying 70mill in intrest on a loan every year is madness.....though the financial wizards in the city claim it is fine and normal practice by big corporations

We both need a Juilia Roberts type whore to come along and melt our respective bastards hearts.

you have no heart

UTD do need an uber rich person or to go back to a PLC. The ever increasing amount of debt proves this. What are the glazers gonna do, keep losing 20 million Quid per year then get to the point where they have to sell and lose the 800m USd they put upfront themselfs? Whats with the holding company of Manchester United? Aren't the Glazer's actaully making a profit overall? If they are then why aren't they subsidising UTD from their other companies to pay off the debt? Owning Manchester United outright with no debt would mean two things. The ability to spend probably 60 million + per year on players and give the Glazer family a license to print money.

taking out loans to buy something is just the way many business's in america do it...
the theory is that it is better to use someone elses money to buy something than your own...
why risk your own cash when you can risk someone elses...
and you can offset the interest on the loan with the interest you make off of your own money...

not pretty... but it is often how things are done...

the issue that has been bugging me about some of the american money is the AIG sponsorship of UTD...
we paid billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to bail that fucking company out yet they still can afford to support UTD with OUR FUCKING MONEY!!!

i sure do hope lfc can work something out... i really enjoy the team...
the nice thing about arab owners is that they are returning a lot of that oil money they have made back to europe...

Yeah we understand that. What we don't understand is why these mmuppets would take on such a debt that they not only can't or don't want to pay off, they can't or don't want to even service it and constantly allow it to increase.

those bastards claimed 2m in expenses (travelling etc) from the club ffs..i know every owner does it but 2m!