Notice Jamie Kanwars comments on Tony Barrets latest piece

[Dule]

Benitez 'refused to talk to Torres, Gerrard, Johnson and Aquilani'

 

Tony Barrett

 

At various times in recent weeks Rafael Benitez has refused to talk to Fernando Torres, Steven Gerrard, Glen Johnson and Alberto Aquilani.

 

The reason for the Liverpool manager’s coldness towards four of his biggest names? They have all been injured and unable to play for his team at a time when Benitez needed them badly.

 

The quartet have been made to feel like lepers at Melwood. Shunned by the very person who is supposed to inspire them, at one stage they became so isolated that they were afraid to have normal, everyday conversations with their team mates for fear of being caught doing so by Benitez.

 

The situation became so bad that Johnson invented a nickname for the group to illustrate their outcast status. The so-called “b*****d club” was formed and the only requirement for entry was an injury that made playing for Liverpool temporary impossible.

 

How could a manager be so cruel to his players? How could he be so cold that he would ignore them at a time when their health and wellbeing should have been uppermost in his thoughts? Well, in actual fact, Benitez wasn’t. The above is a work of fiction but change the names involved to Bill Shankly, Ian St John, Ron Yeats, Chris Lawler and Gerry Byrne and the story is made true.

 

At a time when Benitez’s warmth towards his players, or, more accurately, his alleged lack of it, is being questioned regularly it is perhaps wise to remember that even the greatest and most charismatic of managers – a category which Shankly undoubtedly falls into – could at times be as cold as the away end at Boundary Park on a winter’s day.

 

It is also worth considering the likelihood that Fernando Torres’s tale about Benitez chastising him for failing to make a near post run when everyone else wanted to celebrate the Spanish forward becoming a father for the first time may actually have been allegorical. Torres never tires of telling anyone willing to listen that Benitez deserves all the credit for turning him into one of the world’s most feared strikers and he also continually talks of his manager’s unstinting passion for the job and it is against this type of background that such “revelations” should be assessed.

 

All managers have their idiosyncrasies and they will all have flaws in their character, some more than others. It is results that matter, though, not how regularly they do or don’t smile at a 19-year-old in the reserve team or whether or not they play golf with their senior players.

 

Man management plays an essential part in the pursuit of glory, of course, and only a fool would suggest otherwise but when you have propelled a squad containing the likes of Igor Biscan, Antonio Nunez, Josemi, Scott Carson, Djibril Cisse, Milan Baros and Harry Kewell to Champions League glory, as Benitez did in 2005, then surely you can’t be that bad at motivating players.

 

Benitez may not be a Shankly when it comes to providing inspiration, no-one is, but then nor was Shankly a Benitez when it came to tactical improvisation – few are. There is no set path to success, there are so many different ways of getting there and no one style is the right one. Each manager must find their own route and Benitez will ultimately be judged on trophies – of which he is yet to win enough – rather than how well he gets on with his players.

 

It is fair to say though, that had Benitez been responsible for the formation of a modern day “b*****d club” at Melwood then some would have rushed to judgement already.

 

Gillett and Hicks fail to earn their Spurs

 

For Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the timing could not have been worse. Just as they were enjoying an all too rare visit to Merseyside to see the team they co-own in action, Tottenham Hotspur were preparing to reveal plans to move to a new stadium.

 

Having “postponed” their own plans for a new stadium for Liverpool “until the credit markets open up again”, the under pressure Hicks and Gillett needed this like a hole in the head.

 

Spurs, who have never milked the cash cow that is the Champions League, believe they can build a new ground by 2012 but Hicks and Gillett say it is impossible for Liverpool, who have generated more than £100 million from the Champions League under the reign of Rafa Benitez, to do likewise. Maybe Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy is using different credit markets.

 

It is believed the proposed Spurs development in North London will cost in the region of £400 million, a figure which is remarkably similar to the estimated price of the HKS designed plan for Liverpool’s long promised but still to be delivered new stadium in Stanley Park.

 

So the question is – are Spurs now more financially viable than Liverpool or do Hicks and Gillett not have enough pull with the banks who like to say yes?

 

Either way, it is becoming abundantly clear that the longer Hicks and Gillett remain at the helm of one of the world’s greatest clubs, the more likely it is that that club will continue its slide towards mediocrity.

 

Top Article mind you, he is spot on as always.

 

Those of you that dont know, Jamie Kanwar is the w***** fro Liverpool-Kop website.

 

Nice to see more baseless anti H+G propaganda.

 

You state that Liverpool is likely to 'continue its slide into mediocrity'...

 

That presupposes that Liverpool are already on their way to mediocrity as a result of H+G.

 

What nonsense. The club is nowhere near mediocrity, and just because you generalise about it doesn't make it the truth.

 

Your argument smacks of typical, half-baked 'Spirit of Shankly' logic.

 

And re Spurs - so they've announced a plan to build a stadium by 2012. Big deal! Has it been built yet?! NO. There is no guarantee that it will be built either.

 

Right now, Spurs are merely in the same position as Liverpool when H+G announced plans to build a stadium

 

Posted by: Jamie Kanwar | 28 Oct 2009 18:11:18

[cymrococh]

He's got a point about the Spurs announcement, they are notoriously full of sh*t.

[Dule]

I just never thought someone who claims to be a red, could possibly be on G&H's payroll. Either that, or he is a Manc.

[Maldini]

I honestly think he's some PR agency stooge. His site is unbelievable.

[Farmer's Tan]

I honestly think he's some PR agency stooge. His site is unbelievable.

 

i'd say that that is a guarantee,he's on the payroll and what he says should be treated as such.

[cymrococh]

I don't agree with anything I've ever read of his BTW, my point above was that Spurs announcing a theoretical new stadium is the least of our worries.

[Stevie H]

I honestly think he's some PR agency stooge. His site is unbelievable.

same agency that employs people to write comment on the guardian blogs i reckon.

[Flight]

If you search around the net a bit there is a co-ordinated but subtle pushing of the bulls*** being espoused by Hicks and Gillet.

 

 

 

1. It's clear they (G&H) are adopting an approach of obfuscating our finances and misrespresenting them to the fans.

 

2. They are doing this so they can continue to own the club, but put in as little monies as possible personally, while staving off as much fan unrest as possible.

 

 

 

 

Here's an article posted on 'Liverpool Kop' (what an imaginative name) Jamie Kanwars Twitter s****. It originated on a blog.

 

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/hicks...erpool-fcs.html

 

 

i) . It pursues a line of all the clubs being in the s**** financially and misrespresents our position compared to them. It has a point with Chelski (as in 'what if Abramovich disappeared off the face of the earth and all Chelseas debt was called in'), but that in no way should be used to validate our position.

 

ii) It totally gives itself away by presenting in detail the debt per profit figure much used by Gillett, though it gets there on very shakey ground using one years figures which have been massaged by the Americans.

 

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

Scaremongering about the extent of Liverpool FC's debt under Hicks and Gillett is rife these days, with fans groups and the media alike painting a picture of irreversible gloom and impending financial meltdown. What is the truth of the situation? Do H+G deserve such villification? TAF MCDONALD analyses the reality of Liverpool FC's debt level, and comes up with some surprising results.

 

There appear to be three main complaints about George Gillett and Tom Hicks: The first two involve lying and expense claims. The third complaint is the level of debt heaped on the club, something that has not been helped by media sensationalism, misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

 

So - is the debt a failing of the new owners and should they be held accountable?

 

Well as much as some may not like this next statement - it is their club and their company, ergo they can do what they like. We the fans are its consumers and until something changes we are locked together until H&G sell or the fans decide to support someone else or start a new club. Neither look likely at this stage.

 

So I set off trawling through the company accounts of the 'Top 4' and tried to generate a picture of the true state of affairs. Are we really about to self-combust or is this simply media and fan hype? Should we be worried - is there anything to hold the owners to account for? Well the answers aren't easy ones, but I'll try.

 

Please note I have taken the last filed accounts for each club and the figures will have moved since then (for example we are reported to have reduced our debt by £60m so far), I have also rounded all figures to the nearest half million.

 

CLUB DEBTS

 

Straight down to it:

 

•Liverpool Football Club has £227.5m of debt which, while a colossal amount of money, is less than:

•Arsenal's £280m

•Chelsea's whopping £616m.

We are also not too far away from the lowest debt in the top 4 - £210m recorded by Manchester United.

 

Where I believe there was/is a problem is that our debts are heavily weighted towards our current liabilities, which need to be paid within 1 year. I assume this is down to the bank refinancing which was completed earlier in the year. At the last accounts we had:

 

•£202.5m of our debt to repay within the coming year.

Compared to:

 

•AFC - £80m

•CFC - £105m

•MUFC - £146m

Ideally, our debts would have been refinanced over a longer period pre-credit crunch, which was probably the plan at a time when funding was freely available from the banks.

 

Today, it's a different world - loan monies are not so freely available and banks are taking advantage where they can.

 

This affects all football clubs not just ours.

 

Who from the 'top 4' splashed the cash this summer? Even United after cashing-in on Ronaldo were quiet. Coincidence, or clubs bolstering their balance sheets at a time of uncertainty?

 

I have to confess that I have a degree of sympathy with H&G. They are demonized in the harshest possible terms, but what for exactly? Without them would we really have the quality of players we have now? Probably not, and Rafa would still be scrambling about for bargain-basement players.

 

H+G have also undertaken a restructuring program to modernise our club and yes, the stadium is on hold. But in business you can't get the best facilities and best materials (players) and best management without spending money.

 

It is a question of priorities and timing. The credit crunch timing was lousy for all businesses and certainly not the fault of H&G.

 

ABILITY TO REPAY THE DEBTS

 

LFC has the lowest turnover of the four clubs: £159m, generating a profit of £8m. In comparison:

 

•The highest turnover was CFC with £190m but a loss of £70m... yes £70m!

•The most profitable was AFC who made £48m out of their £183m turnover.

•MUFC reported a turnover of £180m generating a profit of £23.5m.

This only represents one year's results though so I looked back at the last 5 years results for each club.

 

•MUFC were the most consistent performers averaging a £15.5m profit per annum.

•AFC pretty much broke even with a 0.5m profit

•LFC lost £5m per year.

•This was dwarfed by Chelsea's £84m per year losses.

Despite this, Liverpool is the club everyone talks about as being 'in trouble'.

 

Clearly, the club that stands out as unable to repay their debts in the short to medium term is CFC with the highest debts and biggest losses. The biggest worry for their fans should be that without Abramovich they will probably not even be able to service their debts, never mind pay them back.

 

This is not a position LFC appear to be in.

 

In fact, with serious potential yet to be realised, the possibility of the banks 'pulling the plug' - or us not being able to sell the club - is arguably very slim, especially when you compare 'apples to apples', which I'm trying to here.

 

In a recent post on my blog, I raised criticism about the old regime's failure take advantage of the commercial opportunities open to LFC and turn it into a football global powerhouse.

 

In that regard, I believe Christian Purslow is finally pushing LFC in the direction it should have been going 20 years ago. Take our £5m loss per year and add an additional £20m from the new bank sponsorship, plus a possible £5m for keeping hold of a reduced Carlsberg deal (and this before even considering any other new ventures), and things already start to look a little rosier.

 

When H&G came in and bought LFC I am sure they could see the untapped potential of the business and the club, as on and off the pitch success are inextricably linked this has to be good for all of us.

 

THE PARENT COMPANIES THAT OWN THE CLUBS

 

After looking at the clubs I turned my attention to the parent companies of each club. This is where all of the debts of ownership are held and I found something interesting. Remembering that we are the club that is (allegedly)in such strife, take a look at the total debt level of each top 4 club:

 

•CFC - £850m

•AFC - £674m

•MUFC - £620m

•LFC - £446m.

Conversely, the sales (turnover) of our parent company is lower than our competitors

 

•MUFC - £256m

•AFC - £222m

•CFC - £210m

•LFC - £162m

I am more convinced than ever that our failings in the past are biting us on the backside, but this is something I am sure Mr. Purslow and his management team are working on.

 

Despite these figures, we have a team which remains in the top 4 in the country, finished second in the Premiership last season and is classed as a contender for all competitions.

 

SUMMARY

 

A scoring system and league table is quite obviously called for in this context. As we are looking at the debts and the ability to repay I have taken:

 

1. The holding company's total debts (worst case scenario)

 

2. Adjusted for every pound of average club profit for the last 5 years - AV P+L

 

3. Last year's profit/loss from the football club - P+L (LY)

 

4. Last year’s profit/loss for the holding company - HC P+L (LY)

 

5. And for every pound of turnover from last year - TO (LY)

 

So we're taking the total debt and reducing it with every pound of profit or turnover or adding on any losses (ability to repay). The lowest score wins.

 

Club

Debts

AV P+L

P+L (LY)

HC P+L (LY)

TO (LY)

Score

 

LFC

446m

5m

8m

-42m

162m

323m

 

MUFC

619.5m

15.5m

23.5m

-21.5m

256m

346m

 

AFC

674m

0.5m

48m

36m

222m

367.5m

 

CFC

850m

-84m

-70m

-84.5m

210m

878.5m

 

 

If that's not enough look at the holding companies in isolation. There is a simple ratio which will show the relative position of the company's debts to income.

 

•For every £1 of sales MUFC achieves there has historically been £2.54 of debt incurred.

•For AFC it's £3.04 debt for every £1 of sales

•For CFC £4.05 debt for every £1 of sales

•For LFC it is £2.75 of debt for every £1 of sales.

All my calculations clearly indicate that we are not the worst performing of the 'top 4'. In fact, we appear to be either the 1st or 2nd best performing in all of the calculations relating to debt.

 

THE DOWNSIDE

 

There is a downside though. We are reliant on our banks to continue loan finance for the foreseeable future unless an investor comes in. But consider this, so are hundreds of businesses across the UK and all of the other top 4 clubs in the Premiership.

 

Consider Chelsea losing Abramovich, or, Abramovich losing his billions (which some say he is already doing). I believe no one will buy CFC as they won't want to take the debts on and the banks would not be able to see a way back to solvency for the club.

 

Abramovich appears to have literally tried to buy the Premiership for the fun of it, but there is no sign of prudence for the longer term stability of the club which has been applied to ours.

 

I imagine (because as much as I would love to I can't spend a week, or month, or years mulling through their business asking questions) that the pressure comes from the structuring of the debts. The banks are probably using this to their advantage and renewing short term deals.

 

This keeps the pressure on the club and no doubt strangles cash flow at transfer time. Think of your bank saying ‘yes you can have a mortgage but we want the money back in 12 months!’

 

Two possible fixes are a relaxation of lending policies as the global financial recovery continues and/or the ongoing actions taken by Christian Purslow to push our club to where it should be i.e. increasing profits.

 

Clearly, a new ground and a sensible annual transfer budget will keep us competitive and successful, generate additional revenues/profits, and set us up as the football global powerhouse we should have been years ago.

 

FINAL NOTE

 

Before any accountants come in on this I am aware this is not the official way of assessing the liquidity of the business but I could be here all day analysing accounts.

 

I could come up with all sorts of bamboozling data and ratios but I just wanted a quick snapshot of the state of affairs, along with a simple explanation.

 

I hope I achieved that.

 

Taf McDonald

 

 

Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/hicks...l#ixzz0VJSlLQQg

 

 

 

 

SoS should be under no illusion. G&Hs entire strategy right now is to distort our financial reports to hide from the fans thestate of transfer budgets and spending and our debts. They have chosen to strategically 'con' the common fan, to win their hearts and minds, to stave off fan revolt. If the financial obfuscation is not met and dealt with a majority of fans will end up thinking they aren't such bad fellas after all and are making the best of a bad worldwide financial situation.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Flight

[Mike]

got to be a manc

[Jarg Armani]

don't know what all the fuss about this blert is.

[Knox_Harrington]

don't know what all the fuss about this blert is.

Yes!

 

Ignore him, don't link, don't copy and paste his posts, just f*** him off.

[johngibo YPC]

What kind of name is Taf McDonald anyway?

[Hightown Phil]

Interesting to note he spelt his name differently on the comment to how he spells it on the website.

[richwilks]

The guy is probably reading the amount of attention he recieves now and w***ing himself silly.

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

The guy is probably reading the amount of attention he recieves now and w***ing himself silly.

 

I'd never heard of him till about a week ago.

He's just some internet c*** though, right? Rashid with a blog?

[richwilks]

I'd never heard of him till about a week ago.

He's just some internet c*** though, right? Rashid with a blog?

 

He's a t*** with a blog.

[David Hodgson]

Kanwar's a c*nt, for sure, but that is one laboured piece by our Tony. F*cking hell.

[David Hodgson]

I'd never heard of him till about a week ago.

He's just some internet c*** though, right? Rashid with a blog?

 

That about sums it up. He doesn't need to be a Manc to be a fan running a sh*t Liverpool website which demonstrates absolutely no connection with the club or its fans.