The listed coporate tax rate in the US is high. The actual taxes paid are the lowest of any industrialized nation.

AG:

"the Arsenal's Supporters Trust -- and most supporters -- have lined up solidly behind Silent Stan's bid and have voiced opposition to a Usmanov takeover, which would presumably return Dein to the corridors of power. The club has won precisely nothing since Kroenke's involvement while Dein's reign at the club saw plenty of silverware."


That might indicate a preference on the part of the Arsenal's Supporters Trust for (as they see it) a superior ownership situation, over a quick throw at more silverware – perhaps reflecting commendably long-term expectations from supporters ...

On the other hand, one also has to be careful of the logical fallacy of seeing causality in correlation (or "c u m hoc ergo propter hoc" to use the proper name for the idea). For example:

I can assert with a fair degree of certainty that the fact LFC has also won precisely nothing since the Duo bought the club in winter, 2007, is causally related in part to the Duo's ownership – on the basis of their documented failure to support player investment to the extent required ("documented" by comparison with the net spending of LFC's competitors during the same period).

Has Kroenke's ownership stake negatively impacted AFC in a way that could be causally related to a failure to win anything? (To put it another way, is Dein's return a sina qua non for Arsenal to win anything?) If not, supporters' preferences for Kroenke would not be related to their expectations for Arsenal success.

LGB:

"(and in Britian the tax is obviously very high)"


You might be interested, perhaps even dismayed, to discover that the general corporate tax rate in the United Sates is considerably HIGHER than it is in Great Britain. Indeed, the US has the second highest corporate rate in the entire universe (actually, the industrialized world), behind only Japan (by a very slim margin).


"So doesn't it make sense, that as businessmen they put the debt onto the club so as to not allow all the money being brought in to be taxed therefore they are actually making more money?"


Most of the LBO debt is not directly on the club's books (although some is, about GBP 100m or so, I believe) – it is on the books of Kop Holdings, the Duo's 50-50 holding company that in turn holds 100% of the shares of The Liverpool Football Club And Athletic Grounds Limited.

(Before anyone screams that "you said LFC was responsible for the LBO debt" ... keep in mind that the only asset held by Kop Holdings is the football club, which is also its only source of revenue. So when Kop Holdings needs to meet interest payments on the LBO debt, where does the money come from?)


"Along with the owners are the most evil-men in the world talk."


They are not evil, they are supremely self-serving, to the point of uncaringly harming the club they bought by making it pay for their acquisition, and thereby manipulating supporters for their own gain.

Mind you, some people might qualify that sort of self-centredness as a workable definition of "evil", but YMMV ...

gus:

"UA:

"because the Duo chose to use an LBO acquisition model, which over-leveraged LFC without providing any associated increase in revenues."



Is it possible that the revenues have not increased because of the crisis?"


With respect, you didn't understand my point. A business – any business, including a football club – taking on debt is perfectly normal, so long as two conditions are met:

1) The debt is incurred to invest in producing future revenue;

2) The debt is proportional to the ability of the business to service it, in good times AND bad times (economic crises are neither new, nor rare – they have occurred predictably often forever. Therefore all business planning MUST assume there will some sort of crisis in the near future, and prepare accordingly ...).

The Duo's LBO debt put on LFC meets NEITHER of these conditions:

It was not incurred to produce future revenue (as new stadium financing would be, for example), since its only purpose was to finance the Duo's acquisition; and, and it vastly increased the financial risks to LFC in the (foreseeable) event of a "crisis" event, either a decrease in revenue (as might occur, for example, in a failure to qualify for the CL), or an increase in borrowing costs (such as due to a tightening credit market).


"for a shrewd investor like [Hicks], going into a losing endeavor wasn't going to happen."


He is indeed a shrewd investor – he managed to acquire 50% ownership of Liverpool Football Club without spending any of his own money and by getting the club to pay his acquisition costs for him.

Not only a freebee for him, but if it works out he will exit the club upon selling up someday with a massive profit, without having had to bear any of the associated financial risk – all of which will be borne by the club.

That is the nature of a leveraged buyout.

The Dynamic Duo are indeed shrewd to have such a manoeuvre work – and if it f**ks the club and fans, well, all the shrewder ...!

U-17 WC

Final:
The USA - Malawi: 1-0

This game wasn't as exciting as the one against Spain. Both teams played defensively trying not to lose. And it took a goalkeeper mistake to decide the game. Unfortunate for Malawi who played very good defence.

I am still pleasantly surprised at how the USA played. I am enjoyig the new Latin style they are playing.

But there is a downside to it. Apparently, coach Cabrera spent a lot of time teaching the team how to play possession game and passing the ball on the ground. But he forgot to teach them how to finish the ball in the net. They could have finished the game in the first half if they finished better.

Still good though.

The USA needs one point from the UAE game to qualify to the next round.