Sooo..Man United has 1 Billion in debt and Liverpool Has 0 debt

How unrealistic is this?

Even with the new ownership, the debt is merely transferred. Why have SI erased all the debt?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9103269.stm

"The takeover of Liverpool by Henry's New England Sports Ventures (NESV) eliminated the acquisition debt placed on the club by previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett."

NESV will be owed that money. Its not like they made the Liverpool debt magically disappear. This decision by SI unbalances the game.

No Bababui, when a new company buys a football club they then pay off as much debt as they want to pay off, NESV decided to pay all the debts off owing to the Bank of Scotland. Liverpool don't owe NESV anything, it is solely up to the new owners to pay whatever off and Liverpool are then debt free not owing anyone any money

They paid off the original RBS loan and now Liverpool only owe yearly repayments of around <£10m. So yes, Liverpool's debt should be low.

This is not correct. Liverpool firstly now are part of NESV..not separate. NESV is not a charity. They did not just donate hundreds of millions to this enterprise. This money the will expect to recover. Part of the way they will recover this money is by controlling costs. The way SI have programmed this is unrealistic and unbalances the game.

No Bababui, when a new company buys a football club they then pay off as much debt as they want to pay off

Or in the case of the Glazers, load it up with more.

SI have Liverpools debt at 0. Ridiculous.

This is not correct. Liverpool firstly now are part of NESV..not separate. NESV is not a charity. They did not just donate hundreds of millions to this enterprise. This money the will expect to recover. Part of the way they will recover this money is by controlling costs. The way SI have programmed this is unrealistic and unbalances the game.

Er, no.

Kop Holdings (or one of the parent companies of the club) owed c.£300m in debt. A repayment of tens of millions of pounds (forgot the exact figure) was due on the 15th of October as a covenant of the loan, with the club as collateral (so if Hicks and Gillett failed to pay, RBS could take control of the club).

NESV paid off this c.£300m loan back to RBS, and reduced the debt repayments to single-figure millions per year (probably other smaller loans the club may have taken before the takeover or for short-term cashflows). So Kop Holdings no longer owes the banks c.£300m - it's been paid off.

SI have Liverpools debt at 0. Ridiculous.

I don't think you fully understand the idea of debt being paid off to be honest. When NESV became the new owners of Liverpool FC, Hicks & Gillett tried to get back 1 billion pounds, the money they supposedly invest in the club, and in due course they removed that threat because they knew it would be thrown out of court.

It's the risk companys take these days, whatever money they invest in sporting clubs, they risk investing it and not seeing any results. It's just a way of life.

in the demo liverpool do not have there new owners, so the debt shouldnt have been paid off.

To put it another way; NESN made an internal loan to Liverpool FC that it will expect to recoup. This fact should be reflected in Liverpools finances in FM. The AI will now be free to spend much more then the real club.

Er, no.

Kop Holdings (or one of the parent companies of the club) owed c.£300m in debt. A repayment of tens of millions of pounds (forgot the exact figure) was due on the 15th of October as a covenant of the loan, with the club as collateral (so if Hicks and Gillett failed to pay, RBS could take control of the club).

NESV paid off this c.£300m loan back to RBS, and reduced the debt repayments to single-figure millions per year (probably other smaller loans the club may have taken before the takeover or for short-term cashflows). So Kop Holdings no longer owes the banks c.£300m - it's been paid off.

If I remember corrected it was around 287 million pounds

If I remember corrected it was around 287 million pounds

Most sources report something in this region. I use c. (c. = circa = around) to denote this.

To put it another way; NESN made an internal loan to Liverpool FC that it will expect to recoup. This fact should be reflected in Liverpools finances in FM. The AI will now be free to spend much more then the real club.

I think you should stop whilst you are indeed behind. Liverpool do not have a debt anymore, well in regards to what Hicks & Gillett loaned from the bank. Liverpool owe 0 money to NESV, its the risk NESV takes by investing in a football club. Any future request by NESV to recoup this 300m shall they decide to leave in the future will also be thrown out of court, just like Hicks & Gilletts case was.

Please don't make us have to repeat ourselves again. Maybe you need to do some more studying on the idea of debt paying by companys to other companies

The debt is almost wholly paid off: 'A club statement reads, “The transaction values the club at £300m and eliminates all of the acquisition debt placed on LFC by its previous owners, reducing the club’s debt servicing obligations from £25m-£30m a year to £2m-£3m.'

To put it another way; NESN made an internal loan to Liverpool FC that it will expect to recoup. This fact should be reflected in Liverpools finances in FM. The AI will now be free to spend much more then the real club.

Other people have given you the answer..... but you are not listening.

NESV bought the club for the value of its debt, Hicks an Gillett got nothing, therefore the purchase price of £300m cleared the debt. It was not a loan by NESV to LFC or anything else. Liverpool at this moment in time have no debt, they have banking facilities that will cost between £3m and £6m per year and this is normal operating procedure.

NESV have stated that no one buys a football club to make a profit. Dividends may be paid to NESV as the owners but this is reflected in the game already at the end of the year if the club makes a profit. Although initial indications are that the money will be left in the club at least for now.

Like it or not LFC is currently debt free, Man Utd is not. Those are the facts.

Considering that in reality the club has effectively eliminated its debt thanks to the takeover and that SI have already said they will be introducing a day 1 patch to rectify Liverpool's data issues (i.e. the new owners) then i do not see what the problem is.

Other than a possibly frustrated United fan spitting the dummy out.

in the demo liverpool do not have there new owners, so the debt shouldnt have been paid off.

Liverpool do start with debt, £280m iirc, it gets paid off in one payment.

The debt is almost wholly paid off: 'A club statement reads, “The transaction values the club at £300m and eliminates all of the acquisition debt placed on LFC by its previous owners, reducing the club’s debt servicing obligations from £25m-£30m a year to £2m-£3m.'

Was looking for that quote, cheers.

Yeah, LFC is out of debt. However, I feel the new board (or is it chairman?) would affect the club's budget one way or another.

I say the OP has his point, albeit bad wording, but only time will tell if the new board will reduced or buffed up team budgets.

Let's not jumped to conclusion, just wait and see what will happened. I'm sure SI will reflect it in the patch

Er, no.

Kop Holdings (or one of the parent companies of the club) owed c.£300m in debt. A repayment of tens of millions of pounds (forgot the exact figure) was due on the 15th of October as a covenant of the loan, with the club as collateral (so if Hicks and Gillett failed to pay, RBS could take control of the club).

NESV paid off this c.£300m loan back to RBS, and reduced the debt repayments to single-figure millions per year (probably other smaller loans the club may have taken before the takeover or for short-term cashflows). So Kop Holdings no longer owes the banks c.£300m - it's been paid off.

I don't think you fully understand the idea of debt being paid off to be honest. When NESV became the new owners of Liverpool FC, Hicks & Gillett tried to get back 1 billion pounds, the money they supposedly invest in the club, and in due course they removed that threat because they knew it would be thrown out of court.

It's the risk companys take these days, whatever money they invest in sporting clubs, they risk investing it and not seeing any results. It's just a way of life.

I think you should stop whilst you are indeed behind. Liverpool do not have a debt anymore, well in regards to what Hicks & Gillett loaned from the bank. Liverpool owe 0 money to NESV, its the risk NESV takes by investing in a football club. Any future request by NESV to recoup this 300m shall they decide to leave in the future will also be thrown out of court, just like Hicks & Gilletts case was.

Please don't make us have to repeat ourselves again. Maybe you need to do some more studying on the idea of debt paying by companys to other companies

Other people have given you the answer..... but you are not listening.

NESV bought the club for the value of its debt, Hicks an Gillett got nothing, therefore the purchase price of £300m cleared the debt. It was not a loan by NESV to LFC or anything else. Liverpool at this moment in time have no debt, they have banking facilities that will cost between £3m and £6m per year and this is normal operating procedure.

NESV have stated that no one buys a football club to make a profit. Dividends may be paid to NESV as the owners but this is reflected in the game already at the end of the year if the club makes a profit. Although initial indications are that the money will be left in the club at least for now.

Like it or not LFC is currently debt free, Man Utd is not. Those are the facts.

You are not understanding that NESV OWN Liverpool. And, they paid close to 300 mil for it. Liverpool is a subsidiary of NESV. Liverpool are not back to 0 debt. NESV didnt have to borrow to buy the club. NESV will expect to recoup their purchase price through economic responsibility. They will not be the new Man City.

You are also wrong that NESV didnt buy the club to make money. They bought low; will borrow to build a stadium and sell in about 10 years at about double what they paid including loans.

In terms of the GAME, it would be wrong to let the AI start the game debt free because it will engage in unrealistic spending.

No one apart from the principles know the full details of the deal.

Yeah, LFC is out of debt. However, I feel the new board (or is it chairman?) would affect the club's budget one way or another.

I say the OP has his point, albeit bad wording, but only time will tell if the new board will reduced or buffed up team budgets.

Let's not jumped to conclusion, just wait and see what will happened. I'm sure SI will reflect it in the patch

This is a sensible post and I pretty much agree.

Not going to bother explaining it all to Bababui for the 3rd or 4th time, he has already madehis mind up no matter what people say.

You are not understanding that NESV OWN Liverpool. And, they paid close to 300 mil for it. Liverpool is a subsidiary of NESV. Liverpool are not back to 0 debt. NESV didnt have to borrow to buy the club. NESV will expect to recoup their purchase price through economic responsibility. They will not be the new Man City.

You are also wrong that NESV didnt buy the club to make money. They bought low; will borrow to build a stadium and sell in about 10 years at about double what they paid including loans.

In terms of the GAME, it would be wrong to let the AI start the game debt free because it will engage in unrealistic spending.

No one apart from the principles know the full details of the deal.

I agree that they may want to make a profit in the future, and with your assessment about how they will make it, but that doesnt backup your argument.

Liverpool make circa £30m profit per year, it was going on debt repayment now it wont. The indication (including how Red Sox have bee run) is that this will be reinvested in the team, and this is reflected in the game, as you will only spend the available profit. Alternatively NESV may decide to pay themselves a dividend annually, but this is also included in the game.

Not sure what your issue is with this? LFC is debt free, they will be spending money moving forward (only that which it generates probably). NESV may want to take dividends which is catered for, or may sell for a profit in the future..... in which case the debt would only return if the new buyers placed it on the club..... which after LFC and MUFC it is unlikely to be the case as it is proven that it isnt a suitable model for a football club.

NESV didn't pay off the debt and get nothing in return. You're right, they're not a charity. What they got in return is they now own a huge football club. So, yes, the debt did just disappear.

You are not understanding that NESV OWN Liverpool. And, they paid close to 300 mil for it. Liverpool is a subsidiary of NESV. Liverpool are not back to 0 debt. NESV didnt have to borrow to buy the club.

RBS no longer need to chase up Liverpool because the debt has been repaid! If Liverpool are still c.£300m in debt, Kop Holdings is technically insolvent under the terms of the original loan, and we would be talking about how Liverpool could not be relegated this season, as the chances are it would have resulted in a 9-point deduction!

The whole point of NESV rushing through the deal was to make the October 15th deadline - if they had missed it, they would be risking a 9-point deduction.

A timeline that isn't accurate, but works:

October 14th: Hicks tries to stall in Texas courts

October 15th, 3pm: Hicks fails, and decides to sell-up to not be in contempt of the UK High Court

October 15th, 4pm: Liverpool board votes to allow NESV to take over the club

October 15th, 4:30pm: NESV pay cash to take over the club (including Kop Holdings) and c.£300m goes straight to RBS to pay off the problematic loan. Kop Holdings no longer owes money to RBS

October 15th, 5pm: NESV are happy, RBS are happy, Liverpool fans are happy, Hicks and Gillett are miserable

You are also wrong that NESV didnt buy the club to make money. They bought low; will borrow to build a stadium and sell in about 10 years at about double what they paid including loans.

In terms of the GAME, it would be wrong to let the AI start the game debt free because it will engage in unrealistic spending.

To be honest you cannot be sure what NESV want to do now. They could load the club up with debt or do things slowly. They could borrow to build a stadium or beg and scrimmage enough equity to do so. Nobody knows.

No one apart from the principles know the full details of the deal.

Press releases have gone out suggesting otherwise.

*chuckles at the bitter man utd fan* you keep wearing that green and gold my friend

and i wont bother to answer the question you asked, because i think every other single reply has answered it for you already

In terms of the GAME, it would be wrong to let the AI start the game debt free because it will engage in unrealistic spending.

Not if you lower the chairman's attributes so that he doesn't give unrealistic money to spend.

Technically, I think you are right- "gifts" in business do not exist, period. However, this applies to Man City too, and giving them a chairman loan would be unrealistic. I don't think NESV are going to demand the money back, they'll be hoping for a sale once the football club is worth more, and that's how they'll make their profit, not by sucking it out of the club's bank balance.

I think the issue OP has is the fact that NESV didnt "hand" LFC the 300 mil it owed in debt when they took it over. While the price NESV paid is not loan, and thus isnt debt, NESV is a business and will look to recoup its expenses involve din taking over LFC. SO OP wants this to be reflected in the game, seemingly by debt pay off. However adding debt to the club would also be wrong.

Whats needed is for the game to actually take away some of the profit from each season, as payment to NESV. If the game is able to do this without the use of some debt mechaniv I am unaware. I just think OP doesnt want LFC to run as if its not paying anything to the owners, and thus able to use all profit for a season to spend on players, facilities etc.

I think the issue OP has is the fact that NESV didnt "hand" LFC the 300 mil it owed in debt when they took it over. While the price NESV paid is not loan, and thus isnt debt, NESV is a business and will look to recoup its expenses involve din taking over LFC. SO OP wants this to be reflected in the game, seemingly by debt pay off. However adding debt to the club would also be wrong.

Whats needed is for the game to actually take away some of the profit from each season, as payment to NESV. If the game is able to do this without the use of some debt mechaniv I am unaware. I just think OP doesnt want LFC to run as if its not paying anything to the owners, and thus able to use all profit for a season to spend on players, facilities etc.

Dividends cover this. NESV are now the only shareholders in Liverpool F.C. so they can take out dividends if they want, in the same way that if I own a parent and child company then the child can finance the parent ("I can move money around").

Dividends cover this. NESV are now the only shareholders in Liverpool F.C. so they can take out dividends if they want, in the same way that if I own a parent and child company then the child can finance the parent ("I can move money around").

Ok, as long as there is some coding in the game to handle this, there shouldnt be any issues. I think this is what OP wants, only he was looking to use debt pay off to handle it. Perhaps he didnt know about this function neither

OT: If only something like this happened to United..

I think the issue OP has is the fact that NESV didnt "hand" LFC the 300 mil it owed in debt when they took it over. While the price NESV paid is not loan, and thus isnt debt, NESV is a business and will look to recoup its expenses involve din taking over LFC. SO OP wants this to be reflected in the game, seemingly by debt pay off. However adding debt to the club would also be wrong.

Whats needed is for the game to actually take away some of the profit from each season, as payment to NESV. If the game is able to do this without the use of some debt mechaniv I am unaware. I just think OP doesnt want LFC to run as if its not paying anything to the owners, and thus able to use all profit for a season to spend on players, facilities etc.

You already have dividends paid to shareholders, as well as Liverpool FC as an asset, which they have the choice to sell at any time to recoup their expenses.

Ok, as long as there is some coding in the game to handle this, there shouldnt be any issues. I think this is what OP wants, only he was looking to use debt pay off to handle it. Perhaps he didnt know about this function neither

I think the OP thinks that the debt is still on the club, i.e. the club still owes money. Technically it doesn't. You could argue that Liverpool now owe NESV money instead, but legally speaking this isn't true. NESV could hold onto the club for ages and recoup more than the c.£300m that they originally paid for the club. The club could crash and burn and NESV will never recoup their original c.£300m investment. This is the difference between debt and equity. Liverpool no longer are obliged to pay NESV back, unlike a loan. If I have a loan and I don't repay it, something bad happens. If NESV don't make c.£300m from Liverpool, then nothing legally bad happens - they can't go to court and demand Liverpool pay up.

They simply paid a fee (c.£300m) to take control of the club. This is equity, not debt.

I agree that they may want to make a profit in the future, and with your assessment about how they will make it, but that doesnt backup your argument.

Liverpool make circa £30m profit per year, it was going on debt repayment now it wont. The indication (including how Red Sox have bee run) is that this will be reinvested in the team, and this is reflected in the game, as you will only spend the available profit. Alternatively NESV may decide to pay themselves a dividend annually, but this is also included in the game.

Not sure what your issue is with this? LFC is debt free, they will be spending money moving forward (only that which it generates probably). NESV may want to take dividends which is catered for, or may sell for a profit in the future..... in which case the debt would only return if the new buyers placed it on the club..... which after LFC and MUFC it is unlikely to be the case as it is proven that it isnt a suitable model for a football club.

I guess my issue is that, in game terms, Liverpool appears to be far more financially secure than say Arsenal. Arsenal have 439 mil in listed debt but it would appear to be far healthier than Liverpool.

Also, according to this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/24/arsenal-announce-record-pre-tax-profits the Arsenal debt is far smaller than listed; and, is the profits from their property business included in the FM financial calculations?

I think the OP thinks that the debt is still on the club, i.e. the club still owes money. Technically it doesn't. You could argue that Liverpool now owe NESV money instead, but legally speaking this isn't true. NESV could hold onto the club for ages and recoup more than the c.£300m that they originally paid for the club. The club could crash and burn and NESV will never recoup their original c.£300m investment. This is the difference between debt and equity. Liverpool no longer are obliged to pay NESV back, unlike a loan. If I have a loan and I don't repay it, something bad happens. If NESV don't make c.£300m from Liverpool, then nothing legally bad happens - they can't go to court and demand Liverpool pay up.

They simply paid a fee (c.£300m) to take control of the club. This is equity, not debt.

Agreed completely with your assessment. Apologies for being obtuse.

is the profits from their property business included in the FM financial calculations?

No, because it made Arsenal far too rich.

I think the OP thinks that the debt is still on the club, i.e. the club still owes money. Technically it doesn't. You could argue that Liverpool now owe NESV money instead, but legally speaking this isn't true. NESV could hold onto the club for ages and recoup more than the c.£300m that they originally paid for the club. The club could crash and burn and NESV will never recoup their original c.£300m investment. This is the difference between debt and equity. Liverpool no longer are obliged to pay NESV back, unlike a loan. If I have a loan and I don't repay it, something bad happens. If NESV don't make c.£300m from Liverpool, then nothing legally bad happens - they can't go to court and demand Liverpool pay up.

They simply paid a fee (c.£300m) to take control of the club. This is equity, not debt.

I follow you completely I was just trying to find some common ground for the actual issue the OP was raising.

Speaking in financial terms, which is what were doing, LFC has 0 debt, and this issue has to be ahndled by the way the management is put together, and their tendencies towards taking dividends.

I follow you completely I was just trying to find some common ground for the actual issue the OP was raising.

Speaking in financial terms, which is what were doing, LFC has 0 debt, and this issue has to be ahndled by the way the management is put together, and their tendencies towards taking dividends.

Pretty much. The finances side of the game does leave much to be desired, of course, but then again, that's the complicated world of finance...

I follow you completely I was just trying to find some common ground for the actual issue the OP was raising.

Speaking in financial terms, which is what were doing, LFC has 0 debt, and this issue has to be ahndled by the way the management is put together, and their tendencies towards taking dividends.

How would you handle this in context of the game? What sort of budgets should they have?

How would you handle this in context of the game? What sort of budgets should they have?

I really dont know LFC that well. Were simply talking about the principle of how to handle the ownership in LFC.

As I said above, restricting the budgets in LFC would have to be done by the way the owners and board members are made, making sure they will take some dividends out of the profits. However anything in this aspect is somewhat imaginary, since we dont know how the future will play out.

How would you handle this in context of the game? What sort of budgets should they have?

No one knows yet, but if Red Sox is the model then LFC will have what they make......... Liverpool fans are cautiously optimistic (if we can lose our awful manager!) as it is a massive turnaround in finances.... exactly the point you are making which I would argue is realistic.

LFC's finances right now are better than Arsenal's but dont forget Arsenal have the debt to fund the stadium which LFC have yet to do. Of course the debt is offset by the increased revenues of the new stadium.

I wouldnt know if Arsenal's finances are accurate in the game though but it has been said that once they pay for the stadium they will be a massive financial force

Fairly sure Paul Edwards (Liverpool researcher) will know best what to do for the new owners.

No one knows yet, but if Red Sox is the model then LFC will have what they make......... Liverpool fans are cautiously optimistic (if we can lose our awful manager!) as it is a massive turnaround in finances.... exactly the point you are making which I would argue is realistic.

LFC's finances right now are better than Arsenal's but dont forget Arsenal have the debt to fund the stadium which LFC have yet to do. Of course the debt is offset by the increased revenues of the new stadium.

I wouldnt know if Arsenal's finances are accurate in the game though but it has been said that once they pay for the stadium they will be a massive financial force

According to the Daily Guardian article i quoted above, http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/24/arsenal-announce-record-pre-tax-profits , it is arguable that they are by far the healthiest club in English football. They made 56 mil pre tax and their property venture is out of debt. If Liverpool are in better financial shape than Arsenal, they are in good shape indeed.

According to the Daily Guardian article i quoted above, http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/24/arsenal-announce-record-pre-tax-profits , it is arguable that they are by far the healthiest club in English football. They made 56 mil pre tax and their property venture is out of debt. If Liverpool are in better financial shape than Arsenal, they are in good shape indeed.

To be fair I meant in terms of their debt.

Although Liverpool are one of the most profitable teams in the country and Europe, over recent years they have come on leaps and bounds in a commercial sense, the problem was that all of this profit went on repaying the debt of a couple of Leveraged Buyout Merchants. The debt we had was never operating debt.

To be fair MUFC are very similar in that respect and the early signs are there that they could go the way of Liverpool, they just started in a better position.

It's impossible to confidently start talking about transfer budgets, but Liverpool have very little debt after the NESV takeover. I think Liverpool perhaps having higher budgets in the game will hinder it less than the crippling monthly debt repayments which often saw Liverpool fall into administration in long-term games in previous databases.

You are not understanding that NESV OWN Liverpool. And, they paid close to 300 mil for it. Liverpool is a subsidiary of NESV. Liverpool are not back to 0 debt. NESV didnt have to borrow to buy the club. NESV will expect to recoup their purchase price through economic responsibility. They will not be the new Man City.

You are also wrong that NESV didnt buy the club to make money. They bought low; will borrow to build a stadium and sell in about 10 years at about double what they paid including loans.

In terms of the GAME, it would be wrong to let the AI start the game debt free because it will engage in unrealistic spending.

No one apart from the principles know the full details of the deal.

Either you don't understand the meaning of the term "debt", or you don't realize that there is no "debt" left.

"Debt" does not mean money that someone expects to recoup from an investment in the future. No doubt, NESV wish to recoup the cost of their purchase price in the future. But they will do that as owners of the club, not as obligees on a debt.

"Debt" means the legal obligation to repay money borrowed. If NESV reach a point where they do not feel that they are going to recoup the money put in, they cannot go to the courts and say, "Look, we invested roughly 300M quid in this club, and they owe us that money back! Make them pay it to us now!" That's more or less exactly what Hicks and Gillette were saying, and you see how far it got THEM.

NESV have two main ways they can recoup their investment. They can have the club pay them dividends, sufficient to reflect not just a reasonable return on their investment (the "income" from the investment) but also a payment back of money put in. Or, they can expect to recover that money when they themselves sell their interest in the club down the road. This is much more likely. If they are reasonable stewards of the club as owners, they can expect it will grow in value with time. When they sell down the road, they will make back the money they put in, plus what they hope is a decent return on that money.

Think of it this way: if they had paid £300M to Hicks and Gillette to purchase the club, and their had been no debt owed to RBS, you would not start the game off with the club showing a debt of £300, would you? The only difference between that scenario and this one is that the money NESV paid went directly to RBS because the club owed RBS the £300 in debt. Hicks and Gillette got nothing, RBS got its money back, and NESV own the club, which is debt free.

As time goes by, we will see how the new owners intend to run the financial end of things. The game can be updated to change the new owners' attitudes toward things like dividends, debt levels, etc. as that happens.

Edit: After posting, it's clear you now understand this.

Bababui to put it simply, NESV now own Liverpool, how can they owe themselves from an asset (THEY NOW OWN) 300m? Are you an idiot?

Bababui to put it simply, NESV now own Liverpool, how can they owe themselves from an asset (THEY NOW OWN) 300m? Are you an idiot?

Parent companies sometimes loan their subsidiaries loans, meaning the child companies effectively owe the parents money.

This is because you can't just transfer money between businesses - there must be a business justification. An interest-free loan is one way of doing things.

In the red or in the black Liverpool will never get near United again.......FACT!