The Owners

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
22,963
FSM wouldn't be charging more than they charge other commercial clients so it is minimal as to how much (if any) they would be taking out via that method.

At the end of the day, FSG owns Liverpool too and I don't think that they are that hungry about yield that they need to take it out in a backhanded way.
It might not be that minimal - a commission of 5-10% would not be shocking, but would have a material effect on those numbers. By comparison, all of ManU's comparable work (and costs) are inhouse and shown in their financials.

As a mechanism, I don't really have a problem with it as long as growth continues at a reasonable pace. Although I am not blown away by the current rate, it is solid - and I think the last two years are probably more indicative of the current norm than the entire time frame LowtonRed posted about. These numbers might shift dramatically with the next shirt deal - the Warrior/NB was category-changing at the time, but being the first has meant that every subsequent deal has outstripped it.

I would personally prefer to have that amount transparent, but at the end of the day, LFC is a private company and we already have far more information than is available about the Red Sox finances. There would always be fans raging over every pound that FSG directed to itself as being 'LFC's money', ignoring the reality that the club was purchased with 100's of millions of FSG money - much of which likely came from a similarly structured Red Sox marketing deal.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
11,847
Excluding debt owed by LFC to FSG's holding vehicle, LFC's bank debt was £79M in the last reports filed (May 2017). Basically the stadium debt, if I recall correctly a five year term so the imminent May 2018 ones will like show around ~£60M.
The bank debt under the rolling credit facility is now down to £55.103m (from £71.709m). The intercompany loan has reduced in accordance with its planned repayment schedule so that is now at £99.919m (from £109.949m).

I wonder how much of the commercial revenues come from the local market though??? Not every sponsor is global... In fact, I would expect a large portion of it to be local and in that regard we can't compare to London or Manchester in terms of wealth.
The club's total turnover was £455.089m (up from £364.508m). Of which £440.842m is said to be generated from within the UK, £6.511m from the EU and £7.736m from the Rest of the World. This last figure in respect of the Rest of the world is actually down from the previous year's figure of £11.717m.

It might not be that minimal - a commission of 5-10% would not be shocking, but would have a material effect on those numbers. By comparison, all of ManU's comparable work (and costs) are inhouse and shown in their financials.

As a mechanism, I don't really have a problem with it as long as growth continues at a reasonable pace. Although I am not blown away by the current rate, it is solid - and I think the last two years are probably more indicative of the current norm than the entire time frame LowtonRed posted about. These numbers might shift dramatically with the next shirt deal - the Warrior/NB was category-changing at the time, but being the first has meant that every subsequent deal has outstripped it.

I would personally prefer to have that amount transparent, but at the end of the day, LFC is a private company and we already have far more information than is available about the Red Sox finances. There would always be fans raging over every pound that FSG directed to itself as being 'LFC's money', ignoring the reality that the club was purchased with 100's of millions of FSG money - much of which likely came from a similarly structured Red Sox marketing deal.
Agree. I would prefer to see greater transparency around that arrangement as I'd expect FSM to be taking money out of the deal before it hit our books. I just think they ought to account for that but then many fan groups will feel that they shouldn't take anything from their ownership of the club and that they should take whatever gains they make upon sale. That's rather shortsighted, in my view. Whilst they continue to be good custodians I think they should be encouraged to feel that they are being sufficiently compensated rather than feel that their only way to make a return is with a sale.

I agree that up to 10% could be lost from our commercial deals in this way. In fact, I kind of assume that it is. However, even if you add that 10% to the club's overall commercial performance that would still only put us at £169.717m (£154.288m x 1.1) broadly level with Chelsea (£165.37m). I think we ought to be doing better than that.

Liverpool FC, of all clubs, paying zero tax? Shameful.
You'll be pleased to know that last year we paid ten times more corporation tax than the year before, £5.237m compared with £527,000 for 2017. Overall we paid £4.904m in tax last year after accounting for double taxation relief and rebates due for foreign tax compared with £646,000 the year before.

Incidentally, wages have jumped by nearly £50m. They're up from £184.999m in 2017 to £232.672m. They do cover all employees rather than just players but even though those not in the playing, management and coaching staff have increased from 589 to 659 it's safe to assume that the players are more responsible for the increase. Number of players, managing and coaching staff have increased from 155 to 178. Total wages (including social security costs and pensions) increased from £208.278m to £263.615m. Peter Moore's being paid more than Ian Ayre too. Good for him. He's on £1.329m in comparison with the £907,000 earned by Ayre the year before.

I would expect next season's accounts (year end 2020) to show a very small increase in total wages, if at all. This season's wage bill will probably top £290m (including social security and pensions).
 

Last edited:

Billy Biskix

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
2,592
Yeah, I find it a bit fishy to be honest. FSG/FSM aren't more stupid than the owners of other clubs, and you'd think that the commercial aspects of handling the club's rising reputation should be one of their strong points. And yet, we fall back behind the other top clubs in England.

At the end of the day, it's not a major issue as long as there is money available for Klopp when he needs it. But it's still a bit strange.
It really isn't fishy. It's their little dividend. The numbers involved are not so huge as to make that much of a difference to our ability to compete regardless of what some people might like us to believe. Hardly an epic swindle.

I actually think the commercial performance is OK. Not stellar but then the thing that is overlooked when comparing with other clubs during their ownership period is that we haven't been that successful on the pitch. Commercial success will be driven by football success, not the other way round. In that table which @Lowton_Red published showing commercial revenues all the other clubs had appeared in the CL more than we had in those years and 3 of them had won the PL title more than once. During that same period we had only been in the CL twice and won one League Cup.

It's all going in the right direction but I think the time to judge FSG on commercial activity will be over the next 3 years. Everything now is in place. Next season will be our 3rd consecutive CL campaign. We have the most marketable manager in the world, some of the most marketable players in the world and a team that plays great football. All it needs is a PL and/or CL win and the whole thing should go ballistic.
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts...
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
22,391
It really isn't fishy. It's their little dividend. The numbers involved are not so huge as to make that much of a difference to our ability to compete regardless of what some people might like us to believe. Hardly an epic swindle.

I actually think the commercial performance is OK. Not stellar but then the thing that is overlooked when comparing with other clubs during their ownership period is that we haven't been that successful on the pitch. Commercial success will be driven by football success, not the other way round. In that table which @Lowton_Red published showing commercial revenues all the other clubs had appeared in the CL more than we had in those years and 3 of them had won the PL title more than once. During that same period we had only been in the CL twice and won one League Cup.

It's all going in the right direction but I think the time to judge FSG on commercial activity will be over the next 3 years. Everything now is in place. Next season will be our 3rd consecutive CL campaign. We have the most marketable manager in the world, some of the most marketable players in the world and a team that plays great football. All it needs is a PL and/or CL win and the whole thing should go ballistic.
Oh yes, I don't say that there is an epic swindle or anything in that kind, we are far, very far from the g+h times, thankfully so.

Maybe it is a means to optimise tax issues if the mother company takes some of the profits of the commercial deals? Anyway, I'm not bothered for the time being. Klopp and Edwards have had the money available to buy absolute top players recently while being able to keep all the key players together, and that's the most important thing. All the newest contract renewals are a good sign of this too.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
11,847
The accounts seem to suggest that after 31 May 2018 we've contracted to spend somewhere between £50m and £65m more on player acquisition(s) than we've so far been reported as spending...

Edwards not hiding player acquisition(s) up his sleeve is he?
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
22,963
The accounts seem to suggest that after 31 May 2018 we've contracted to spend somewhere between £50m and £65m more on player acquisition(s) than we've so far been reported as spending...

Edwards not hiding player acquisition(s) up his sleeve is he?
Well Icardi would be about 40 of that, no?
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
22,963
Hah! I'd think he'd be more, he's such a quality player who defies all the haters in the name of love. He'd be way, way more...surely? ;-)

To me the shortfall looks more like the size of a Werner...
No, it is classic money ball, 90M talent but with all sorts of hair around the deal that gets you the knock-down price. It is a done deal, I am telling you.
 

RedForever2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
3,941
FSM wouldn't be charging more than they charge other commercial clients so it is minimal as to how much (if any) they would be taking out via that method.

At the end of the day, FSG owns Liverpool too and I don't think that they are that hungry about yield that they need to take it out in a backhanded way.
I've long said that a club the size of LFC doesn't need third party deal makers to bring in commercial deals.

If the senior management of a 'company' of LFCs size aren't capable of doing those deals in house, it's pretty shocking. It's not like we're talking £50k a year directors, we're talking people who've worked for billion dollar brands and done deals worth hundreds of millions.

I'm not sure if FSM are collecting their cut via a separate contract with the commercial partner that contracts separately with LFC, or whether LFC pays FSM for their services. But it nets to the same thing.

If LFC was being run to maximise revenues and profits, to ensure we can spend as much as possible on transfers within FFP, you'd do it in house and you'd keep all monies in the business.

The reason FSG would do it via FSM is to extract cash, and to do so under a different tax jurisdiction, whilst also reducing the profit in the UK business and thus reducing corporation tax here.

I wonder what the rolled up losses incurred in the years before we became profitable were? These will now be used to offset UK corporation tax liability. So if we say lost a cumulative £80m in years 2010 to 2017, we'd only pay CT on the c£10m of this profit.

Any group financial officer worth his salt would be managing profits in individual companies in the international group to this effect, just like Amazon et al do.

How much of an issue this is depends on the amount in question, whether the money as a %age is a reasonable ROI on the money funding sources, and indeed whether it's all just an ROI or is part funding the Redsox.

A 'dividend' of 5% to 8%, with all money returned to equity holders is one thing, 10% plus with money generated by LFC being redirected to the Redsox is quite another.
 
Last edited:

redfanman

TIA Regular
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
12,497
I've long said that a club the size of LFC doesn't need third party deal makers to bring in commercial deals.

If the senior management of a 'company' of LFCs size aren't capable of doing those deals in house, it's pretty shocking. It's not like we're talking £50k a year directors, we're talking people who've worked for billion dollar brands and done deals worth hundreds of millions.

I'm not sure if FSM are collecting their cut via a separate contract with the commercial partner that contracts separately with LFC, or whether LFC pays FSM for their services. But it nets to the same thing.

If LFC was being run to maximise revenues and profits, to ensure we can spend as much as possible on transfers within FFP, you'd do it in house and you'd keep all monies in the business.

The reason FSG would do it via FSM is to extract cash, and to do so under a different tax jurisdiction, whilst also reducing the profit in the UK business and thus reducing corporation tax here.

I wonder what the rolled up losses incurred in the years before we became profitable were? These will now be used to offset UK corporation tax liability. So if we say lost a cumulative £80m in years 2010 to 2017, we'd only pay CT on the c£10m of this profit.

Any group financial officer worth his salt would be managing profits in individual companies in the international group to this effect, just like Amazon et al do.

How much of an issue this is depends on the amount in question, whether the money as a %age is a reasonable ROI on the money funding sources, and indeed whether it's all just an ROI or is part funding the Redsox.

A 'dividend' of 5% to 8%, with all money returned to equity holders is one thing, 10% plus with money generated by LFC being redirected to the Redsox is quite another.
I dont think anyone with any knowledge has suggested we are subsidising the Red Sox, If anything it has probably been the other way round.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
621
For a quick view / analysis of the company accounts:

Really helpful. Thanks. Amazed to see non tv commercial is now at £154m. I remember when all we had was a couple of old dears selling tat from a portacabin behind the stand. Used to be a massive queue on match days and they had an old fashioned carbon paper credit card machine that you had to sign. Those were the days my freind, we thought they’d never end...
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
52,372
The reason FSG would do it via FSM is to extract cash, and to do so under a different tax jurisdiction, whilst also reducing the profit in the UK business and thus reducing corporation tax here.

I wonder what the rolled up losses incurred in the years before we became profitable were?
These will now be used to offset UK corporation tax liability. So if we say lost a cumulative £80m in years 2010 to 2017, we'd only pay CT on the c£10m of this profit.

Any group financial officer worth his salt would be managing profits in individual companies in the international group to this effect, just like Amazon et al do.
I am sorry, but if this is what they are trying to do, then you are right, they do need a better CFO in the company. By reporting the highest profit ever recorded pre-tax by any football club in one financial year means they are cutting down their profit so that they don't get tax, they have shit CFO.

To rebuild any company in the world that had just gone through a leverage buyout crew is going to take time, and a lot of losses will be incurred throughout those years. Yes, they did take a bit more time than expected and that is down to their mistakes in hiring managers and directors at the time. Looking back the hiring of Comolli had delayed their plans for some good 2 years, and then not able to get Klopp and instead Rodgers again set them probably back another two years. So for them to take nearly a decade to turn the club financial around didn't surprise me.

So I don't know why you are so angry at them for making us profitable. And if you think they are using FSM to suck money out of the club, you are not giving them enough credit in their expertise in corporate exercises. And if what you say is actually true, I would surely send my company profile over to their London office soon to offer my consulting services, they can do so much better than that.
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
750
I've long said that a club the size of LFC doesn't need third party deal makers to bring in commercial deals.

If the senior management of a 'company' of LFCs size aren't capable of doing those deals in house, it's pretty shocking. It's not like we're talking £50k a year directors, we're talking people who've worked for billion dollar brands and done deals worth hundreds of millions.

I'm not sure if FSM are collecting their cut via a separate contract with the commercial partner that contracts separately with LFC, or whether LFC pays FSM for their services. But it nets to the same thing.

If LFC was being run to maximise revenues and profits, to ensure we can spend as much as possible on transfers within FFP, you'd do it in house and you'd keep all monies in the business.

The reason FSG would do it via FSM is to extract cash, and to do so under a different tax jurisdiction, whilst also reducing the profit in the UK business and thus reducing corporation tax here.

I wonder what the rolled up losses incurred in the years before we became profitable were? These will now be used to offset UK corporation tax liability. So if we say lost a cumulative £80m in years 2010 to 2017, we'd only pay CT on the c£10m of this profit.

Any group financial officer worth his salt would be managing profits in individual companies in the international group to this effect, just like Amazon et al do.

How much of an issue this is depends on the amount in question, whether the money as a %age is a reasonable ROI on the money funding sources, and indeed whether it's all just an ROI or is part funding the Redsox.

A 'dividend' of 5% to 8%, with all money returned to equity holders is one thing, 10% plus with money generated by LFC being redirected to the Redsox is quite another.
Sorry, you're just chatting shit to keep your agenda of every last penny not being spent on players going. You havent a clue how the club are operating and just floating 'maybe's' and 'if' to suit your repetitive negative agenda.
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
750
My previous comment is now time locked so cannot add the following from The Echo -
"Other details (from LFC's accounts), though, have since emerged with the accounts now having been published on the Companies House website.

They include Liverpool's debt to the bank, after deferred loan costs, has decreased from £67.7m to £44.8m.

It is also reported the club's highest-paid director was paid £1.329m last year.

This was up on the £907,000 given to the highest-paid director the previous year."


So in the last accounting period, the club paid back £10m of the intra company loan on the Main Stand and paid off around £23m of the bank debt. One director saw an increase in pay by around £400,000 which was, probably, performance related. It also bought van Dijk and sold Coutinho in that accounting period.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
11,847
My previous comment is now time locked so cannot add the following from The Echo -
"Other details (from LFC's accounts), though, have since emerged with the accounts now having been published on the Companies House website.

They include Liverpool's debt to the bank, after deferred loan costs, has decreased from £67.7m to £44.8m.

It is also reported the club's highest-paid director was paid £1.329m last year.

This was up on the £907,000 given to the highest-paid director the previous year."


So in the last accounting period, the club paid back £10m of the intra company loan on the Main Stand and paid off around £23m of the bank debt. One director saw an increase in pay by around £400,000 which was, probably, performance related. It also bought van Dijk and sold Coutinho in that accounting period.
This has already been covered.

Director's pay not performance related but reflects the change from Ayre to Moore.
 

Red over the water

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
1,557
If the owners are taking a dividend it’s all fine and well, but I would rather they reported it so it’s all in the open. They could argue they don’t have to as it’s a private company. They may also have tax reasons to apportion money this way or that. Arguably they don’t want to be open about a dividend for fan-relation reasons, as sometimes fans can get their knickers in a twist.

Nobody in their right mind would begrudge an investor getting a return on investment. So let’s imagine they are taking a £10-15M dividend through various deals coming into the club. Now let’s imagine we didn’t get this player or that player, and we wonder if it was due to budget. Or let’s imagine someone moved on and got more wages elsewhere. Or let’s imagine things weren’t going so well on the pitch as now.

It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think that some fans would begrudge the dividend. “They are never here!” “I’ve worked hard all my life and the most I’ve ever made is £25k a year!” “They’ll get paid when they sell up, and they will make hundreds of millions, or maybe even a billion or more!” Etc.
 

Iluvatar

Allez Allez Allez
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
7,039
For me it's really simple, FSG came in and said they would make us competitive whilst living within our means. They have delivered on that to this point. Yes they need to make the step into winning some trophies but I don't think thats too far away.

Most clubs in the world make their owners money, its a very few which are play things for the ultra rich.
 

RedForever2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
3,941
I am sorry, but if this is what they are trying to do, then you are right, they do need a better CFO in the company. By reporting the highest profit ever recorded pre-tax by any football club in one financial year means they are cutting down their profit so that they don't get tax, they have shit CFO.

To rebuild any company in the world that had just gone through a leverage buyout crew is going to take time, and a lot of losses will be incurred throughout those years. Yes, they did take a bit more time than expected and that is down to their mistakes in hiring managers and directors at the time. Looking back the hiring of Comolli had delayed their plans for some good 2 years, and then not able to get Klopp and instead Rodgers again set them probably back another two years. So for them to take nearly a decade to turn the club financial around didn't surprise me.

So I don't know why you are so angry at them for making us profitable. And if you think they are using FSM to suck money out of the club, you are not giving them enough credit in their expertise in corporate exercises. And if what you say is actually true, I would surely send my company profile over to their London office soon to offer my consulting services, they can do so much better than that.
You completely missed the point, or didn’t understand it.

I said that the CFO is wholly competent, if the goal is to ensure tax efficiency and extract cash from LFC.

LFC can't do a full on Amazon because it is a different business type, and the company will declare profits that are basically a largely accurate refection of its trading activities.

But within that there is still scope for tax planning based on the international nature of the group.

The club can declare a profit in the UK business and use rolled up losses to offset those profits for corporation tax purposes.

It can also use overseas businesses in the group, or indeed completely independent businesses the owners own, to cross charge 'services' to LFC, in order to get money out of LFC and move money around to ensure favourable tax treatment.

Given the scale of previous losses at LFC, they can declare large profits here and not pay as much corporation tax, under those losses are used up.

They can also take money out via other businesses and put the money in lower tax jurisdictions, and/or into companies that have their own losses to use up for corporation tax purposes.

FSG is being run wholly competently from commercial, financial, taxation and investment perspectives.

LFC is a key part of that, and whilst the piece of the overall pie LFC has available to spend on players still represents a larger amount under good commercial ownership than 100% would under less commercially competent owners, that doesn't change the fact that the club isn't able to spend as much net in the transfer market as a club of its standing should, because of cash being extracted.

We're going to win something sooner or later, but I see a far bigger opportunity than that, and with the right investment now we can lock that opportunity in.
 

Iluvatar

Allez Allez Allez
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
7,039
You completely missed the point, or didn’t understand it.

We're going to win something sooner or later, but I see a far bigger opportunity than that, and with the right investment now we can lock that opportunity in.
I think you miss the point, FSG do not have the deep pockets of mafia money russian or Human right abuser Saudis.

What you are talking about (if true) is so marginal, it would have a near zero impact on our ability to invest more in the squad.

The market is so inflated currently adding an extra £10mil to our pool of transfer funds is like a drop of water in an ocean.

So the two don't correlate, to invest to the level of City would take completely new owners, which don't grow on trees.

Just be happy with the progress made and stop bleating it could be better based on nothing but assumptions.
 

RedForever2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
3,941
I think you miss the point, FSG do not have the deep pockets of mafia money russian or Human right abuser Saudis.

What you are talking about (if true) is so marginal, it would have a near zero impact on our ability to invest more in the squad.

The market is so inflated currently adding an extra £10mil to our pool of transfer funds is like a drop of water in an ocean.

So the two don't correlate, to invest to the level of City would take completely new owners, which don't grow on trees.

Just be happy with the progress made and stop bleating it could be better based on nothing but assumptions.
It'll be more than £10m.

Anyway the point is really that they are extracting cash when many said they weren't.

The fact that FSM are involved, and won't work for 'free', proves that fact.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
52,372
You completely missed the point, or didn’t understand it.

I said that the CFO is wholly competent, if the goal is to ensure tax efficiency and extract cash from LFC.
That's the thing though, the CFO is far from competent if their goal is to extract money from the club and ensuring tax efficiencies. Their way of extracting money from the club opens them up to being tax for UKSV and FSG in the United States. The way they extract cash based on your assumptions would exposed these other companies. And for tax efficiencies, we should not be publishing our account with £125m pre-tax profit, that will clear up all the tax break discount we've been enjoying in the last 8 years with just one year. I didn't miss the point at all.
 

RedForever2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
3,941
That's the thing though, the CFO is far from competent if their goal is to extract money from the club and ensuring tax efficiencies. Their way of extracting money from the club opens them up to being tax for UKSV and FSG in the United States. The way they extract cash based on your assumptions would exposed these other companies. And for tax efficiencies, we should not be publishing our account with £125m pre-tax profit, that will clear up all the tax break discount we've been enjoying in the last 8 years with just one year. I didn't miss the point at all.
The UK and US tax rates are similar, plus it depends on whether the company they are moving money from LFC to makes money.

If the money they're extracting from LFC nets off against losses on something else at FSM, or indeed further up the chain in the group, then they would avoid UK corporation tax on that money and the US version.

Whatever is going on, it will be to the benefit of FSG and its shareholders.

That's their right, I'm just saying that it is a different situation than was stated.

As to the UK profit, maybe the profit they posted was what they could get away with without questions being asked in terms of the net commercial revenue versus other clubs, figures which actually started this particular conversation up. That is, maybe they couldn't take more revenue out via FSM without questions being asked.

Maybe they want to use all the accrued losses now in case a Labour government comes in and changes the system.
 



lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
52,372
The UK and US tax rates are similar, plus it depends on whether the company they are moving money from LFC to makes money.

If the money they're extracting from LFC nets off against losses on something else at FSM, or indeed further up the chain in the group, then they would avoid UK corporation tax on that money and the US version.

Whatever is going on, it will be to the benefit of FSG and its shareholders.

That's their right, I'm just saying that it is a different situation than was stated.

As to the UK profit, maybe the profit they posted was what they could get away with without questions being asked in terms of the net commercial revenue versus other clubs, figures which actually started this particular conversation up. That is, maybe they couldn't take more revenue out via FSM without questions being asked.

Maybe they want to use all the accrued losses now in case a Labour government comes in and changes the system.
So you are ranting about the figures posted based on "maybe"? Come on. I am no fan of the owners when it comes to their past operational management, but for someone to just rant about them taking money out on "maybe" and not knowing exactly what transpired is a bit of a stretch. I don't like their idea of staying competitive is to sell prized assets to fuel our purchase, and that's about all I could complain about them in the past.

By the way US tax rates are quite different to UK corporate tax rates. If I was them I'd keep my profit in the UK since I do enjoy 19% better tax compared to the US.
 

RedForever2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
3,941
So you are ranting about the figures posted based on "maybe"? Come on. I am no fan of the owners when it comes to their past operational management, but for someone to just rant about them taking money out on "maybe" and not knowing exactly what transpired is a bit of a stretch. I don't like their idea of staying competitive is to sell prized assets to fuel our purchase, and that's about all I could complain about them in the past.

By the way US tax rates are quite different to UK corporate tax rates. If I was them I'd keep my profit in the UK since I do enjoy 19% better tax compared to the US.
It's 21% in the US, more yes, but not hugely and of course there's the issue of then getting post tax profits out of the business to consider (where they are resident etc.).

It also depends whether the money transferred is taxable at all at FSM in the context of their business activities during the year in question.

Anyways let's leave it at that.

Have a nice weekend Eddie.
 
Last edited:

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
20,364
At the end of the day we are owned by a sports investment company, and I’d rather that than the sovereign wealth fund of a human rights abusing oil nation, or a batshit sugar daddy. If the price of that arrangement is that they need their investors to see a return, that so be it - that’s not a problem. That’s if they are topslicing their dividend off the commercial deals.

Where it becomes a problem if if affects us on the pitch. There is no evidence that the possible sums are going to be felt elsewhere, no evidence that Klopp is frustrated he doesn’t have the money he needs, and no evidence that there is any problem with either recruiting or retaining players.

Show me that Klopp is pissed off that money isn’t available, or we’ve missed a player for financial reasons, and I’ll be on the protest march with you.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
52,372
It's 21% in the US, more yes, but not hugely and of course there's the issue of then getting post tax profits out of the business to consider (where they are resident etc.).

It also depends whether the money transferred is taxable at all at FSM in the context of their business activities during the year in question.

Anyways let's leave it at that.


Have a nice weekend Eddie.
Lowest bracket is 21%, not including state taxes as well. Money moved from company to company, if it is not booked as loan, the bottom line profit is always taxable. It's how you cook your books to show no profit or making losses that exempt you from any form of taxes. It is hard to leave it at that if you are ranting about rates and figures you claimed that FSM is taking money out of the club without having to pay taxes.

Bottom line is, you are harping on things that isn't there. Like I said to you before, if you are angry about the fact that they are still using the "I am new to this business" routine, messing up the appointment of CEOs and Directors for continuity and failed to have contingencies if and when Klopp move on, when that time comes, I will join you on that train. But for now, we should not be too unhappy with how the club has been turned around from making losses year-in, year-out to being the most profitable in the league.

I just hope they can get better commercial and sponsorship deals further down the road, and less dependent on the TV licensing revenue.
 

RedForever2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
3,941
Lowest bracket is 21%, not including state taxes as well. Money moved from company to company, if it is not booked as loan, the bottom line profit is always taxable. It's how you cook your books to show no profit or making losses that exempt you from any form of taxes. It is hard to leave it at that if you are ranting about rates and figures you claimed that FSM is taking money out of the club without having to pay taxes.

Bottom line is, you are harping on things that isn't there. Like I said to you before, if you are angry about the fact that they are still using the "I am new to this business" routine, messing up the appointment of CEOs and Directors for continuity and failed to have contingencies if and when Klopp move on, when that time comes, I will join you on that train. But for now, we should not be too unhappy with how the club has been turned around from making losses year-in, year-out to being the most profitable in the league.

I just hope they can get better commercial and sponsorship deals further down the road, and less dependent on the TV licensing revenue.
As I said another time, I'll never celebrate being the most profitable in the league when that profit came from selling a top player.