View Full Version : The Latest Adventures of Tom, DIC and Parry: Part 2
:D
I assume that's your appraisal of George Gillette...?
repped!
TheBestIsLFC
15-10-09, 13:24
IV missed this statement , what exactly does it say or imply?
KOPGIRL1971
15-10-09, 13:25
IV missed this statement , what exactly does it say or imply?
no statement, just a few words from both gillett and prince faisal, on their mutual love and understanding :rolleyes:
I just have something to do for work and will then do a transcript of what they both said (I taped it just in case)
IV missed this statement , what exactly does it say or imply?
Nothing.
It was basically just about setting up academies in Saudi Arabia.
Faisal seemed to distance himself from talks about buying the club, though.
Gillette is clearly using him in an attempt to flush out other buyers. Doesn't seem to be working!!! Plonker!
Gillette is clearly using him in an attempt to flush out other buyers. Doesn't seem to be working!!! Plonker!
Huh?
All the talk of buying the club has come from Faisal's people. Gillett has consistently made out that these meetings were about academies in the far east.
foreverred-1973
15-10-09, 13:42
:rolleyes:
Turn around
Look at what you see....
In her face
The mirror of your dreams....
Make believe I'm everywhere
Given in the light
Written on the pages
Is the answer to a never ending story...
Ah....
Reach the stars
Fly a fantasy....
Dream a dream
And what you see will be....
Rhymes that keep their secrets
Will unfold behind the clouds
And there upon a rainbow
Is the answer to a never ending story...
Ah....
Story...
Ah....
Show no fear
For she may fade away...
In your hand
The birth of a new day...
Rhymes that keep their secrets
Will unfold behind the clouds
And there upon a rainbow
Is the answer to a never ending story
Ah....
Never ending story...
Ah....
Never ending story...
Ah....
Never ending story...
Ah....
Doesn't sound to me that Gillett is trying to sell his 50% everytime i hear him speak.
If anything he is trying to find ways to stay and sounds like someone intent on doing just that.
I think Faisal should just shut up now he saying "Oh were close to buying into the club then the next day H+G say there nothing and there along way off agree anything:confused:
Then whats Faisal saying all this ("NEAR DONE) crap just shut up and stop the attention seeking.:mad:
:rolleyes:
Turn around
Look at what you see....
In her face
The mirror of your dreams....
Make believe I'm everywhere
Given in the light
Written on the pages
Is the answer to a never ending story...
Ah....
Reach the stars
Fly a fantasy....
Dream a dream
And what you see will be....
Rhymes that keep their secrets
Will unfold behind the clouds
And there upon a rainbow
Is the answer to a never ending story...
Ah....
Story...
Ah....
Show no fear
For she may fade away...
In your hand
The birth of a new day...
Rhymes that keep their secrets
Will unfold behind the clouds
And there upon a rainbow
Is the answer to a never ending story
Ah....
Never ending story...
Ah....
Never ending story...
Ah....
Never ending story...
Ah....
:D I feel like watchin that now!!
Gillett always makes me think of something Roger Waters once said:
Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha charade you are.
And when your hand is on your heart,
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost a joker,
With your head down in the pig bin,
Saying "Keep on digging."
Pig stain on your fat chin.
What do you hope to find.
When you're down in the pig mine.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.
Latest from SMTM on TIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt Gillett gives two fcuks about the academies Nando. Soon he won't be in the LFC picture full stop, so to Gillett it is of little to no consequence what Prince Faisal is planning to do in Saudi Arabia with these academies.
Something I have just read in an email sent to me is saying Tom Hicks is looking to shift 25% of his shares & that is coming from someone who very solid.
So are we looking at Faisal owning 75% of the club?
Up until recently it was just guesses where Hicks was concerned. The numbers being talked about were 5-15% - but $170M for a 25% stake sounds just about right to me.
I have to go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea if any of that is true but he does have a good reputation on the TIA forum from what I can gather so we'll have to wait and see
TheBestIsLFC
15-10-09, 14:11
So as we expected our hopes are dashed again and we were led along garden path once more :( why would prince`s camp be making statements on buying stake in club then if they only interested in academys. i wish it would either be confirmed or ruled 100% out by someone.
Why would Gillette be bothered about Academies in Saudi Arabia if he is selling his stake?
I think we are set for disappointment again!
KOPGIRL1971
15-10-09, 14:18
Why would Gillette be bothered about Academies in Saudi Arabia if he is selling his stake?
I think we are set for disappointment again!
that is exactly what I have been asking or, more to the point, how can these academies be run if the man who has signed the club up for them is not going to be around, and his partner has had nothing to do with them?
weird
Why would Gillette be bothered about Academies in Saudi Arabia if he is selling his stake?
I think we are set for disappointment again!
I don't get all that either why would we want to build academies over there there hardly footie mad are they and wheres the good players.
If they have any good players they would come over here wouldn't they?
-SuperSpeedy-
15-10-09, 14:31
I don't get all that either why would we want to build academies over there there hardly footie mad are they and wheres the good players.
If they have any good players they would come over here wouldn't they?
They are footy mad wait till the World cup where millions will be given for any goal scored.
Academies are probably meant to train the youth so in the future Saudi will have more successful and better players.
that is exactly what I have been asking or, more to the point, how can these academies be run if the man who has signed the club up for them is not going to be around, and his partner has had nothing to do with them?
weird
Or, it is a condition of the prince that there are Academies in Audi Arabia set up before he buys us.
There is an agreement for some of their players to train with us I believe.
If fasial is not going to have anything to do with us, then what's it to him if there are LFC academies in Saudi Arabia?
LiverpoolRealist
15-10-09, 14:39
How much is the Prince and his company worth?
petefarrelly
15-10-09, 14:45
On a side note promoting the club is a good thing however
This takeover nonsonse needs to be put at an end once and for all in the last few weeks we have went from
Prince may buy stake in club
Owners deny it
Owners make statement to say they are lookin for investment
F6 say they are in the final stages in Investment/Takeover discussion
Now when the prince and Gillette were asked about this they say its just about Acadamies, and the Prince is Distancing himself from takeover talks dipite F6 making these statements
petefarrelly
15-10-09, 14:49
How much is the Prince and his company worth?
I posted this on another thread hope it helps!
First of all the way the prince was talking on a interview, i believe there are a lot of wealthy investors in F6 that may be main players along with the prince.
However it would be hard to guess Saudi Royal familys wealth, they estimate that King Abdullahs Wealth is 21b but i would bet anyone he is richer than Shiehk Al naydan of Man city so regarding Prince Faisal i think his wealth would be between as low as 1B to as high as 10B but i dont see it being him being the investor a see it being F6 backed by the Prince along with other Saudi investors.
foreverred-1973
15-10-09, 15:14
Gillett always makes me think of something Roger Waters once said:
Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha charade you are.
And when your hand is on your heart,
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost a joker,
With your head down in the pig bin,
Saying "Keep on digging."
Pig stain on your fat chin.
What do you hope to find.
When you're down in the pig mine.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.
Spot on!
foreverred-1973
15-10-09, 15:22
Liverpool FC co-owner George Gillett sees 'wonderful opportunities' for club after Saudi Arabia meeting
Oct 15 2009 By Dominic King
GEORGE GILLETT today claimed there are “some wonderful opportunities” for Liverpool to work with Prince Faisal al-Saud in Saudi Arabia.
The Reds co-owner has been in Riyadh visiting Prince Faisal, whose F6 investment company have been linked with buying a stake in Liverpool.
Gillett arrived in Saudi Arabia to talk primarily about setting up branded Academies in the Middle East and he believes there is rich potential to do that.
He said: “The infrastructure that I have seen is absolutely amazing. The King’s commitment to this country and to its youth is amazing.
“The facilities that I have seen here are as nice as I have seen anywhere in the world.
"They have got outstanding management and I was very pleasantly surprised but I think there are some wonderful opportunities for us to work together.”
Gillett added: “We have great appreciation for the respect that the government of Saudi Arabia has for the youth of this country.
“They are committed to both philosophies and programmes, trying to bring more and more youth to a higher level in all sports but particularly football. We are pleased to the extent that we would be privileged if we could help.”
Prince Faisal did not shed any light on whether he has made progress on buying any of Gillett’s 50 per cent stake in Liverpool and was cryptic when talking about what intentions he has in the future.
Prince Faisal said: “This is from a friend to a friend, who happens to be a co-owner of Liverpool.
“We look forward to any kind of venture between clubs in Saudi Arabia and Liverpool and the transfer of knowledge, experience and the implementation of the Liverpool Academy and philosophy to the sports industry in Saudi Arabia. This is the main thing we are discussing."
He added: “As an investment group, we have an eye for many opportunities, let‘s put it this way. In Europe, in Asia, in North America and South America.
“How can we add value? How can we invest our money? How can we manage it? This is what I can say about (our) interest in football clubs.”
LiverpoolRealist
15-10-09, 15:22
I posted this on another thread hope it helps!
First of all the way the prince was talking on a interview, i believe there are a lot of wealthy investors in F6 that may be main players along with the prince.
However it would be hard to guess Saudi Royal familys wealth, they estimate that King Abdullahs Wealth is 21b but i would bet anyone he is richer than Shiehk Al naydan of Man city so regarding Prince Faisal i think his wealth would be between as low as 1B to as high as 10B but i dont see it being him being the investor a see it being F6 backed by the Prince along with other Saudi investors.
Thanks for that, doesn't really say much though. I have my doubts about him tbh, all I hear is 'investment'. Yes I know the business of owning a club is about making money but running a football club is unlike any normal business. Without sounding money hungry but we need loads of it, unrestricted investment in two transfer windows.
All we can do is hope and wait!
Anyone get the idea we're just being used here as the Prince's bluff and bluster, re. the Club itself, just raises his profile a bit?
:confused:
Or am I so jaded now the pessimism is becoming a tad overpowering:(:(:(
Liverpool FC co-owner George Gillett sees 'wonderful opportunities' for club after Saudi Arabia meeting
Oct 15 2009 By Dominic King
Prince Faisal said: “This is from a friend to a friend, who happens to be a co-owner of Liverpool.
IMO that can be translated as: I scratch his back, he scratches mine and together we'll suck every last cent out of this football lark.
“We look forward to any kind of venture between clubs in Saudi Arabia and Liverpool and the transfer of knowledge, experience and the implementation of the Liverpool Academy and philosophy to the sports industry in Saudi Arabia. This is the main thing we are discussing."
He added: “As an investment group, we have an eye for many opportunities, let‘s put it this way. In Europe, in Asia, in North America and South America.
“How can we add value? How can we invest our money? How can we manage it? This is what I can say about (our) interest in football clubs.”
....and that just backs my translation up :mad:
IMO that can be translated as: I scratch his back, he scratches mine and together we'll suck every last cent out of this football lark.
....and that just backs my translation up :mad:
You could be right lad.............and we will end up with 3 bickering part owners............. what a caper..........
IMO that can be translated as: I scratch his back, he scratches mine and together we'll suck every last cent out of this football lark.
With little Georgie boy it would have to read "I scratch his back(side) and he scratches my head"
This is not a 'stunted-ist' joke....
;)
The back and forth takeover news is getting to be stale. I am glad that the little bird thread got shut down. I expect this thread to lose its interest soon and be shutdown. I am sick of the rumours. These rumours toy with my emotions and its getting to be a joke. I bet the united fans are laughing at us. Common Hicks and Gillette give it up. You guys have done enough damage. move away so that this chapter in Liverpool's history can be closed and let this club move forward.
The back and forth takeover news is getting to be stale. I am glad that the little bird thread got shut down. I expect this thread to lose its interest soon and be shutdown. I am sick of the rumours. These rumours toy with my emotions and its getting to be a joke. I bet the united fans are laughing at us. Common Hicks and Gillette give it up. You guys have done enough damage. move away so that this chapter in Liverpool's history can be closed and let this club move forward.
The difference between this threa and El Rojo's is that KopGirl and the others have kept this going by posting MEDIA articles and QUOTES about H&G and any potential takeover. And for that they must be commended.
El Rojo's thread, not that I'm knocking it, was based on a possible contact he had claiming something about the club. They are totally different, despite being along the same theme.
KOPGIRL1971
16-10-09, 09:14
The back and forth takeover news is getting to be stale. I am glad that the little bird thread got shut down. I expect this thread to lose its interest soon and be shutdown. I am sick of the rumours. These rumours toy with my emotions and its getting to be a joke. I bet the united fans are laughing at us. Common Hicks and Gillette give it up. You guys have done enough damage. move away so that this chapter in Liverpool's history can be closed and let this club move forward.
You are entitled to your own opinion but, leaving aside the merits or otherwise of elrojo's thread - which I have no problems with - I started this one just after the owners took over and, had it not been for a mass deletion last year, in which my original thread was lost, it would have been a continuous record of their ownership so far, which is what it was meant to be.
For that reason, I hope this thread is not shut down, as I feel it is an intereresting, ongoing, reference to their stewardship and is, therefore, of some value
KOPGIRL1971
16-10-09, 09:49
today's Post:
Confusion reigns over George Gillett and Tom Hicks investment quest - Liverpool FC latest
Oct 16 2009 By Ian Doyle
CONFUSION continues to reign in the quest of Liverpool co-owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks to attract new investment.
Gillett has now dismissed claims Prince Faisal bin Fahd bin Abdullah is close to buying a significant stake at Anfield.
The American has been in Riyadh this week, a visit he has stated is only to discuss the agreement with Prince Faisal’s F6 investment company to set up a number of academies in the Middle East.
“We – and the Prince supports this – categorically deny we had any conversation along those lines,” said Gillett. “The purpose of my trip is to talk about Liverpool football academies and stock car racing.
“We may discuss (buying into Liverpool) at some point in the future. But I say again that is not on our agenda. There have been no discussions.”
--
I'm getting really ********** with this prince, he keeps saying he's interested and that a deal is being finalised, and now he's apparently denying it, according to gillett. I was cautious about taking his money before, but I'm even less inclined now :mad:
GoatApocalypse
16-10-09, 09:52
You are entitled to your own opinion but, leaving aside the merits or otherwise of elrojo's thread - which I have no problems with - I started this one just after the owners took over and, had it not been for a mass deletion last year, in which my original thread was lost, it would have been a continuous record of their ownership so far, which is what it was meant to be.
For that reason, I hope this thread is not shut down, as I feel it is an intereresting, ongoing, reference to their stewardship and is, therefore, of some value
I agree with this.
This thread is for everything to do with them - I think it's great to have a record of everything that's been said about them in the world-wide press, and I applaud KG1971 and all the other participants for taking the time to make it.
You are entitled to your own opinion but, leaving aside the merits or otherwise of elrojo's thread - which I have no problems with - I started this one just after the owners took over and, had it not been for a mass deletion last year, in which my original thread was lost, it would have been a continuous record of their ownership so far, which is what it was meant to be.
For that reason, I hope this thread is not shut down, as I feel it is an intereresting, ongoing, reference to their stewardship and is, therefore, of some value
Tis a great thread Kopgirl. :)
You are entitled to your own opinion but, leaving aside the merits or otherwise of elrojo's thread - which I have no problems with - I started this one just after the owners took over and, had it not been for a mass deletion last year, in which my original thread was lost, it would have been a continuous record of their ownership so far, which is what it was meant to be.
For that reason, I hope this thread is not shut down, as I feel it is an intereresting, ongoing, reference to their stewardship and is, therefore, of some value
its one of the few threads i look for every day (and when im away i always come back and check this thread first), so i to hope it doesnt get shut down
sterling work to all involved, esp kopgirl1971
TheBestIsLFC
16-10-09, 16:09
Yes this thread is a keeper , lets hope some day kopgirl you can change heading because G&H are no longer here :D fingers crossed that day will be soon....:scarf
KOPGIRL1971
16-10-09, 16:13
Yes this thread is a keeper , lets hope some day kopgirl you can change heading because G&H are no longer here :D fingers crossed that day will be soon....:scarf
what, something along the lines of: tomless, dicless and penniless?!
With your finger on the pulse...so to speak KG...this could go on for a long while....:)
TheBestIsLFC
16-10-09, 16:19
what, something along the lines of: tomless, dicless and penniless?!
well , ye thats how G&H are now ,id hoped a certain prince could come in and save us from them then you could get their names out of heading and we could all move on with a hopeful bright future :D
KOPGIRL1971
16-10-09, 16:19
some news on the sale of hicks' rangers team from the star-telegram in the states:
By BARRY SHLACHTER
barry@star-telegram.com
Now that the Texas Rangers’ season is over, the sale of the baseball team will advance with meetings next week in which three sets of suitors will sit down with front-office personnel, a source close to negotiations said Thursday.
The meetings were first reported by Reuters. The news service quoted unidentified sources as saying the goal is to have a winning bidder identified by late November. The site of the meetings was not disclosed, but they could be held in Arlington or Dallas.
One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Star-Telegram that neither Rangers owner Tom Hicks nor team president Nolan Ryan would meet with the bidders. Instead, the three groups apparently will receive a presentation on Rangers operations from general manager Jon Daniels, team attorneys, accountants and other front-office employees.
Hicks reportedly is hoping to see bids topping $500 million while sports consultants unconnected with the sale said the price might be more in the mid-$400 million range because of the economy and the team’s attendance and operating revenues.
The three groups are led by Pittsburgh sports attorney Chuck Greenberg, 48, who owns two minor league teams; Jim Crane, 55, a Houston businessman who made a bid for the Chicago Cubs; and Dennis Gilbert, 62, a ex-minor league player who became an insurance agent to Hollywood stars and then a sports agent, once representing Barry Bonds and Jose Canseco. Most recently Gilbert has been an adviser to Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf.
On March 31, Hicks defaulted on a $525 million loan backed by the Rangers and the Dallas Stars hockey team — which he also owns — by failing to pay a $10 million quarterly interest payment.
By now, all bidders have been given access to secured Web pages containing detailed team information, including financial data, contracts and agreements, one source said.
What remains unclear is how seriously bidders are taking various signals from Hicks’ camp that he would somehow like to hold onto a stake, if not majority control, of the Rangers.
Some perceive mounting pressure from Major League Baseball, which reportedly helped the team make payroll this summer, to get the sale accomplished with alacrity.
"The notion that Hicks would like to remain in control is something I’ve heard numerous times in the industry," said Mark Ganis, a Chicago-based sports consultant. "I would think he has a chance to retain control, but the odds are stacked against him. Procedurally, he could hold up a sale for a period of time."
No clear frontrunner has emerged among bidders. But Ganis said only one of the three — Crane — has sufficient personal wealth to put together a deal himself.
"There’s no substitute for the principal also being the main investor," Ganis said. "It makes the deal much easier to close when the person who wants it most is also writing the check."
today's Post:
Confusion reigns over George Gillett and Tom Hicks investment quest - Liverpool FC latest
Oct 16 2009 By Ian Doyle
CONFUSION continues to reign in the quest of Liverpool co-owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks to attract new investment.
Gillett has now dismissed claims Prince Faisal bin Fahd bin Abdullah is close to buying a significant stake at Anfield.
The American has been in Riyadh this week, a visit he has stated is only to discuss the agreement with Prince Faisal’s F6 investment company to set up a number of academies in the Middle East.
“We – and the Prince supports this – categorically deny we had any conversation along those lines,” said Gillett. “The purpose of my trip is to talk about Liverpool football academies and stock car racing.
“We may discuss (buying into Liverpool) at some point in the future. But I say again that is not on our agenda. There have been no discussions.”
--
I'm getting really ********** with this prince, he keeps saying he's interested and that a deal is being finalised, and now he's apparently denying it, according to gillett. I was cautious about taking his money before, but I'm even less inclined now :mad:
This seems to be the way things go. Anyone who is linked with a takeover is "quoted" as being in talks, we get excited and then the denials start to issue from the mouths of the Yanks. It's annoying and frustrating in equal measure.
YNWA
Its us that needs to learn a lesson. We make up scenarios then tell everyone
What remains unclear is how seriously bidders are taking various signals from Hicks’ camp that he would somehow like to hold onto a stake, if not majority control, of the Rangers.
"The notion that Hicks would like to remain in control is something I’ve heard numerous times in the industry," said Mark Ganis, a Chicago-based sports consultant. "I would think he has a chance to retain control, but the odds are stacked against him. Procedurally, he could hold up a sale for a period of time."
No clear frontrunner has emerged among bidders. But Ganis said only one of the three — Crane — has sufficient personal wealth to put together a deal himself.
"There’s no substitute for the principal also being the main investor," Ganis said. "It makes the deal much easier to close when the person who wants it most is also writing the check."
Hmmmmm, very similar situation that we find our club in..........
Basically for all the Redneck`s bragging and posturing......he IS willing to sell any of his `franchises` as long as the price suits his deep pockets,
The Texan Toerag,:mad:
IdahoanRed
16-10-09, 21:41
Sell up, Georgy, sell up!
foreverred-1973
17-10-09, 10:36
This seems to be the way things go. Anyone who is linked with a takeover is "quoted" as being in talks, we get excited and then the denials start to issue from the mouths of the Yanks. It's annoying and frustrating in equal measure.
YNWA
Once again Bali2 what does your username mean??
Once again Bali2 what does your username mean??
hey foreverred1973 . The 'bali' part is my first name and the 2 is on there because I couldn't have just 'Bali' apparently.
But I quite like it - because my surname begins with 'R' and it looks like one of those annoying personal car plates were the '2' is used to signify the 'R'. You know, you see 'Bali2' and from a distance, if you squint, you might see 'BaliR'???
anyway - thanks for askin'. I'm a 1971 born red by the way.
YNWA
foreverred-1973
17-10-09, 12:57
hey foreverred1973 . The 'bali' part is my first name and the 2 is on there because I couldn't have just 'Bali' apparently.
But I quite like it - because my surname begins with 'R' and it looks like one of those annoying personal car plates were the '2' is used to signify the 'R'. You know, you see 'Bali2' and from a distance, if you squint, you might see 'BaliR'???
anyway - thanks for askin'. I'm a 1971 born red by the way.
YNWA
Thank's for the explanation I thought you're from Bali ;)
Thank's for the explanation I thought you're from Bali ;)
I wish - Leicester would be a whole lot nicer with the south asian sea, the sunshine and all those pretty, dusky maidens in hula skirts and garlands.
Mind you, today is Diwali, so there are plenty of pretty, dusky maidens around!:D:eek:
YNWA
foreverred-1973
17-10-09, 13:30
i wish - leicester would be a whole lot nicer with the south asian sea, the sunshine and all those pretty, dusky maidens in hula skirts and garlands.
Mind you, today is diwali, so there are plenty of pretty, dusky maidens around!:d:eek:
Ynwa
:d :d
LuisGarciasLittleMan
17-10-09, 13:49
KG1971
the part in the rangers buy over with crane will be 100% spot on he bought my company last year and also tried to buy the chicago cubs too
he is also a very close friend of hicks so could see that going through no probs to be fair
The company he had before was sold for 550 million usd and he is very cash rich and an introvert of a guy and will do a far better job than hicks to be fair
hope he gets it as he just missed out on the cubs
petefarrelly
17-10-09, 18:43
dont want to post anymore bad news but here goes looks like the saudis wont be investing in us probably realised the yanks wants to much. Im sorry for this :(
Saudi Firm Says Liverpool Stake Talks on Hold
Article Tools Sponsored By
By REUTERS
Published: October 17, 2009
Filed at 12:08 p.m. ET
RIYADH (Reuters) - Private Saudi sports investment firm F6 said on Saturday that talks with George Gillett, the American co-owner of English football club Liverpool, to buy a stake in the club are on hold.
Gillett arrived earlier this week to Riyadh sparking speculation that the visit will push towards the conclusion a deal with F6 owners, who include Saudi Prince Faisal bin Fahd bin Abdullah and Saudi businessman Majed al-Hugail.
"The purchase of a stake in Liverpool has not been discussed throughout Gillett's visit, not for even five minutes," F6 Deputy Managing Director Gassim Hamidaddin told Reuters.
"The discussions are now on hold. The idea of buying a stake in Liverpool was put on the table in September but since then nothing happened," he added.
Investors from Gulf Arab countries have shown growing interest in acquiring soccer clubs in the English Premier League.
In August, United Arab Emirates' investor Sulaiman al-Fahim completed a takeover of Portsmouth Football Club before reselling later a large stake in the club to a Saudi businessman.
Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment bought Manchester City last year.
F6 is focussing on implementing the terms of a contract it signed last month with the George Gillett Group that would lead to opening Liverpool academies in the Middle East and North Africa and develop race tracks to introduce NASCAR motor racing to the Middle East.
"That's what was discussed during Gillett's visit," Hamidaddin said.
Liverpool are keen to raise fresh cash to help challenge for top footballing honours and fund the construction of the new stadium, as well as finance debt estimated at 245 million pounds.
Liverpool is England's most historically successful club, with 18 league titles and five European Cup triumphs.
Last month, Al-Riyadh newspaper quoted F6 Chairman Prince Faisal as saying he was willing to pay between 200 million and 350 million pounds for between 25 and 50 percent of the Anfield Stadium side.
Gillett and fellow American Tom Hicks -- Liverpool's co-owner -- have had a stormy relationship since purchasing the club for 218.9 million pounds in 2007 and neither wants to sell his stake to the other.
The two men were in talks in January to sell the club for 500 million pounds including debt to investors from the region, including Kuwait, but talks broke down over price, one of those involved said.
KOPGIRL1971
18-10-09, 03:14
more bad news from chris bascombe, if it is to be believed, as posted by johnbarnes-left-foot earlier:
Chris Bascombe:Liverpool's DOOMSDAY SCENARIO
EXPULSION from Europe.
A 10-point league deduction, ending any hope of a title challenge.
The sale of major assets such as Fernando Torres, Steven Gerrard and Javier Mascherano.
Welcome to the opening pages of Liverpool's 'Doomsday Book'.
But this is no nightmare work of fiction.
A document actually nicknamed The Doomsday Book was prepared as Tom Hicks and George Gillett flirted with catastrophe last season.
It spelled out the consequences if the owners' failed to secure their £290million refinance deal.
And it was only because the Royal Bank of Scotland feared a massive backlash if they allowed one of the world's biggest clubs to go into administration that Liverpool were able to reject a £70m bid from Manchester City for Fernando Torres.
Unless the Americans sort out their differences and find investment before their next deadline, the threats will resurface.
Club officials have consistently dismissed criticism of the Americans' reign as "scaremongering".
But today Sport of the World can reveal it's scaremongering based on Liverpool going through the unprecedented, humiliating step of being forced to convince UEFA they qualified for a licence to play in the Champions League.
In the aftermath of last year's qualified audit report by KPMG which cast doubt on the parent company's "ability to continue as a growing concern" Liverpool were summoned to the Premier League to guarantee they would resolve their financial difficulties.
Both Liverpool and the Premier League agree it was a formality the Merseysiders' application would be successful, but the fact any questions were raised at all will shock the Kop.
Liverpool face the genuine prospect of having to offer similar reassurances ahead of next year's UEFA competitions, something they'll be unable to do without the promise of a massive injection of cash.
Urgency
That explains why the club has been working overtime to present a healthier financial picture over the last few months, citing the £80m shirt sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered as a major step forward.
It also explains the increased urgency to find investors.
Privately, the club is adamant they will have new partners on board within six months. If they fail to do so, the consequences will be dire.
It's likely the Premier League underestimated exactly how fraught the last refinance negotiations were.
American bank Wachovia, now owned by Wells Fargo, was hesitant about agreeing its share of the loan, which amounted to around £62m. It needed a series of transatlantic flights ahead of the July 25 deadline to plead for an extension. RBS, the more enthusiastic of the lenders at the time, was initially only prepared to offer a six-month extension for the rest of the owners' loan.
That would not have been enough to satisfy UEFA guidelines, as the Premier League needed assurance funds would be in place to keep the club afloat for the whole season.
RBS made sure Liverpool dodged a bullet, but the gun is continually being reloaded.
The bank is understood to be increasingly twitchy about their ongoing relationship with the Merseysiders.
Hicks and Gillett maintained a united front to reassure their banks, but that has been exposed as a sham, with open hostilities resumed as the pair differ on the direction of the club. The Americans' accountants are trying to raise £100m for a 25 per cent stake in Anfield.
Rothschilds and Merill Lynch want to issue new shares which would reduce Hicks and Gillett's holding to 37.5 per cent each.
That injection would allow the owners to reduce debt levels and plough more funds towards one of the two Stanley Park plans or redeveloping Anfield.
But the Americans can't even agree on this.
Hicks is standing by a revised scheme which could lead to a 70,000-seater stadium.
Gillett is still open to the idea of extending the existing Anfield site.
Neither is likely at the moment.
The prospect of taking a back seat while the main shareholders fight on is hardly enticing to potential investors.
Recent interest from Saudi Prince Faisal exposed the massive rift.
Hicks has made it known he won't veto his partner selling his 50 per cent stake to the Saudi, but that has never been on the agenda as far as Gillett is concerned and Hicks' stance does nothing to mend divisions.
Gillett has often claimed he is not prepared to sell up unless it leads to both co-owners leaving Anfield.
There have been farcical scenes in the Middle East with each owner pursuing the same investors but presenting alternate visions for the future of Liverpool.
One City source said the owners were "virtually racing each other to get through the Saudi equivalent of Yellow Pages" in a desperate attempt to bring money into the club.
A year ago, Merrill Lynch even approached Birmingham's outgoing owner David Sullivan to see if he was interested in Liverpool.
An option explored by investors is to buy the debt directly off RBS.
If the Americans' couldn't pay it back, the club would pass into the hands of those who own the debt.
Liverpool have no shortage of suitors, but only at the right price.
Gillett and Hicks paid £5,000 a share for Liverpool in 2007.
Including £44.8m debts, this valued the club at £218.9m.
Even in 2007, the deal raised eyebrows given the value of previous offers.
The failed bid of Dubai International Capital (DIC) a month earlier valued Liverpool at £4,000 a share. In the summer of 2004, Wolves owner Steve Morgan valued Liverpool at £2,700 a share, equating to around £100m, and had shaken hands on a deal pending the outcome of due diligence.
When that revealed the true extent of the club's debts he revised his offer, which was turned down by then chairman David Moores.
Time
Club officials insist comparisons between the club's value in 2004, 2007 and now are ridiculous, arguing Liverpool have vastly improved their revenue streams and value of their playing assets since then.
They say securing top names on long-term deals has enhanced the club's value.
Given the level of debt, convincing investors about this is proving a problem.
Amid all this, Rafa Benitez's side face a crucial period.
Euro progress and cash has been the key to Liverpool retaining their place as an elite club, making Tuesday's must-win clash with Lyon far more significant off the field than the clash with Manchester United next Sunday.
Hicks and Gillett know they're running out of time.
They're dreaming of a minority investor who's willing to pay off some of their debt and take a backseat while they continue to bicker on the way forward.
But as the pressure mounts from their banks, conceding majority shareholding remains the easiest and quickest way to safeguard Liverpool's future - and avoid their 'Doomsday' scenario.
Sensational Journalism. I think the elements of this whole story is false. How can we afford to give our players new contracts if what chris said was true, Utter garbage.
He uses the word 'scaremongering', couldnt of put it better myself Chris, now **** off back into the hole you crawled out of.
If we had to convince UEFA then i'm damned sure the mancs,chavski and the arse all did too.
foreverred-1973
19-10-09, 07:23
As Liverpool stumbled on the pitch things were not running smoothly off it either for the club's owners. "The purchase of a stake in Liverpool has not been discussed throughout [co-owner George] Gillett's visit [to Saudi Arabia], not for even five minutes," said Gassim Hamidaddin, deputy managing director of the F6 group sport investment firm. "The discussions are now on hold," he added. F6 is focusing on implementing a contract it signed last month with Gillett that would lead to opening Liverpool academies in the Middle East and North Africa and developing race tracks to introduce Nascar to the Middle East. "That's what was discussed during Gillett's visit," Hamidaddin said.
:P :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy:
How can we afford to give our players new contracts if what chris said was true, Utter garbage.
Correct
foreverred-1973
19-10-09, 09:16
George Gillett's talks with Saudi firm over selling Liverpool stake 'on hold'
Liverpool co-owner George Gillett's talks with a Saudi investment firm to sell part, or all, of his stake in the Anfield club are "on hold" despite his visit to the Middle East last week, a company official has claimed.
By Rory Smith
Published: 7:30AM BST 19 Oct 2009
Gillett travelled to Riyadh on Tuesday with a view to continuing discussions over the possibility of the F6 investment vehicle – backed by Prince Faisal and the Saudi businessman Majed al-Hugail – taking a minority stake in Liverpool.
But F6's deputy managing director, Gassim Hamidaddin, said: "The purchase of a stake in Liverpool has not been discussed throughout Gillett's visit, not for even five minutes.
"The discussions are now on hold. The idea of buying a stake in Liverpool was put on the table in September but since then nothing happened."
Gillett and his co-owner, Tom Hicks, jointly appointed the investment banks Merrill Lynch and Rothschild to oversee an equity raise earlier this year and it is believed several potential investors have been identified.
Both are thought to be under pressure to bring in outside investors as they look to reduce the club's debt burden in time to refinance the loans they used to fund their takeover in July next year.
KOPGIRL1971
19-10-09, 09:18
they probably saw the beach-ball incident and thought a team with such bad luck was not worth backing :rolleyes:
foreverred-1973
19-10-09, 09:19
they probably saw the beach-ball incident and thought a team with such bad luck was not worth backing :rolleyes:
:)
KOPGIRL1971
19-10-09, 09:23
Maybe the producers of the forthcoming blockbuster 2012 should do a late edit to include a scene showing the Kop imploding :)
Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at our situation at the moment, on and off the field it's a bit of a nightmare
foreverred-1973
19-10-09, 09:29
Maybe the producers of the forthcoming blockbuster 2012 should do a late edit to include a scene showing the Kop imploding :)
Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at our situation at the moment, on and off the field it's a bit of a nightmare
I start laughing about but rather in a sarcastic manner :rolleyes:
KOPGIRL1971
19-10-09, 10:00
no matter what's going on behind the scenes, it would still be OK if the team was performing, but even they appear to have lost all heart at the moment. We really need to get it back on track very soon, otherwise our season will be over well before Christmas, which is a very upsetting thought
This may sound stupid but why don't us fan's buy this 25% stake in the club that these two are trying to sell? They'd get their £100m funds needed and we'd actually get some of our club back.
I wasn't a fan of the idea of fans owning the club but if we owned a 25% stake then at least the club would have some sort of identity in it rather then doing a Man City and getting some rich guy to buy you the league.
I'll shut up now
who would have thought that our impending implosion would be linked to a beach ball :rolleyes:
KOPGIRL1971
19-10-09, 11:47
This may sound stupid but why don't us fan's buy this 25% stake in the club that these two are trying to sell? They'd get their £100m funds needed and we'd actually get some of our club back.
I wasn't a fan of the idea of fans owning the club but if we owned a 25% stake then at least the club would have some sort of identity in it rather then doing a Man City and getting some rich guy to buy you the league.
I'll shut up now
The more this saga rumbles on, the more I'm beginning to grasp at straws and fan ownership might be just one of those straws if it gets bad enough
If I thought it could work I;d be first in the queue to hand over my cheque
GoatApocalypse
19-10-09, 16:31
Link (http://www.football365.com/john_nicholson/0,17033,8746_5638248,00.html)
I feel really sorry for Liverpool. They're in a right old mess.
Liverpool FC is one of the world's greatest, most renowned sporting institutions and it is being run, quite disgracefully, to the verge of bankruptcy. This is a club that generated £159million of revenue last year but, according to news reports at the weekend, still had to assure the Premier League it was financially viable after KPMG's audit concluded it was concerned about its 'ability to continue as a growing concern'.
It managed to resist a £70million bid from Manchester City for Fernando Torres but only just. Next summer it will be the same situation again.
The pressure is really on. If the club doesn't make good progress in the Champions League or finishes outside the top four in the league, there is a real chance of Liverpool going into administration. They're fighting on the pitch not for mere success but for their very existence.
Tom Hicks and George Gillett are killing the club. Disgraceful.
Many like to laugh at the Scousers, the online paranoia and sensitivity of a few of their fans are legendary and, yes, they've had their fair share of hooliganism issues over the years - but the club and its followers don't deserve to be judged on its more extreme or daft elements any more than any other club.
I was privileged to be at Anfield on some of their legendary European nights in the late 70s and early 80s. They were the stuff of epic, skin-prickling legend; warm, happy, uplifting celebrations of football.
I treasure those nights seeing David Fairclough flying down the wing like liquid flame as Liverpool kicked into the Kop and simply would not be denied.
Until the blogosphere came along I never experienced anything to contradict the oft-spouted notion that many traditional Liverpool fans are amongst the more knowledgeable observers of football as well as some of the more passionate flame-carriers for the best traditions of the game. Their persistent boycotting of The Sun remains noble.
This entire heritage is being abused and we should all care. If asset-stripping, profit-hungry monsters like Hicks and Gillett are not stopped, one day they might come for your club, rip it off, **** it up and leave it bereft.
If ever a club was less suited to be an asset for capitalist greed-pigs to trade for profit, it was Liverpool.
If ever a club reflected what made football the biggest sport in the country, it was Liverpool with its ground set in the bosom of the labouring working class being led by a man-of-the-people idealist in Bill Shankly.
Shankly was an inspiring man, perfectly suited to the Mersey mindset. My mate Mikey, when presented with any problem in life still asks himself, what would Shankly do?
The procession of managers from Shanks to Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish was a litany of earthy, no-nonsense brilliance who achieved so much. That late 80s team was football brilliance made extant.
The current owners dishonour the legacy of those fine men and those who played under them.
For decades, Liverpool FC was the beating red heart of the football body politic. But what has happened to this noble club?
It is lumbered with debt, it is owned by these ridiculous, stupid men who care and know nothing about football, who care and know nothing of their 'asset', and who seem to dislike each other as much as they dislike football. Like a silly, squabbling married couple, one of them wants to sell his share but can't do so unless the other idiot agrees to it.
They haul themselves around rich Saudi Princes offering the club like a 20 dollar whore, each of them with a different, doubtless hapless idea about how to take the club forward.
RBS only failed to call in the £300m debt this summer for fear of a public backlash that the largely publicly-owned bank was going to crush one of the world's great football clubs.
Hicks and Gillett appear not to have spent much or any of their own money buying the club. Instead they have leveraged borrowing against the asset that they only acquired with the money they borrowed. It makes no sense and ironically, is said to be an illegal practice in America.
Liverpool FC is now a slave to their debt, condemned to forever graft to pay off the interest on the loan. It would seem that these jokers have ownership of the asset to sell for a personal profit but the club has ownership of the debt. The Gruesome Twosome lose nothing if Liverpool fail.
Anfield is through the looking glass. Logic and proportion has fallen sloppy dead and the white knight is talking backwards.
Rafa Benitez is hamstrung by the persistently shambolic behaviour of the owners. Their mismanagement and machinations have infected the whole club.
It looks from the outside that from one transfer window to another he hasn't a clue what resources will be available to him. It's no wonder mistakes are made in that kind of short-term environment.
And the whole time, he and the squad know that if they are not successful, Hicks and Gillett won't be able to service the debt and the club will go into administration, will have to sell Torres and Gerrard, suffer a ten-point deduction and disqualification from any European competition. That is huge pressure, pressure that may now have got too much for all to bear this season.
The new stadium is on hold until God knows when, further stalling progress. Every week there's talk of someone buying half or the entire club off one or both of the current fools, but nothing ever comes to fruition and the feeling that this is all just wind and pish grows stronger.
It's a testament to Benitez' good faith, ******-mindedness, strength of purpose and belief in the club's potential and fans that he's stayed as long as he has and done as well as he has. He's had plenty of reasons to walk away before now.
Even if the Saudi Prince buys out the club in its entirety, fans would be right to be cynical of both his commitment and intention until he prove, not just financially astute but football astute; in harmony with the traditions, culture and passions of the club and its fans.
Football is an irrational game and its culture is driven by unfathomable emotion and ritual. It is emphatically not a faceless corporate asset to be traded amongst billionaire bozos. It is, in every sense, a game by and of the people.
In one sense, Liverpool are ahead of the curve, their situation will not be untypical as more similarly bilious billionaires buy and sell clubs for ego, profit or entertainment. Perhaps it is therefore down to Liverpool to try and resolve these problems innovatively and blaze a new trail.
The Rogan Taylor-led fan buy-out seems to have stalled, which is a shame. If ever a club was suited to be owned and run by the people it is Liverpool with its history of collectivised labour. We certainly need new, fresh ideas on how clubs can be owned, funded and run.
Maybe we should all ask, like Mikey, what would Shankly do? His words might provide a clue.
"The socialism I believe in is not really politics. It is a way of living. It is humanity. I believe the only way to live and to be truly successful is by collective effort, with everyone working for each other, everyone helping each other, and everyone having a share of the rewards at the end of the day."
Shanks wasn't wrong about much.
KOPGIRL1971
19-10-09, 16:42
'The Gruesome Twosome lose nothing if Liverpool fail.'
this statement isn't quite true - RBS said in its letter to the fans earlier this year:
'We took great care when making our original loan in early 2007 and when refinancing it last January to distinguish between obligations of the Club, primarily those outlined above, and obligations of its parent company, the latter being secured by personal guarantees and collateral from the owners and a pledge of the shares they own in the Club. As a result the Club does not suffer the burden of debt implied by a lot of the recent press reports and, in our view and that of the executive management of the Club, it is financially healthy and able to service comfortably its debt obligations from cash flow generated by its playing and commercial activities.'
I have to believe the bank, because to not do so would make me sink into a deep depression
GoatApocalypse
19-10-09, 16:44
Ah, that's interesting. And encouraging.
This thread might not be the right place for that piece but I thought it was the best palce to sling it.
KOPGIRL1971
19-10-09, 16:47
no, thanks for posting it, this is an ongoing record of their stewardship, good or bad (mostly bad :rolleyes:) so all contributions welcome :)
LuisGarciasLittleMan
20-10-09, 14:14
Seen this posted on the rattle and thought it would be of some use.
Financial fears grow for struggling Liverpool
By Harry Harris
October 20, 2009
City insiders close to attempted takeover bids for Liverpool have told ESPN Soccernet that failure to qualify for the Champions League could result in meltdown at Anfield.
The disturbing analysis emphasises the enormous importance of Liverpool's forthcoming double-header at Anfield, starting on Tuesday night against Champions League Group E leaders Lyon, followed by the visit on Sunday of Premier League champions Manchester United.
Liverpool have slipped down to eighth in the Premier League and are keen to win against Lyon to restore their credibility within their group and increase their chances of qualifying for the knockout stages of the Champions League.
A City source said: "The Champions League has become so important to all the top clubs, notably those with big debts, and that includes Manchester United and Arsenal as well as Liverpool, but at the moment, the focus is very much on Liverpool as it looks as though Manchester United and Arsenal will continue in the Champions League next season. The same cannot be guaranteed with Liverpool. The stakes really couldn't be higher for them.
"The Champions League generates £30 million for clubs like Liverpool, and that can account for virtually the amount of interest that they need to pay back to the banks each year. The bottom line for a club like Liverpool is that they need to be in the Champions League each season. It's as simple as that, and no-one at the club is going to sleep easy with the team slipping down to eighth place in the table."
Liverpool's American owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks refinanced their debts with the Royal Bank of Scotland in July for another year, but would never have envisaged their team sliding down the league so early in the season.
The repercussions for Liverpool failing to qualify for next season's Champions League are thought-provoking, to say the least. At worst the consequences are catastrophic.
Would it mean selling prize assets like Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard to pay for the shortfall in Champions League revenue??
Would it mean the end of Rafa Benitez?
Would it mean the Royal Bank of Scotland taking control of the club?
Would it leave the club wide open to a quick takeover bid?
At the moment, a possible takeover of Liverpool has been laboriously slow, with three near misses from a variety of Middle Eastern Sheikhs, Princes and investors. But there seems little doubt that the most testing and turbulent times are rapidly approaching.
The search has been relentless to bring new investment into Anfield. Liverpool's co-owner George Gillett has denied, though, that Prince Faisal bin Fahd bin Abdullah is close to purchasing a stake in the Anfield club.
The American pair of Gillett and Tom Hicks recently issued a joint statement, which read: "The owners have jointly retained Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Rothschild to evaluate the possibility of new investors injecting equity into LFC. However, the process is at an early stage, there is no agreement with any party and reports to the contrary are wholly inaccurate."
The next six days will fashion much of what happens both on and off the field at Anfield. Two games at Anfield, against Lyon in the Champions League and Manchester United in the Premier League could point to a troubled rest of the season, and even a die-hard Liverpool man such as Alan Hansen has conceded as much. The stakes couldn't be higher for the players, manager Benitez, and their dedicated supporters.
My City source concluded: "The next big critical time for Liverpool is the point at which they do or they don't qualify for next seasons Champions League, and how then will they manage to continue paying the interest on their loans."
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... ue&cc=5739
WineForMyMen
20-10-09, 14:24
The above report is surely just a riposte to the fact that Hicks questioned the long-term sense and viability of the City 'project'.
The scaremongering is tedious, but the answers remain simple and have remained unchanged for quite some time.
1) show me the big clubs that don't run on debt or at a loss. ]
2) our commercial outlook is improving all the time
3) we are too big an institution to go into meltdown
4) we are in no imminent danger of not making the top 4.
every year the journos eagerly rub their hands together at the chance to print predictable rubbish about us or arsenal facing a crisis because we lie outside of the top 4 in the table in October. every year ability prevails and the 'big 4' qualify for europe. At present we aren't even borderline. We are one of the top 2 clubs in the division and it will show by the final league table.
vBulletinCheddar
20-10-09, 14:37
The above report is surely just a riposte to the fact that Hicks questioned the long-term sense and viability of the City 'project'.
The scaremongering is tedious, but the answers remain simple and have remained unchanged for quite some time.
1) show me the big clubs that don't run on debt or at a loss. ]
2) our commercial outlook is improving all the time
3) we are too big an institution to go into meltdown
4) we are in no imminent danger of not making the top 4.
every year the journos eagerly rub their hands together at the chance to print predictable rubbish about us or arsenal facing a crisis because we lie outside of the top 4 in the table in October. every year ability prevails and the 'big 4' qualify for europe. At present we aren't even borderline. We are one of the top 2 clubs in the division and it will show by the final league table.
I wish I could share your sense of realism. I'm ******* sick of this situation we are in. It makes me so sad and depressed to think of what has happened to us I feel like killing someone. And in truth who can blame these two yank chancers really, they saw us coming.
KOPGIRL1971
20-10-09, 16:03
Seen this posted on the rattle and thought it would be of some use.
Financial fears grow for struggling Liverpool
By Harry Harris
October 20, 2009
City insiders close to attempted takeover bids for Liverpool have told ESPN Soccernet that failure to qualify for the Champions League could result in meltdown at Anfield.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... ue&cc=5739
Thanks for posting that, but compare what Harry Harris suggests to this statement by Gillett only a fortnight ago to a member of SOS:
Gillett insisted the “debt on Liverpool is very sound” and denied suggestions the club would struggle to meet interest payments without Champions League football. “The budgets are done very conservatively,” he said.
“They are based on a very limited success in the Champions League. Even without that, we have enough cash flow to pay the minimum interest and give Rafa what he needs to make us competitive.”
I suppose it's a question of who you believe, but RBS has also said we are OK so I'm sticking with the official line - for now
So basically any potential investor should just wait till we go bust then buy us at a cheap price from the bank
Redstriker73
20-10-09, 20:38
Can i just say that the title of your thread makes me laugh everytime it pops up on the front page...nice one..keep up the good work!
:D:scarf
KOPGIRL1971
21-10-09, 13:12
Can i just say that the title of your thread makes me laugh everytime it pops up on the front page...nice one..keep up the good work!
:D:scarf
I am so glad it makes you happy :)
KOPGIRL1971
21-10-09, 13:30
this linked story was posted elswhere on the forum today:
Spirit Of Shankly – Liverpool Supporters Union
Tom and George - You're Not Welcome Here
Wed 21 Oct 2009
Tom Hicks and George Gillett are, according to our sources, planning to attend this Sunday's game against Manchester United at Anfield. Being the massive football (soccer?) fans that they are, they couldn't afford to miss a big game such as this. They don't have to afford the trip, as no doubt a claim for expenses will soon be submitted to LFC for the cost of their stay. This is an opportunity we can't afford to miss.
Whilst their arrival will no doubt bring with it fresh speculation, about rifts and friendships, sales and investment, we have to make ourselves heard. We have to tell them, and the watching world, that quite simply, they aren't welcome here. Broken promise after broken promise, lie after lie, has become too much for fans to accept from these "custodians" who, quite frankly, don’t know the meaning of the word. It's time for Tom Hicks and George Gillett to get the message, sell the club (all of it) and leave, allowing us to finally move forward from this sorry mess.
We urge everyone who cares about Liverpool Football Club, whether going to the match or not, to make their voices heard. Firstly, tell Tom Hicks yourself. Email him at thicks@hicksholdings.com telling him why he's not 't welcome here. If you need some pointers on what to say, this is what Spirit Of Shankly has sent to them:
Dear Tom/George
You’ve been at our club for over two and a half years now. And in that time what have you achieved? Very little, other than a lot of hatred from fans, and a number of all expenses paid trips to Liverpool to watch that strange game called soccer. Please excuse the tone, but to be honest, it has gone past the point of us fans really caring what you think anymore.
All we care about is our football club, our history and traditions, and our future. To us, you play no part in that future – especially not if we want to be successful and keep moving forward. You will leave a black mark on the history of our football club. You have dragged us back, and this season, you have made us stand still, whilst other clubs move forward. The broken promises and repeated lies have caused anger, and there is nothing you can do to change that. You can claim all you like that the media make things up, but they didn’t make the debt up, they didn’t say they would put a spade in the ground in 60 days, and they didn't say that they would back the manager – You did. The pair of you don’t get on, and you can’t even lie without contradicting yourselves.
So do one thing for us fans. Leave. Sell the club, clear the debt, take the profit and go away. Because you, or your fellow “custodian” are not welcome here anymore!
Spirit Of Shankly
There will be a march taking place prior to Sunday's game. Meeting on Sunday at Noon outside the LFC Supporters Club on Lower Breck Road, it is a perfect opportunity for all of us, to stand as one, and speak as one, with one clear message - Tom and George, You're Not Welcome Here!
© Liverpool Supporters Union - Spirit of Shankly 2008, 2009 | Site Map | Site credits
'They don't have to afford the trip, as no doubt a claim for expenses will soon be submitted to LFC for the cost of their stay. This is an opportunity we can't afford to miss.'
Which other owner of a company does not claim expenses for trips they make? Ridiculous.
'It's time for Tom Hicks and George Gillett to get the message, sell the club (all of it) and leave, allowing us to finally move forward from this sorry mess.' I thought that was what they were trying to do, at least to some degree?
'You have dragged us back, and this season, you have made us stand still, whilst other clubs move forward.' So, the players and manager have had nothing to do with us playing crap then?
The letter is very puerile, sounds like it's been written by a teenager, and doesn't do credit to SOS. I am almost embarrassed by it.
I think the added problem of the team playing poorly has clouded their judgement a bit - or maybe they see the team's poor form as an opportunity to up the ante and get more supporters on side.
As I've said before, I think SOS serves a useful purpose, but if they succeed in sending the owners packing goodness know whose hands we'll end up in, because if they sell to the lowest bidder in order to get out faster than anticipated (and without the big fat profit they are seeking) we'll be up **** creek without even a boat, never mind a paddle
Much better that we try to help the team recover its form and win something this season, as winning will attract more investors and H&G can leave in one piece - after all, which potential new owners would want anything to do with a club that's just ousted its previous custodians?
petefarrelly
21-10-09, 13:36
Is it true Rafas wife Montze was in tears last night, I know this dosent mean anything about this thread.?
Regarding spirit of shankly i think they picked the wrong game to prostest TBH fans will be soo pumped about Man U* that, that will be there main focus and not the yanks. Last night would have been a better night.
Although whole heartinly agree, we need the owners out ASAP, but i fear its only gonna get worse before its better, i fear it could be a Newcastle situation wereas we could have bo manager, no money to spend slipping like a rubber duck down the table while the yanks try to get top doller, im sorry but thats what i could see happening they dont care about Rafa, they dont care about the Fans, LFC is in the Wrong hands.
All they care about is there own pockets.
KOPGIRL1971
21-10-09, 13:50
Is it true Rafas wife Montze was in tears last night, I know this dosent mean anything about this thread.?
Regarding spirit of shankly i think they picked the wrong game to prostest TBH fans will be soo pumped about Man U* that, that will be there main focus and not the yanks. Last night would have been a better night.
Although whole heartinly agree, we need the owners out ASAP, but i fear its only gonna get worse before its better, i fear it could be a Newcastle situation wereas we could have bo manager, no money to spend slipping like a rubber duck down the table while the yanks try to get top doller, im sorry but thats what i could see happening they dont care about Rafa, they dont care about the Fans, LFC is in the Wrong hands.
All they care about is there own pockets.
don't get me wrong, I think SOS can have the right to speak out, I just worry that if we are seen to be chasing away the owners then no-one else will want to invest in us because we'll be deemed as trouble-makers.
the glazers faced strong opposition when they cmae into man u, but we don't seem to hear about them so much now, yet their debt on the mancs is far higher (£600+m) and ticket prices much steaper.
don;t know anything about montse, perhaps she was just upset we'd lost? she is a big fan of the club and the city, so no doubt she'd feel the pain of defeat as keenly as the rest of us
GoatApocalypse
21-10-09, 13:54
I agree that the template letter is nonsense. SOS is so self-contradictory I'm surprised the members know whether they're coming or going.
If they wanted to supply such a template they should have kept it clear and simple. The one they've supplied is a mess - I wouldn't give it the time of day, frankly.
KOPGIRL1971
21-10-09, 19:56
from USA Today:
Hicks' officials meet with potential Rangers owner
ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) — Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks is moving closer to selling the Texas Rangers after team officials met with a potential new owner.
Houston businessman Jim Crane and his advisers took a tour of Rangers Ballpark and met Tuesday with officials from the baseball and business operations of the team, including president Nolan Ryan and general manager Jon Daniels.
The meetings were "routine and part of the normal due diligence process," Hicks Sports Group said in a statement.
The holding company that owns the Rangers and the NHL's Dallas Stars defaulted on about $525 million in loans earlier this year and Hicks has said he is willing to sell his controlling interest in the baseball team.
Hicks is also seeking investors to reduce the debt in Premier League club Liverpool, which he co-owns with American businessman George Gillett Jr., although he wants to retain his controlling interest.
Hicks and Gillett bought Liverpool in 2007 for 174 million pounds (then $343 million), taking on liabilities totaling 44.8 million pounds.
The co-owners have been criticized by fans for burdening the club with debt, which currently stands at 245 million pounds, while failing to build a promised new stadium.
----
I report this for continuity's sake, as I can't see lfc benefiting in any way from this sale
KOPGIRL1971
21-10-09, 23:21
Rafa Benitez backed by Liverpool FC owner George Gillett
Oct 22 2009 By Ian Doyle, Daily Post
GEORGE GILLETT has offered his support to Rafael Benitez – as Glen Johnson provided another boost for the beleaguered Liverpool FC manager.
Anfield co-owner Gillett was present to watch Benitez’s side slump to a 2-1 home Champions League defeat against Lyon on Tuesday night.
It was a fourth defeat in succession – Liverpool’s worst losing sequence in more than 22 years – to further increase the pressure on the Anfield manager.
But when asked if the backing for Benitez was still in place, Gillett said: “Absolutely.
“We have just entered into a long-term agreement with Rafa. Our family is extraordinarily pleased with him, we think he is absolutely as good as there is in the business and I am sure the Hicks’ feel the same way. We just extended his contract.
“I think the run of results disappoints everybody. Certainly, it disappoints the fans and it disappoints Rafa. I know he is disappointed. We are all disappointed, but we are in this together.”
Gillett added: “He looked downbeat (when interviewed on television after Tuesday’s game). I think we all saw the same thing, but that's not something I am going to comment on publicly. But I am being supportive and I think Tom is.”
Liverpool are grappling with a growing injury crisis ahead of Sunday’s crucial showdown with bitter rivals Manchester United.
Steven Gerrard, who limped out after 25 minutes on Tuesday after aggravating an adductor problem, and Fernando Torres continue to undergo intensive treatment but remain major doubts.
Johnson, though, is confident he can recover from the groin injury that forced him to miss the Lyon defeat.
“I feel a lot better than yesterday and fingers crossed I will be ready for Sunday,” said Johnson. “I had a problem with my groin in training on Monday but it feels a lot better now.”
Albert Riera is sidelined as the Reds await results of a scan on his hamstring problem, but Alberto Aquilani gave Benitez some cheer by making a 15-minute debut as a late substitute for the reserves in their 2-0 win against Sunderland last night.
--
good, about time gillett said something positive about benitez
foreverred-1973
22-10-09, 07:22
Hicks eyes sale of Texas Rangers
Money raised could help boost Liverpool's finances
Liverpool football club co-owner Tom Hicks has moved a step closer selling his Texas Rangers baseball team.
Houston businessman Jim Crane and his team have visited the Rangers Ballpark and met officials from the baseball and business operations of the US team.
Hicks Sports Group said it had been a "routine and part of the normal due diligence process", AP reported.
Hicks and LFC co-owner George Gillett said last month they were looking for new investment in the Anfield club.
In 2007 Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett paid £174m for the Premier League club, which is carrying a large amount of debt.
Asset sales
Texas Rangers president Nolan Ryan and general manager Jon Daniels were among those showing Mr Crane around the stadium.
Mr Hicks has previously said that he would be willing to sell his controlling interest in the Rangers.
Earlier this year his Liverpool co-owner Mr Gillett agreed to sell one of his major US assets to help ease financial pressures at the Premier League club.
Mr Gillett agreed to sell his 80% stake in the NHL's Montreal Canadiens ice-hockey team to the Molson brewing giants in a deal reported to be worth at least $550m (£332.9m).
foreverred-1973
22-10-09, 07:24
The Times October 22, 2009
Red for danger: Liverpool empire could be one defeat from crumbling
Tony Barrett
Four consecutive losses have left Liverpool seemingly at the risk of implosion. After defeat by Lyons in the Champions League on Tuesday, their next opponents are Manchester United and Rafael Benítez’s side will take to the pitch at Anfield on Sunday in the knowledge that another loss would all but end their Barclays Premier League title hopes with seven months of the campaign remaining.
The Times considers what defeat would mean to the players, supporters, owners — and Benítez.
Rafael Benítez Despite having signed a new five-year contract seven months ago, he is not immune from dismissal, but could the club afford to sack him even if they wished to? A salary in the region of £4 million a season would entitle him to a payoff of about £18 million.
However, Liverpool’s annual profits are being swallowed up by interest payments on the £250 million debt built up by Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the co-owners, and the club could not afford to make the four signings their manager sought in the summer, so it is questionable if they would have the means to remove him.
Equally, one of the main reasons that Benítez was awarded such a long-term deal was the owners’ desire to present a picture of stability to potential investors. Sacking him now would not only expose that charade, it would also present Hicks and Gillett with the problem of finding a new manager.
Benítez, though, needs results — and he needs them badly. In recent weeks it has appeared as if the numerous internal battles have taken their toll. Real Madrid are often touted as the most likely providers of an exit strategy for the Spaniard, but should Liverpool’s form continue to decline, then their manager’s stock would suffer commensurately.
The players Team spirit has been lacking since pre-season. It is almost as if the established stars recognised that the squad was not equipped to challenge for the biggest prizes and that their belief in the Benítez project has diminished.
Fernando Torres, Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Javier Mascherano are top-class performers, but none has been at his best. All, apart from Mascherano, appear committed to the club, but their patience would surely be tested if Liverpool fell out of the title race with so much of the season to be played.
Torres, Gerrard and Mascherano have next year’s World Cup finals in the back of their minds and the concern for Benítez would be how to get the best out of his big names without the motivation of a title challenge or a good run in the Champions League.
The biggest worry, though, would be how the owners would respond to the doomsday scenario of failure to qualify for next season’s Champions League. Lose on Sunday and the gap between Liverpool and the top five could increase to five points. If Liverpool were to fall out of the “big four” picture altogether, then Hicks and Gillett could feasibly make up for the loss of prize money by using player sales to finance their debt repayments. The most saleable assets would be those the club could least afford to lose.
The supporters The booing that greeted Benítez’s decision to replace Yossi Benayoun with Andriy Voronin on Tuesday may not have been new to Anfield regulars, but the ferocity of their disapproval was. This was the moment when frustration about Liverpool’s inability to arrest their decline bubbled over, although a little more than half an hour earlier Benítez’s name had been sung by the Kop after his team took the lead through Benayoun.
The fans stood shoulder to shoulder with Benítez when his job was under threat two years ago. They even marched to the stadium in protest at plans by Hicks and Gillett to replace him with Jürgen Klinsmann. There are few clubs where the relationship between manager and supporters is as strong as at Anfield, a legacy of the legendary Bill Shankly’s incredible bond with the Anfield crowd. Benítez will know, however, that even such powerful devotion is conditional and a failure to get results will inevitably lead to even his most committed fans questioning his ability to win the league title they crave.
A defeat by United would further damage his lustre in the eyes of those who have backed him so resolutely. However, it should also be noted that the more political supporters lay the blame for the problems on the pitch at the owners’ door rather than Benítez’s.
The owners The situation at Liverpool has become so desperate in recent weeks that there are some fans who have argued that they might be able to stomach defeat on Sunday if it pushed the owners they revile closer to the exit.
Hicks and Gillett are expected to attend the match and are likely to be in for a rough ride as disenchantment with their regime reaches new heights. A march in protest against the Americans has been organised and the Spirit Of Shankly supporters’ union are hopeful that thousands of people will join their campaign.
The owners have refused to budge despite their lack of popularity and the overwhelming feeling is that they will quit Anfield willingly only if an investor makes it financially worthwhile. Both are involved in an as yet unsuccessful search for investment, with the Middle East the centre of their attentions. Their problem is that potential investors would argue that Liverpool’s value will be reduced should the club fail to make it through to the lucrative stages of this season’s Champions League and increasingly likely failure to qualify for next season’s competition.
How they would react to another damaging defeat is open to question, given the public support that Gillett offered to Benítez this week and the backing that has been afforded to the manager by Hicks in the past.
Should they see his presence at the helm as being potentially damaging to their chances of securing investment, or a total sale of the club, they could begin to see Benítez as expendable.
Bert of the web
‘Another disgraceful display. It’s time to remove the board and the manager’
“What is Benítez bleating about an injury crisis for? Yes, the loss of Torres and Gerrard would not help any team. But you have other class players in the squad. My only concern is that the fringe players who have come in when you get the odd injury are not Premier League class.” irjmorris, bbc.co.uk/606
“It’s another disgraceful display. It’s time to remove the board and the manager. Time to go.” chage9, bbc.co.uk/606
“Liverpool’s squad is nowhere near as good as Man Utd’s, Chelsea’s or even Arsenal’s. When Rooney or Vidic are injured for United, they grind out wins. Liverpool simply do not.” Bigorchx, bbc.co.uk/606
“Both Ngog and Babel wouldn’t get a regular place in any of the other top five or six teams, so why are they considered good enough for Liverpool? I love my team and I love their history, but I’m totally not in love with this manager. I, for one, am entitled to my opinion, born of 40 years’ worth of dedicated support for LFC . . . and Benítez was not, is not and never will be the right man at the helm in Liverpool.” PJ, timesonline.co.uk
“Come on, people. Benítez loves to play the politics and to play the innocent. It is never down to him and he never gets it wrong. For God’s sake, even SAF [Sir Alex Ferguson] sometimes admits he gets it wrong. Now that Benítez has control of all football matters, perhaps he will run out of excuses and they will finish seventh. Benítez gets some good results, so there is some talent in there, but he spends too much time complaining about others to focus on his own shortcomings. Sure the owners are a basketcase but the buck stops with the manager.” Jon Ranger, timesonline.co.uk
Bet you David Moores is sleeping soundly with his extra millions he got from the yanks!
He sold the club down the river for extra millions - millions that he would not have got had he sold out to the arabs - I am not saying the arabs would have simply given rafa the blank cheque but if Moores knew or had a gut feeling of what the yanks were like or going to be like then he should have not sold it to them
KOPGIRL1971
22-10-09, 11:12
comment piece from the Daily Post:
Liverpool FC News
COMMENT: Sticking together is Liverpool FC's only option as winter of discontent begins to bite
Oct 21 2009 Dan Kay
At half time against Lyon, with the dark clouds of Liverpool's recent woes seemingly beginning to lift a little, the dulcet tones of one of the city's favourite musical sons rang around Anfield almost as confirmation that unity of spirit and action is both the club's bedrock and its salvation.
Forty five minutes later, after the French side's late double-strike condemned the Reds to their fourth straight defeat and the critics sharpened their knives for a full-on assault on trophy pretensions which even the most ardent optimist must currently find laughable, the ideals distilled into The Farm's timeless 'Altogether Now' seemed more relevant than ever.
'It never rains but it pours' the old saying goes and at the minute it's tipping down on Liverpool Football Club.
comment piece f
Whether it's rogue beachballs deflecting winning goals in, key players suffering injury after injury (the pleasant surprise of Martin Kelly's performance following Glen Johnson's untimely withdrawal didn't last long before he became the latest crock) or normally reliable players' rare mistakes being continually punished in full (Mascherano at Chelsea and Pepe Reina's weak punch for the equaliser not being bailed out by his two excellent stops in the build-up to the equaliser against Lyon), Liverpool may feel entitled to believe if they weren't having bad luck, they'd have no luck at all.
You can't blame luck though for the fact that too many people - from the owners to the manager to the players - are making too many poor choices at the moment.
Some of the players in Liverpool's squad aren't good enough right now and some of Rafa Benitez's decisions aren't up to scratch either - are the walls really caving in on Fortress Anfield or they all just doing a very convincing impression of a club on the verge of a nervous breakdown?
It feels like the club is at its lowest ebb since humiliation beckoned at half time in Istanbul - and we all know how that ended up - but it would take an extremely brave soul to predict a similar outcome this time around.
One of the most concerning aspects of Liverpool's lurch since the end of last season from the team most likely to challenge Manchester United to the team most likely to drop out of the so-called 'Big Four' is the fact that every single half-decent team Rafa Benitez's side has faced so far this campaign has beaten them.
A concerted effort clearly had to be made to eradicate the maddening draws (eleven of them) that cost Liverpool the title last season and, by adapting the playing style to become more expansive (to risk losing a game in order to win it), a slight transitional period in terms of results was perhaps only to be expected.
Sure enough, the 'cannon fodder' opposition have been duly buried so far this season but the ability to grind out a result without playing particularly well, which in truth launched the Reds to the top of the table throughout the first half of last season, seems to have completely disappeared.
David Ngog holds his head after losing 1-2 to Lyon
It all seems eerily familiar to Gerard Houllier's final season at the club and his presence in the Director's Box last night felt like a disturbing irony to the events that were playing out in front of him.
Frustratingly the big guns Liverpool feel they should be competing with at the top of the table appear to be no stronger than they were last campaign, arguably in fact they are all slightly weaker, but the blend of the Reds squad - not helped admittedly by a negative transfer spend last summer and injuries upon injuries upon injuries - now means nervous looks over the shoulder towards the likes of Manchester City, Tottenham, Aston Villa and probably even Everton are guaranteed unless a winning streak is embarked upon and quick.
At the heart of malaise deep within the heart of Anfield at present though is the issue of the club's American owners and the seeds of discord they have sown throughout the club ever since the ill-fated day in February 2007 they arrived.
They have been an unmitigated embarrassment virtually from day one - from the cringeworthy but harmless walking round the pitch in Athens (couldn't really see Sir John Smith doing that somehow), the breaking of promises over loading debt onto the club (from their takeover remember, not a new stadium or players), their shameful politicking and washing of dirty linen in the media to the latest example of the utter inadequacy - their refusal last week to pay for a private jet (like Barcelona did with Messi) to fly the Argentinians back from South America, they have made a mockery of their pledge to be appropriate 'custodians'.
Rafa Benitez's transfer budget over the last year or so has clearly been hampered by the owners' ham-fisted attempts to keep their hands on the club and he ultimately has had to sacrifice bringing in players to improve the quality of the squad for a handful of acquisitions to strengthen the first team, a risky strategy if you suffer too many injuries to key players and have to then rely on this sub-standard squad, which is what has happened this season.
The dilemma raging within the hearts of many Liverpool supporters currently is who they hold ultimately culpable for the mess the club now finds itself in - the manager himself, for making too many poor buys with what money he has had to spend or the owners for effectively handicapping him in the transfer market when it comes to building a squad with sufficent depth.
The boardroom at Anfield has already been divided for far too long - what those who relish the club's current predicament will want now is to see similar splits emerging within the dressing room and The Kop.
Somehow, somewhere the manager, the players and the crowd have to summon the spirit remembered by Peter Hooton & co when singing about one of the most famous football matches ever, in the mud-strewn trenches of World War I (above).
Rafa Benitez himself invoked it four years ago in Turkish dressing-room during a match, no matter what happens in the future, he'll always be remembered for.
Judging from his apparently desolate demeanor following Lyon's win last night, it's advice he would do well to heed himself.
"Don't let your heads drop.
"All the players who go onto the pitch after half-time have to keep their heads held high.
"We are Liverpool, you are playing for Liverpool.
"Do not forget that.
"You have to hold your heads high for the supporters.
"You have to do it for them.
"You cannot call yourselves Liverpool players if you have your heads down.
"If we create a few chances we have the possibility of getting back into this.
"Believe you can do it and we will.
"Give yourselves the chance to be heroes."
----
One of the things I really disagree with is this idea that we should have spent £45-90k to bring masch and insua back by private jet from Argentina. It would have been a dreadful waste of money and, according to another paper, Messi and Tevez being jetted home by thir clubs did nothing to improve their performance. How can a club like Liverpool, steeped in socialist principles and working class ideals, justify spending such an extortionate amount of money like that, and in a recession as bad as this? Plus, loads of people fly home after long trips or holidays and have to get straight back into work, like nurses, firemen etc, if they can do it without whinging or performing below par so can over-paid footballers. A lot of it is in the head after all. Think or be told you are tired and you will be tired.
I'm glad the article lays the blame on all shoulders and seeks a concerted effort by all parties to end this run of defeats, including us supporters.
Now is the time we really do have to stick together.
KOPGIRL1971
22-10-09, 11:19
The Times October 22, 2009
Red for danger: Liverpool empire could be one defeat from crumbling
Tony Barrett
Four consecutive losses have left Liverpool seemingly at the risk of implosion. After defeat by Lyons in the Champions League on Tuesday, their next opponents are Manchester United and Rafael Benítez’s side will take to the pitch at Anfield on Sunday in the knowledge that another loss would all but end their Barclays Premier League title hopes with seven months of the campaign remaining.
The Times considers what defeat would mean to the players, supporters, owners — and Benítez.
Rafael Benítez Despite having signed a new five-year contract seven months ago, he is not immune from dismissal, but could the club afford to sack him even if they wished to? A salary in the region of £4 million a season would entitle him to a payoff of about £18 million.
However, Liverpool’s annual profits are being swallowed up by interest payments on the £250 million debt built up by Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the co-owners, and the club could not afford to make the four signings their manager sought in the summer, so it is questionable if they would have the means to remove him.
Equally, one of the main reasons that Benítez was awarded such a long-term deal was the owners’ desire to present a picture of stability to potential investors. Sacking him now would not only expose that charade, it would also present Hicks and Gillett with the problem of finding a new manager.
Benítez, though, needs results — and he needs them badly. In recent weeks it has appeared as if the numerous internal battles have taken their toll. Real Madrid are often touted as the most likely providers of an exit strategy for the Spaniard, but should Liverpool’s form continue to decline, then their manager’s stock would suffer commensurately.
The players Team spirit has been lacking since pre-season. It is almost as if the established stars recognised that the squad was not equipped to challenge for the biggest prizes and that their belief in the Benítez project has diminished.
Fernando Torres, Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Javier Mascherano are top-class performers, but none has been at his best. All, apart from Mascherano, appear committed to the club, but their patience would surely be tested if Liverpool fell out of the title race with so much of the season to be played.
Torres, Gerrard and Mascherano have next year’s World Cup finals in the back of their minds and the concern for Benítez would be how to get the best out of his big names without the motivation of a title challenge or a good run in the Champions League.
The biggest worry, though, would be how the owners would respond to the doomsday scenario of failure to qualify for next season’s Champions League. Lose on Sunday and the gap between Liverpool and the top five could increase to five points. If Liverpool were to fall out of the “big four” picture altogether, then Hicks and Gillett could feasibly make up for the loss of prize money by using player sales to finance their debt repayments. The most saleable assets would be those the club could least afford to lose.
The supporters The booing that greeted Benítez’s decision to replace Yossi Benayoun with Andriy Voronin on Tuesday may not have been new to Anfield regulars, but the ferocity of their disapproval was. This was the moment when frustration about Liverpool’s inability to arrest their decline bubbled over, although a little more than half an hour earlier Benítez’s name had been sung by the Kop after his team took the lead through Benayoun.
The fans stood shoulder to shoulder with Benítez when his job was under threat two years ago. They even marched to the stadium in protest at plans by Hicks and Gillett to replace him with Jürgen Klinsmann. There are few clubs where the relationship between manager and supporters is as strong as at Anfield, a legacy of the legendary Bill Shankly’s incredible bond with the Anfield crowd. Benítez will know, however, that even such powerful devotion is conditional and a failure to get results will inevitably lead to even his most committed fans questioning his ability to win the league title they crave.
A defeat by United would further damage his lustre in the eyes of those who have backed him so resolutely. However, it should also be noted that the more political supporters lay the blame for the problems on the pitch at the owners’ door rather than Benítez’s.
The owners The situation at Liverpool has become so desperate in recent weeks that there are some fans who have argued that they might be able to stomach defeat on Sunday if it pushed the owners they revile closer to the exit.
Hicks and Gillett are expected to attend the match and are likely to be in for a rough ride as disenchantment with their regime reaches new heights. A march in protest against the Americans has been organised and the Spirit Of Shankly supporters’ union are hopeful that thousands of people will join their campaign.
The owners have refused to budge despite their lack of popularity and the overwhelming feeling is that they will quit Anfield willingly only if an investor makes it financially worthwhile. Both are involved in an as yet unsuccessful search for investment, with the Middle East the centre of their attentions. Their problem is that potential investors would argue that Liverpool’s value will be reduced should the club fail to make it through to the lucrative stages of this season’s Champions League and increasingly likely failure to qualify for next season’s competition.
How they would react to another damaging defeat is open to question, given the public support that Gillett offered to Benítez this week and the backing that has been afforded to the manager by Hicks in the past.
Should they see his presence at the helm as being potentially damaging to their chances of securing investment, or a total sale of the club, they could begin to see Benítez as expendable.
I'm disappointed with Barrett with this article, jumping on the bandwagon with the other media vultures - a pity he didnt wait a few hours to hear Gillett standing by the manager, just makes him look foolish, because he's obviously tagged on that bit at the end.
This is not me praising the owners, rather me showing support for our beleaguered manager at a time of crisis - the same kind of support we would expect from ex-Echo writers as well
foreverred-1973
22-10-09, 12:19
In my opinion Gillett stands by the manager because he knows exactly that he can't afford it to sack him.
KOPGIRL1971
22-10-09, 12:27
In my opinion Gillett stands by the manager because he knows exactly that he can't afford it to sack him.
could be, but whatever the reason, it will help dampen down the media frenzy to get benitez the sack
KOPGIRL1971
22-10-09, 12:29
Goal.com
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Christian Purslow Exclusive: No Better Club To Support Than Liverpool
Reds director talks exclusively to Goal.com...
Oct 22, 2009 9:00:00 A
As I sit and wait my turn to speak to the man appointed to replace Rick Parry at Anfield, two fellow journalists look at each other and say: “He’s good, he’s ****** good,” before looking at me with crumpled smiles insinuating I’d have a job on my hands getting Liverpool's managing director to say something dramatic.
I, however, was looking at the situation pragmatically.
When I eventually get round to speaking to him, Christian Purslow maintains he is in the job because of his business credentials. He is, after all, the man who founded the successful Mid Ocean Partners group, an international private equity firm.
The Harvard Business School graduate insists he is determined to drive the club he has supported since boyhood into a new era of success despite the off-field problems.
“I’m enjoying my work immensely,” Purslow tells Goal.com UK.
“I am incredibly proud and honoured to be the custodian of the football club that my grandparents and my dad and I have been fans of. My children are also Liverpool fans.”
It comes as no surprise when Purslow suggests Rafael Benitez’s side must improve on the pitch in order to sustain the club’s global appeal, with particular emphasis on the Asian and Middle Eastern markets.
He says: “I’d like to think I’ve got the credentials to move the club forward. The stronger we are off the park the more resources we can invest in the success of the club on the pitch. The two are completely interlinked and success on the pitch is absolutely vital.
“What I found when I started work here was a tremendous team of people in terms of the business side of Liverpool Football Club, and Ian Ayre’s excellent commercial team will continue to work hard and attract the right partners to move the club forward.”
Purslow explains how everyone associated with the club was astonished with the loyalty displayed by overseas fans during Liverpool’s recent tour of Asia.
The Londoner was particularly impressed with the manner in which the players were received by supporters during official club events and at packed stadiums.
“We are very well represented in Asia, more so than any other club. Our fans in Asia showed they are a fantastic group of people, incredibly positive, incredibly motivated with a sense of purpose, and most of all a sense of pride," he says.
When asked if Liverpool have more Asian fans than the likes of Manchester United, who have also aggressively targeted the Asian market over the years, Purslow retorts: “What better club is there in the world to support than Liverpool Football Club?
“Fans throughout the world have been supporting us for many years. Our history and tradition speaks for itself. Our fans make Anfield a very special place week in, week out, and that is part of the reason why we have so many Asian visitors every year.”
Purslow cites Liverpool’s recent four-year sponsorship deal with Standard Charter Bank as a significant milestone in the club’s history. However, he expects a number of lucrative deals to be signed off in the future.
“Defying conventional wisdom about where the economy is generally, we have one of the most successful shirt sponsorship deals done anywhere in the world," he continues.
"Standard Chartered has a great history, a really good fit culturally and they are a fantastically well run company. They have done very well during well the financial crisis. We feel nothing other than a sense of pride.
“Rest assured my commercial team will continue to work hard and grind out results. Liverpool Football Club is a fantastic club with great tradition and history. I can assure the fans we are all working very hard.”
Looking back at the journalists who were sat in front of me saying “He’s good, he’s ****** good,” I’m inclined to agree.
Mohammed Bhana, Goal.com UK
foreverred-1973
22-10-09, 12:29
could be, but whatever the reason, it will help dampen down the media frenzy to get benitez the sack
Could be a possibility. We'll see after the Sunday game!
petefarrelly
22-10-09, 12:30
Dont know if this should go in here but here goes
Christian Purslow Exclusive: No Better Club To Support Than Liverpool
As I sit and wait my turn to speak to the man appointed to replace Rick Parry at Anfield, two fellow journalists look at each other and say: “He’s good, he’s ****** good,” before looking at me with crumpled smiles insinuating I’d have a job on my hands getting Liverpool's managing director to say something dramatic.
I, however, was looking at the situation pragmatically.
When I eventually get round to speaking to him, Christian Purslow maintains he is in the job because of his business credentials. He is, after all, the man who founded the successful Mid Ocean Partners group, an international private equity firm.
The Harvard Business School graduate insists he is determined to drive the club he has supported since boyhood into a new era of success despite the off-field problems.
“I’m enjoying my work immensely,” Purslow tells Goal.com UK.
“I am incredibly proud and honoured to be the custodian of the football club that my grandparents and my dad and I have been fans of. My children are also Liverpool fans.”
It comes as no surprise when Purslow suggests Rafael Benitez’s side must improve on the pitch in order to sustain the club’s global appeal, with particular emphasis on the Asian and Middle Eastern markets.
He says: “I’d like to think I’ve got the credentials to move the club forward. The stronger we are off the park the more resources we can invest in the success of the club on the pitch. The two are completely interlinked and success on the pitch is absolutely vital.
“What I found when I started work here was a tremendous team of people in terms of the business side of Liverpool Football Club, and Ian Ayre’s excellent commercial team will continue to work hard and attract the right partners to move the club forward.”
Purslow explains how everyone associated with the club was astonished with the loyalty displayed by overseas fans during Liverpool’s recent tour of Asia.
The Londoner was particularly impressed with the manner in which the players were received by supporters during official club events and at packed stadiums.
“We are very well represented in Asia, more so than any other club. Our fans in Asia showed they are a fantastic group of people, incredibly positive, incredibly motivated with a sense of purpose, and most of all a sense of pride," he says.
When asked if Liverpool have more Asian fans than the likes of Manchester United, who have also aggressively targeted the Asian market over the years, Purslow retorts: “What better club is there in the world to support than Liverpool Football Club?
“Fans throughout the world have been supporting us for many years. Our history and tradition speaks for itself. Our fans make Anfield a very special place week in, week out, and that is part of the reason why we have so many Asian visitors every year.”
Purslow cites Liverpool’s recent four-year sponsorship deal with Standard Charter Bank as a significant milestone in the club’s history. However, he expects a number of lucrative deals to be signed off in the future.
“Defying conventional wisdom about where the economy is generally, we have one of the most successful shirt sponsorship deals done anywhere in the world," he continues.
"Standard Chartered has a great history, a really good fit culturally and they are a fantastically well run company. They have done very well during well the financial crisis. We feel nothing other than a sense of pride.
“Rest assured my commercial team will continue to work hard and grind out results. Liverpool Football Club is a fantastic club with great tradition and history. I can assure the fans we are all working very hard.”
Looking back at the journalists who were sat in front of me saying “He’s good, he’s ****** good,” I’m inclined to agree. Logged
MickeyLove
22-10-09, 12:37
The following is a post from RAOTL from Oct 2008. For those of you who go on there its been bumped on the first page as a reminder of a warning that was given 12 months ago....
The ownership thread on Rawk has exploded, old ShanksLegend seems to be indicating that we could be about to do a Leeds with how dire it is and somebody else posted this which Shanks is saying is basically true:
Apparantly the refinancing package that Tom and George have negotiated with their banks have a sting in the tail for us fans.
The banks have now written down the value of the club to £120 million below the level of debt that is held by Kop Holdings and Liverpool FC. They have asked George and Tom to secure the extra £120 million debt against other assets but they are unable to do this. This is because the other assets they seperately "own" are also highly leveraged. One has more difficulty with this more than the other (not sure which) but even if they held other assets they could secure the debt against it's doubtful they would be willing to do this anyway.
The banks however have given them 2 options.
1 - sell the club for a greater sum than the debts. (Geroge wanted to but Tom doesn't so this has basically been ruled out, buyers seem to have gone to ground as well due to the current economic situation)
2 - run the club at a trading profit. (Tom's favoured option, George has no option but to go along)
However the rub is that the club is in no position at the moment to run at a trading profit so option 2 requires new revenue coming into the club and a cut in costs. The banks have stated they require assurances how the club will bring about a trading profit before signing the refinancing package.
Officials withing LFC have been told that the extra revenue and savings will have to come from a positive transfer balance and reduced wages.
This will effectively mean that we will become a selling club over the next 2 seasons.
3 Months later Robbie Keane was sold without a replacement brought in, and we all know what happened last summer.....
Right now it's like worrying about a broken leg when you have cancer.
Potentially speaking, puts a whole lotta stuff into perspective...:(
KOPGIRL1971
22-10-09, 13:04
The following is a post from RAOTL from Oct 2008. For those of you who go on there its been bumped on the first page as a reminder of a warning that was given 12 months ago....
3 Months later Robbie Keane was sold without a replacement brought in, and we all know what happened last summer.....
1 season down, 1 to go then, and seeing as no-one was really expecting us to buy any players in january that will take us to the end of the 2nd season, after which our standard chartered sponsorship will kick in and, hopefully by then, our commercial revenues will have dramatically improved again on this year's figures
most important of all, I think, is the need for the team to win something this season, as investors will be more inclined to invest with winners
KOPGIRL1971
22-10-09, 13:16
interesting piece from the telegraph:
Liverpool boardroom is unusually calm despite turmoil on the pitch
With an irony that will not be lost on either of Liverpool's American owners, the on-field meltdown of the last fortnight has come as the club enjoy a period of relative calm in the boardroom.
By Paul Kelso
Published: 8:00AM BST 22 Oct 2009
George Gillett and Tom Hicks-Turmoil on the pitch but unusual calm in the Liverpool boardroom
After an 18-month period in which tensions between Tom Hicks and George Gillett threatened to disrupt the club, the new season has begun with more stability off the field than on it.
While the medium-term fate of Liverpool remains a matter of conjecture, in the short term the owners appear to be working together out of mutual self-interest.
A significant factor in the new sense of boardroom unity is the appointment of Christian Purslow, a financier with no previous experience of football, to the role of managing director.
During the last year of Rick Parry's tenure as chief executive, the club were dysfunctional, with Gillett backing Parry, Hicks publicly trying to remove him and Rafael Benítez appeared to be exploiting the situation to strengthen his position.
Meanwhile the two owners both searched for potential investors who might dilute their co-owner's share or buy them out completely.
Purslow has attempted to pull that process into a coherent single strategy, and has secured the support of both owners. The intention is to attract a consortium of investors to take a minority stake in the club, with the proceeds being used to pay down some of the £230 million debt.
Elimination from the Champions League would not help this process, and would also wipe up to £30 million from the club's bottom line.
Club sources insist it would not be ruinous, however, as budgets have been drawn up on a conservative basis that does not assume qualification for the group stage.
It would not help, though, and such a major blow to the bottom line could be enough to unsettle a boardroom that, so far this season, has been uncharacteristically calm.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=688108&cc=5739
Keith Harris is regarded as the No.1 mover and shaker on football club takeovers, coming close last year to pulling off a Middle East deal to buy Liverpool, so there can be few greater authorities on the current crisis gripping Anfield.
Keith Harris: Takeover specialist has twice come close to finding a buyer for Liverpool
The boss of high flying City firm Seymour Pierce spoke to ESPN Soccernet about the situation gripping the giant Premier League club on the eve of their critical clash with Manchester United at Anfield on Sunday.
Investment bank Seymour Pierce's Harris told ESPN Soccernet: "Liverpool is one of the best football brands in the world - but it is currently suffering.
"Liverpool finds it hard to come near to its main rivals in the Premier League because it doesn't have the matchday attendance to compete at the highest level. Anfield is limited to 42,000 and without the stadium source of revenue it is not able to fund investment in the team that is required by all top clubs in this highly competitive climate.
"Liverpool requires further investment in the team to compete, and for that reason it would benefit from new owners who could invest and give the club the backing to build the new stadium that it needs."
No one knows better the degree of difficulty in pulling off a takeover at Anfield. Harris brokered a bid from a Kuwaiti investor, which had an excellent opportunity to take Liverpool a stage further with big investment from the Middle East. The Kuwaiti offer followed closely on the heels of an approach from Dubai's DIC which ultimately was topped by the bid which saw Hicks and Gillett assume joint control.
Harris, the former Football League chairman, says: "We came very close in July last year when the Kuwaitis pulled out at the last minute.
"The problem at Liverpool is actually straightforward - a short-term debt level which restricts its capacity to build a new stadium and invest further to enhance the playing squad. It is hampered like many other clubs by the continuing difficulty of raising money in the world's capital markets.
"Liverpool has not had a sustained period of success for many, many years. Yes, they won the Champions League a few years ago, but the club needs a sustained period of success, and that is not happening."
The fans turned on Rafa Benitez in the Champions League defeat by Lyon, but George Gillett has issued a statement backing the manager, although that has not yet been endorsed by Tom Hicks.
Earlier this week, ESPN Soccernet revealed the financial importance of qualifying each season for the Champions League, suggesting that without the competition's £30m bounty underpinning the clubs interest repayments, there would instantly be a crisis situation.
No one at Anfield would have envisaged that the team that nearly won the title last season would now be languishing in eighth place, with little prospect of winning the title, and more significantly from a financial point of view, threatened with the prospect of not finishing in the top four.
Such factors appear to make the clash with Manchester United a make-or-break encounter of enormous importance.
KOPGIRL1971
22-10-09, 16:49
http://tomkinstimes.com/2009/10/my-day-with-crisis-hit-benitez/
foreverred-1973
23-10-09, 07:39
US businessman Kraft says he might buy Liverpool 'in the right situation'
New England Patriots owner came close to taking over in 2005
Kraft backs Premier League salary cap to increase competition
Jamie Jackson
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 22 October 2009 22.30 BST
Article history
Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, celebrates after winning Super Bowl XXXIX in February 2005. Photograph: Jed Jacobsohn/Getty Images
Robert Kraft, the American businessman who came close to buying Liverpool in 2005, has said he is still interested in taking over the club. Kraft says he would be willing to buy out George Gillett and Tom Hicks "in the right situation".
However, the 68-year-old, who owns the New England Patriots NFL franchise and the New England Revolution soccer team, still has deep reservations about the lack of a salary cap in the Premier League and warned he would not throw money away if he did take over at Anfield.
When asked if he was still open to buying Liverpool, Kraft said: "Yeah, in the right situation. I love the game. I've said this before – I love competing with fair management – how well I can manage against you. [But] I don't like losing and at some point it's not economic, people just throwing money at it.
"I wanted to do the deal up there but in the end we only go into business ventures where we think we can compete at a high level. Because we like winning, and we like to win consistently," he said, before again stating he might still buy the club. "Maybe one day."
Kraft lost out to Gillett and Hicks four years ago but the pair have endured a troubled tenure, in which they have struggled to source fresh finance and been plagued by personal differences as well as criticism from fans. Less than two weeks ago their disharmony was again made public when Hicks said he would not veto Gillett if he wanted to sell his 50% share.
Kraft also offered veiled criticism of the Premier League's lack of competitiveness. "The highest 10 watched programmes on regular television are NFL games. The highest rated programme in the history of cable TV was Green Bay [Packers] playing Minnesota [Vikings, this season]. Two small markets and teams that captured over 20m people in America on cable.
"Why? Because there is competitive balance and parity, and fans in every community feel they have a shot. I don't want to be in a situation where someone is spending £100m more on the payroll. Not that that wins, but then your fans are upset. So if there was some sort of salary cap, maybe with some special ways of doing things for designated players or different things then I think we'd have an interest."
Kraft was clear that a 39th Premier League game would be a success in America: "Oh, absolutely. We draw 50-60,000 people when we have two teams playing an exhibition game. That would be smart. That's the sport of the world. And this is the best media market in the world."
foreverred-1973
23-10-09, 08:28
Robert Kraft turned off Liverpool bid by football's money war
It is fair to surmise that Robert Kraft, the American billionaire with designs on Liverpool, is something of an Anglophile.
By Oliver Brown in Foxborough, Massachusetts
Published: 7:19PM BST 22 Oct 2009
Playing fair: Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, believes the flood of money into the English Premier League makes it unfair Photo: GETTY IMAGES
On the walls of his vast office at Gillette Stadium, near Boston, the home of his New England Patriots, hang pictures of himself with Elton John, while he talks proudly of how next summer will mark his 36th consecutive visit to the Championships at Wimbledon.
But Kraft is not merely interested in English sport for its quaint annual rituals. The man who amassed a fortune from the paper industry and whose shrewd direction helped steer the Patriots to three Super Bowls in four seasons, claims to have the motivation and financial muscle to replicate that success in the Premier League – specifically, with Liverpool.
NFL looks at more regular-season matches in UK This weekend he is in London to watch his beloved 'Pats' play the Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Wembley, but with one eye trained on the uncertainty paralysing Anfield.
Kraft has been linked more than once to the purchase of George Gillett's 50 per cent share of Liverpool and was keen to invest as far back as 2005, making an inquiry to buy the club before he found himself outbid by Dubai International Capital.
The landscape for a repeat approach has since shifted dramatically, mainly as a result of the Middle Eastern investment, at which he takes a thinly-veiled sideswipe.
A benefactor with a reputation for frugality – the Patriots regularly come in below the NFL salary cap – Kraft has no appetite to take the plunge and then be blown out of the water by Sheikh Mansour's petrodollars.
"One good thing about the NFL is that there is competitive balance and parity. Fans in every community feel they have a shot. I don't want to be in a situation where someone is spending £100 million more than I am on the payroll. I love the game of football but I like competing when it's fair. It doesn't make economic sense when people are just throwing money at it."
Liverpool fans have cause to regret Kraft's reservations, for he appears to represent a fine match for their club. Firstly, there is arguably no one to rival him for tapping into the passion of local support: when the Patriots won the first of their three NFL rings under head coach Bill Belichick in 2003, the achievement brought 1.5 million people on to the streets of Boston, a city of 600,000.
He perceives the same potential in Merseyside. He would have rewarded Kopites' fanatical loyalty, he assures, and would have cut through the interminable wrangle to fund a new stadium.
Secondly, Kraft would be able to soften relations between the Liverpool board and Rafael Benítez, the embattled manager, given Gillett's opposition to the Spaniard's control of transfer policy. On New England team matters, Kraft is known for delegating unquestioningly to Belichick.
But the alliance is never likely to come to pass, as long as Kraft sets his unfeasible condition of a spending cap. Sometimes, too, his parsimony proves unpopular.
In part, his fondness for Liverpool stems from the fact that Steve Nicol, manager of the Kraft-owned Major League Soccer franchise New England Revolution, had such a celebrated playing career there, but followers of the Revolution regularly complain about his failure to spend money.
All Liverpool supporters can hope for is that Kraft's reacquaintance with England, albeit in an NFL capacity, rekindles his obsession with the sporting culture.
"I've been to Ladies' Day at Ascot, dressed in a top hat and tails and feeling like a turkey. But I've never been to Wembley. That's the 'Mecca'; what a thrill it is to be going to an institution that is very special to the English people.
"We don't have anything in America that's a 'Mecca'. I don't think the players fully understand it, but they will when they're there."
foreverred-1973
23-10-09, 09:25
Owen's sins are nothing compared to those of Hicks and Gillett
Tony Barrett
Given his current allegiances, Michael Owen will have few friends in the Anfield crowd on Sunday. Selling your soul to the Red Devils is an unforgivable act as far as the Liverpool fans are concerned and there is more chance of Sir Alex Ferguson being guest of honour at the next meeting of the referees association as there is of Owen being given a warm welcome by the Kop.
He can, though, count on a hearty handshake from at least one person at Anfield. It is a little known fact that Owen enjoys a warm relationship with George Gillett, Liverpool’s co-owner, with the pair having spent time getting to know one another when the Manchester United man was in Colorado, where Gillett lives, receiving treatment from renowned football injury specialist Dr Richard Stedman.
Gillett has actually been keen to see Owen brought back to Liverpool in the past, although his desire for that to happen was not rewarded. At least they will be reunited on Sunday, though, as two of the three most unpopular men at Anfield, with Tom Hicks edging out long-term Kop boo-boy Gary Neville to join the much disliked duo.
Owen will inevitably be baited mercilessly with fans planning to make their feelings towards him known whether he starts the game or not. Should he be named as a substitute and asked to warm up in front of the Kop then the probability is that he will be confronted with the kind of venom that no other former Liverpool player has had to endure on a visit to his old club.
So far, so understandable. If a Liverpool legend signs for Manchester United then he can expect little else than a swift fall from grace in the eyes of those who once worshipped them no matter how great his previous achievements. The casual indifference that Owen was greeted with when wearing the black and white stripes of Newcastle will be replaced with a stream of verbal abuse. Owen knows it and – given his renowned single mindedness – he is probably prepared for it.
But no matter how great an act of treachery Owen is guilty of in the view of the Liverpool fans, his “sins” against the club pale into comparison compared to those of his one-time dining partner, Gillett. The ownership regime of the American, and his compatriot Hicks, has been nothing short of disastrous and it threatens to undermine everything that Liverpool has ever stood for as a club and put their very future at risk. :mad:
They bought the club when it had just £60million of debt and have since more than quadrupled it, putting Liverpool in a situation in which they have to make crippling annual interest payments of around £30m a year just to keep their banking creditors happy. They have failed to deliver a stadium despite promises from Gillett that “a spade would go in the ground” of Stanley Park within 60 days of their takeover in February 2007. They have undermined the manager’s position by attempting to coax Jurgen Klinsmann to Anfield behind Rafa Benitez’s back and ruined any chance of the Spaniard completing Liverpool’s journey from also-rans to champions by making him balance the books in the summer, the very time when investment in playing staff could have reaped huge dividends.
Owen, by contrast, has simply signed for Liverpool’s biggest rivals and the only threat he will carry to the club that once paid his wages will be on the pitch and contained to the 90 minutes of Sunday’s game (or however long is played should United find themselves behind). In all likelihood, he will be the biggest target of the Liverpool supporters ire but the fact remains that no matter how disloyal he is perceived to be, it is the American duo who will be in the directors box wearing club ties who are the enemy within and that should not be forgotten in the rush to pillory Owen.
KOPGIRL1971
23-10-09, 09:39
Most people know how I felt about owen, and the fact I can't really blame him for signing for them if we didn't want him ourselves, but the insensitive way he has handled himself in public since he joined the mancs has seen every last ounce of support I had for him disappear. he deserves everything he gets, let's hope that doesn't include a goal or more
Normally, I woudn't think he'd make it onto the pitch on Sunday, as he has only played at Anfield twice since he left us, all the other times he has been 'injured'
but ferguson is a crafty old get and I wouldn't put it past him to either start him in order to make the atmosphere extra difficult, or bring him on as an impact sub when he might have the chance to grab the winner, God forbid. Either way, I think we will be seeing him play against us.
What I don't want to see is Jamie Carragher and Gerrard making a fuss of him, they can do that in the dressing room but not when they are lining up, it would not reflect the treason the majority of fans see his actions as
NinJaSkrtel
23-10-09, 10:54
from USA Today:
Hicks' officials meet with potential Rangers owner
ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) — Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks is moving closer to selling the Texas Rangers after team officials met with a potential new owner.
Houston businessman Jim Crane and his advisers took a tour of Rangers Ballpark and met Tuesday with officials from the baseball and business operations of the team, including president Nolan Ryan and general manager Jon Daniels.
The meetings were "routine and part of the normal due diligence process," Hicks Sports Group said in a statement.
The holding company that owns the Rangers and the NHL's Dallas Stars defaulted on about $525 million in loans earlier this year and Hicks has said he is willing to sell his controlling interest in the baseball team.
Hicks is also seeking investors to reduce the debt in Premier League club Liverpool, which he co-owns with American businessman George Gillett Jr., although he wants to retain his controlling interest.
Hicks and Gillett bought Liverpool in 2007 for 174 million pounds (then $343 million), taking on liabilities totaling 44.8 million pounds.
The co-owners have been criticized by fans for burdening the club with debt, which currently stands at 245 million pounds, while failing to build a promised new stadium.
----
I report this for continuity's sake, as I can't see lfc benefiting in any way from this sale
so if he owes $525 million ( rough 350 million quid ) there and 245 million here, how the freak are we supposed to expect investment.
He should be forced to sell.
KOPGIRL1971
23-10-09, 21:53
Exclusive: Liverpool Supporters Union Label 'Liars' Hicks & Gillett As Sole Culprits For Reds' Rut
22-Oct-2009 7:59:30 PM
It happens quite a lot nowadays in Liverpool. A man (or woman) walks into a room, bearing a small pin-badge on their clothing, and instantly gets the thumbs-up. The badge may be understated, but its emblem, and what it stands for, is most definitely not.
Arms outstretched, with a red scarf around his neck, Bill Shankly is captured forever in his most famous pose. It could not be a more apt symbol for the supporters' union which is keeping his name alive at Liverpool Football Club.
The Spirit of Shankly was formed in January 2008 in the Sandon pub, a stone's throw away from Anfield. Over 350 supporters crammed into the venue - the birthplac of Liverpool FC - that night, disillusioned at the direction in which their beloved club was heading. The UK had its first football supporters union.
Today, the Spirit of Shankly boasts 3,500 paid members, a figure that is increasing by the week. The group holds quarterly meetings to update members of progress and is coordinating numerous campaigns aimed at ousting the club's controversial co-owners, George Gillett and Tom Hicks.
Paul Gardner, the group's Community Liaison and Regeneration Officer, is one voice that aims to be heard in this current mini-crisis at Anfield, which came to a head with a fourth consecutive loss at home to Lyon. Not only did this throw Champions League qualification up in the air, but it also gave Rafa's current crop the unenviable distinction of having equalled a 22-and-a-half-year-old losing streak.
Speaking exclusively to Goal.com UK, Gardner is in no doubt of who is to blame for the current plight at Anfield.
"There are two culprits - Gillett and Hicks," he says. "They are the ones who put us into £245 million worth of debt, promised us a stadium which has not been built, took money out of the club to pay for their own expenses, and lied to us constantly."
Gardner and his group plan a demonstration march to Anfield from the supporters' club this Sunday, ahead of the Reds' mammoth encounter with Manchester United. It is a fixture that Hicks is scheduled to attend, and Gardner expects the demonstration to attract significant support from the Liverpool fans.
"We are asking fans to email Gillett and Hicks," he explains, "to let them know how we feel and how we went them out of the club. There will be a march from the supporters club (on Breck Road) at 12 noon ahead of the Manchester United game on Sunday.
"We are calling all Liverpool fans - whether you have a ticket or not - to come down and support us. This is another chance to make our voices heard and help put more pressure on the owners to sell up."
The Spirit of Shankly is eager to stress, however, that their efforts to rid the club of its American co-owners is not simply down to a personal distaste for the duo. They have the club's wider interests at heart, and Gardner speaks of much longer-term aims for Liverpool.
"The club's identity, community links and fan interaction is what Liverpool is all about," he says. "Without those, we are just another club. We are special and unique for those reasons, and all we want is suitable owners who will not load our club with debt, or treat us as a plaything with a business model which is unsustainable.
"Obviously, the ultimate aim of the Spirit of Shankly is a fan-ownership situation. This is something that we, and the people at ShareLiverpool (a scheme which encourages Liverpool fans to pledge £500 in a bid to buy the club as part of a fan's trust) are striving for."
Some may have derided the efforts of groups such as Spirit of Shankly or indeed ShareLiverpool as pie-in-the-sky, but there is a steely determination about the way in which Gardner and his team are going about their business, and they hope for a breakthrough sooner rather than later.
"We want the owners out now," says Gardner, "We cannot afford to just sit back and wait until they get bored, or into too much trouble. That is why we are arranging our banners and our marches and all the other things. If we sit back and wait, we could be another Leeds or Newcastle, in administration and falling down the leagues. That is not an option we even wish to think about."
The Manchester United fixture on Sunday already feels like the most important in Rafa Benitez's five years on Merseyside. For the Spirit of Shankly group, and their American nemesis, it is just the latest round in an ongoing battle, one which the supporters' union expects to win.
Neil Jones, Goal.com UK
KOPGIRL1971
25-10-09, 12:18
Back to Google News
Liverpool chief stands by Benitez
(UKPA) – 1 hour ago
Liverpool managing director Christian Purslow insists Rafael Benitez's job is safe even if the Reds do not win the Premier League this season.
He also says Anfield stars Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard are not for sale at any price.
"The most important aspect of the football club I was involved in in my first week in the job was securing Rafa for another five years. You only have to look at the Premiership era and our two major competitors in the last 10 to 12 years to see the benefits of longevity," Purslow told BBC Radio Five Live's Sportsweek programme.
"Liverpool Football Club is on a long-term journey and that journey is to be the most successful club, firstly in our country and secondly in the world and you don't do that by worrying about short-term results. You do that by having long-term plans centring on the people and the strategy. Rafa Benitez is absolutely central to that plan.
"The core of the team which won 86 points last season remains intact with some excellent additions so I have every reason to believe we can perform at that level this season over the season."
To the direct question of whether he would guarantee Benitez's position was safe even if the club did not win the league he said: "Yes I would."
Purslow also insisted Spanish striker Torres had no clauses in his contract which allowed him to leave Anfield if they did not qualify for the Champions League.
He said: "Fernando signed an extension to his contract this summer. He has a five-year contract. He is a crucial leader in our team. He loves Liverpool Football Club. He has been fantastic around the place. Fernando Torres and Liverpool Football Club go together and I believe they will go together for the length of his career."
To the question that he was not for sale at any price, Purslow replied: "Correct."
The same, he insisted, went for Gerrard, while he said Argentina midfielder Javier Mascherano, whose future has been the subject of speculation, was also happy at the club.
Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
Investors within 6 months according to purslow. Its time to silence the media ASSES and start killing Man U
I-SEE-red-PEOPLE
25-10-09, 13:41
Investors within 6 months according to purslow. Its time to silence the media ASSES and start killing Man U
he made out they werent selling shares so investors must just mean extra sponsorship deals, nothing major just a helping hand for G+H to keep hold of the club and rape it of its chance to be competitive so they can line their own pockets. SCUM.
petefarrelly
25-10-09, 19:37
What does this mean (issuing new shares?) does these mean that hicks and gillette wont get anything and if someone wants to buy the debt we end up with 3x 50% owners:confused:
foreverred-1973
26-10-09, 09:24
Sam Wallace: No end in sight to the desolate walk through Anfield of broken dreams
Not one resident opposed the government's compulsory purchase orders in Anfield
Back Rockfield Road, Liverpool, L4, should be one of the most evocative football streets in Britain because, as you walk down it, the most famous piece of any stadium anywhere in England looms into view. That is The Kop, more than 100 years old, sitting practically at the end of the street.
It is one of those streets that you see in old black-and-white pictures of kids playing football in roads free of cars. To the right are roads of Victorian terraces and to the left are the backs of the grander houses of Rockfield Road. But supporters walking down Back Rockfield Road do not stop to admire the view. Rather, they keep their heads down and quicken their step. The area is virtually destitute.
I walked around there before the Champions League match against Lyons last week and stopped to read the notice in a small public garden, on a patch of wasteland near The Kop where the television vans are parked. The garden was planted by the children of the Anfield-Breckfield community and the sign asked politely for people to treat the flower beds with respect. It was a poignant oasis of order among so much urban decay.
The area north of the Anfield stadium, arguably the greatest, most authentic football stadium in the country, is in a desperate state. There are families living in streets where the majority of houses are boarded up and anyone playing street football would have to be careful of the security spikes that line the walls around abandoned houses. It is not a vision of Britain in 2009 you will find in any tourist guidebook.
The question of blame for this awful mess on the doorstep of one of our most famous clubs is a delicate one. The city of Liverpool has had to cope with community disintegration on a huge scale, born of a population decline from 850,000 at its peak to 430,000 now, driven largely by unemployment. But one thing is certain. The longer the development of Liverpool's new stadium drags on, the slower the regeneration.
The lives of the people who live around Back Rockfield Road are not the responsibility of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the co-owners of Liverpool. But these two Americans, who once promised a gleaming new 60,000-capacity stadium on nearby Stanley Park, should know that their failure to make good on that promise has a direct effect on some of the least fortunate people in the city.
Many Liverpool fans marched in protest against Hicks and Gillett yesterday and, for some of them, the issue of the new stadium relates only to their team, its success and the funds available to Rafael Benitez. But this is a great club of the people – a club with a conscience – and most Liverpool supporters will also recognise how crucial the new stadium is to the people who live around it.
One man who has never been afraid to remind Hicks and Gillett of their wider responsibilities is Peter Kilfoyle, the Labour MP for Walton whose constituency encompasses Anfield. He is adamant that a new stadium, as promised by Hicks and Gillett, is the area's best chance of a revival. It would encourage investment, perhaps even new hotels. At the very least it would put an end to the shame of fans approaching Anfield through some of the worst streets in the country.
Kilfoyle tabled a Commons motion in June to try to prevent the nationalised Royal Bank of Scotland refinancing Hicks and Gillett's debt. He hoped it would force them to sell up. But RBS went ahead anyway. "I'm not putting all the problems down to Liverpool football club, but there would be a lot of answers if they got their act together over the stadium," Kilfoyle told me this week.
He met Christian Purslow, the new managing director at Liverpool, for the first time 10 days ago and does not believe that anything will change with the stadium until the club is sold. "I have watched various dignitaries of the club over the years try to come to terms with the area," Kilfoyle said. "They seem puzzled by how the club ended up surrounded by destitution. But maybe that tells you more about football these days."
It is telling that when the government regeneration initiative, New Heartlands, embarked on compulsory purchase orders in Anfield, not one resident opposed them, unlike in the Edge Lane area of Liverpool where many locals fought to the bitter end. That would suggest that people around Anfield are as desperate to leave the past behind as the football club round the corner are to recreate their former glories.
The financial mess at Liverpool has many victims: the most obvious are the supporters who are watching as their club is squabbled over by its co-owners. But indirectly there are others too, others who are less able to organise themselves to protest.
On Tuesday night, many Liverpool fans were as generous as ever, waiting behind to applaud Lyons' fans and players for their last-minute victory. As those French fans streamed out on to Anfield Road, giddy with excitement at the victory, they will have reflected on the perfect night of European football.
If they walked past The Kop to catch a cab back into town they might have glimpsed the burnt-out roof of one house on Rockfield Road, a reminder that not everyone in Anfield has their hopes and aspirations measured out in the results on the pitch. For those people, Anfield is not just a place they visit for home games.
foreverred-1973
26-10-09, 09:26
Liverpool fans march against George Gillett and Tom Hicks• Liverpool supporters protest against Americans' stewardship
• Thousands march from supporters' club to Kop
Liverpool fans protest against the Club's owners prior to the Premier League match against Manchester United at Anfield. Photograph: Michael Regan/Getty Images
Thousands of Liverpool's supporters have staged a demonstration against the club's owners before their Premier League match against Manchester United at Anfield today.
They were protesting at the way the club is being run under their US co-owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks, their concerns heightened by the team losing four games in a row, as well as the level of debt accrued under Gillet and Hicks.
They gathered at the Liverpool Supporters' Club on Lower Breck Road and marched to the Albert pub outside the Kop.
Liverpool went into the match already nine points behind the league leaders Chelsea and lost at home to Lyon in the Champions League in midweek.
So much for protests having a negative effect ey! ;)
And given the result of the match, who would deny SOS the right to march before every game!? :scarf
YANKS OUT
KOPGIRL1971
26-10-09, 09:50
Sam Wallace: No end in sight to the desolate walk through Anfield of broken dreams
Not one resident opposed the government's compulsory purchase orders in Anfield
Back Rockfield Road, Liverpool, L4, should be one of the most evocative football streets in Britain because, as you walk down it, the most famous piece of any stadium anywhere in England looms into view. That is The Kop, more than 100 years old, sitting practically at the end of the street.
It is one of those streets that you see in old black-and-white pictures of kids playing football in roads free of cars. To the right are roads of Victorian terraces and to the left are the backs of the grander houses of Rockfield Road. But supporters walking down Back Rockfield Road do not stop to admire the view. Rather, they keep their heads down and quicken their step. The area is virtually destitute.
I walked around there before the Champions League match against Lyons last week and stopped to read the notice in a small public garden, on a patch of wasteland near The Kop where the television vans are parked. The garden was planted by the children of the Anfield-Breckfield community and the sign asked politely for people to treat the flower beds with respect. It was a poignant oasis of order among so much urban decay.
The area north of the Anfield stadium, arguably the greatest, most authentic football stadium in the country, is in a desperate state. There are families living in streets where the majority of houses are boarded up and anyone playing street football would have to be careful of the security spikes that line the walls around abandoned houses. It is not a vision of Britain in 2009 you will find in any tourist guidebook.
The question of blame for this awful mess on the doorstep of one of our most famous clubs is a delicate one. The city of Liverpool has had to cope with community disintegration on a huge scale, born of a population decline from 850,000 at its peak to 430,000 now, driven largely by unemployment. But one thing is certain. The longer the development of Liverpool's new stadium drags on, the slower the regeneration.
The lives of the people who live around Back Rockfield Road are not the responsibility of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the co-owners of Liverpool. But these two Americans, who once promised a gleaming new 60,000-capacity stadium on nearby Stanley Park, should know that their failure to make good on that promise has a direct effect on some of the least fortunate people in the city.
Many Liverpool fans marched in protest against Hicks and Gillett yesterday and, for some of them, the issue of the new stadium relates only to their team, its success and the funds available to Rafael Benitez. But this is a great club of the people – a club with a conscience – and most Liverpool supporters will also recognise how crucial the new stadium is to the people who live around it.
One man who has never been afraid to remind Hicks and Gillett of their wider responsibilities is Peter Kilfoyle, the Labour MP for Walton whose constituency encompasses Anfield. He is adamant that a new stadium, as promised by Hicks and Gillett, is the area's best chance of a revival. It would encourage investment, perhaps even new hotels. At the very least it would put an end to the shame of fans approaching Anfield through some of the worst streets in the country.
Kilfoyle tabled a Commons motion in June to try to prevent the nationalised Royal Bank of Scotland refinancing Hicks and Gillett's debt. He hoped it would force them to sell up. But RBS went ahead anyway. "I'm not putting all the problems down to Liverpool football club, but there would be a lot of answers if they got their act together over the stadium," Kilfoyle told me this week.
He met Christian Purslow, the new managing director at Liverpool, for the first time 10 days ago and does not believe that anything will change with the stadium until the club is sold. "I have watched various dignitaries of the club over the years try to come to terms with the area," Kilfoyle said. "They seem puzzled by how the club ended up surrounded by destitution. But maybe that tells you more about football these days."
It is telling that when the government regeneration initiative, New Heartlands, embarked on compulsory purchase orders in Anfield, not one resident opposed them, unlike in the Edge Lane area of Liverpool where many locals fought to the bitter end. That would suggest that people around Anfield are as desperate to leave the past behind as the football club round the corner are to recreate their former glories.
The financial mess at Liverpool has many victims: the most obvious are the supporters who are watching as their club is squabbled over by its co-owners. But indirectly there are others too, others who are less able to organise themselves to protest.
On Tuesday night, many Liverpool fans were as generous as ever, waiting behind to applaud Lyons' fans and players for their last-minute victory. As those French fans streamed out on to Anfield Road, giddy with excitement at the victory, they will have reflected on the perfect night of European football.
If they walked past The Kop to catch a cab back into town they might have glimpsed the burnt-out roof of one house on Rockfield Road, a reminder that not everyone in Anfield has their hopes and aspirations measured out in the results on the pitch. For those people, Anfield is not just a place they visit for home games.
Thanks for posting this foreverred, makes for sober reading, although we must be careful not to attach too much responsibility onto the club, as the plight of the local residents is down to the local council and central government for lack of investment over the decades.
This is not to say we shouldn't try to embrace the regeneration process going on in the area, but to have it dependent on the building of our new stadium is fraught with difficulty, none more so than the recession which has set construction back indefinitely.
You have to feel for the people though. I lived in poor and shabby areas when I was growing up in Edge Hill and Toxteth and it's not pleasant, but I think the area around Anfield is a step beyond that and so much worse.
connorpaisley
26-10-09, 10:09
Thanks for posting this foreverred, makes for sober reading, although we must be careful not to attach too much responsibility onto the club, as the plight of the local residents is down to the local council and central government for lack of investment over the decades.
This is not to say we shouldn't try to embrace the regeneration process going on in the area, but to have it dependent on the building of our new stadium is fraught with difficulty, none more so than the recession which has set construction back indefinitely.
You have to feel for the people though. I lived in poor and shabby areas when I was growing up in Edge Hill and Toxteth and it's not pleasant, but I think the area around Anfield is a step beyond that and so much worse.
That's quite true KG I live in anfield and used to live in venmore street and when selling the house to the council 3 YEARS ago I was told that the regeneration of anfield was going ahead with or without the new stadium. I for one would like to know whats happened to the money promised for this regeneration because it took 2 1/2 years for my old house to be bulldozed, and phase 1 hasn't even started yet by the looks of it. The people in charge at the Council are useless starting with Warren Bradley a lifelong blue and season ticket holder who can't even come up with a viable option within the city boundary to their proposed new ground in kirkby
Spoken like a true politician, everything going wrong in Anfield and Liverpool as a whole is down to LFC, he says about speaking to various dignateries of the club over a period of time, and done what himself exactly ????
KOPGIRL1971
26-10-09, 10:46
That's quite true KG I live in anfield and used to live in venmore street and when selling the house to the council 3 YEARS ago I was told that the regeneration of anfield was going ahead with or without the new stadium. I for one would like to know whats happened to the money promised for this regeneration because it took 2 1/2 years for my old house to be bulldozed, and phase 1 hasn't even started yet by the looks of it. The people in charge at the Council are useless starting with Warren Bradley a lifelong blue and season ticket holder who can't even come up with a viable option within the city boundary to their proposed new ground in kirkby
Maybe yankfield or someone else on the forum can tell us more about this, with not living in liverpool anymore I am somewhat removed from the ins and outs of the saga
KOPGIRL1971
26-10-09, 17:43
The bit about Rafa we know about, but wasn't sure the investment in 6 months was fresh news or not, so have posted:
Liverpool fans assured over new investors, Benitez
By ROB HARRIS (AP) – 3 hours ago
LIVERPOOL, England — Liverpool fans got good news on and off the field Sunday.
First managing director Christian Purslow said the team will have new investors within six months and that manager Rafa Benitez's job is secure. Then the gloom that had been engulfing the club was further lifted by a 2-0 victory over Manchester United.
A run of four straight losses before the win had intensified the pressure on American co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr. to spend money to strengthen the squad.
Before the match, around 1,000 fans chanted "Yanks out" as they protested outside Anfield against Hicks and Gillett Jr., who were on a rare joint visit.
Hicks, who wildly celebrated Sunday's first goal by Fernando Torres, and Gillett went public last month with their search for new equity after a Saudi Arabian prince said he wanted to buy a stake in the 18-time English champions.
And Purslow assured fans an injection of cash will be arriving soon.
"There has been a huge amount of interest in the club from some extremely wealthy and expert investors, but it will take three to six months to pull that together," Purslow said. "It means there will be new investment into the football club. Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett have no plans to sell their shares. We will be issuing new equity to new investors, broadening our ownership."
Hicks also owns the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars. Gillett recently sold the Montreal Canadiens but is still a majority owner of NASCAR's Richard Petty Motorsports team.
Despite the recent poor run of results in the Champions League and Premier League, Benitez is still seen as the manager to deliver the club's first English championship since 1990.
Benitez signed a new five-year contract in March despite winning only two major trophies since arriving in 2004 — the Champions League in 2005 and 2006 FA Cup.
"Liverpool Football Club is on a long-term journey and that journey is to be the most successful club, firstly in our country and secondly in the world, and you don't do that by worrying about short-term results," Purslow said. "You do that by having long-term plans centering on the people and the strategy. Rafa Benitez is absolutely central to that plan."
Purslow said neither of the team's pivotal players, Torres and Steven Gerrard, were for sale at any price.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
I see there is another thread on this but thought it would be good to add it to this one to continue the story, as others have said elsewhere, Spurs can raise millions and get on with building a stadium, retail, hotels etc but we cant as prices are too high and the financial sector is too unstable ? Their plans seem very similar to ours but maybe they live on a different planet...
From Sky Sports;
Tottenham's new stadium plans have moved a step closer after the club confirmed that the Northumberland Development Project planning application has been submitted to the London Borough of Haringey.
The ambitious project is to be delivered on the current site and adjacent land, thus ending any concerns about a move out of the Borough while providing major regeneration of the area.
A change to final plans sees one major improvement to the stadium design - the inclusion of a single-tier stand.
The stand is reminiscent of the steep Sudtribune at Borussia Dortmund's Westfalenstadion, which accounts for 25,000 of the stadium's 67,000 seats.
Spurs, who have played home games at White Hart Lane since 1899, hope to move into the new ground within five years.
The new stadium will house a 56,250 capacity, with the promise that spectators will find themselves closer to the pitch than at any other comparable stadium in the UK.
Spurs chairman Daniel Levy said: "The submission of the application is a hugely important step for the club.
"This is a multi-million pound investment in the area which brings with it housing, retail, a hotel, a supermarket, expanded community services and jobs and an exceptional public square. We have designed what will be a vibrant area 365 days a year and not a stadium with dead space surrounding it.
Fan friendly
"Our desire from the outset has been to create a scheme of major benefit for local people and to deliver the most fan-friendly stadium in Europe.
"The inclusion of a new single tier stand combined with a fantastic stadium design demonstrates our absolute commitment to create the most atmospheric stadium for our supporters.
"Every fan will have an exceptional view of the action and will find themselves closer to the pitch than at any other comparable stadium.
"We have also embraced environmental sustainability as part of the plans, delivering a 40% reduction in carbon emissions against current building regulations which will make it one of the best performing of its kind in the UK.
"Tottenham Hotspur is proud of its roots in Haringey and the Northumberland Development Project will act as a powerful catalyst for the uplift of the wider area. We have had an exceptionally positive response to our consultation activities and I am personally delighted to have reached this stage."
KOPGIRL1971
27-10-09, 09:28
just because they've submitted the application doesn't mean it will open in 5 years time though does it?
these things are fraught and take ages to sort
Yes they do but the fact is that they HAVE submitted them and have a plan in place to have the thing built and open inside 5 years whereas our owners are saying they have no plans to build until the worlds financial structure is better, Spurs obviously believe it is in sound enough shape for them to press ahead so im not sure what is different for us when we are in much more need of a new stadium than them and are further down the line in terms of getting the thing off the ground.
KOPGIRL1971
27-10-09, 10:51
Yes they do but the fact is that they HAVE submitted them and have a plan in place to have the thing built and open inside 5 years whereas our owners are saying they have no plans to build until the worlds financial structure is better, Spurs obviously believe it is in sound enough shape for them to press ahead so im not sure what is different for us when we are in much more need of a new stadium than them and are further down the line in terms of getting the thing off the ground.
probably because we may have had a change in ownership by then? or, at least, extra owners (according to what christian purslow said above, which I didn't quite understand about issuing new equity)
For once i'm not having a dig at the owners here, just struggling to understand their comments when other clubs are doing the opposite, Spurs arent the only club pushing forward with a new stadium. New finance im sure will help, certainly if it helps reduce or preferably clear the debt but their point was that the worlds finances were unstable and prices were too high for them to push on with the plans, not that we didnt have the money.I'm sure Spurs etc are borrowing to build and they must believe they will get value for money, surely we will too ?
The owners havent said that when we get investment we will start to build, they said that plans were on hold with no date for them to be started up again, maybe i'm looking at this too simplictically but if the worlds finances and steel (etc) prices were in such a mess then no other business would be looking at spending 400 million plus on something which isnt absolutely necessary ?
maverick02
27-10-09, 13:35
Just an article i read on another forum, Quite an interesting read
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
HICKS + GILLETT: The truth about Liverpool FC's sensationalized debt problem
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 vilification? 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.
maverick02
27-10-09, 13:37
Continued
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-gillett-truth-about-liverpool-fcs.html#ixzz0V8vKtkDK
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nhl/news/story?id=4599725&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines
This guy is poisonous.
Scary how this situation sounds like our own.:mad::mad:
KOPGIRL1971
27-10-09, 21:24
thanks for that great detailed post maverick02. I don't pretend to understand some of it, but the gist of it was that perhaps we are not in as much trouble as is being made out.
Maybe yankfield or someone else on the forum can tell us more about this, with not living in liverpool anymore I am somewhat removed from the ins and outs of the saga
Wossup?.....................Ah ha,
Basically the stalling on regenerating Anfield/Rockfield has had the finger pointed at everyone............although the present stalemate thanks to the Cowboy custodians has been welcomed by a lot of the council leaders as it deflects the flak from their negligence of the last 2 decades....and also helps avoid questions of where the cash that was earmarked[ from Poll Tax and local and national government grants, NWDA etc.] has gone.......
There was even a whisper that Degsy Hatton had spirited it away to set up his property empire in Cyprus........whatever, it seems only Kilfoyle is big enough to keep opening his gob on the subject........
Perhaps that original post could be circulated to our custodians and their cronies.....although they probably couldn`t give a monkeys about the residents in the area,
KOPGIRL re; your post about Purslow,
.........from last nights Echo, by Paul Walker,
`Purslow also said Liverpool are four weeks into a process of raising new equity in the club which could take six months............extremely wealthy and expert investors but will take 3 to 6 months to pull it together.`
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
KOPGIRL1971
27-10-09, 22:09
Wossup?.....................Ah ha,
Basically the stalling on regenerating Anfield/Rockfield has had the finger pointed at everyone............although the present stalemate thanks to the Cowboy custodians has been welcomed by a lot of the council leaders as it deflects the flak from their negligence of the last 2 decades....and also helps avoid questions of where the cash that was earmarked[ from Poll Tax and local and national government grants, NWDA etc.] has gone.......
There was even a whisper that Degsy Hatton had spirited it away to set up his property empire in Cyprus........whatever, it seems only Kilfoyle is big enough to keep opening his gob on the subject........
Perhaps that original post could be circulated to our custodians and their cronies.....although they probably couldn`t give a monkeys about the residents in the area,
thanks yanks, 'ol champagne socialist hatton spiriting it away to the isle of goddesses sounds about right!
seriously, though, it seems like too many people have been unanswerable for too long, and all the while the poor people have had to carry on living there.
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/hicks-gillett-truth-about-liverpool-fcs.html?
KOPGIRL1971
29-10-09, 22:30
thanks for that redbaros, here's somthing from associated press re hicks's texas rangers:
Rangers meet with 3rd potential ownership group
(AP) – 8 hours ago
ARLINGTON, Texas — Former sports agent Dennis Gilbert is the third potential new owner to meet with officials of the Texas Rangers.
Gilbert, now a special adviser for the Chicago White Sox, and his advisers met Wednesday with officials from the Rangers and Hicks Sports Group and toured Rangers Ballpark.
Pittsburgh attorney Chuck Greenberg and Houston businessman Jim Crane, the other potential owners, had meetings last week.
It is unclear if there are more potential investors, or if Gilbert, Greenberg and Crane are the only candidates. A Hicks Sports Group spokeswoman didn't respond to an e-mail seeking clarification. The company's release said there would be no further comment on the process.
Financially strapped owner Tom Hicks said this summer that he was willing to sell controlling interest in the Rangers. He has since indicated that he would like to still be in some position of ownership when the process is completed.
Hicks also owns the NHL's Dallas Stars through Hicks Sports Group and separately co-owns Liverpool of England's Premier League with George Gillett Jr.
Hicks and Gillett have been seeking investors but say they want to keep controlling interest of the soccer team. Liverpool officials said last weekend that the team will have new investors within six months, broadening ownership that will include Hicks and Gillett.
Gilbert is a former minor league player who became successful in insurance, writing policies for some entertainers in California and athletes. He later became an agent, and his clients included George Brett, Barry Bonds, Bobby Bonilla, Mike Piazza and Curt Schilling.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/137283/Deadline-for-Gerrard/
yoh kopgirl...what do you think of the article above??????
KOPGIRL1971
1-11-09, 14:11
thanks navmister, was just going to post the last paragraph of that article so you saved me the trouble
here's something from tribalfootball about potential investors at last week's game against utd that would tie in with this:
Hicks spreads net wide for new Liverpool investment
01.11.09 | tribalfootball.com
READ MORE NEWS ON: Liverpool, Manchester United
Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks had no less than ten parties represented at last week's win over Manchester United in talks about buying into the club.
The News of the World says Hicks evidently was not just in England to watch the football.
He held talks with GE Capital in London as Liverpool pursue the finance to start work on their new stadium.
GE's Europe President Charles Alexander is understood to be a Liverpool fan and has shown tentative interest in the Merseyside club in the past.
Hicks also hosted guests in the Directors' box as the club showcased its assets during the 2-0 win over the Champions.
Among those invited were former Kuwaiti foreign minister Mohammed Jassem Al Saqr, who was pictured with Hicks, plus Hicks' Middle East 'expert' Roy Baker, and Kop legends Kenny Dalglish and Ian Rush. Hicks courted interest from Kuwait last season when Nasser Al Kharafi was in talks to buy a stake in the club.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/137283/Deadline-for-Gerrard/
yoh kopgirl...what do you think of the article above??????
Could that article about RBS putting a squeeze on the cowboys be a pre-emptive strike by them after hearing the news today that the Chancellor is divvying up Northern Rock, RBS etc. following their part in the financial crisis?
http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/platinis_new_measures_could_hurry_liverpool_takeov er_by_kraft/?utm_source=Syndication+Websites&utm_campaign=Syndication+Websites&utm_medium=syndication_websites
While Michel Platini's plans for reform in European soccer may, at first glance, appear a serious threat to English soccer club Liverpool's future in European competition, the club's long-term future may be significantly brighter once the new measures are put in place.
Liverpool were one of the clubs namechecked by Platini when discussing his reforms in an interview with the Daily Telegraph newspaper, saying: "If Liverpool pay €60 million (interest) every year to the banks, it's a lot of money." The Uefa president vowed: "The philosophy to participate in our competitions is you must not spend more money than you receive."
He added: "In Germany, debts are not accepted. In England they are."
Platini also criticised the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea and Inter Milan, saying: "By putting in new rules we will protect the business of [Chelsea owner Roman] Abramovich, [Inter Milan owner] Massimo Moratti or [Manchester United owner Malcolm] Glazer. I am sure they want to sell but who will buy clubs with so many debts? Who would be that stupid?"
However, it is the large section of Liverpool's fans currently dissatisfied with the club's owner, George Gillett and Tom Hicks, who have perhaps the most reason to welcome Platini's reforms. Robert Kraft, one of US sport's most respected team owners, has long expressed an interest in taking control of Liverpool, but has said he will not do so while the financial situation in English soccer remains out of control.
"We don't want to be a business where the wallet determines what kind of player you have," he told the British press in October, before adding to the New York Times: "At some point in the future there's a good possibility we could be involved.
In June, he revealed: "I met with David Moores, who is a fine gentleman, and we came very close to buying it, very close. I wanted to take over Liverpool. If the salary cap was there, we would have done it."
A salary cap may not be on the agenda, but Platini's reforms could be enough to tempt the man who turned the New England Patriots into the NFL's dominant team to put his money where his mouth is.
KOPGIRL1971
3-11-09, 11:52
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/137283/Deadline-for-Gerrard/
yoh kopgirl...what do you think of the article above??????
here is the relevant bit of the above article:
The problems on the pitch come as strong rumours circulate within the city that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia are putting the squeeze on American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett to pay back another chunk of the £240millionstill outstanding from their original borrowing to buy Liverpool, or reduce their asking price and sell the club.
It comes with the Anfield hierarchy trying to drum up interest in a shares issue that would dilute their stake and bring in a minority investor.
Liverpool are seeking £100m for a 25 per cent stake in the club which would go towards paying down the debt and trigger a long-term refinancing arrangement with the banks that could last between three and four years.
A reduced level of debt would allow the much-delayed stadium project to return to the agenda
---
what I think is that RBS have just announced 3,700 job losses in the UK, so a long-term loan arrangement might be the last night on thier minds at the moment!
this bit from the scotsman:
The news came ahead of a statement today by Chancellor Alistair Darling, in which he is expected to announce plans to pump a further £25 billion into RBS and £5bn into Lloyds.
The extra funding is on top of the £37bn put into the banks last year to stop them collapsing. It means the government's share in RBS will rise from 70 per cent to 84 per cent.
The additional funding will come as part of an overall shake-up, which will see assets from both RBS and Lloyds sold off and Northern Rock broken up in the next three to four years.
The move has been forced through following pressure from EU commissioner Neelie Kroes, who has asked for the break-up to boost competition in the UK banking market.
RBS is set to have to sell its insurance offshoots, Churchill, Direct Line and Green Flag. It is also expected to shed 312 RBS-branded branches in England and six NatWest branches in Scotland, as well as part of its investment banking business – more than it first envisaged.
KOPGIRL1971
3-11-09, 11:56
http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/platinis_new_measures_could_hurry_liverpool_takeov er_by_kraft/?utm_source=Syndication+Websites&utm_campaign=Syndication+Websites&utm_medium=syndication_websites
While Michel Platini's plans for reform in European soccer may, at first glance, appear a serious threat to English soccer club Liverpool's future in European competition, the club's long-term future may be significantly brighter once the new measures are put in place.
Liverpool were one of the clubs namechecked by Platini when discussing his reforms in an interview with the Daily Telegraph newspaper, saying: "If Liverpool pay €60 million (interest) every year to the banks, it's a lot of money." The Uefa president vowed: "The philosophy to participate in our competitions is you must not spend more money than you receive."
He added: "In Germany, debts are not accepted. In England they are."
Platini also criticised the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea and Inter Milan, saying: "By putting in new rules we will protect the business of [Chelsea owner Roman] Abramovich, [Inter Milan owner] Massimo Moratti or [Manchester United owner Malcolm] Glazer. I am sure they want to sell but who will buy clubs with so many debts? Who would be that stupid?"
However, it is the large section of Liverpool's fans currently dissatisfied with the club's owner, George Gillett and Tom Hicks, who have perhaps the most reason to welcome Platini's reforms. Robert Kraft, one of US sport's most respected team owners, has long expressed an interest in taking control of Liverpool, but has said he will not do so while the financial situation in English soccer remains out of control.
"We don't want to be a business where the wallet determines what kind of player you have," he told the British press in October, before adding to the New York Times: "At some point in the future there's a good possibility we could be involved.
In June, he revealed: "I met with David Moores, who is a fine gentleman, and we came very close to buying it, very close. I wanted to take over Liverpool. If the salary cap was there, we would have done it."
A salary cap may not be on the agenda, but Platini's reforms could be enough to tempt the man who turned the New England Patriots into the NFL's dominant team to put his money where his mouth is.
The salary cap could still be a problem though. Do you know when these reforms are coming in? If not before the end of the season then they may prove of no use to us, because by that time something will have had to give in our ownership saga and the loan with the banks.
This is what I don't understand, if Robert Kraft wanted to have a wage cap at Liverpool couldn't he still do it? I mean he'd be the boss so what he says goes. Unless he's meaning that he wants every team in the league to have the same wage cap so that it's fair? I'm a fan of that.
The salary cap could still be a problem though. Do you know when these reforms are coming in? If not before the end of the season then they may prove of no use to us, because by that time something will have had to give in our ownership saga and the loan with the banks.
I'm not sure. The thing with Platini is that he can push things through very quickly but I would imagine that it would have a least 2 seasons warning to allow teams to sort stuff out so don't think that it will impact the shysters too much as they will be gone ( hoepfully ) by then.
The thing is, is that if it is brought it, I would imagine that it may devalue the club as to compete in the CL they would have to trim the debt back significantly..........
This is what I don't understand, if Robert Kraft wanted to have a wage cap at Liverpool couldn't he still do it? I mean he'd be the boss so what he says goes. Unless he's meaning that he wants every team in the league to have the same wage cap so that it's fair? I'm a fan of that.
The trouble with a salary cap is that unless it was worldwide, none of the best players would stay or come to england. Why would they, when they could earn an unlimited amount elsewhere?
The trouble with a salary cap is that unless it was worldwide, none of the best players would stay or come to england. Why would they, when they could earn an unlimited amount elsewhere?
Yeah I guess that's the biggest issue. If a cap was introduced I don't think they'd be able to do it on just a national level. It would have to be interantional to have any effect.
And I'm totally for this too. Football is going to become a rich man's game, just like F1, and many of the smaller, less rich leagues and clubs will die. That would be a complete tragedy. For the sake of football and it's future, the salry cap MUST be introduced asap.
I don't think I'm the only one who feels that today's players are paid an obscene amount of money, as the world recession bites and people aren't being fed or housed. Even if the cap was set at £20k per week - they would still be far richer than 99% of the world's population. I mean just how much can they spend?
Robert Kraft is 100% correct in saying that he doesn't want a team or payers who are led by the wallet. I'd play for LFC for free - in fact I'd pay the club! Mind you, with my ability, I'd have to!:D
YNWA
KOPGIRL1971
3-11-09, 14:05
The trouble with a salary cap is that unless it was worldwide, none of the best players would stay or come to england. Why would they, when they could earn an unlimited amount elsewhere?
I thought we were already starting to see this now, one good example is Alonso, he was quoted before he left saying that with the pound sterling so poor against the euro it wasn't so lucrative anymore to come to the Prem, and this would be taken into account when players decide if they want to up sticks from Spain.
I'm all for a pay cap, perhaps with a bonus scheme to reward success, and hard work - Kuyt would be quids in on that one!
I thought we were already starting to see this now, one good example is Alonso, he was quoted before he left saying that with the pound sterling so poor against the euro it wasn't so lucrative anymore to come to the Prem, and this would be taken into account when players decide if they want to up sticks from Spain.
I'm all for a pay cap, perhaps with a bonus scheme to reward success, and hard work - Kuyt would be quids in on that one!
Hi KG, small question for you. Just wondering if you might have negged me for quoting you yesterday. I said good post KG shame about peoples patience with Rafa etc (or something)
Was wondering because you could have thought I meant that about you and got me wrong.
Was a fairly heavy neg which I'm not bothered about, just the nature of what I said which brought about the neg. Having trouble understanding what the problem was by whoever it was.
Was a good post by you anyway KG. :)
kickthetyres
3-11-09, 15:30
OK, so the popular press aren't always seen in the best light, but I reckon Mick Dennis of the Express is pretty damned spot-on with this.......
OWNERS MUST BE YANKED FROM ANFIELD
SACKING Rafa *Benitez would be the easy bit. Then what? Before you answer , remember who would be making the decision.
Dismissing managers is always the simplest part of the process at any football club after dismal results. The chief executive usually does the firing, with a short “sorry it has come to this” speech, but the bullet is fired by whoever is in control of the club.
And though “control” might just be exaggerating the divided direction dictated by Liverpool’s joint owners, it is they who will decide whether Benitez’s troubled tenure will be terminated.
More worryingly for anyone who cares about the club, Thomas Ollis Hicks Snr and George Nield Gillett Jnr would also decide what to do next. Why imagine they would steer a sensible course? They have spent 32 months at the helm, wrestling for control , while the club heads for the rocks.
Benitez has also made mistakes. Of course he has. So does every manager. So does every human.
The first major criticism of Benitez is that he has spent a lot of time and a reasonable amount of money buying dross.
The second is that he has prioritised the Champions League instead of the Premier League. A fair-minded jury would convict him of both charges. But there would be persuasive mitigation. The paucity of most Liverpool players is emphasised by the outstanding ability of Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres, so at least give Benitez credit for those two.
The first act of Benitez as Liverpool manager was to fly to Portugal, where England were competing in Euro 2004, and persuade Gerrard not to join Chelsea.
Three summers later, Benitez bagged the 23-year-old Torres, jumping in when other top clubs were still assessing potential.
And as for the charge of concentrating on Europe, well, again, commend him for what he has achieved.
Under Benitez, Liverpool have played more European matches than they did under Bill Shankly and won more games than they did under Bob Paisley.
They have reached two finals and won one. Benitez had already won the UEFA Cup with Valencia. With his chubby frame and his specs, he is the Great S oprendo of European football.
Now it is said that he needs to pull another rabbit out of the hat tomorrow in Lyon and conjure convincing form in the following couple of domestic fixtures to keep his job – which brings us back to the terrifying prospect of both Hicks and Gillett appointing a successor.
The last time they considered a Rafa replacement, the Americans came up with Jurgen Klinsmann. They did not know who he was, but that did not stop them undermining Benitez by holding talks.
Since then, Klinsmann’s standing has nosedived as dramatically as he used to as a player.
Benitez, for all his flaws and his refusal to acknowledge them, is one of Europe’s elite managers.
And the systemic, structural problems at Liverpool – for instance new debts that are too big and an old ground that is too small – ensure any manager cannot compete with Manchester United, Chelsea and , recently, Manchester City.
Now look at who caused those debts and who have failed to fulfil the pledge of a new stadium.
It is not the manager who needs to change.
KOPGIRL1971
3-11-09, 16:06
Hi KG, small question for you. Just wondering if you might have negged me for quoting you yesterday. I said good post KG shame about peoples patience with Rafa etc (or something)
Was wondering because you could have thought I meant that about you and got me wrong.
Was a fairly heavy neg which I'm not bothered about, just the nature of what I said which brought about the neg. Having trouble understanding what the problem was by whoever it was.
Was a good post by you anyway KG. :)
No, it wasn't me, and because you have Red in your name I am going to rep you to make you feel better :)
when you say it was a fairly neg rep, how can a member do that? I thought it was just a standard neg rep that was deducted. Please tell me more! Unless several people negged you at the same time :eek:
Yeah I guess that's the biggest issue. If a cap was introduced I don't think they'd be able to do it on just a national level. It would have to be interantional to have any effect.
And I'm totally for this too. Football is going to become a rich man's game, just like F1, and many of the smaller, less rich leagues and clubs will die. That would be a complete tragedy. For the sake of football and it's future, the salry cap MUST be introduced asap.
I don't think I'm the only one who feels that today's players are paid an obscene amount of money, as the world recession bites and people aren't being fed or housed. Even if the cap was set at £20k per week - they would still be far richer than 99% of the world's population. I mean just how much can they spend?
Robert Kraft is 100% correct in saying that he doesn't want a team or payers who are led by the wallet. I'd play for LFC for free - in fact I'd pay the club! Mind you, with my ability, I'd have to!:D
YNWA
Agree with most of this, a salary cap MUST be introduced or the bigwigs in England (and other countries for that matter) will continue to dominate. They have a salary cap in American sports and their leagues are far more interesting than the Premiership. They have their big and small teams but NFL for example has coined the phrase 'Any given Sunday' meaning anyone can beat anyone, essentially because financial power can't buy you success, the coach has to be a lot more astute in who he brings in and how he uses them. Football is getting so boring because team like United are already great *spit* and can still bring in Villa, Di Maria, Suarez, Maicon etc. to improve. Hull are rubbish and can only bring in some like Marcus Bent or Marlon Harewood to improve, so the gap widens even more.
However, the best way for a salary cap to work is an overall wage bill. If you have an individual one then you can still sign as many players as you like, therefore teams like United will still have an advantage. However if you set a squad salary cap of say £1m a week, then the bigger teams will have to decide whether to spend a tenth of that on one star player, or spread it out across the whole team, making the ability of the manager a lot more relevant.
I think Platini is a bit of a tool, but this is one thing he has bang on in my opinion.
No, it wasn't me, and because you have Red in your name I am going to rep you to make you feel better :)
when you say it was a fairly neg rep, how can a member do that? I thought it was just a standard neg rep that was deducted. Please tell me more! Unless several people negged you at the same time :eek:
No just by someone with many green squares.
I'm not bothered how many points were lost, just wanted to know what was so wrong with that comment.
Glad you didn't get me wrong KG, you're a good poster. :)
KOPGIRL1971
3-11-09, 16:29
No just by someone with many green squares.
I'm not bothered how many points were lost, just wanted to know what was so wrong with that comment.
Glad you didn't get me wrong KG, you're a good poster. :)
How do you know how many green squares people have got who neg rep you? Even more intriguing!
KOPGIRL1971
3-11-09, 16:32
Agree with most of this, a salary cap MUST be introduced or the bigwigs in England (and other countries for that matter) will continue to dominate. They have a salary cap in American sports and their leagues are far more interesting than the Premiership. They have their big and small teams but NFL for example has coined the phrase 'Any given Sunday' meaning anyone can beat anyone, essentially because financial power can't buy you success, the coach has to be a lot more astute in who he brings in and how he uses them. Football is getting so boring because team like United are already great *spit* and can still bring in Villa, Di Maria, Suarez, Maicon etc. to improve. Hull are rubbish and can only bring in some like Marcus Bent or Marlon Harewood to improve, so the gap widens even more.
However, the best way for a salary cap to work is an overall wage bill. If you have an individual one then you can still sign as many players as you like, therefore teams like United will still have an advantage. However if you set a squad salary cap of say £1m a week, then the bigger teams will have to decide whether to spend a tenth of that on one star player, or spread it out across the whole team, making the ability of the manager a lot more relevant.
I think Platini is a bit of a tool, but this is one thing he has bang on in my opinion.
If everyone has a small budget, Rafa will have a head start on all the top managers
How do you know how many green squares people have got who neg rep you? Even more intriguing!
What he is saying is the more green boxes people have, the more points are deducted when you neg rep someone.
So he had a lot of points deducted from a single neg rep, which indicates that the person who neg repped him has a lot of green boxes, i.e.yourself :)
KOPGIRL1971
3-11-09, 17:01
What he is saying is the more green boxes people have, the more points are deducted when you neg rep someone.
So he had a lot of points deducted from a single neg rep, which indicates that the person who neg repped him has a lot of green boxes, i.e.yourself :)
Well, I didn't know that! The power, the power...
What he is saying is the more green boxes people have, the more points are deducted when you neg rep someone.
So he had a lot of points deducted from a single neg rep, which indicates that the person who neg repped him has a lot of green boxes, i.e.yourself :)
Yup.
Well, I didn't know that! The power, the power...
That's why I thought I'd ask you KG, you're mighty! :p
misterbigstuff
4-11-09, 12:28
[QUOTE=KOPGIRL1971;2574129]I thought we were already starting to see this now, one good example is Alonso, he was quoted before he left saying that with the pound sterling so poor against the euro it wasn't so lucrative anymore to come to the Prem, and this would be taken into account when players decide if they want to up sticks from Spain.
That's true; but what is more lucrative for anyone NOT Spanish; is that if they go to play La Liga they pay a lot less tax than the Spanish players do
I'm all for a pay cap, perhaps with a bonus scheme to reward success
It will not and cannot work; there is no possibility of this happening ever.
I would just forget the idea completely.
What could happen and in my opinion should happen; is that each club should only be able to spend the equivalent of what the club makes per year; which I believe is similar to what Platini is now proposing.
So if LFC makes 20m; they can spend 20m and not a penny more
KOPGIRL1971
4-11-09, 15:08
[QUOTE=KOPGIRL1971;2574129]I thought we were already starting to see this now, one good example is Alonso, he was quoted before he left saying that with the pound sterling so poor against the euro it wasn't so lucrative anymore to come to the Prem, and this would be taken into account when players decide if they want to up sticks from Spain.
That's true; but what is more lucrative for anyone NOT Spanish; is that if they go to play La Liga they pay a lot less tax than the Spanish players do
I'm all for a pay cap, perhaps with a bonus scheme to reward success
It will not and cannot work; there is no possibility of this happening ever.
I would just forget the idea completely.
What could happen and in my opinion should happen; is that each club should only be able to spend the equivalent of what the club makes per year; which I believe is similar to what Platini is now proposing.
So if LFC makes 20m; they can spend 20m and not a penny more
this £20m - presumably you mean just on wages?
KOPGIRL1971
6-11-09, 18:49
This interesting piece of news from ESPN yesterday:
Hicks and Gillett take in Stars game
November 5, 2009, 2:33 PM
By: Richard Durrett
Stars owner Tom Hicks and current Montreal Canadiens owner George Gillett celebrate their nearly three-year partnership in owning Liverpool Football Club.
Stars owner Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who is still in the process of selling the Canadiens to members of the Molson family, watched the Stars-Flames game from Hicks' suite at American Airlines Center.
Hicks said the two were celebrating nearly three years of ownership of Liverpool Football Club. The two joined forces this time three years ago and had the offer accepted in February 2007.
"We're happy with the way things are going financially with Liverpool," Hicks said. "We wish they were a little better on the pitch."
http://espn.go.com/dallas/columns/stars/blog/_/post/4626734
---
"We wish they were a little better on the pitch."
Well, we wish you were a little better off the pitch, you cheeky gets!
How come this hasn't been on our news page, or in the papers? There's a picture on the link of them shaking hands - perhaps lfc thought too many fans would not appreciate the thought of them being so pally? Even so, we should be getting this kind of news into the public domain, so I hope lfc does pick up on it - at a time when the only news about lfc seems to be rafa-bashing, it would make a change to see something a bit more positive, even if we don't trust them as far as we can throw them!
They look fair cosy together again wonder did they last more than 45 mins this time?:P
How the **** can you celebrate a `near` 3 years?.....February 2007 the parasites conned their way in:mad:
Maybe the yankee ****pigs will not be at Anfield when the `actual` 3 years is up.........................
One can only hope.................Insh Allah;)
KOPGIRL1971
8-11-09, 09:12
Rafa holds Champions League crisis talks
(UKPA) – 18 hours ago
Rafael Benitez has held talks with his Liverpool bosses over the implications if the club fail to reach the last 16 of this season's Champions League.
Discussions were also held on if the club fail to qualify for next season's lucrative European competition and the Liverpool manager revealed that the club did not budget this term for anything beyond the group stages.
Benitez said: "I spoke to Christian Purslow (Liverpool's managing director) the other day about the finances. The first thing, though, is that we have confidence we can still reach the last 16 of the Champions League this season."
And Benitez insisted he was confident that financial problems next season will be avoided "because we will achieve a top four finish".
Liverpool have never failed to reach the last 16 under Benitez's management, but they are in grave danger of that eventuality now with qualification from Group E out of their hands after the midweek draw in Lyon.
They must hope that Lyon win their next match away to Fiorentina, and that Liverpool win their final two group games to produce the "miracle" Benitez admits they need now.
Liverpool face earning £10million less from their European campaign this season if they do not reach the last 16, with another £10million lost if they do not qualify for next season's group stages.
Benitez added: "Whatever happens, the budget was done for this season based on us only qualifying for the group stages. And we did that, that is complete.
"Whether we can still bring in more money, we will wait and see. The commercial department is working very hard, for the next season (in Europe) it is a question of time.
"The Premier League is a long race, we must keep going. I am confident the team will finish in the top four and we are able to continue to do well in Europe."
Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
----
Rafa is just reiterating what Purslow said the other week, that the budget had been done based on minimal participation in the CL. It's not ideal, but at least we would not be losing any more than we budgeted for, so hopefully, this will get the vultures off our backs, although I doubt it :rolleyes:
Rafa holds Champions League crisis talks
(UKPA) – 18 hours ago
Rafael Benitez has held talks with his Liverpool bosses over the implications if the club fail to reach the last 16 of this season's Champions League.
Discussions were also held on if the club fail to qualify for next season's lucrative European competition and the Liverpool manager revealed that the club did not budget this term for anything beyond the group stages.
Benitez said: "I spoke to Christian Purslow (Liverpool's managing director) the other day about the finances. The first thing, though, is that we have confidence we can still reach the last 16 of the Champions League this season."
And Benitez insisted he was confident that financial problems next season will be avoided "because we will achieve a top four finish".
Liverpool have never failed to reach the last 16 under Benitez's management, but they are in grave danger of that eventuality now with qualification from Group E out of their hands after the midweek draw in Lyon.
They must hope that Lyon win their next match away to Fiorentina, and that Liverpool win their final two group games to produce the "miracle" Benitez admits they need now.
Liverpool face earning £10million less from their European campaign this season if they do not reach the last 16, with another £10million lost if they do not qualify for next season's group stages.
Benitez added: "Whatever happens, the budget was done for this season based on us only qualifying for the group stages. And we did that, that is complete.
"Whether we can still bring in more money, we will wait and see. The commercial department is working very hard, for the next season (in Europe) it is a question of time.
"The Premier League is a long race, we must keep going. I am confident the team will finish in the top four and we are able to continue to do well in Europe."
Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
----
Rafa is just reiterating what Purslow said the other week, that the budget had been done based on minimal participation in the CL. It's not ideal, but at least we would not be losing any more than we budgeted for, so hopefully, this will get the vultures off our backs, although I doubt it :rolleyes:
At the time and with the owners we have,I think it is wise to make a budget like this,so we don't risk totally financial meltdown.
On the other hand when you don't budget for success you are most likely not to have it. It is good to see that they understand their own shortcomings,if it is their desission and not the banks.
KOPGIRL1971
8-11-09, 09:50
Liverpool plan £250m field of dreams -Sunday Times
I would have put this in the existing naming rights of Anfield poll thread, but this article appears to knock that on the head and concentrate on the naming rights for the new stadium. It also has a line about not selling our top stars, although there's no direct quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6907973.ece
From The Sunday Times
November 8, 2009
Liverpool plan £250m field of dreams
The Reds are confident of persuading a leading global firm to buy the rights to name the club’s proposed new ground
Jonathan Northcroft
LIVERPOOL will brush off the controversy over England’s top clubs selling naming rights to their stadiums and chase the most expensive naming rights deal in the history of sport. Despite the recession, the Merseyside club’s hierarchy are convinced they can raise a mammoth £250m by persuading a leading global firm to buy the rights to name Liverpool’s proposed ground.
Liverpool’s owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, have been buoyed by their record £20m-per-season shirt sponsorship agreement signed recently with Standard Chartered, taking it as proof of the world-wide appeal of the club and the Premier League. These factors have persuaded Hicks and Gillett to revisit stadium-building plans, shelved due to Liverpool’s debts. The two Americans now believe they can underwrite more than 50% of the cost of building a new ground on a site earmarked on Stanley Park through a world-record naming rights sale.
The benchmark they have set Liverpool’s commercial team is the deal signed between the New York Mets baseball franchise and Citigroup. The American financial services giant paid $20m (£12m) a year over 20 years to have a new stadium, Citi Field, opened by the Mets early in 2009. Liverpool believe they can outstrip that. “Naming rights are a global market,” said Hicks. “We likely will partner with someone wanting global branding, unlike the US stadiums, which only worry about TV appeal in the States, similar to why Standard Chartered chose to partner with us on our shirts.”
Despite debts approaching £300m and Liverpool’s onfield worries, Hicks remains bullish about the outlook for his club. He said Rafael Benitez would not be forced to sell star players even if Liverpool fail to qualify for the knockout stages of the Champions League. Hicks and Gillett are seeking new investors, in the hope of raising money to reduce the club’s debt by diluting their shareholding, and spoke of “significant interest”. They are undeterred by protests by Newcastle fans in response to their club’s stadium being renamed sportsdirect.com@St James’ Park Stadium and criticism of Chelsea, who last week announced they were looking to sell off naming rights to Stamford Bridge in the hope of raising £150m.
Liverpool believe their situation is different, because they are building a new stadium rather than renaming an existing one. They regard as a precedent Arsenal, who signed a £100m 15-year deal with Emirates, which also included shirt sponsorship, when they moved from Highbury in 2006. Manchester United are the only Big Four club for whom a naming rights sale does not appear an option. A club source said a rights sale involving Old Trafford is “not on our agenda”. Sir Alex Ferguson said Chelsea’s plans were driven by money. “It is the only reason I can think of. But it does not really concern me. I wouldn’t have thought [it would happen at United].”
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
KOPGIRL1971
8-11-09, 09:53
here's an article with a quote from hicks about not selling players:
Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has insisted his club will not be forced to sell their star players even if they miss out on qualifying for next season’s Champions League.
The Merseysiders are enduring a torrid time currently, sitting in seventh place in the Premier League, whilst their hopes of qualifying for the Champions League knock out stages are also in serious jeopardy.
Failing to progress in Europe’s top competition, along with failure to claim a top four finish this season, would have serious financial repercussions for the Reds. However, owner Hicks has insisted this will not impact on the team.
“None of our star players will be sold, regardless of results,” he told the Sunday Mirror.
“The club is doing very well due to rapidly growing commercial revenues.
“We have significant investor interest and want to make sure that we pick high-quality partners. We are happy with the way things are going financially, but we hoped things would be better on the pitch.”
The American also hinted that Liverpool could follow the lead of Newcastle United by selling the naming rights to their proposed new stadium.
“Naming rights are a global market. The naming rights for the new stadium will be the most attractive in the world due to television coverage and the millions of Liverpool supporters around the world,” he added.
“We will likely partner with someone wanting global branding, unlike USA stadiums, which only worry about television appeal in the States.”
Gill Clark, Goal.com UK
KOPGIRL1971
8-11-09, 09:56
At the time and with the owners we have,I think it is wise to make a budget like this,so we don't risk totally financial meltdown.
On the other hand when you don't budget for success you are most likely not to have it. It is good to see that they understand their own shortcomings,if it is their desission and not the banks.
many would have us believe we are heading for financial meltdown, when the truth is probably that we are just singed around the edges and smouldering a bit :)
many would have us believe we are heading for financial meltdown, when the truth is probably that we are just singed around the edges and smouldering a bit :)
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning, smells of victory. One day this war (G/H) will be over. :p
many would have us believe we are heading for financial meltdown, when the truth is probably that we are just singed around the edges and smouldering a bit
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning, smells of victory. One day this war (G/H) will be over.
Could it be then that G + H actually DO have the clubs best interests at heart???:eek::eek:
My head hurts!!!:confused::confused::confused:
Could it be then that G + H actually DO have the clubs best interests at heart???:eek::eek:
My head hurts!!!:confused::confused::confused:
Simple answer is no, they say they do, but all we are to them is a business which they want to make a profit from, like Weetabix.
Here's a few vids..
http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/George-Gillett-_-You-tell-lies.html
http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/George-Gillett-_-You-tell-lies-Part-2.html
http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/George-Gillett-_-You-tell-lies-Part-3.html
KOPGIRL......it would have to be a mega name to sponsor us for a quarter of a billion quid,
Talk this afternoon in the watering holes was of a well established traditional sponsor....in it for the long haul obviously, as opposed to some fly-be-night dot com type name... and one that would already appeal to a sporting image....and would not baulk at the fee as they would be globally famous anyway so £250 million spread over 20 years works out at roughly one million pound a month, or 250 thousand smackers a week...........
Word doing the rounds was `someone like Coca Cola` [ no proof but a firm of that calibre is expected]
Now to me, £250,000, a week or about £35,000 per day.........would be chickenfeed for some firm like Coca Cola.........so maybe Purslow is right to try and get this mega sponsor sorted for the highest price....if we got them to pay £70,000 per day that would work out at £500million over 20 years....more than enough to build a mega structure,
Or has the plonk messed with me mathematics like?
Good Lord! is that the time?
Got to go for me constitutional now,;)
Todays alehouse rumours from Liverpool town centre;
Major investment from well respected UK finance firm by the New Year,
Rafa to walk in January after being refused transfer funds,
Dalglish takes over temporarily for rest of disappointing season,
Full takeover after new investment makes opportunity available in late Spring 2010
Mourinho announced as new manager as major funds released for transfers in Summer 2010,
Finance available to begin stadium groundwork by August 2010,
---------------------------------------------------------------
So here we go again:D........the roller coaster rocks.....then rolls on,
Right i`m away for some scran....then out again and see if there is any more malarky going down,
KOPGIRL1971
14-11-09, 23:07
Todays alehouse rumours from Liverpool town centre;
Major investment from well respected UK finance firm by the New Year,
Rafa to walk in January after being refused transfer funds,
Dalglish takes over temporarily for rest of disappointing season,
Full takeover after new investment makes opportunity available in late Spring 2010
Mourinho announced as new manager as major funds released for transfers in Summer 2010,
Finance available to begin stadium groundwork by August 2010,
---------------------------------------------------------------
So here we go again:D........the roller coaster rocks.....then rolls on,
Right i`m away for some scran....then out again and see if there is any more malarky going down,
Thanks yanks, but I've already seen these rumours in shkopite's thread, and dismissed them myself - not the possibility of purslow being involved in the new investment, but of rafa being replaced - he won't walk in january, he has not forgotten how the fans saved his job two years ago and he pledged only recently that he will not walk away, as he owes those supporters
so, this leaves rafa being sacked and, as much as shkopite sounds convincing in his argument, I refer you back to the words of purslow himself just over two weeks ago (which are on this thread), when he said lfc was a long-term project and rafa was central to that project - unless he's had a drastic change of heart in those two weeks then I think we can assume rafa will be with us next season. we might very well write off this season, but that will be due to the major injury crisis we've had, not rafa's inability to get the team to win one game in nine - however, a few wins on the trot, and a magnificent (if unlikely) second chance in the CL would turn things round completely, so it is far too early to be putting the noose around rafa's neck. plus, what this supporter doesn't realise is that by making these rumours known he is undermining any campaign that might actually exist, because you can bet that the majority of supporters will get behind the manager. I think that is because they acknowledge we are three months into the new season and he has been unable to pick his first 11 for more than a month.
this fan says he wants rafa out, so could just be stirring the pot to cause trouble
what this supporter doesn't realise is that by making these rumours known he is undermining any campaign that might actually exist, because you can bet that the majority of supporters will get behind the manager.
Indeed i made this point to SHkopite in the other thread and he conveniently ignored it. Just because he may have heard something that exites him i.e Rafa out. doesn't mean that will applie to a lot of other supporters who could have read the thread, like you said all it will do is increase the bond between the supporters and manager and make them hate the yanks even more(if that is even possible). So in fact Rafas position could be strengthened even further just like a couple of years ago with the Klinsman fiasco.
Without the poster even realizing it he's shot himself in the foot.:D
KOPGIRL1971
14-11-09, 23:34
Indeed i made this point to SHkopite in the other thread and he conveniently ignored it.
me too
Thanks yanks, but I've already seen these rumours in shkopite's thread, and dismissed them myself - not the possibility of purslow being involved in the new investment, but of rafa being replaced - he won't walk in january, he has not forgotten how the fans saved his job two years ago and he pledged only recently that he will not walk away, as he owes those supporters
so, this leaves rafa being sacked and, as much as shkopite sounds convincing in his argument, I refer you back to the words of purslow himself just over two weeks ago (which are on this thread), when he said lfc was a long-term project and rafa was central to that project - unless he's had a drastic change of heart in those two weeks then I think we can assume rafa will be with us next season. we might very well write off this season, but that will be due to the major injury crisis we've had, not rafa's inability to get the team to win one game in nine - however, a few wins on the trot, and a magnificent (if unlikely) second chance in the CL would turn things round completely, so it is far too early to be putting the noose around rafa's neck. plus, what this supporter doesn't realise is that by making these rumours known he is undermining any campaign that might actually exist, because you can bet that the majority of supporters will get behind the manager. I think that is because they acknowledge we are three months into the new season and he has been unable to pick his first 11 for more than a month.
this fan says he wants rafa out, so could just be stirring the pot to cause trouble
Quite possible love............but i have just returned from a bit of a do in Town and i must say that the pointers are what i heard earlier like.....i think Rafa is sound, even though mistakes have occurred....but we can accept them to a certain extent like........what i can gleen is that this stuff is more political at present and there is deffo a seismic shock about to hit...whether it will be beneficial to our club is subject to circumstance in the imminent future.....suffice to say that the frenzied spec of a few months ago appears to be consumed by a relaxed `knowing wink` attitude....which annoys the **** out of me like..... we may have to hold on tight as i fear the entire magnitude of the situation will ****ix our season as it stands,
Anyroad, i`m goosed now so i am retiring to me crypt....then try to find out more tomozz....ni night kids,
KOPGIRL1971
17-11-09, 09:45
thanks to Mike-09 for this and the following piece - not strictly tom. dic and parry material, but I felt of sufficient interest in the ongoing saga, as it points to rafa's ongoing role with the club:
Rafael Benitez: I can walk through Anfield storm
Tony Evans, Football Editor
November can be grim on Merseyside. It is barely past lunchtime and darkness is falling nearly as heavily as the rain. There is a gloom around Liverpool’s academy in Kirkby that mirrors the state of the club.
The team are seventh in the Barclays Premier League after five defeats in 12 games — they lost just twice last season — and on the verge of an exit from the Champions League. The mood is downbeat.
Enter Rafael Benítez and in an instant the academy staff are bathing in a little Spanish sunshine. Beaming a huge smile, he sweeps out of the rain in a flurry of backslaps, handshakes and hugs. This is no icy analyst. He is relaxed, in casual trousers and a V-necked pullover, and at ease with his world.
The acres of critical newsprint, the hours of Rafa-bashing on the phone-ins, have not shaken his confidence. He sits in an office, with its balcony overlooking the windswept training pitches, like a man secure about his domain.
But football clubs never sit still. They are either moving forwards or sliding backwards. Which direction are Liverpool heading? Benítez is not backwards about coming forward.
“In 2004 the squad was worth, what, £100 million? Now perhaps we have one player worth that,” he says. “The whole squad? Maybe £250 million.
“The club was nearly sold for £85 million five years ago. Now the price is £500 million. We must be doing something right.
“We are much better now than we were three or four years ago in every single thing — in the commercial department, the marketing department, in football.
“The majority of the fans, especially the ones who go to the stadium, realise the team is working and improving, and is better than before. To achieve 86 points in the league last season is part of the progression. The direction of the club is right. But everyone wants to win and we are disappointed when we don’t win any game or any trophy.”
The poor start to the season has brought a maelstrom of criticism, but Benítez feels that few observers understand the full scale of the job at Anfield.
His tenure in the manager’s chair has been played out against a backdrop of behind-the-scenes turmoil. Financial problems and a lack of support from senior club officials have hampered his efforts. The irony is that the recent blip in form has come during the most stable period of his 5½-year term.
A new five-year contract, signed in February, gave the Spaniard control over the academy and the appointment of Christian Purslow as chief executive in the summer provided backup in the boardroom.
This has not always been the case. Two years ago, George Gillett Jr and Tom Hicks, the owners, approached Jürgen Klinsmann about the possibility of replacing Benítez. Even before that, the manager’s relationship with Rick Parry, the former chief executive, was uneasy. Parry’s conservative nature clashed with Benítez’s aggressive attitude in the transfer market and many of the top targets went unsigned.
“You prepare your list of players and have No 1 target, No 2, then the third one,” Benítez says. “If you lose the first one, normally they’ve signed for another English club. If you lose them to your rivals, it’s worse. Every year you have to work very hard to be ready and sometimes another team gets there first. It is frustrating.”
That frustration is underlined every time Gareth Barry, Florent Malouda or Nemanja Vidic turn out against Liverpool, but the loss of Aaron Ramsey to Arsenal is particularly galling.
Benítez had agreed a deal to sign the talented young midfield player from Cardiff City for a £1.5m initial fee, with a similar amount to follow, but the transaction stalled at board level before Arsenal came in with a £5m bid.
The emphasis on youthful talent is no surprise. “When I arrived we had a lot of players we needed to change,” Benítez says. “We had to replace these players year on year. The first team were bad and it was the worse for the reserves.
“So we had to buy fringe players and take a gamble. Some of these players have been good and some not good enough for us. It’s a risk you have to accept when you have not got too much money available. The problem started at the academy. We weren’t producing players.”
The production line that served up Robbie Fowler, Steve McManaman, Michael Owen, Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher had ground to a halt. Steve Heighway, the academy director, was replaced by Frank McParland and Benítez took a hands-on role.
“This is the first year of my second five years and the first time I can have some influence in the academy,” he says. “We are trying to build something and leave a legacy for the future.
“When we talk about the young players we’ve brought in, the cost for them is about £5m. Players like Gulacsi, Pacheco, Ayala, Ngog, Insúa. The value of Insúa in the marketplace now would pay for all the signing of the young players in the last five years. We had to build foundations so we can win in the future.” The shortage of young Scousers coming through the ranks aggravates the manager, however.
“I want to see the academy producing local players,” Benítez says. “We didn’t produce too many so we had to look elsewhere to be able to find the new generation of players that will be at the heart of the team and the club. We need local players.”
A shrew move was to bring back Kenny Dalglish to assist at Kirkby. The iconic former player and manager is performing a number of roles and the manager is delighted to have him involved. “He was a good signing, no?” Benítez says with a twinkle.
“He is someone who knows the club, has a very good mentality and is strong enough mentally to defend the club as an ambassador. With his role in the academy, he attracts players.”
But Benítez knows how important it is to start winning soon. Will his team bounce back and earn a Champions League place at the end of the season? “I have a lot of confidence we will finish in the top four,” he says. “But my target is the next game. It is easier for me to give confidence to the players if we get three points against Manchester City [on Saturday].”
Benítez is notorious for his long working hours and attention to detail, so how does he cope with defeat? “When you lose or draw you go home disappointed,” he says. “But you can’t get too low because it is important to me to go to Melwood, be strong and pick up the players.
“I have a lot of confidence and that gets bigger when I talk to fans. They say, ‘Keep going, keep smiling’. Can we be better? Yes. We will be better.”
And then he is ready to go. In the foyer, one of the boys’ teams are coming in from the rain. They hold back a little, nervous to approach the boss, but he beckons them over, asking the name of each.
One is from Brazil and Benítez addresses him in Portuguese and begins a conversation about the beach in Rio. The boys all laugh and the mood is lifted. It’s a knack Benítez has. Imagine how much fun everyone will have when his side start winning.
KOPGIRL1971
17-11-09, 09:47
sorry, mike-09's link is not working for the next piece
http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/tom_hicks_rules_out_the_need_to_sell_liverpool_fc_ or_dallas_stars/?utm_source=Syndication+Websites&utm_campaign=Syndication+Websites&utm_medium=syndication_websites
Tom Hicks, the American businessman who owns the Texas Rangers, Dallas Stars and half of English soccer club Liverpool has denied reports that financial problems will force him to sell any of his sporting interests other than the Rangers.
Hicks is expected to secure more than US$500 million from the sale of the Rangers, but reports had suggested that the Stars would also be put up for sale. Liverpool, meanwhile, have been linked to a number of investors in recent weeks, and retained Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Rothschild to look into the possibilities.
Hicks, however, insists the sale of the Rangers will cover all of Hicks Sports Group's financial requirements. "The Rangers process, however that comes out, will take care of HSG's needs," he told ESPN.
KOPGIRL1971
19-11-09, 12:58
following on from chaz's post, I found this interesting article on Hicks in the Baseball Time in Arlington website, from a baseball perspective, and a couple of comment, which all seem to mirror our own concerns
http://www.bbtia.com/home/2009/11/19/on-the-hicks-ownership-situation.html
Baseball Time in Arlington
Main | Kicking Around John Smoltz »
Thursday
19Nov2009
On The Hicks Ownership Situation
AuthorJoey Matschulat | DateThursday, November 19, 2009 at 6:00 AM | Print ArticlePrint Article | Share ArticleShare Article
If your absolute worst baseball-related fear is the prospect of Tom Hicks rising from the dead and retaining majority control of the Texas Rangers after it seemed 80-plus percent certain that he was headed out, then you might have to brace for the realization of that fear, as Hicks has hastily assembled a group of local investors -- comprising both Cowboys legend Roger Staubach and the dual-allegianced Nolan Ryan -- and is preparing to submit his own bid ... to himself. Yeah.
There's the apparent confirmation that the Rangers are operating under league-imposed budgetary guidelines (via the largely reputable Joel Sherman), the hearsay that the owners have pressured the commissioner's office to figuratively clip Hicks' wings after he opened an eight-digit line of credit with the league, and then a hodgepodge of snippets and quotes that lend nothing but confusion to the entire situation. It could be months, years, or never before we get full disclosure on the rise and (very hard) fall of Hicks Sports Group and the accompanying juicy behind-the-scenes happenings from this past summer, but that's beside the point right now.
There are points to be made both for and against Hicks remaining in power, with the former largely being based upon the idiom "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Supporters of Ryan and general manager Jon Daniels will likely find this to be the best, and perhaps only, bullet point in Hicks' favor; his alignment behind Ryan and insistence that his participation in another ownership group would be contingent upon Ryan's involvement suggests that he does, at some level, comprehend the value of stability.
Elaborating upon that a little bit, I'm going to imagine that latching onto another consortium (led by, say, Jim Crane or Dennis Gilbert), then helplessly watching them depose the current management team and implement wholesale changes throughout the organization probably isn't a very appealing option to Hicks, given that he green-lighted the radical shift from win-now to rebuild mode in 2007 and has witnessed his ballclub move ever closer to potential powerhouse status. He's seen the ugly and now he wants to see the good, and thusly doesn't want to give it up yet. I can sympathize with that.
On the other hand, however, what happens if the bid assembled by Chuck Greenberg and friends doesn't prevail over the other proposals? At that stage, we have no real clue as to whether Ryan and/or the current management regime would earn the endorsement of Crane or Gilbert or the surprise fourth entrant, and as for Hicks' entire proposition to remain in power ... well, any change in ownership will require the unanimous support of baseball's owners, and it would seem at this point that Hicks' helming of a new group probably wouldn't sit very well with the same owners who were alleged to be infuriated with the financial debacle that was mostly Hicks' own doing. They'd probably be unnerved by the possibility of a repeat, and rightly so. He may not get to have any choice in the matter.
As for the "against" side of the Hicks argument, I point to one of his favorite lines of this calendar year: "It's business as usual." Wrong. Assuming that you interpret "business as usual" to mean that the ballclub can competitively pursue opportunities to improve the team within reason, contrast that viewpoint against the media assertions that the Rangers will be fortunate to snag even a single major league player on a low-base, high-incentives deal this off-season, let alone more than one.
If things play out the way we expect them to this winter, reasonably priced opportunities for roster improvement entailing reasonable degrees of risk are going to slip through the Rangers' fingers that wouldn't slip through the team's fingers in a standard operating environment. I don't consider that to be "business as usual," but I can understand the fear that, barring significant change in Hicks' ways, it will become the new norm in Arlington.
Reader Comments (2)
I have no greater fear for the Rangers right now than of a new ownership group coming into town and cleaning out the old management and throwing out the baby with the bath water.
This is a team that is close. They don't need someone who must put his stamp on the team.
If that makes me pro Hicks then so be it. However I have said for a long time that Tom Hicks should sell the team because he'd lost the support of the fans. That is a shame. He is a better owner than Jerry Jones. He has grown and gotten better at the roll but Jerry is still Jerry. I'm not even going to touch Mark Cuban
November 19, 2009 at 6:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterCliff Phelps
Hicks ownership has become a circus side show. Seems that in addition to $ he's looking to enhance his own tattered image by attaching himself to highly regarded names in his push to remain in control. Not the worst strategy if you're Hicks, but I wonder how much good will he's got left with the other owners, and more importantly with his creditors. Too much drama.
November 19, 2009 at 6:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterA. Stephens
Hicks strikes me as an Alan Stanford type character who is all about profile and status, doing whatever it takes to increase them. I wonder if he may face the same fate eventually?
KOPGIRL1971
20-11-09, 11:06
Hicks strikes me as an Alan Stanford type character who is all about profile and status, doing whatever it takes to increase them. I wonder if he may face the same fate eventually?
I take it you mean Sir Robert Allen Stanford, rather than the actor Alan Stanford! Maybe we should take a leaf out ofthe Spooks' book - in the episode this wee,k a rebel gang kidnapped a group of billionaires and tried them on their misdeeds in front of a live feed to the outside world, and if a guilty vote came the gang leader would shoot them in the head - unfortunately, only one billionaire died before the Spooks team rescued them :D
I take it you mean Sir Robert Allen Stanford, rather than the actor Alan Stanford! Maybe we should take a leaf out ofthe Spooks' book - in the episode this wee,k a rebel gang kidnapped a group of billionaires and tried them on their misdeeds in front of a live feed to the outside world, and if a guilty vote came the gang leader would shoot them in the head - unfortunately, only one billionaire died before the Spooks team rescued them :D
bummer.. I haven't watched it yet...........:crying
SCARY!!
Rangers owner Tom Hicks tries a magic act with Rangers
Published online on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009
By GIL LEBRETON - McClatchy Newspapers
DALLAS -- With a Friday deadline for proposals fast approaching, Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks revealed Wednesday his plan to assemble a group of local investors.
The first two rabbits out of the hat: Roger Staubach and Nolan Ryan.
The third rabbit: Hicks himself, who apparently still would be in charge.
"This has never been about me selling the Rangers," Hicks said. "The question is how do we monetize the Texas Rangers in a way to pay down or eliminate the Hicks Sports Group's debt."
Three groups previously announced plans to make formal bids for the club. They are headed by Chuck Greenberg, a Pittsburgh-based attorney and former minor league franchise owner; Houston businessman Jim Crane; and former sports agent Dennis Gilbert, a special advisor to the Chicago White Sox.
An unnamed fourth group entered the picture Wednesday morning, Hicks said. Hicks' local-based group would be the fifth.
"I'm exploring my own group," Hicks said. "The key is I want it to be local. I have gotten commitments from Nolan Ryan and Roger Staubach that they would invest and be part of the group.
"We want to build support for the Texas Rangers in our market. Our plan is five years old, and it started this past year to be appreciated by the fans. We've still got miles to go, but the more local ownership the better for the Texas Rangers."
Few among the Rangers' long-suffering following would deny that. A strong local ownership base is always an asset.
But if it is the Hicks group's current cash bind that has put the franchise on uncertain financial footing, what makes Hicks think that Major League Baseball owners would vote to allow him to keep the team?
When I tried to clarify Wednesday just who would be recommending sale proposals to whom, Hicks answered directly, "I own the team. I'm the one selling it.
"There's a process," Hicks said. "I've committed to MLB to this process, and I'm going to honor that.
"I want to see what their best proposals are."
Not to quibble over the legalese, but the Hicks Sports Group does own the team, and it will be the entity whose signatures will be on the sale papers.
But if the final say on the sale belongs to Hicks, why is he preparing to submit a proposal to himself?
All reasonable signs point to the sale of the Rangers being subject to the recommendations and approval of Major League Baseball - and, because of the multiple financial strings attached, to the approvals of the National Hockey League and the Hicks Sports Group's 40 lenders.
The baseball lords have been dealing with the franchise's shaky financial underpinnings for more than a year. The commissioner's office has to be asking itself, who will be the best stewards of this baseball team going forward?
Which ownership group will be the most stable?
Which group has the best chance to hit the ground running?
I don't have a vote in that election, but I don't see how MLB could see Hicks - or his hastily formed local group - as the answer to any of those questions.
Without a doubt, local owners will be key to any bid to purchase the Rangers. Greenberg, for one, has been actively pursuing local investors and has been working closely with club president Ryan on preparing that group's final bid.
Hicks was asked about a rumour that was circulating Wednesday about media mogul Rupert Murdoch investing $250 million as a minority owner.
"I have not talked to Rupert Murdoch," Hicks said.
Hicks, meanwhile, said that a week hasn't gone by during the past year when he hasn't worked on the club's financial problems.
"I think you'll agree that it hasn't affected the team," he said Wednesday. "We've had business as usual."
Well, true, nobody has confiscated the uniforms. But the team's hands appeared tied at the trading deadline, while the other contenders added Victor Martinez and Scott Kazmir. Plus, the club was not able to come to terms with No. 1 draft choice Matthew Purke, now at TCU.
"By the way," Hicks said, "the Texas Rangers' financial position when this concludes will be the strongest it's ever been."
The key phrase there, of course, is "when this concludes."
No one should doubt whether Tom Hicks can assemble a group of local investors, including the venerable Staubach.
But after all that's happened this year, I'm guessing that Hicks' old magic probably stops at the commissioner's office door.
He won't be amused by the rabbit-in-the-hat trick.
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/national/story/1717668.html
Still, this is money time for the Texas Rangers. The financial bloodstream for a baseball team flows in the fall and winter. That means season tickets have to be peddled, which has been a failed process for most of this decade.
Coming off an unexpected 87-win season, and with new ownership on the horizon, the transfusion news has been very positive on renewals, particularly considering the Rangers are baseball’s most financially destitute club.
Then came the official, yet convoluted, word from Hicks on Wednesday. He wants to remain as majority owner.
At the ballpark, you would have thought a large sewer line just erupted.
Talking to several different employees Thursday, there was heavy depression noted.
"I work for Tom, I wanted Tom to be successful at this, but, frankly, we can’t sell Tom," said one. "Our fans, for the most part, will not buy Tom. And our former season-ticket holders, and we’d lost a lot of those because of Mr. Hicks, will not come back if Tom is still the owner."
That’s not news. Anyone in the media with an e-mail address can tell you that. We’ve heard enough of it over the years.
Hicks, as far as I can tell, is certainly not a hated boss by the baseball people who work for him. He’s just considered hopeless as an owner. Fans normally respond to the product on the field, and attendance did grow last season, but ...
"No one says it publicly, but there was disappointment that we didn’t draw better, based on how well the team played into September," said an employee. "Yes, attendance was up, but it was up from one of our worst years ever at the gate. The perception of the team, unfortunately, still has a lot to do with the perception of Mr. Hicks, including, of late, all the financial difficulty."
Once Hicks said last summer that he would sell his majority interest, then came renewed optimism. Three serious bidders surfaced, one of them including Nolan Ryan in the partnership. Ryan is still considered the Great Credibility Hope by most all who work at the ballpark, although there’s one small pocket of resistance to Nolan, which is another story.
Yet, word began to surface last week that Hicks was planning on reinventing himself, and he was wooing a heavyweight backer, and was now ready to make an offer to himself. (Figure that one out.) I e-mailed Tom this on Tuesday morning:
"Hearing at deadline this week (bids will be opened today) that you and the big boys at Fox (the TV network) are talking about a $250 mil buy-in by Fox as minority owner ... you would still hold majority interest ... would baseball approve that? Anything to it?"
Hicks’ immediate answer:
"Premature to speculate. Proposals are due Friday."
So Tom didn’t deny it. And believe me, he’s strongly and wrongly denied everything else I’ve hit him with since last summer, including the financial rescue of the team by Major League Baseball, the Matt Purke fiasco, etc.
Then Hicks followed with other e-mails, asking those be off the record.
By Wednesday afternoon, Hicks called a media session to announce everything except the Fox involvement, while tossing out the respected name of Roger Staubach as his limited future partner. Roger’s name is a coup for Hicks, but this is about money, not respected names.
(Tom also included Nolan’s name, but Ryan still works for him, so read that one with caution.)
Don’t know yet if the Fox thing is dead, but Hicks told our Gil LeBreton that he’s had no conversation with Rupert Murdoch, the mojo man at the network, which might or might not mean anything.
Tom’s media-session statement Wednesday that "it’s business as usual" for the Rangers is actually true. It is business as usual, at long as it doesn’t involve spending any money, which statements of late by general manager Jon Daniels have confirmed repeatedly.
For a franchise eager for new ownership and proper financial backing, Hicks’ latest move, while a long shot to be successful unless there is a huge infusion of money from a corporation such as Fox (he’s failed repeatedly to raise "local" money), probably haas delayed the process into next season. That’s bad news.
Hicks, however, knows how to play the big-money game, no matter his current hip pocket status. Don’t necessarily count him out.
He’s an owner still trying to hang on.
And that continues to be the Rangers’ worst kind of hang-up.
http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/columnists/randy_galloway/story/1777060-p2.html
The similarities with Hicks actions, statements, posturing and ultimate consequences for the Texans are uncannily like the ones we are facing at LFC.............UTTERLY BIZARRE!.........:eek:
The bloke is an absolute ****in basket case...............:mad:
The similarities with Hicks actions, statements, posturing and ultimate consequences for the Texans are uncannily like the ones we are facing at LFC.............UTTERLY BIZARRE!.........:eek:
The bloke is an absolute ****in basket case...............:mad:
I know, and think back to Corinthians....................... I am sick in my stomach at what is happening to our club.. :mad::crying:(
KOPGIRL1971
20-11-09, 18:49
bummer.. I haven't watched it yet...........:crying
sorry :p, but good job I didn't give away the ending then, totally unexpected but not that surprising :mad:
Heres another example of him being a control freak with no money for investment and his only interest is reducing his own groups debt.
http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/story/1773638.html
We need to up the ante with protests and action.
sorry :p, but good job I didn't give away the ending then, totally unexpected but not that surprising :mad:
ahh the ending........ Hicks n Gillet both have heart attacks and they have left all their shares to Rafa Carra & Gerrad :)
KOPGIRL1971
25-11-09, 09:59
I put this in here for the comments by Purslow regarding Rafa's future:
Liverpool defiant over early exit
(UKPA) – 1 hour ago
Liverpool tried desperately to put a brave face on their first Champions League exit at the group stages for six years.
Chief executive Christian Purslow insisted manager Rafael Benitez's position "is under no threat" and skipper Steven Gerrard vowed that Liverpool would win the Europa League.
Purslow made a point of doing media briefings after the game, and said: "You can never predict last-minute goals, which have cost us dear in the Champions League. That's no basis to make managerial decisions. He is under no threat."
He added: "We don't run our business in that respect. I'm on the record as saying Rafa's signed a new five-year contract, he's four months into that contract so to discuss that is not appropriate."
Benitez, meanwhile, claimed he was "more disappointed for the players, the staff and the fans" than for himself, but in the cold light of day they will no doubt review the 1-0 win over a poor Debrecen side - with Fiorentina securing qualification by beating Lyon by the same scoreline - as a bitter pill to swallow.
Referring to the financial damage of missing out on qualification from the group phase, Purslow added: "It's limited actually. Assuming we have a reasonable run in the Europa League then we are financially neutral for this year."
And after David Ngog's early strike had secured Liverpool their win in the Ferenc Puskas stadium, Gerrard said: "Of course it's disappointing, we played fantastically well and despite getting three points we don't progress.
"Now we'll be in the Europa League so we'll try to win that. The main prize has gone and to be playing in the Europa League is disappointing but we have to accept that, move on and try to win that competition.
"The only consolation for us now is if we go on and win the secondary one."
Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
KOPGIRL1971
27-11-09, 10:48
we have all heard about dubai's money problems, and navminster poses the question are we better off without them.
I found this Q&A in today's Telegraph. Doens;t mention DIC specifically, but it will be tied up with everything over there:
Dubai's financial crisis: a Q&A
Dubai, the gulf emirate that has grown explosively over the last decade, is now at the centre of markets' attention on fears that it could struggle to repay its debt.
By Richard Spencer in Dubai
Published: 8:55AM GMT 27 Nov 2009
Q. Where did Dubai go wrong? I thought it was in the "oil-rich Gulf"?
A. Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, seven city-states which have separate ruling families, separate budgets, but security, immigration and foreign policies in common. Abu Dhabi has nearly all the UAE's oil. To keep up, Dubai from the 1950s on diversified its economy into ports, trade, services and finance, largely successfully. But its liquidity-fuelled real estate and tourism binge in the last decade may have been one step too far.
Q. What is the extent of its problems?
A. The emirate has said it has $80bn of debts, though some analysts say the true figure could be double that. Dubai World, the state-owned holding company whose bail-out plans triggered the current crisis, has liabilities of about $60bn, though only part of that is debt. The main problem is its real estate subsidiary Nakheel, which has huge bonds coming due, including an Islamic bond for $3.5bn in December. It appears to have little cash flow to meet payments - as well as relying on debt, it also sold most developments off-plan, with new developments now on hold.
Q. The big market crash after Lehman Brothers folded was more than a year ago. Why has Dubai only just been hit?
A. The property crash hit Dubai at the time - house prices fell 50 pc in six months. Nakheel was known to be in trouble. But investors assumed that as a state-owned company it would not default on its debt. The government refused to issue detailed statements of how it was to handle Dubai World's debt problems, and rounded on those who said that the crash had undermined Dubai's development model.
This encouraged a belief that a rescue package was already in place, probably funded by Abu Dhabi. The statement on Wednesday that the government was asking for a six-month standstill on repayments implied the rescue was in doubt.
Q. Why hasn't Abu Dhabi come to Dubai's aid? It has the world's largest sovereign wealth fund.
A. Abu Dhabi has, via the federal central bank, bought one $10bn bond issued by the Dubai government earlier this year, and, via its own banks, bought another $5bn bond this week. But the latter came with a rider that it was not to be used for the Dubai World bail-out. This raises two questions: what are the other debts for which it is to be used? And how is the Dubai World debt to be met, even after the six-month delay, if Abu Dhabi will not fund the rescue package?
Q. What about other Dubai companies? How are they doing?
A. Dubai World owns DP World, the successful ports operator which bought P&O. Other arms of the Dubai government, and the ruling family's directly owned holding companies, also own successful companies such as Emirates Airlines and Jumeirah Hotels, as well as stakes in buildings and businesses around the world, including the London Stock Exchange. But the emirate's lack of transparency and relatively untested financial legal system means that no-one knows if these can be demanded as collateral against Dubai World and other government debts.
Q. Nevertheless, exposure of western banks to the debt seems quite small compared to the trillions of dollars to which we have become accustomed. Why the panic?
A. At the most basic level, fears that exposed banks will have to write down losses, and that both Dubai and Abu Dhabi may have to sell worldwide assets, has hit prices everywhere. At an "animal spirits" level, the disclosure of significant unforeseen problems in Dubai has refocused attention on where else might have hidden "black holes". The health of sovereign debt worldwide, already seen as the major financial issue for the next decade, is also being reexamined.
Q. Can Dubai survive?
A. Dubai is still seen as the premier place to do business in the Middle East and beyond. It is a preferred base for not just Arab but Pakistani, Iranian and even Indian businesses, due to the wider region's political uncertainty. Its reputation for liberal attitudes helps. But events this week have damaged its reputation for economic competence, which the emirate's rulers will now have to work hard to restore.
--
my owne personal opinion is that abu dhabi will let dubai sweat a bit before riding to the rescue, can't see them letting dubai fall, as the economic repercussions for the rgeion would be devastating and they are arab brothers
but whether dic would have had to sell lfc as an asset is a reasonable question to ask
KOPGIRL1971
27-11-09, 11:03
and this from business24-7 website from a few days ago before the news broke, but despite the prediction below, I think we can safely say DIC won't be coming back in for us anytime soon:
DIC to preserve existing assets in 2010: Al Ansari
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Dubai International Capital (DIC), an investment company, may preserve existing assets in 2010, its Executive Chairman said.
"We have spent the last 12 months protecting our capital and preserving what we own," Sameer Al Ansari said at a conference in Dubai yesterday. "Most private equity companies will also spend 2010 preserving what they have."
Dubai Group and DIC said in February they would combine their back-office operations to cut costs as access to credit dried up. Dubai, whose growth slowed to five per cent this year from 14 per cent in 2008, had to be bailed out by fellow emirate Abu Dhabi in February with a $10 billion (Dh36.7bn) bond issue after it amassed $80bn of debt during the city's six-year construction boom.
DIC is offering junior lenders a 40 per cent stake in Almatis, a maker of alumina products, in a debt-for-equity swap, two people familiar with the matter said last Friday.
Dubai Group, whose interests span asset management and conventional and Islamic banking, is reviewing options for its stake in Bank Islam Malaysia after not investing in its share offer, it said on October 1.
DIC may raise a $550 million loan to repay existing debt, two bankers familiar with the transaction said October 29. "It is still not easy to do deals. There is a valuation mismatch and a funding issue," Al Ansari said. The risk appetite of private equity investors has changed, Al Ansari said. "A 12 per cent return on infrastructure projects is now acceptable to private equity funds – it wasn't a year or two ago."
He said the Mideast private equity industry will get a boost as local governments invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, but doubts exist over the pace of the sector's recovery.
Middle East governments are expected to pour huge sums into transport and infrastructure projects in 2010, offering fresh opportunities for private equity firms to kick off investments again. "Infrastructure has become an asset class investors are interested in," he said at a conference. There is "a huge amount of deals" in upcoming infrastructure projects, he said, adding private equity and governments are likely to join forces.
Ansari doubts, however, whether 2010 will signal the year of the sector's recovery.
"We can't wait for 2009 to end, but I wonder if 2010 will be any better," he said.
"Can anyone raise funds in this region Who's going to do any exits" he asked.
In addition, the Middle East "is not easy" for some of the world's largest private equity players such as KKR and Carlyle, Ansari said.
"It's very difficult... I really doubt if international players who have enough problems in their own portfolios at home would be really interested in this region," Al Ansari said.
KOPGIRL1971
27-11-09, 11:08
and this analysis from the bbc today:
Page last updated at 10:32 GMT, Friday, 27 November 2009
What is Dubai and who runs it?
Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid
Dubai's government could soon be bankrupt if it does not receive support
From the pinnacle of the world economic boom to the brink of bankruptcy, Christopher Davidson of Durham University explains some of the background to the glittering city in the desert.
The inability of the government of Dubai to refinance the massive debts incurred by its largest state-owned company, Dubai World, has sent shockwaves throughout the world prompting many observers to ask not only how severe the economic crisis is, but also what exactly is Dubai and who is in control of it?
Although frequently described as a city state or even as a country in its own right, Dubai is a constituent member of the federation of United Arab Emirates along with six other emirates.
Only one of these, Abu Dhabi, possesses substantial oil reserves, and as such it has dominated most areas of federal politics - including foreign affairs and defence - since the UAE was formed following Britain's withdrawal from the Persian Gulf in 1971.
Control
Dubai, however, has always maintained an air of autonomy within the federation as a result of its long history as a successful free port.
Put simply, everyone in the markets thought that, in the end, the federal government in Abu Dhabi would stand by all of Dubai's bad bets. Apparently, they won't.
Stephanie Flanders, BBC economics editor
Dubai: Too big to fail?
Dubai views: 'The end of the dream'
When the UAE constitution was drafted this relative independence was taken into account as each emirate was allowed to retain control over its own natural resources and economic development path.
Gradually Dubai did allow itself to integrate more fully into the UAE, finally handing over its militia - the Dubai Defence Force - in 1996.
But this move was interpreted at the time as a means of transferring costly services to the federal government so as to allow Dubai to pursue its economic ambitions.
With little oil, Dubai's only hope of maintaining a distinct identity from Abu Dhabi was to diversify at a fast pace, building up various non-oil sectors such as luxury tourism and real estate.
Overextended
On paper it was succeeding, as by 2008 over 95% of its GDP was made up by such sectors.
But with the onset of the credit crunch much of this success began to come undone as foreign direct investment and appetite for these activities faded.
Dubai had also badly overextended itself with most of its mega projects - including giant manmade islands - being financed by large debts.
With most of these needing to be refinanced in the near future, the emirate's government spent most of 2009 trying to attract international creditors but was largely unsuccessful.
With Abu Dhabi providing some limited financial assistance, both in February 2009 and earlier this week, Dubai managed to keep afloat.
But with Abu Dhabi's clear unwillingness to completely bail out Dubai, much attention has been placed on the relationship between the two emirates, especially since the recent default.
If Abu Dhabi does not provide more help, then the government of Dubai will soon be bankrupt.
Competition
Although the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, recently told journalists to "shut up" and stop referring to Dubai and Abu Dhabi as being separate, and although the Al Maktoum family is of the same tribe as Abu Dhabi's ruling Al Nahyan family - the Bani Yas - the two dynasties nonetheless have a long history of rivalry.
Dubai construction workers
Dubai's boom was built by hundreds of thousands of migrant labourers
In 1833, Dubai broke away from Abu Dhabi and had to rely on British protection.
Even in the 1940s, there was armed conflict between the two neighbours.
More recently, there has been intense competition, including each establishing its own 'national airline' despite obvious overlaps.
As such, further assistance from Abu Dhabi is far from guaranteed.
Beyond the government and the ruling family there will also be a broader impact of the crisis in Dubai.
Thousands of migrant workers, mostly from South Asia, are already stranded in the emirate, and there are likely to be more over the coming weeks as more companies cease their operations or face cutbacks.
These men will have difficulty returning home.
Similarly many other expatriates, some of them Westerners, will also lose their jobs, and the many foreigners who invested in the emirate's much vaunted real estate sector may see substantial losses on the properties they purchased as investments, retirement homes, or holiday villas.
Christopher Davidson is the author of Dubai: The Vulnerability of Success
---
'Dubai had also badly overextended itself with most of its mega projects - including giant manmade islands - being financed by large debts.'
this is the relevant bit for us - looks like they were no different to the yanks in that respect, just on a grander scale, so perhaps we had a lucky escape after all, who knows. How awful if they had started the stadium and then left it :
I take it you mean Sir Robert Allen Stanford, rather than the actor Alan Stanford! Maybe we should take a leaf out ofthe Spooks' book - in the episode this wee,k a rebel gang kidnapped a group of billionaires and tried them on their misdeeds in front of a live feed to the outside world, and if a guilty vote came the gang leader would shoot them in the head - unfortunately, only one billionaire died before the Spooks team rescued them :D
No, Alan Stanford the american 'businessman' who bought into cricket in a big way from his tax-haven in the caribbean. Arrested for some sort of billion dollar fraud. Can't be bothered to look up the detail... I guess speculation about Hicks' business dealings may be deleted, but as I say, his egotistical characteristics are similar.....
KOPGIRL1971
27-11-09, 13:17
No, Alan Stanford the american 'businessman' who bought into cricket in a big way from his tax-haven in the caribbean. Arrested for some sort of billion dollar fraud. Can't be bothered to look up the detail... I guess speculation about Hicks' business dealings may be deleted, but as I say, his egotistical characteristics are similar.....
yes, this is the same guy, he hold dual citizenship (US/Caribbean) hence why he was able to be knighted
from wiki:
Allen Stanford
Born March 24, 1950 (1950-03-24) (age 59)
Mexia, Texas, U.S.
Nationality American/Antiguan
Citizenship United States, Antigua and Barbuda
Education Baylor University (1974)
Occupation Chairman, Stanford Financial Group
Net worth ▼US$2.2 billion (2008) [1]
Known for Businessman in the financial services sector, Alleged Ponzi scheme, Involvement in Stanford Super Series
Religious beliefs Protestantism
Spouse(s) Susan Stanford (separated)
Children Allen Stanford has six children (oldest to youngest). Female- Randi Susan, Roberta Allena, Rebecca Alexandra. Male- Reid Allen, Robert Allen Jr., Ross Allen.
Website
stanfordfinancial.com, stanfordgroup.com
Sir Robert Allen Stanford, KCN (born March 24, 1950) is a prominent financier, philanthropist,[2][3] and sponsor of professional sports who has been charged with fraud.[4][5] Stanford is the chairman of the privately held, wholly owned Stanford Financial Group of Companies. A fifth-generation Texan who resides in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, he holds dual citizenship, being a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda and a United States citizen. Stanford was the first American to be knighted by that Commonwealth nation[6] and was presented with the honor by the then Governor-General of Antigua and Barbuda, Sir James Carlisle.
In early 2009, Stanford became the subject of several fraud investigations, and on February 17, 2009, was charged by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with fraud and multiple violations of U.S. securities laws for alleged "massive ongoing fraud" involving $8 billion in certificates of deposits.[4][5] The FBI raided three of Stanford's offices in Houston, Memphis, and Tupelo, Mississippi.[7] On February 27, 2009, the SEC amended its complaint to describe the alleged fraud as a "massive Ponzi scheme".[8] He was arrested by the FBI on June 18, 2009.[9][10]
yes, this is the same guy, he hold dual citizenship (US/Caribbean) hence why he was able to be knighted
Oh, ok, sorry. Anyway, let's hope Hicks ends up the same way (as long as we get a saviour as a result of course!).
KOPGIRL1971
27-11-09, 13:22
we should hear more about hicks's plan to sell the texas rangers/keep the rangers after today
we should hear more about his plan to sell the texas rangers/keep the rangers after today
Can't get my head round what that would mean for us, In theory I guess it should free his time and money up to 'invest' more in LFC, but I think the optimists amongst are hoping that it's just a demonstration of his financial problems and therefore the next step is to sell another of his assets, ie. us!
I assume nobody has any more than their own opinion / speculation on that!??
KOPGIRL1971
27-11-09, 13:30
he's already said that none of the money will be invested in liverpool, I think it's more a case of easing his huge financial problems a bit, anyway, he's trying to keep a majority shareholding in the rangers anyway by bringing together a group of local investors - I dont think we can rely on any help that way, rather from our own new sponsors like standard chartered and anyone who buys the naming rights, plus, of course, any new third investor
FistOfRage
27-11-09, 13:58
'Dubai had also badly overextended itself with most of its mega projects - including giant manmade islands - being financed by large debts.'
this is the relevant bit for us - looks like they were no different to the yanks in that respect, just on a grander scale, so perhaps we had a lucky escape after all, who knows. How awful if they had started the stadium and then left it :
Too true - the yanks are here to make money, not just to prop up LFC. Bad timing with the global credit crunch, or I think we'd be well on the way to a new stadium.
Abu Dhabi won't let Dubai fail, but they will use the situation to extract the maximum concessions from Dubai. Projects such as owning overseas football clubs may be deemed a little whimsical for the purse string controllers.
At least in G&H we have two cold hearted business men who can be counted on to squeeze the most out of every single cent they "invest".
Looks like we'll be American owned for the time being.
KOPGIRL1971
27-11-09, 15:59
yes, the timing of the takeover more than anything has conspired against us,
2-3 years before and we'd probably have had the stadium built by now, although it's all conjecture (especially with H&G in charge)
robinredshanks
27-11-09, 16:30
Read schizointwominds' posr. Well said old chap.
I posted something along the same lines the other day, but have been unable to find the original link? Do you think that the yankee doodle dandies are having these posts censored??? I say that because of the content of my post.
I have met Sheik El Maktoum (sorry if I spell his name arong).
Let me tell you what I know as fact and first hand about Sheik Maktoum
Some years back I was selling accident insurance to jockeys, and had appointments with four at the Sheiks stables in Newmarket. I duly arrived and walked into the reception (did I call it reception? it was akin to the drawing room at Windsor Castle). Anyway this chap appears, I had no idea who he was, shook my hand; and asked me who I was there to see etc. He told me the jockeys had not returned from the morning gallops (started late to to a heavy frost). Offerd me a coffee, whilst I waited, which I accepted and then went off.
Now I assumed he had gone to tell some lacky to bring the coffee out to me, I could tell by the suit he was wearing this was no receptionist. Well imagine my surprise when two mins or so later he re-appears with a tray, on the tray two cups a jug of coffee and a plate of choclate digestives.
To cut a long story short, we sat and chatted for some time about horses and racing (I have always ridden and love going to racemeetings so I was able to keep up my side of the conversation. Then he asked if I would like to see the stables. Now my first real point. I am sure that the treatment rooms at Anfield and Mellwood are of a very high standard, but is there a heated walkthrough swimming pool big enough for a horse? there is at his stables.
Talking to the jocks a little later they told me he was The Sheik, I was amazed I knew who this guy was there we were drinking coffee etc as two guys meeting in a oub and having a beer together. He is a real gentleman not in the least bit pretnious. All the people I spoke too at the stables only had good things to say about him. I am still in touch with a couple of them
Now what are his reasons for wanting to buy LFC. Something to do with
his nephew who is a lifelong fan!!! I was told. It's an investment for them a family this richs does not keep all it's eggs in one basket, so to speak.
And they KNOW LFC.
And remember that word INVESTMENT and that's for the long term, look at his track (not a pun) record in other areas, check with the people he employs etc. etc. This an honest and decent Man.
Now look to the yankee doodle dandies, what were thier reasons???
Well they wanted to turn a fast buck, just as they have done in other dealings with other clubs in other sports in the us.
When they first arrived, they had to told what The Kop was/is. And I have it on extreemly good authority that one of them pointed to the Statue of Bill Shankley and asked, "who's that guy?"!
I am not the greatest fan of Rafa, but I take my hat off to him for sticking
things out with all has had to put up with from the yanks.
When the club was put up for sale DIC had nade an offer,gone through the books etc, and all was in place for the sale to go through. I was absolutly delighted. Then the yanks arrived.
Why was the sale to the m put through so quickly, The board tried to blackmail the Saudis into upping thier bid, stupid thing to try to do to an Arab
Why did the board do a u-turn? and I don't want to hear it was a sound bussiness decision, thats a load of ******** (except for those who got backhanders from the yanks) I've heard rumours from the states that's one thier ways of "doing a deal:. So lets have the truth, the fans deserve it, it's the fans who keep you employed after all, never forget that.
And don't anybody say that bad ownership won'affect what goes on, on the pitch. Just try telling that to a Newcastle or Portsmouth fan.
The yanks need to go and soon. I rest my case.
Robin in Rio
robinredshanks
27-11-09, 16:51
ahh the ending........ Hicks n Gillet both have heart attacks and they have left all their shares to Rafa Carra & Gerrad :)
Now if that could be arranged I will return from where I live in Brazil and help with the plot, any ideas?
Robin in Rio
WineForMyMen
27-11-09, 17:08
Nice emotive post Robin, but I'm afraid to say I don't buy it.
How anyone (and I'm not just talking about yourself) can have enough cynicism to spin elaborate conspiracy theories on "the big bad yanks", yet view DIC as some fairy tale model of peace, love, harmony and perfection is baffling. Ever heard of PR?
In financial terms, Dubai isn't looking so hot now is it?
And as for the "honest and decent" bit, we're not seriously using those adjectives in connection with any authority of Dubai are we? With all the human rights abuses in the emirate? or how about the Sheikh's direct involvement in this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5346430.stm
I-SEE-red-PEOPLE
27-11-09, 17:13
I wish this charcter http://www.ugo.com/movies/psychopaths/images/entries/JohnDoe.jpg could meet gillet and hicks and show them his dislike of the sin greed.
WineForMyMen
27-11-09, 17:17
I wish this charcter http://www.ugo.com/movies/psychopaths/images/entries/JohnDoe.jpg could meet gillet and hicks and show them his dislike of the sin greed.
People used to call for us to sign him in place of Peter Crouch.
Jan Koller. The beast.
KOPGIRL1971
28-11-09, 23:24
an update from the star-telegram:
By BARRY SHLACHTER
bshlachter@star-telegram.com
The deadline for proposals to buy the Texas Rangers passed more than a week ago, but a spokeswoman for owner Tom Hicks said Friday that he is neither saying what happened nor how many groups actually came forward to make a pitch.
"This is a difficult and complex situation, and as soon as there is anything substantive to report, we will be in touch," Lisa LeMaster said by e-mail. The deadline was Nov. 20.
Hicks has complicated the sale scenario by tossing about the idea that he can somehow retain control of the financially ailing team by recruiting deep-pocketed Texas investors and, at another point, declining to shoot down speculation that Fox TV might be interested in a minority stake.
His organization defaulted March 31 on a $525 million loan tied to the Rangers and the Dallas Stars, prompting Major League Baseball to reportedly cover millions in team expenses this past season.
It’s not known how the three publicly identified groups, led by Houston entrepreneur Jim Crane, Pittsburgh attorney Chuck Greenberg and Los Angeles sports agent Dennis Gilbert, reacted to Hicks’ Nov. 17 intimation that Nolan Ryan and Roger Staubach were part of his latest plan to keep the team. Ryan had met earlier with Greenberg.
Speaking with several reporters just before the deadline, Hicks asserted: "This has never been about me selling the Rangers."
A source close to one of the three groups indicated that such remarks are generating confusion and wondered out loud how MLB feels about Hicks emerging as his own "11th-hour bidder." A call to an MLB spokesman was not returned.
---
confusion seems to reihn wherever hicks is
kopitecrash
29-11-09, 10:45
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/...topic=250492.0
documentary from rawk
KOPGIRL1971
29-11-09, 19:14
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/...topic=250492.0
documentary from rawk
thanks for that kopitecrash, I will read it all later
------------------
Liverpool: No chance of groundshare
Liverpool have rejected the opportunity of sharing a super-stadium with cross-town rivals Everton.
Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have turned down an offer from Blues chief executive Robert Elston.
A senior Anfield source told the Sunday Mirror: "There is absolutely no chance that Liverpool will be sharing a stadium with Everton. It will never happen."
Elstone called Liverpool for talks after the government refused to sanction the building of a £400million new stadium at Kirkby.
Liverpool already have plans to build a 60,000-seat stadium at Stanley Park.
But the building of the stadium is now delayed due to the economic recession and that has made it nearly impossible to find enough resources to build Stanley Park stadium.
However, the club's co-owners believe that they can secure the £350m the club needs to build the stadium once the recession is over.
Hicks and Gillette can expect to raise another £150m by selling the naming rights of the stadium.
The difference in stadium capacity between Liverpool and clubs like Machester United and Arsenal has led to a sizeable gulf in earnings that show no signs of improving.
Stadium ownership is one of the main components that football teams can use on their balance sheet.
Nice emotive post Robin, but I'm afraid to say I don't buy it.
How anyone (and I'm not just talking about yourself) can have enough cynicism to spin elaborate conspiracy theories on "the big bad yanks", yet view DIC as some fairy tale model of peace, love, harmony and perfection is baffling. Ever heard of PR?
In financial terms, Dubai isn't looking so hot now is it?
And as for the "honest and decent" bit, we're not seriously using those adjectives in connection with any authority of Dubai are we? With all the human rights abuses in the emirate? or how about the Sheikh's direct involvement in this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5346430.stm
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Exactly my thoughts as well lad............
Also how can anyone with such abysmal knowledge of spelling and grammar be involved with such high profile businessmen?:eek:
SCARY!!
Rangers owner Tom Hicks tries a magic act with Rangers
Published online on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009
By GIL LEBRETON - McClatchy Newspapers
DALLAS -- With a Friday deadline for proposals fast approaching, Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks revealed Wednesday his plan to assemble a group of local investors.
Hicks was asked about a rumour that was circulating Wednesday about media mogul Rupert Murdoch investing $250 million as a minority owner.
"I have not talked to Rupert Murdoch," Hicks said.
Hicks, meanwhile, said that a week hasn't gone by during the past year when he hasn't worked on the club's financial problems.
"I think you'll agree that it hasn't affected the team," he said Wednesday. "We've had business as usual."
Well, true, nobody has confiscated the uniforms.
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/national/story/1717668.html
So...........the Redneck Hicks wants to deal with Murdoch now...........
Why the hell is this ******** not thrown out of our club?
thanks for that kopitecrash, I will read it all later
------------------
Liverpool: No chance of groundshare
Liverpool have rejected the opportunity of sharing a super-stadium with cross-town rivals Everton.
Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have turned down an offer from Blues chief executive Robert Elston.
A senior Anfield source told the Sunday Mirror: "There is absolutely no chance that Liverpool will be sharing a stadium with Everton. It will never happen."
Elstone called Liverpool for talks after the government refused to sanction the building of a £400million new stadium at Kirkby.
Since when did the estimated costs for Everton's stadium reach £400 million ?
Last thing I heard, it wasn't even half that.
KOPGIRL1971
30-11-09, 12:15
According to the People, Jurgen Klinsmann has sent a come and get me plea to H&G, saying he wouldn't turn down the offer of managing Liverpool a second time.
That's right, a man who has only managed at club level for a total of NINE MONTHS before being sacked wants to take over the reigns of England's most successful club.
There was only ever one Kaiser and his name was Didi
According to the People, Jurgen Klinsmann has sent a come and get me plea to H&G, saying he wouldn't turn down the offer of managing Liverpool a second time.
That's right, a man who has only managed at club level for a total of NINE MONTHS before being sacked wants to take over the reigns of England's most successful club.
There was only ever one Kaiser and his name was Didi
Very generous of our old mate Jurgen.... Best get on the phone Tom, before he changes his mind.... :rolleyes:
I Daniel Agger was Super both wednesday and Saturday. Im a massive fan of his and if he can stay in the side he will offer some very much needed composure and a more conducive link to the midfield. Skertl, Carragher and Greek are not the the most graceful. And he is winner.
I think insua after some dogy games was fantastic yesterday.
WTF is going on with the owners. There has not been any movement on new investment or change of owners. They need to sell up and move on
WTF is going on with the owners. There has not been any movement on new investment or change of owners. They need to sell up and move on
When you think about it, a poor run of form sees a lot of your general fans all calling for the manager's head...
A great winning streak and everything is rosy wherever you look...
I'm not talking about the die-hards somewhere in the middle but the majority (that will be needed in the ousting of the beauts) who see nothing more important than results.
They can't lose really...:mad:
So what are the consequences of the debt problems in Dubai ?
Silverthorn
30-11-09, 18:47
So what are the consequences of the debt problems in Dubai ?
Abu Dhabi will bail them out.
Abu Dhabi will bail them out.
Abu Dovey?..................thats in Wales innit?.........................;)
PacificRed
30-11-09, 21:19
So what are the consequences of the debt problems in Dubai ?
Abu Dhabi will bail them out.
Yes they will, the prob;em is that Dubai will not be spending any new money for quite a while:crying
Edinburgher
1-12-09, 09:13
Bascombe wrote an interesting piece in the NotW on Sunday on the background to why Moores stopped attending games earlier this season. There was a lot of discussion on here but nobody came up with the truth:
Portion of article below:
"Purslow is seeking a departure from the invisibility of Moores and belligerence of a siege mentality. He must responsibly fill the vacuum of power created by the American owners' failure.
A look at the minutes of Anfield's old AGMs confirms Purslow has the right credentials, combining business acumen with emotional attachment to the club.
In 2004, he stood up in support of Steve Morgan during a feisty meeting. An emotional David Moores, then chairman, said he'd consider his future.
The bad blood remains, on one side at least, with life president Moores refusing to sit in Liverpool's directors' box, seemingly insulted by Purslow's appointment.
Purslow remains on a learning curve.
Before his arrival he arranged no-holds- barred interviews with key personnel to assess the debris of three traumatic years under the ownership of George Gillett and Tom Hicks. "Christian wanted to get an impartial, broad view from as many staff as possible," an Anfield source said.
"What he discovered was a club in which all the key relationships between owners, chief executive and manager were malfunctioning." "
What that confirmed if it ever needed confirming is the absolute stupidity and selfishness of Moores as far as this club is concerned. I'll say that I despise hicks but Moores is the real culprit of why we find ourselves in the position we're in.
hicks appointed Purslow and would have been told the history between the two. Interesting that Purslow and Morgan are/were on the same side.........
I think this belongs in here.
eyeopening Edinburgher.. still struggle to understand how Moores & Parry could be soo stupid/blind/greedy..................( please delete as appropriate!!)
KOPGIRL1971
2-12-09, 09:36
as posted earlier today by inlimbo:
Gillette Sells Montreal Canadiens Hockey Club
Molson brothers are the new owners of the Montreal Canadiens Hockey ClubTuesday, 01.12.2009 / 3:47 PM / News Montreal CanadiensPRESS RELEASE
MONTREAL – The group led by Geoff, Andrew and ****** Molson officially became owners of the Montreal Canadiens Hockey Club on Tuesday. The transaction was completed this morning after receiving the approval of the National Hockey League. The transaction also includes the Bell Centre and the Gillett Entertainment Group.
“I would like to thank the NHL governors for their support and I would also like to thank all those who have contributed to the success of this transaction,” said Geoff Molson, who leads the investor group.
Partners of the Molson brothers in the transaction include Woodbridge, BCE/Bell, the QFL Solidarity Fund, Michael Andlauer, Luc Bertrand and the National Bank Financial Group. The National Bank also joined as a partner in addition to leading the banking syndicate, which includes Desjardins Group and Scotiabank. Investissement Québec, a Quebec government corporation that promotes investment in the province, also participated in the financing.
“I am very proud to have been able to recruit such solid and prestigious partners in this transaction and to have benefited from the support of major financial institutions and the Quebec government,” emphasized Mr. Molson.
Two-thirds of the capital for the transaction came from partners in Quebec. The investor group is structured as a private company and financial details of the transaction were not disclosed.
“This is a proud moment for my family and our partners in the transaction,” stated Geoff Molson. “As owners, we will be right there with management and the team, building and battling toward our next Stanley Cup.”
Today’s announcement is the culmination of six months of work, since the Molson brothers first announced, on May 26, 2009, the possibility that they would make an offer under BMO Capital Market’s bid process for the sale of the Canadiens Hockey Club, the Bell Centre and Gillett Entertainment Group. On June 10, the Molson brothers announced that they had tendered an offer to Mr. George Gillett. On June 20, the Gillett family and the Molson family announced that they had reached an agreement in principle. On September 10, Geoff Molson and George Gillett announced they had signed an agreement, which was subject to the approval of the National Hockey League. That approval was granted by the board of governors of the League today, December 1, 2009.
Mr. Molson praised the work of the team that was assembled to carry out the transaction. In addition to Luc Bertrand, former president of the Montreal Exchange, the team consisted of financial advisors from PricewaterhouseCoopers, legal advisors from Lavery and from Davies, and communications consultants from NATIONAL Public Relations.
KOPGIRL1971
2-12-09, 09:45
Sale of NHL Canadiens to Molson brothers approved
(AP) – 12 hours ago
MONTREAL — The NHL board of governors has approved the sale of the Montreal Canadiens to the Molson family.
Geoff Molson and brothers Andrew and ****** are the lead investors in a group that is paying a reported $575 million for the storied franchise. Geoff Molson will be chairman and chief executive.
George Gillett put the team up for sale in the spring. The sale includes the team, the arena and Gillett Entertainment Group, a concert promotion company.
Tuesday's announcement comes on the eve of the Canadiens' 100-year anniversary.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
KOPGIRL1971
2-12-09, 10:13
as posted by AidoC:
Liverpool now a distant dream for Dubai Investment Capital
Liverpool now a distant dream for Dubai Investment Capital
2 Dec, 09 | England | Clubs ownership & management
http://www.eufootball.biz/Clubs/7797...y+headlines%29
Dubai Investment Capital (DIC) has been in ardent pursuit of English Liverpool FC for a while now. However, the recent financial difficulties in Dubai make it unlikely that DIC will be able to make a credible takeover bid for the club according to SportsProMedia.
DIC which has been consistent in its interest since 2006 held talks about a possible takeover before the Tom Hicks and George Gillett deal and continued to express interest after that also. In 2008 Hicks blocked a takeover effort a few weeks before finalization.
The ruling family of Abu Dhabi owns Manchester City and this 15-month old deal has served to make the Dubai agency’s interest even sharper. Given Liverpool’s financial position today, this would have been a great time for DIC to takeover and fulfil its dream of owning a Premier League club. Liverpool FC did not make it to the knock-out stage of the Champions League which is usually a huge source of revenue for the clubs.
Unfortunately for DIC, given the ground realities in Dubai today a takeover is near impossible. Dubai asked for an extension in paying back its debt of USD 59 billion in November 2009 and there is a possibility that this may be one of the world’s largest government defaults since the Argentine financial crisis of 2001. The central bank of the United Arab Emirates has made emergency credit available to regional banks.
----
I'd already suggested this would be the case, so no surprise there. Maybe one for the future though, or even the naming rights? :eek:
as posted by AidoC:
Liverpool now a distant dream for Dubai Investment Capital
Liverpool now a distant dream for Dubai Investment Capital
2 Dec, 09 | England | Clubs ownership & management
http://www.eufootball.biz/Clubs/7797...y+headlines%29
Dubai Investment Capital (DIC) has been in ardent pursuit of English Liverpool FC for a while now. However, the recent financial difficulties in Dubai make it unlikely that DIC will be able to make a credible takeover bid for the club according to SportsProMedia.
DIC which has been consistent in its interest since 2006 held talks about a possible takeover before the Tom Hicks and George Gillett deal and continued to express interest after that also. In 2008 Hicks blocked a takeover effort a few weeks before finalization.
The ruling family of Abu Dhabi owns Manchester City and this 15-month old deal has served to make the Dubai agency’s interest even sharper. Given Liverpool’s financial position today, this would have been a great time for DIC to takeover and fulfil its dream of owning a Premier League club. Liverpool FC did not make it to the knock-out stage of the Champions League which is usually a huge source of revenue for the clubs.
Unfortunately for DIC, given the ground realities in Dubai today a takeover is near impossible. Dubai asked for an extension in paying back its debt of USD 59 billion in November 2009 and there is a possibility that this may be one of the world’s largest government defaults since the Argentine financial crisis of 2001. The central bank of the United Arab Emirates has made emergency credit available to regional banks.
----
I'd already suggested this would be the case, so no surprise there. Maybe one for the future though, or even the naming rights? :eek:
KG,
Just like in Star Wars, there is hope. That hope is the Saudis. I am sure there is a reason for Prince Faisal's visit to the game with Gillette. I am thinking Gillette might be heading out. I think he is about to cash out shortly now that the hockey deal is complete. Watch out come January...speculation will continue to mount.
KOPGIRL1971
2-12-09, 14:10
KG,
Just like in Star Wars, there is hope. That hope is the Saudis. I am sure there is a reason for Prince Faisal's visit to the game with Gillette. I am thinking Gillette might be heading out. I think he is about to cash out shortly now that the hockey deal is complete. Watch out come January...speculation will continue to mount.
Even if Gillett goes, Hicks will stay, he has seen the future and it's Red - and that involves a brand new stadium, so if the Saudis come in they will probably only be equal partners or third party investors. Given today;s financial climate, a complete takeoever is unlikely, and Hicks wouldn't bite anyway unless he could walk away with a gazillion pound profit.
Roll on 2010 and all th twists and turns that will bring with it :rolleyes:
I Daniel Agger was Super both wednesday and Saturday. Im a massive fan of his and if he can stay in the side he will offer some very much needed composure and a more conducive link to the midfield. Skertl, Carragher and Greek are not the the most graceful. And he is winner.
I think insua after some dogy games was fantastic yesterday.
wrong post mate!:crying
A response by Dubai to the rumours about the debts and finances.
Put it in the other thread to:-
http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZW20091130000180/pagHome
Dubai Police Chief Denies Government Debt Crisis
Zawya Dow Jones News
Monday, Nov 30, 2009
Dubai's powerful chief of police Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim said Monday that the emirate wasn't facing a debt crisis after one of its largest state-owned companies requested a standstill with creditors.
"Dubai as a government doesn't face a debt crisis, but a crisis of unfair competition, that constitutes an offense to the emirate," said Lieutenant General Tamim, in an unusual public statement on the health of Dubai's economy sent by email.
Lieutenant General Tamim is also head of Dubai's budget committee and the Dubai Crisis Management Team, set up to deal with state emergencies in the emirate. His remarks, translated from Arabic, come in response to rising concern over whether oil-rich neighbor Abu Dhabi and the federal government of the United Arab Emirates will provide more financial support.
Dubai plunged world markets into panic last week after announcing it was seeking a standstill on the debts of one of its largest government companies, Dubai WorldDubai WorldLoading.... The conglomerate has liabilities close to $60 billion.
The comments, coming from a key right-hand man of Dubai's ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, suggest a hardening response to criticism of the government's management of the current debt crisis.
He criticized the media for its coverage of the crisis saying that confusing Dubai's sovereign debt with that of government companies is a "mistake to mix between the two debts and a mistake that should be corrected."
Regional investment bank EFG Hermes said Monday that Dubai's debt could total $150 billion if bilateral loans are included. The bank said in a research note that $84.2 billion of the total includes capital market debt such as bonds, sukuk and syndicated loans for Dubai Inc. companies. A later translation of the statement on the government-run Emirates News Agency Web site, quoted Lieutenant General Tamim as saying "I noticed that Gulf and foreign media, as well as a large segment of general public, confuse between debts of Dubai government, which are almost non-existent, and the debts of local companies."
Earlier, Abdulrahman Al Saleh, director general of Dubai's Department of Finance told local television that the government won't guarantee the debts of Dubai WorldDubai WorldLoading..., its once prized asset that is now seen to be its biggest corporate problem.
Not as bad in Dubai as being made out it seems........:)
KOPGIRL1971
3-12-09, 00:21
A response by Dubai to the rumours about the debts and finances.
Put it in the other thread to:-
Not as bad in Dubai as being made out it seems........:)
Get out of it! Dubai government, Dubai sovereignity, they are all tied up together. They are up the Dubai Creek and need wealthy Arab brothers Abu Dhabi to bail them out, so don't expect DIC to coming knocking on our door anytime soon
Bascombe wrote an interesting piece in the NotW on Sunday on the background to why Moores stopped attending games earlier this season. There was a lot of discussion on here but nobody came up with the truth:
Portion of article below:
"Purslow is seeking a departure from the invisibility of Moores and belligerence of a siege mentality. He must responsibly fill the vacuum of power created by the American owners' failure.
A look at the minutes of Anfield's old AGMs confirms Purslow has the right credentials, combining business acumen with emotional attachment to the club.
In 2004, he stood up in support of Steve Morgan during a feisty meeting. An emotional David Moores, then chairman, said he'd consider his future.
The bad blood remains, on one side at least, with life president Moores refusing to sit in Liverpool's directors' box, seemingly insulted by Purslow's appointment.
Purslow remains on a learning curve.
Before his arrival he arranged no-holds- barred interviews with key personnel to assess the debris of three traumatic years under the ownership of George Gillett and Tom Hicks. "Christian wanted to get an impartial, broad view from as many staff as possible," an Anfield source said.
"What he discovered was a club in which all the key relationships between owners, chief executive and manager were malfunctioning." "
What that confirmed if it ever needed confirming is the absolute stupidity and selfishness of Moores as far as this club is concerned. I'll say that I despise hicks but Moores is the real culprit of why we find ourselves in the position we're in.
hicks appointed Purslow and would have been told the history between the two. Interesting that Purslow and Morgan are/were on the same side.........
I think this belongs in here.
That incident in the 2004 AGM is well renowned lad.....Purslow was a shareholder and fan that stood with us and Steve against Moores,
His appointment this year was THE main reason for Freddie Boswell spitting out his dummy....not for any `greater` good for our club........Good riddance, i say,
robinredshanks
3-12-09, 02:11
following on from chaz's post, I found this interesting article on Hicks in the Baseball Time in Arlington website, from a baseball perspective, and a couple of comment, which all seem to mirror our own concerns
http://www.bbtia.com/home/2009/11/19/on-the-hicks-ownership-situation.html
Baseball Time in Arlington
Main | Kicking Around John Smoltz »
Thursday
19Nov2009
On The Hicks Ownership Situation
AuthorJoey Matschulat | DateThursday, November 19, 2009 at 6:00 AM | Print ArticlePrint Article | Share ArticleShare Article
If your absolute worst baseball-related fear is the prospect of Tom Hicks rising from the dead and retaining majority control of the Texas Rangers after it seemed 80-plus percent certain that he was headed out, then you might have to brace for the realization of that fear, as Hicks has hastily assembled a group of local investors -- comprising both Cowboys legend Roger Staubach and the dual-allegianced Nolan Ryan -- and is preparing to submit his own bid ... to himself. Yeah.
There's the apparent confirmation that the Rangers are operating under league-imposed budgetary guidelines (via the largely reputable Joel Sherman), the hearsay that the owners have pressured the commissioner's office to figuratively clip Hicks' wings after he opened an eight-digit line of credit with the league, and then a hodgepodge of snippets and quotes that lend nothing but confusion to the entire situation. It could be months, years, or never before we get full disclosure on the rise and (very hard) fall of Hicks Sports Group and the accompanying juicy behind-the-scenes happenings from this past summer, but that's beside the point right now.
There are points to be made both for and against Hicks remaining in power, with the former largely being based upon the idiom "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Supporters of Ryan and general manager Jon Daniels will likely find this to be the best, and perhaps only, bullet point in Hicks' favor; his alignment behind Ryan and insistence that his participation in another ownership group would be contingent upon Ryan's involvement suggests that he does, at some level, comprehend the value of stability.
Elaborating upon that a little bit, I'm going to imagine that latching onto another consortium (led by, say, Jim Crane or Dennis Gilbert), then helplessly watching them depose the current management team and implement wholesale changes throughout the organization probably isn't a very appealing option to Hicks, given that he green-lighted the radical shift from win-now to rebuild mode in 2007 and has witnessed his ballclub move ever closer to potential powerhouse status. He's seen the ugly and now he wants to see the good, and thusly doesn't want to give it up yet. I can sympathize with that.
On the other hand, however, what happens if the bid assembled by Chuck Greenberg and friends doesn't prevail over the other proposals? At that stage, we have no real clue as to whether Ryan and/or the current management regime would earn the endorsement of Crane or Gilbert or the surprise fourth entrant, and as for Hicks' entire proposition to remain in power ... well, any change in ownership will require the unanimous support of baseball's owners, and it would seem at this point that Hicks' helming of a new group probably wouldn't sit very well with the same owners who were alleged to be infuriated with the financial debacle that was mostly Hicks' own doing. They'd probably be unnerved by the possibility of a repeat, and rightly so. He may not get to have any choice in the matter.
As for the "against" side of the Hicks argument, I point to one of his favorite lines of this calendar year: "It's business as usual." Wrong. Assuming that you interpret "business as usual" to mean that the ballclub can competitively pursue opportunities to improve the team within reason, contrast that viewpoint against the media assertions that the Rangers will be fortunate to snag even a single major league player on a low-base, high-incentives deal this off-season, let alone more than one.
If things play out the way we expect them to this winter, reasonably priced opportunities for roster improvement entailing reasonable degrees of risk are going to slip through the Rangers' fingers that wouldn't slip through the team's fingers in a standard operating environment. I don't consider that to be "business as usual," but I can understand the fear that, barring significant change in Hicks' ways, it will become the new norm in Arlington.
Reader Comments (2)
I have no greater fear for the Rangers right now than of a new ownership group coming into town and cleaning out the old management and throwing out the baby with the bath water.
This is a team that is close. They don't need someone who must put his stamp on the team.
If that makes me pro Hicks then so be it. However I have said for a long time that Tom Hicks should sell the team because he'd lost the support of the fans. That is a shame. He is a better owner than Jerry Jones. He has grown and gotten better at the roll but Jerry is still Jerry. I'm not even going to touch Mark Cuban
November 19, 2009 at 6:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterCliff Phelps
Hicks ownership has become a circus side show. Seems that in addition to $ he's looking to enhance his own tattered image by attaching himself to highly regarded names in his push to remain in control. Not the worst strategy if you're Hicks, but I wonder how much good will he's got left with the other owners, and more importantly with his creditors. Too much drama.
November 19, 2009 at 6:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterA. Stephens
Does anyone here really care about wht the yank is doing in baseball, stupid game for me; but that's the problem with the yankee doodle dandies they know us sports but not English Football. They are just money grabbers get real my dear lass.
robinredshanks
3-12-09, 02:46
Hello Kopgirl, you are by no doubt a true:scarf:scarf:scarf of LFC, but may I make a suggestion? and if you/ or other posters' dissagree; please shoot me down (tell me to shut up). I appreciate the work you are putting into your posts' but perhaps it would be better to "guide" people to the relevent imformation, rather than elaborating at such length. Try asking people to check things out, work things out for themselves, rather than preaching that "you know it all": Perhaps you do know more than most, you are very well informed; but please clarify your imfo/scources; and let the people find out for themselves. But I love your input, and would love to meet you; I think you are a girl (if that's true and not a cover up) of real spirit. :):):)
foreverred-1973
3-12-09, 07:23
Hello Kopgirl, you are by no doubt a true:scarf:scarf:scarf of LFC, but may I make a suggestion? and if you/ or other posters' dissagree; please shoot me down (tell me to shut up). I appreciate the work you are putting into your posts' but perhaps it would be better to "guide" people to the relevent imformation, rather than elaborating at such length. Try asking people to check things out, work things out for themselves, rather than preaching that "you know it all": Perhaps you do know more than most, you are very well informed; but please clarify your imfo/scources; and let the people find out for themselves. But I love your input, and would love to meet you; I think you are a girl (if that's true and not a cover up) of real spirit. :)
:D Kopgirl is a lady!!
Hello Kopgirl, you are by no doubt a true:scarf:scarf:scarf of LFC, but may I make a suggestion? and if you/ or other posters' dissagree; please shoot me down (tell me to shut up). I appreciate the work you are putting into your posts' but perhaps it would be better to "guide" people to the relevent imformation, rather than elaborating at such length. Try asking people to check things out, work things out for themselves, rather than preaching that "you know it all": Perhaps you do know more than most, you are very well informed; but please clarify your imfo/scources; and let the people find out for themselves. But I love your input, and would love to meet you; I think you are a girl (if that's true and not a cover up) of real spirit. :)
get your coat, you've pulled :)
KOPGIRL1971
3-12-09, 10:53
Hello Kopgirl, you are by no doubt a true:scarf:scarf:scarf of LFC, but may I make a suggestion? and if you/ or other posters' dissagree; please shoot me down (tell me to shut up). I appreciate the work you are putting into your posts' but perhaps it would be better to "guide" people to the relevent imformation, rather than elaborating at such length. Try asking people to check things out, work things out for themselves, rather than preaching that "you know it all": Perhaps you do know more than most, you are very well informed; but please clarify your imfo/scources; and let the people find out for themselves. But I love your input, and would love to meet you; I think you are a girl (if that's true and not a cover up) of real spirit.
First off, I think you will find that I source ALL my posts, when I have taken them from newspaper articles.
The reason I post them in full is that it's there for people to read straight away, rather than look for, also because not everyone can open the links, plus, it's simpler for when people want to catch up with what's been said/happening, and, lastly, some people are lazy!
As I said a while ago, I started the original thread just after H&G took over and seeing as their tenure soon got into trouble I wanted to keep a record of their doings, which is why I carry on.
It's for no altruistic purpose, just something I thought people would find of interest. Parry is off the scene now, DIC in the distance, we just need Tom (and George to depart) and then I'll do a ritualistic burning of the thread.
But I somehow think it'll be a while yet. In the meantime, feel free to post any snippets you find :)
As for my status, as foreverred says, I like to think I'm still a lady but it's been a few years (;)) since I was a girl standing on the Kop in 1971 :scarf
KOPGIRL1971
3-12-09, 10:55
get your coat, you've pulled :)
pulled a mussel :D
pulled a mussel :D
more like a cockle ;)
Tom Hicks, Debt-to-Value, and the Leveraging of the Texas Rangers
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 1, 2009 11:22 AM CST 116 comments
Yesterday's discussion of the Rangers' operating income, and what that does and does not mean for the franchise, prompted me to take a look at another relevant bit of data regarding the current Rangers situation...
I think everyone knows that the Hicks Sports Group has defaulted on a bunch of loans, which is what has led to the current situation where MLB is having to front the Rangers money and Tom Hicks (or, technically, HSG) is having to sell the team.
The 2009 Forbes data supports the notion that the Rangers are a highly leveraged franchise...the team's debt to value ratio is 66%, the third highest in baseball, with only the Yankees and Mets (both of whom took on a bunch of new stadium debt the previous offseason) with higher ratios. The Washington Nationals, at 62%, are fourth, and they obviously have a new stadium (and, I believe, associated stadium debt).
The Padres are sitting at 60%, and of course were just purchased by the Moorad group. The Dodgers are at 58% and, reportedly, the purchase by the McCourts was almost completely debt-financed, so it makes sense that they'd have a high debt to value ratio. The Tigers are at 57% (also with a relatively new stadium), the recently-purchased Diamondbacks are at 51%, and the St. Louis Cardinals are at 50%.
Every other team has a debt to value ratio of 38% of lower, with half of MLB teams having a debt to value ratio of less than 30%.
The Rangers are something of an outlier, having an extremely high debt/value ratio, and having not been recently purchased or incurring significant stadium-related debt recently.
In any case...according to the April, 2009, Forbes data, the Rangers, valued at $405 million, are saddled with $265-270 million in debt.
What is particularly interesting to me, though, is that this huge debt level for the Rangers was only recently incurred. In April, 2002 -- just a few years after Hicks bought the Rangers -- the team's debt/value ratio was 40%. With a value of $356 million, that meant the team, in April, 2002, had around $140-145 million in debt.
But that increase in debt, that was because of the ARod contract, the Juan Gonzalez contract, and all that other spending in the early 2000s, right? That explains why debt increased by over $100 million over a 7 year period, surely...
Except...in April, 2005 -- one year after ARod was traded and the payroll was slashed and Hicks became fiscally conservative, at a time when the debt should have been at its highest, the level of debt was the same as it had been in 2002. The team had diminished in value, to $326 million, meaning that debt/value was up to 44%, but that still put the total debt in the $140-145 million range. According to the Forbes data, the Rangers debt, after the spending spree of the early 2000s, was no higher than it had been at the beginning of that period.
So what happened? It 2006, the debt level based on the Forbes figures was around $160 million. Still not unreasonable.
Then in 2007, Forbes reported the Rangers at a debt/value ratio of 73%, the third highest in baseball. Valued at $365 million, that meant that the Rangers were carrying $265-270 million in debt -- over $100 million increase in debt in one year.
And of course, as I wrote yesterday, the team over the past five years has generated a significant amount of operating income, so the baseball operations shouldn't have been going into the red there.
So what happened between April, 2006, and April, 2007, that caused the debt to value ratio to skyrocket, and that led to the Rangers being so heavily leveraged that they've spent the past year hamstrung in terms of being able to spend money, turning into a ward of the MLB state and forcing a sale?
One can only speculate, but this seems like the most obvious cause:
Wednesday, 07 February 2007
Americans George Gillett and Tom Hicks buy Liverpool Football Club
US business tycoons George Gillett and Tom Hicks have negotiated a deal to buy Liverpool Football Club and will be co-chairmen, but current chief executive Rick Parry will retain his position too.
"If you have a chance to get a great player, you get a great player," Tom Hicks said after confirming their takeover, and he added: "We're not going to put a budget on what we're going to do."
Liverpool FC chairman David Moores, who now becomes an honorary life president, said: "This is a great step forward for its shareholders and its fans."
Tom Hicks, who owns the Dallas Stars ice hockey club and the Texas Rangers baseball team as well, joined forces with George Gillett to outdo the competition from Dubai International Capital and it was Tom Hicks and George Gillett who won.
George Gillett and Tom Hicks are reported to have guaranteed an investment of over £200m in Liverpool Football Club, but they have declined to discuss this, although they said they will make funds available, both for supporting the team and for the building of the club's new stadium in Stanley Park.
Hicks, the leveraged buyout king, dumps millions into Liverpool right around the same time as the Rangers' debt increases by $100 million.
And now, Hicks has stopped paying the Hicks Sports Group creditors, and the once financially-healthy Rangers, a franchise that has been generating significant cash for the past half-decade, and that should currently be in a position to ramp up payroll to add pieces to the young talent that is starting to blossom, instead have turned into a fiscal embarrassment, and the organization is forced to sit on its hands in a crucial offseason rather than make moves to improve the team.
Thank you, Tom Hicks.
http://www.lonestarball.com/2009/12/1/1180700/tom-hicks-debt-to-value-and-the
pulled a mussel :D
Yep............he`s stalking you...deffo.......:eek:
KOPGIRL1971
7-12-09, 22:19
BLOOD RED: Don't bank on a Happy New Year for Liverpool FC boss Rafa Benitez
Dec 5 2009 by James Pearce, Liverpool Echo
Don't bank on a Happy New Year for Rafa
CHRISTMAS has come early for George Gillett and fellow Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks’ finances are also set to get a much needed boost.
Gillett banked a tidy £180million profit this week after his sale of Montreal Canadiens to the Molson brewing family was approved by the National Hockey League.
The 71-year-old paid £165million for the team and their Bell Centre arena back in 2001 and eight years on has more than doubled his investment.
Gillett made the decision to sell last year in a bid to ease the pressure on his other business interests, which as well as the Reds includes a Nascar motor-racing team.
Hicks is also in the process of off-loading one of his North American sports franchises.
Reports suggest three bids in excess of £300million have been received for his Major League Baseball club Texas Rangers. The Dallas businessman bought the Rangers for £150million in 1998 from a group that included former US president George W. Bush.
His reign has turned sour and earlier this year the Hicks Sports Group defaulted on £315m in loans tied to the Rangers and Hicks’ other major franchise, Dallas Stars ice hockey team.
The cash-strapped Rangers needed £9million from Major League Baseball’s central fund just to get through last season and Hicks put the club up for sale in an effort to ease mounting debts.
Recently Hicks back-tracked and revealed he was trying to put together a group of investors for a bid that would enable him to keep control.
However, it’s believed the league, which has the final say, have blocked Hicks’ plans and he has been told he has until December 15 to accept a winning bid.
Hicks is about as popular among Rangers and Stars fans as he is on the Kop. The 63-year-old has cut back wage bills and infuriated Rangers supporters by delaying refunds for play-off tickets which were void when the team’s slump meant they didn’t even qualify for the end of season showpiece.
With Gillett now £180million better off and Hicks’ windfall just around the corner, the question is what effect will all this have on Liverpool?
What is clear is that the American duo have no intentions of walking away from Anfield. If anything their extra cash tightens their grip on the club’s ownership.
However, the pair are pressing ahead with their search for third party investors. They want help to pay off the Reds’ £235m debt and to finance a new stadium.
They know the club’s value will only rocket when the Stanley Park development and the huge increase in revenue that will bring is guaranteed.
With more money in their pockets, Rafa Benitez can only hope the Americans loosen their vice-like grip on the Anfield purse strings in time for the January transfer window. But after the experiences of the past two and a half years, the Spaniard won’t be holding his breath.
---
I didnt really expect us to benefit from the sale of these sports franchises, as both H&G already said as much, but it will be interesting to see what, if any, money rafa has for the january transfer
I agree, though we are not privy to G&H's priorities (should they, as our primary investors, be considered as seperate entities or as a joint entity of/as owners/ownership of Liverpool FC? - fractures have appeared before:tumbleweed) this means that we are all still in the dark as to what will be available in the next silly period/season of yet another transfare window in the coming January.
At the same time it does not help if we inform our competitors the extent or limit of our potential investment. ;)
As has been discussed a few times in the last 24 months...........perhaps going out of the Champions league may be the catalyst that forces the cowboys hand and makes them quit..................although as has been suggested, perhaps getting relegated would be a bit too severe :eek:
It would give the yanks a bit of a jolt though.....especially if they see empty seats and their merchandise drying up as most of the `newbys` decide to follow a different bandwagon.................hmmmmmmmmm, now where is that map of Blackpool ?.........;)
KOPGIRL1971
8-12-09, 13:26
As has been discussed a few times in the last 24 months...........perhaps going out of the Champions league may be the catalyst that forces the cowboys hand and makes them quit..................although as has been suggested, perhaps getting relegated would be a bit too severe :eek:
It would give the yanks a bit of a jolt though.....especially if they see empty seats and their merchandise drying up as most of the `newbys` decide to follow a different bandwagon.................hmmmmmmmmm, now where is that map of Blackpool ?.........;)
hence why I think it clever of rafa (or forced on him from above) to hold back playing aquilani in his full home debut until tomorrow night's game, when the stadium might otherwise be half empty - especially as w ehear from his ftaher today that he's bene fit and ready to play for the past month
call me an old cynic won't you ;)
Yet again I'm amazed at the lack of business nous shown by H&G. Surely, after selling the Canadiens, Gillette can see that he HAS to invest in LFC in order to protect any future return he may be hoping for??? What is the point of having an asset which is underperforming? All that will lead to is a drop in value.
I know I'm urinating into a strong breeze here but I have a small feeling of hope that Rafa will get some proper help in January. Not sell to buy but actually ADD to the squad to strengthen it. Then again I could be wrong.
And even if they don't do that, I'd be equally amazed if the banks haven't written in a further debt pay-down before the Summer. It seems criminal that the pair of them will have money to pay off THEIR debts yet they'll use the clubs finances instead.
Stinky, horrible little turds...
YNWA
Turds lol!!:D Steamin hot horrible turds
redtildie1978
8-12-09, 18:38
And even if they don't do that, I'd be equally amazed if the banks haven't written in a further debt pay-down before the Summer. It seems criminal that the pair of them will have money to pay off THEIR debts yet they'll use the clubs finances instead.
Well when they re-financed in January 2008 they had to put up credit notes worth a £100m.
In July this year they had to pay a £100m between them back of the original £350m loan plus keep those original credit notes in place.
Now i would imagine that the next re-financing is due either this summer or next January depending if they have the 6 month extension option again. The re-financing could be a lot less with the banks possibly calling in another £100m. That would then leave £150m outstanding with that possibly wiped out with a new loan with the funds for a new stadium. But the next 8 months will be the most difficult with the next re-financing due round the corner either in the summer or January 2011 and now dubai now seeming more distant than ever before and now no prospective owner or buyer with the sufficent funds in place.
KOPGIRL1971
10-12-09, 17:17
from sporting news website
Rangers' sale drags on as Hicks' funding questioned
Daniel Kaplan, SportsBusiness Journal
Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2009 - 8:01 a.m. ET
Dallas Stars and Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks, facing increased debt pressures, has been funding operating losses for the teams out of an interest reserve that is part of the $525 million loan on which he defaulted on March 31, sources said.
That action has rankled the lenders who are waiting for the Rangers' sales process to play out and who have not been paid interest since January. In addition, that interest reserve, totaling $17 million earlier this year, is almost depleted, according to several of the sources.
Interest reserves are typically established in loans for borrowers to use if they can't meet interest payments, but this loan was structured to allow Hicks to use it for other needs. Some finance sources not connected with the loan expressed shock that Hicks would be allowed to use the reserve in this fashion because it means he is using the money of the bankers, who are not being paid, to fund the teams. Three well-placed sources all confirmed this was the case.
If the interest reserve is near empty, it could put pressure on the NHL to forward money to the Stars the way MLB did with the Rangers this summer. The NHL, which has to approve each time Hicks taps the reserve for funds, declined to comment.
There are other mechanisms and safeguards in place to protect against a situation in which there are no further funds to operate, a source said.
Hicks has ruled out selling the Stars and recently has been trying to find investors to help him keep the Rangers, even as three bids already came in for the team. One MLB source described the situation as fluid and did not rule out Hicks still being in the picture. Another source said Dennis Gilbert, whom SI.com reported last week was the front-runner to buy the team, had actually been working with Hicks, but MLB last week shot down their joint effort. Gilbert, a former player agent who runs a California insurance company, declined to comment. MLB also declined to comment.
Regardless of the Rangers' ownership outcome, the lenders have long been impatient. They initially assumed Hicks had only six months from the March 31 default to make good or they could take over the Stars, but the consent letter signed by the lenders and the NHL ended up giving him until the summer of 2010.
One source has said, however, that if the lenders are not satisfied Hicks is making a good faith effort to sell the Rangers, which could go for more than $500 million, they may pursue litigation.
Hicks also owns half of Liverpool Football Club. Loans to that club have been extended but are due early next year. Hicks owns Liverpool in an entity separate from the Rangers and Stars, though, with the U.S. clubs owned under his Hicks Sports Group company.
Daniel Kaplan is a finance editor for SportsBusiness Journal. E-mail him at dkaplan@sportsbusinessjournal.com. SportsBusiness Journal writers Tripp Mickle and Eric Fisher contributed to this report.
from sporting news website
Rangers' sale drags on as Hicks' funding questioned
Daniel Kaplan, SportsBusiness Journal
Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2009 - 8:01 a.m. ET
Dallas Stars and Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks, facing increased debt pressures, has been funding operating losses for the teams out of an interest reserve that is part of the $525 million loan on which he defaulted on March 31, sources said.
That action has rankled the lenders who are waiting for the Rangers' sales process to play out and who have not been paid interest since January. In addition, that interest reserve, totaling $17 million earlier this year, is almost depleted, according to several of the sources.
Interest reserves are typically established in loans for borrowers to use if they can't meet interest payments, but this loan was structured to allow Hicks to use it for other needs. Some finance sources not connected with the loan expressed shock that Hicks would be allowed to use the reserve in this fashion because it means he is using the money of the bankers, who are not being paid, to fund the teams. Three well-placed sources all confirmed this was the case.
If the interest reserve is near empty, it could put pressure on the NHL to forward money to the Stars the way MLB did with the Rangers this summer. The NHL, which has to approve each time Hicks taps the reserve for funds, declined to comment.
There are other mechanisms and safeguards in place to protect against a situation in which there are no further funds to operate, a source said.
Hicks has ruled out selling the Stars and recently has been trying to find investors to help him keep the Rangers, even as three bids already came in for the team. One MLB source described the situation as fluid and did not rule out Hicks still being in the picture. Another source said Dennis Gilbert, whom SI.com reported last week was the front-runner to buy the team, had actually been working with Hicks, but MLB last week shot down their joint effort. Gilbert, a former player agent who runs a California insurance company, declined to comment. MLB also declined to comment.
Regardless of the Rangers' ownership outcome, the lenders have long been impatient. They initially assumed Hicks had only six months from the March 31 default to make good or they could take over the Stars, but the consent letter signed by the lenders and the NHL ended up giving him until the summer of 2010.
One source has said, however, that if the lenders are not satisfied Hicks is making a good faith effort to sell the Rangers, which could go for more than $500 million, they may pursue litigation.
Hicks also owns half of Liverpool Football Club. Loans to that club have been extended but are due early next year. Hicks owns Liverpool in an entity separate from the Rangers and Stars, though, with the U.S. clubs owned under his Hicks Sports Group company.
Daniel Kaplan is a finance editor for SportsBusiness Journal. E-mail him at dkaplan@sportsbusinessjournal.com. SportsBusiness Journal writers Tripp Mickle and Eric Fisher contributed to this report.
KG, first of all I want to applaude you for keeping up with info on the ownership situation. Interstingly enough I heard on the radio on the way to work that the rangers had to sell off some players during the recent trade without getting any players back in return because the Rangers as you can see from the report is Cash Strapped. Now if I was Hicks, I look around and I go Shoot the Rangers are cash strapped, liverpool is cash strapped and his organization group has defaulted, I would be like let me get out while I can. Now if we do not make the champions league, I forsee him selling up liverpool for way less than what he would get. i think this situation will force his hands and I think come January we will see new owners. We know Gillette wants to get out and he has tried before but thanks to Hicks he could not. Anyways I think we are in for a change.
KOPGIRL1971
10-12-09, 17:54
KG, first of all I want to applaude you for keeping up with info on the ownership situation. Interstingly enough I heard on the radio on the way to work that the rangers had to sell off some players during the recent trade without getting any players back in return because the Rangers as you can see from the report is Cash Strapped. Now if I was Hicks, I look around and I go Shoot the Rangers are cash strapped, liverpool is cash strapped and his organization group has defaulted, I would be like let me get out while I can. Now if we do not make the champions league, I forsee him selling up liverpool for way less than what he would get. i think this situation will force his hands and I think come January we will see new owners. We know Gillette wants to get out and he has tried before but thanks to Hicks he could not. Anyways I think we are in for a change.
Thanks, I do it as a record of their stewardship of the club, for what it's worth!
by 'trade' I assume that's the equivalent to the transfer window?
I don't think Hicks will budge, however bad the situation is, in fact, the worse it gets the less he gets if he sells, so he'll want to stick around until the global recession has lifted and people are buying and selling again
I think Gillett also intends to stay on, at least for a while. he has money in his pocket after selling the montreal canadiens, but none of that will come our way unfortunately.
Due to the financial situation globally, I don't think we'll get new owners in January
Looks like Hicks has to sell up.
I doubt we will see any of this money though
http://www.bbtia.com/home/2009/12/15/the-rise-of-jim-crane-the-fall-of-tom-hicks-and-some-perspec.html
I love this thread,it's so informative,perceptive and fascinating,it's like a classic Hitchcock Tale,but for real! I am definately addicted,and always have a sniff about it daily,to see if there's a new twist to the Yankee Yarn. Wicked stuff Kopgirl,You Is On Fire!!! Tom & George,...You Is Stinkin' Liars:p:p:p Merry Poopness To The Lying Yanks:p:p:p
http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/liverpool_boss_rafa_benitez_set_for_huge_transfer_ market_boost/?utm_source=Syndication+Websites&utm_campaign=Syndication+Websites&utm_medium=syndication_websites
We'll see very soon how much they care about the club.
They know we're in trouble and a new player would make a big difference.
Pair of shockers both of them..:(
(Get in for post #2000 KG ;)) (Two tons of fun! :D)
KOPGIRL1971
15-12-09, 22:07
http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/liverpool_boss_rafa_benitez_set_for_huge_transfer_ market_boost/?utm_source=Syndication+Websites&utm_campaign=Syndication+Websites&utm_medium=syndication_websites
We'll see very soon how much they care about the club.
They know we're in trouble and a new player would make a big difference.
Pair of shockers both of them..:(
(Get in for post #2000 KG ;)) (Two tons of fun! :D)
15 December 2009 | By Adam Fraser
The huge windfalls that George Gillett and Tom Hicks, the co-owners of Liverpool, will collect from the sales of their American sports properties could be pumped into the English soccer club, according to English press reports.
'Under-fire Liverpool boss Rafa Benitez could be handed substantial transfer funds next month thanks to a cash windfall for American co-owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks,' reports the Daily Express.
'Gillett has already banked a £180 million profit from the sale of his ice hockey team Montreal Canadiens. And Hicks is days away from being £150m richer after his baseball side Texas Rangers was put under the hammer.'
However, sources close to both men suggest the money is unlikely to be spent on Liverpool. Indeed, Hicks has already stated that business at the Rangers will not affect his actions at Liverpool. In a piece of good news for the club's fans, though, the American added last month that the club's Champions League exit will not force it to sell any of its players.
thanks for that redbaros, but it dangled the carrot and then snatched it away! I will believe they will invets in a new player when I see him running onto the pitch and not a moment sooner
thanks also for the heads-up on the 2,000th post - yippee :)