Before you go bigging this up too much to Liverpool fans, isn't the reason we aren't in debt to our owners because they wrote it all off?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The European Kings of Debt
- Thread starter ChicagoBlue
- Start date
Before you go bigging this up too much to Liverpool fans, isn't the reason we aren't in debt to our owners because they wrote it all off?
No. Debt for equity swop. And that equity, is now worth multiple times the amount lent. Big paper profit for Mansour.Before you go bigging this up too much to Liverpool fans, isn't the reason we aren't in debt to our owners because they wrote it all off?
Vienna_70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 36,858
- Location
- 100, 32, 106, +79, 19
- Team supported
- Treble Winners 2022/23.
That’s what Platini originally wanted FFP to stop, but the cartel turned it into spending.This is what FFP should be designed to stop. I understand that debt to a football club is like having a mortgage and so long as the debt is serviceable it's ok. However why is debt looked at this way as from memory scum have been in debt for years and it's increasing, at least with a mortgage it comes down over down and there is usually an end date when it's all paid off.
Apart from in accounting terms, did that really make a difference prior to 2015, when Mansour owned everything?No. Debt for equity swop. And that equity, is now worth multiple times the amount lent. Big paper profit for Mansour.
It gave him the flexibility to bring in other partners when the time came.Apart from in accounting terms, did that really make a difference prior to 2015, when Mansour owned everything?
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 16,515
You’ll have to take it up with Deloitte.Extremely misleading tweet. There are many kinds of debt and depending on the amount and the use of debt, may be classified as stable or unstable.
For example Madrid's debt is mainly related to improvements in stadium (infrastructure debt secured against the assets) which will pay us in future. As a "company" with an EBITDA of almost €200 million expected for FY2022, this is a very sustainable amount. We also only have to pay a fixed €30-40 million annually to pay this off (over 25 years, similar to funding a home).
Manchester United on the other hand owe most of their debt to banks for "acquisition financing" ... basically nothing of value is being created in United through this debt. Its only increased the wealth of their owners.
Barcelona has a significant amount of debt for both infrastructure and salaries (working capital debt). Their issue is that their working capital debt allows them to only fund short term objectives (paying wages) and since they have deferred wages to latter years, they may have to increase working capital debt at the cost of long term investments such as acquiring new players or renovating stadium.
As a global accounting firm with a reputation to protect, I’d imagine they checked their numbers and they’re apples to apples comparisons.
But, who knows, maybe you know their data better than them?!
I was over on Red Cafe earlier for a bit of afternoon entertainment and they were slagging our Clubs finances off in the fact all the deals were all dodgy particularly with advertising and sponsorship. One so called finance expert over there was saying the Sheikh should be investigated by The Inland Revenue for failure to pay Capital Gains Tax on his sale of the Barclays Shares back in the banking crisis. Obviously wasn’t aware if you live overseas and have done for the 5 years previous he doesn’t have to pay UK Capital Gains Taxes. So as long as he didn’t buy a 1 bedroom flat over a curry house in Levenshulme during his 1 visit I don’t think he need to worry about a knock on his front door by the Tax Man.
pardoeofftomexico
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2014
- Messages
- 557
I think you will find that the 5 years applies to UK residents who go abroad to try to save CGT. In Sheikh Mansour's case he is non-resident and non-domiciled and to become liable to CGT he would have to become resident in the UK and be here for, I think, 15 years out of 20. For more detailed information, I can give it Red Cafe for £250 per hour!!I was over on Red Cafe earlier for a bit of afternoon entertainment and they were slagging our Clubs finances off in the fact all the deals were all dodgy particularly with advertising and sponsorship. One so called finance expert over there was saying the Sheikh should be investigated by The Inland Revenue for failure to pay Capital Gains Tax on his sale of the Barclays Shares back in the banking crisis. Obviously wasn’t aware if you live overseas and have done for the 5 years previous he doesn’t have to pay UK Capital Gains Taxes. So as long as he didn’t buy a 1 bedroom flat over a curry house in Levenshulme during his 1 visit I don’t think he need to worry about a knock on his front door by the Tax Man.
There is nothing wrong with the numbers ... just how they are being presented.You’ll have to take it up with Deloitte.
As a global accounting firm with a reputation to protect, I’d imagine they checked their numbers and they’re apples to apples comparisons.
But, who knows, maybe you know their data better than them?!