Liverpool FC Forum

by **Scottbot** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:36 pm

Top top letter that. Will print a copy on to headed paper at work tomorrow and send one off.

Surely everyone on here can find their way to do the same?

by **NANNY RED** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:53 pm

IS RIGHT SCOTT.

, Ive been so pi.ssed off the last couple of weeks that i made me mind up not to go and games at Anfield next season. just the aways until there gone, got it in me head sorted . no Problem

But today ive changed it ,FU.CK THEM IM GOING , THIS IS MY CLUB NOT THERES AN IM GONNA GO AND SUPPORT MY TEAM nO MERCHANDISE, NO MONEY IN THE GROUND, but im not gonna let any more whoppers in, and let them two get away with it ,

Feck HICKS AND GILLETTE YOUS ARE NOT TAKING MY CLUB AWAY FROM ME, IM GONNA BE THERE FIGHTING YOUS

by **In and Out** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:03 am

That was a very good letter there, it would be nice if we were able to see the reply (if there is one) to that letter. Although I'm sure the mantra of the reply will be we are not at liberty to divulge client information

by **roberto green** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:01 am

Just a bit of information for yous from a very good source.Some of yous might already know or heard of this, My brother in law has just got back from Madrid because he went with his girlfriend who's brother Neil Thomas lives in Madrid as he runs the Madrid Liverpool supporters club,

my brother in law(who is a bitter) was speaking to Neil and he knows one of Rafa's best friends in Madrid and apparently Rafa desperately wanted to stay but he was told his prize asset was going to be sold on which he wouldn't disclose but it was either Fernando or Stevie.

Now in his contract he signed last season it had wrote into it that any transfer dealing went through him and he gets the final say so Rafa was meant to be fuming that this contract meant nothing and seeked reassurances that at least he would get the money off the player to reinvest in the squad but was told he would get a percentage off the sale.So in other words it was going towards paying the debt the club is in.

So that was the final straw and he knew he couldn't carry on and you may think 6m pay off but 6m of 70m for Torress is probably the percentage he would of got off his transfer.

I don't usually like quoting anyone but this is from a very reliable source

by **bunglemark2** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:09 am

The kuntz....Jesus, if only I got the chance to "bump" into the pair of those fat thieving rapist yanks...

by **inglis5** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:21 am

Thanks Nanny. Have printed letter and sent to all recipients and my local MP.

by **shawnk** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:08 am

7_Kewell wrote:I don’t think boycotting tickets and shirts will have any effect. And even if it did, I could see H & G selling Torres to make up the shortfall and blaming the fans for the sale.

I think it's more effective if people don't go to matches and leave the stadium at least half empty. This way, the press have things to report and so make themselves heard. In a way, probably get more support too.

by **roberto green** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:32 am

shawnk wrote:
7_Kewell wrote:I don’t think boycotting tickets and shirts will have any effect. And even if it did, I could see H & G selling Torres to make up the shortfall and blaming the fans for the sale.

I think it's more effective if people don't go to matches and leave the stadium at least half empty. This way, the press have things to report and so make themselves heard. In a way, probably get more support too.

Totally agree image the global coverage we would get if a top game is getting played in an empty stadium, Hicks and Gillett could well say they're not @rsed but could you image the top dogs at the RBS watching it.

In my mind this would be the biggest bomb we could through under their feet

by **Fivestars** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:43 am

I believe we should support the team on the pitch so I don't feel boycotting matches is the best way forward. Not buying anything while you are, food, drink shirts etc will be noticed within days by the clubs retail managers.

I feel it would better to delay the match kickoff by not entering the ground before 3pm. The police will not let them start the game with so many people outside. A delayed match will mess up skys schedule, get mentioned in the results service and match of the day.

by **In and Out** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:50 pm

roberto green wrote:Just a bit of information for yous from a very good source.Some of yous might already know or heard of this, My brother in law has just got back from Madrid because he went with his girlfriend who's brother Neil Thomas lives in Madrid as he runs the Madrid Liverpool supporters club,

my brother in law(who is a bitter) was speaking to Neil and he knows one of Rafa's best friends in Madrid and apparently Rafa desperately wanted to stay but he was told his prize asset was going to be sold on which he wouldn't disclose but it was either Fernando or Stevie.

Now in his contract he signed last season it had wrote into it that any transfer dealing went through him and he gets the final say so Rafa was meant to be fuming that this contract meant nothing and seeked reassurances that at least he would get the money off the player to reinvest in the squad but was told he would get a percentage off the sale.So in other words it was going towards paying the debt the club is in.

So that was the final straw and he knew he couldn't carry on and you may think 6m pay off but 6m of 70m for Torress is probably the percentage he would of got off his transfer.

I don't usually like quoting anyone but this is from a very reliable source

IF your source is correct, then it blows the 'theorists' view right out of the water: "Now that Rafa's gone H&G will strip asset the club" (which is a theory I didn't pay too much attention to, as the owners can and will do what ever they want the ****). Whether he stayed on didn't neccesarily mean our 'prized assets' would stay, contrary to popular belief.

by **Reg** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:11 pm

It would also show that Rafa is a man of principle. As we already know.

by **In and Out** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:17 pm

Reg wrote:It would also show that Rafa is a man of principle. As we already know.

Yes, as you said, we already know that.

by **Reg** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:49 pm

In and Out wrote:
Reg wrote:It would also show that Rafa is a man of principle. As we already know.

Yes, as you said, we already know that.

But some forum members judging from their rants over the last few months clearly dont or didnt, so it is the royal 'we' to gently bring this to their attention whilst not directly aiming at them.

As Kenny said, 'what we need is dignity'.

by **lakes10** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:39 pm

bavlondon wrote:Great letter that but the RBS post confuses me. They are now worried yet only a few months ago they granted them a 12 month extension? Is there any way they can still call in the loan prior to that 12 months elapsing?

yes mate they are very worried about the bad press they had all week, every day there was a report saying how could RBS give the club a loan.

the one thing we do not wish rbs TO DO IS TO PULL THE LOAN.

what we need is for them to set the price of the club, this will be easy for them to do and it only takes a few steps and it dont mean the club are in the control of the banks.

ML tried to push for this but then G&H done something very cleaver......they got Barclays looking for the sale of the club.

RBS v Barclays.

It was the last move of G&H when they had power atthe club and iot was to trie and make sure they got the asking price they was looking for.

as for the letters....they also need to be sent to the members that are now incharge of finding a buyer.

by **Reg** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:19 pm

From The Times June 11, 2010

Indian magnate lines up £25m takeover of BlackburnOliver Kay

An Indian entrepreneur is close to completing a £25 million takeover of Blackburn Rovers after targeting the Lancashire club on account of the town’s large Asian population.

Blackburn’s board has given Saurin Shah, little known outside his home city of Mumbai, permission to begin the due diligence process after several weeks of secret talks. He hopes to complete the takeover by mid-July and to establish strong links not only with the town’s Indian population but also, more globally, with cricket’s Indian Premier League (IPL), of which his uncle, Niranjan, is deputy chairman.

Shah approached brokers in London about buying a Barclays Premier League club in April and quickly settled upon Blackburn after learning that the town has a large Asian population as well as historical links to the textile industry. According to the 2001 Census, 14.3 per cent of Blackburn’s population is of Indian origin, with a further 11.5 per cent of Pakistani origin.

Shah’s vision, through his Qubic Sports investment vehicle, is to create strong links between Blackburn and the IPL, which would allow cross- marketing. India is regarded by many Premier League clubs as an area of huge potential growth and Shah believes that his links with the IPL would leave Blackburn well placed to secure a strong position in that market.

Negotiations are taking place through Rothschild, the investment bank, and Chris Nathaniel, the chief executive of NVA Entertainment. Shah, with Nathaniel, attended Blackburn’s 2-1 victory over Arsenal at Ewood Park last month as a guest and has persuaded the board of his willingness to invest in the playing squad and in the club’s infrastructure.

Blackburn have unofficially been open to offers for the past three years, since the trustees of the late Jack Walker, who bankrolled the club to the Premier League title in 1995, made it clear that they were eager to offload their stake. The money from the Trustees of the Jack Walker 1987 Settlement has all but dried up, which has caused John Williams, the chairman, to search for new investment.

Williams said recently that, for the first time in several years, Blackburn expect to “revert to being a trading club rather than a selling club this summer”, with Sam Allardyce, the manager, being given money to invest in his squad — in part thanks to last season’s success in securing a top-half finish in the Premier League. Under Shah’s ownership, the intention would be for Blackburn to attract far greater commercial revenue in India and beyond, which would give the club the means to ensure that they remain an established and sustainable Premier League side.

Williams told The Times in April that Blackburn had performed a high-wire act for the past ten years, their relatively small match-day revenue prompting a considered strategy of investing heavily in player salaries — their wage bill of £46.1 million in the last financial year represented 90.6 per cent of their £50.9 million turnover — to maintain Premier League status.
++

I dont get it, why only 25 million? No mention of lots of debt, they have a small but modern stadium, they get tv revenues etc.. so why only 25? Whats the catch?

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online