Liverpool FC Forum

[big al]

LIVERPOOL NEWS 

Moores - criticised by shareholders at AGM

ANFIELD'S ANGUISH EXPOSED
By Paul Walker, PA Sport

The anguish of Liverpool was laid bare for all to see - a once mighty club who ruled the world now uncertain of its future and fighting desperately for the means to keep up.

It was not pleasant to witness decent and highly competent administrators like chief executive Rick Parry forced to defend and explain complex financial decisions with loyal, red-to-the-core chairman David Moores virtually raising the white flag in despair by admitting he would "have to consider my own position if things do not improve".

And this was not Liverpool being abused by angry or ill-informed supporters. It was the men with the heavy, merciless responsibility of planning the club's rocky road ahead being scrutinised at their AGM by shareholders who are increasingly worried about the path chosen to complete with the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United.

Liverpool may never be the same again after Monday's meeting in, ironically, Anfield's Bill Shankly suite, which is bedecked with pictures of Liverpool heroes down the years.

They are images of men who made the 1960s, 70s and 80s so memorable for a city which may have lacked the wealth and prosperity of London, or even Manchester, but had the best football club in the world to be proud of.

The shareholders who took to their feet to pillory Parry, Moores and Gerard Houllier were once the boys who had cheered their team to countless championships and four European Cups.

These were the young men who had swayed with the Kop when it had terraces and had danced on the streets of Rome and Paris. Nothing they see now compares with the Liverpool of their youth, a fact they voiced carefully, passionately and with dignity.

This was no stormy meeting; there were no rows and few raised voices. But they too many of those present have had enough of second best.

Moores and Parry revealed their own sense of frustration, that what they had heard from the floor of the meeting they had discussed endlessly in board meetings and it became obvious they did understand.

And then the depths of worry began to emerge. A discussion on the new stadium, costing £80million in borrowed money, was the catalyst to the discontent which followed.

Financial director Les Wheatley admitted "that the plug would be pulled if costs started to escalate".

The new stadium is fundamental to Liverpool's future but the third biggest shareholder, Steve Morgan, believed the level of borrowing was "ludicrous" when finance could come from big-money investors like himself.

Moores, eventually, found himself in a corner to the extent that he had to offer mediation with a long-term rival, talks on compromise which could end his own majority shareholding and, in time, undermine the 50-year dynasty of his family's ownership.

Wheatley insisted that Liverpool "would not increase borrowing to buy players", leading the likes of Morgan to ask where would the cash come from for the stadium debt and a transfer budget for Houllier.

The Frenchman listened impassively to the arguments from the shareholders, to the complaints about his signings and results this past 12 months.

It made for highly uncomfortable listening and the reality finally understood by all inside and outside Anfield that money is scarce.

With such a limited transfer budget - increasingly shorn of Champions League money - mistakes are magnified.

Chelsea can spend as much in six months as Houllier in six years and if players bought do not come up to scratch, who cares? Roman Abramovich will buy more.

Liverpool cannot do that. Houllier admitted that Salif Diao, Bruno Cheyrou and El-Hadji Diouf had not come up to scratch. But that was one whole summer's £20million budget wasted - and he was told so.

Ground-sharing with Everton was repeatedly suggested, but Parry insisted that although they are duty bound to talk "the weight of public opinion was against sharing and we cannot ignore those views".

And then came the questions which even embarrassed Parry. They came as Granada's nominee John Creswell was elected to the board.

Granada have also taken up shares in Arsenal and Morgan wanted to know why the Gunners were getting three times as much for 9.9% of shares than Liverpool were from the same benefactor.

Parry could only say: "Good luck to Arsenal, they maybe were better negotiators.

"They may have got more money, but I do not see that as a criticism of us.

"But we were the first, we broke the ground and felt we got fair value. Those that follow sometimes get more."

The debate over the new ground, proposed for Stanley Park, would not go away. In the current stadium with a 45,000 capacity, Liverpool will slowly die as a major force.

Old Trafford and St James' Park produce £1million more per game than Anfield, while Arsenal also desperately need a bigger ground to give them the cash to compete consistently.

But the risk, claimed shareholders, is massive. Parry explained that Liverpool had to act and that re-developing Anfield would have to happen anyway. A new main stand and increasing the size of the Anfield Road end would cost over £60million.

He said: "We cannot stand still. But we are not going to build a white elephant, we will pull the plug if the costs go over £100million."

The knife-edge on which Liverpool's future rests was there for all to see - and it was not just about the bricks and mortar of a new ground.

It is about the decision-making of Moores, Parry and Houllier - and the cruel spotlight is unlikely to diminish in the coming months.

[JBG]

(Big Al, the above has been reported in another thread)