Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:04 am

Nobybob said:

How could you possibly think i was serious about an ASDA??
Its called an analogy

It clearly wasn't an analogy as you weren't drawing comparison with anything or anyone, it was a far-fetched attempt to propagate fears of what might happen. The example is so far fetched and unlikely to happen this season that it negates your original point, which was essentially; 'if we don't protest now, this is what might happen'. At the very least you have to make the consequence realistic, and within the context of this season, otherwise there is no point to your argument.

Look in my opinion G&H are gradually taking away all the things that make lfc great, and no that's not the physical building itself.
All i ask from who ever owns us is that they
1) Put their own money at risk, and risk is the key word here these yanks buy the club with loans then use the club as collateral. If things don't pan out "oh well the clubs all your RBS. The yanks have nothing to lose and plenty to gain if the 1 billion pound valuation is anything to go by.

2) That the owners let the manager actually manage and don't interfear. These guys were telling RAFA he couldn't get players on a bossman for gods sake. This kind of thing should be left to ABRAMOVITCH at Chelsea.

3) Get us a new stadium big enough to bring down the huge waiting list for season tickets and in turn bring in more revenue . These fellas showed it to us , they unveiled it to the whole world not long ago only to say "oops we cant afford that anymore

4) i want owners that are open and don't lie to us at every turn. instead we have these t-ssers going behind the managers back like snakes in the grass asking some German who has never manages at club level for info about European club football, oh and "would you like RAFAS job"?? They swore black and blue that they would not sell any shares in LFC, only to admit later that at the time they were denying it they were actually in negotiations to sell 15% to DIC.

This is what i mean when i say taking the club apart brick by brick. And okay LFC 2007 lets try your way first lets sing "Yankees out" and i dont mean that in a derogatory way but if that don't work what then? do we wait till the end of the season when we have no manager and no club left.

I've never suggested singing "yankees out", what I am advocating however is; We can do without as much disruption as possible at this moment in time. We are in the middle of our season, we must make certain we finish in the top-four at the very least. The only way to move forward next season is to set ourselves up now i.e. minimum top-four finish. Any drastic or radical action from supporters, particularly boycotts, could quite easily knock us into a downward spiral or bliiiiiiip that could see us finish outside the top-four. I don't think this will happen, as I'm certain there will be no boycotts. Any suggestions that we should are futile and should be nipped in the bud.

Some of the information you state above is questionable, but I'm not going to disagree with the general notion that our owners really have gone against much of what they said and set out last February. That though, has never been the issue as far as I'm concerned. The issue is; 'what is the best way to move forward as a club in the short-term?' i.e. until the end of the season.

For me, the best way means ABSOLUTE focus on football until the end of the season.

by **NANNY RED** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:10 am

Mark 23 wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:
Mark 23 wrote:]

I was just joking, get over it, stop trying to be some sort of hero.

PMSL here now im a hero or tryin to be

I'm arguing over the internet

But im not arguing lad im laughin over the internet

Lets call it quits ey

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:12 am

Gillett, Hicks marriage set to end in sale of Liverpool's beloved club

STEPHEN BRUNT

sbrunt@globeandmail.com

January 19, 2008

Suffice it to say, there is trouble in paradise.

The partnership between George Gillett and Tom Hicks, the Americans who own the Liverpool soccer club, is in severe distress.

It's a safe bet the team's immediate future might involve one of them, or the other - or it might involve neither. But it almost certainly won't involve both.

When they purchased the club a little less than a year ago, Gillett and Hicks had to know they were in for a bumpy ride. Other outsiders had already made their way along that perilous path - most notably the reviled Glazer family with Manchester United and Russian zillionaire Roman Abramovich with Chelsea, who at least bought love by winning silverware - but still there remains that tinge of suspicion bordering on xenophobia any time outsiders grab a piece of England's national game.

Liverpool, with its glorious history and with its distinct local culture, would arguably present an even greater challenge than the other clubs. From the outset, the battle for scouser acceptance was an uphill battle, with the local press jumping on any suggestion the Americans didn't fully comprehend the game or its idiosyncratic business and didn't share the supporters' undying passion.

Gillett at least understood that kind of dynamic, having gone through much the same thing when he bought the Montreal Canadiens. He managed to defuse most of the resistance there by hiring good, unimpeachable people to run the team and by approaching the whole cultural issue from a posture of humility.

With Liverpool, his son, Foster, moved to the city full-time to help run the team, just as he had previously moved to Montreal, and though George Gillett quickly stopped talking to the local press, he stayed visible among the fans, employing his considerable charm toward convincing the supporter base that his heart was in the right place.

For Hicks, though, who owns the Texas Rangers of Major League Baseball and the Dallas Stars of the NHL, this was all new territory, and he stepped into trouble again and again. Much of the most recent media firestorm in Britain, including the admission the owners had dallied with Jurgen Klinsmann (who subsequently accepted the job of managing Bayern Munich beginning next season) while Rafael Benitez was still under contract as the Liverpool manager, can be laid at Hicks's feet.

That clash in styles - as much as the oft-reported question of the club's refinancing in order to underwrite the construction of a new, much larger stadium to replace the fabled Anfield - seems to be at the heart of the current ownership crisis.

It is highly likely that by next week it will be announced the owners' refinancing plan has been completed - a tricky proposition in these times of tight credit - allowing Liverpool both to turn sod for the new stadium this coming summer, with opening scheduled for 2011, and to be active participants in the transfer market going forward. The extra seats and extra revenue possibilities of the new Anfield will allow whoever owns the team to proceed from a position of strength in the ultracompetitive upper echelon of the English Premier League.

But just who is that going to be?

It's an open question right now. Hicks and Gillett are equal partners. The first option will be for one to buy the other out - whether Hicks's heart is still in the game is difficult to judge, but Gillett at very least seems interested in continuing his association with soccer, either at Liverpool or elsewhere, where he might invest the proceeds of a buyout.

If either is seeking a new partner, there are a plenty of available candidates waiting in the wings, including Dubai Investment Capital, which was beaten to the punch by the Americans last year. Similarly, if both Hicks's and Gillett's share goes on the open market, there would be no shortage of interested buyers, and the Americans could be expected to claim a healthy return on their initial investment.

But the sense is that Gillett, if he has his druthers, would prefer to hang in - and if it's in a buyout scenario, almost certainly with a new partner.

That might not be the perfect ending for the hardcore Liverpool loyalists, who no doubt dream of having one of their own sitting in the front row of the directors' box, someone who has lived and breathed the team and the city his or her entire life.

But assuming that that's a fantasy now, that the choice is between one American, another American, and the investment arm of an oil-rich Arab emirate, it shouldn't really be so tough.

A hockey fan in Montreal could tell them they could do much worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very pro Gillett article, which seems to go with the widely held view that Hicks is the "master of disaster", and Gillett would prefer a more PR friendly approach to club ownership.

I think personally all the protesting in the world won't change their minds one jot. A boycott of the ground might change the banks mind however. Nothing like a reminder that profits at the end of the day are still to a large extent fan related.

Not that I would advocate a boycott, as I just don't think it could be done effectively in the time available. Unfortunately a protest inside the ground while allowing people to show their feelings, will no doubt be dismissed or simply ignored by our owners, while being great for the media to use in whatever way they choose.

If it could be arranged so that less than 10,000 or so would go in the ground (without threats of, or actual violence)I think it would certainly speak much louder than even the Kop in full voice. The likelyhood of this happening are nil in my opinion, certainly in the small window of opportunity available.

I think we are left hoping money talks even louder and that DIC are willing to shout

by **LFC2007** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:12 am

NANNY RED wrote:
Mark 23 wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:
Mark 23 wrote:]

I was just joking, get over it, stop trying to be some sort of hero.

PMSL here now im a hero or tryin to be

I'm arguing over the internet

But im not arguing lad im laughin over the internet
Lets call it quits ey

I'm disappointed in you Nanny red, you left us greenies and joined the Jaffa brigade :no

by **NANNY RED** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:22 am

LFC2007 wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:
Mark 23 wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:
Mark 23 wrote:]

I was just joking, get over it, stop trying to be some sort of hero.

PMSL here now im a hero or tryin to be

I'm arguing over the internet

But im not arguing lad im laughin over the internet
Lets call it quits ey

I'm disappointed in you Nanny red, you left us greenies and joined the Jaffa brigade

I just became one by magic

Im still me though :nod

by **Mark 23** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:26 am

Sound

by **Number 9** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:55 am

s@int wrote:Gillett, Hicks marriage set to end in sale of Liverpool's beloved club

STEPHEN BRUNT

sbrunt@globeandmail.com

January 19, 2008

Suffice it to say, there is trouble in paradise.

The partnership between George Gillett and Tom Hicks, the Americans who own the Liverpool soccer club, is in severe distress.

It's a safe bet the team's immediate future might involve one of them, or the other - or it might involve neither. But it almost certainly won't involve both.

When they purchased the club a little less than a year ago, Gillett and Hicks had to know they were in for a bumpy ride. Other outsiders had already made their way along that perilous path - most notably the reviled Glazer family with Manchester United and Russian zillionaire Roman Abramovich with Chelsea, who at least bought love by winning silverware - but still there remains that tinge of suspicion bordering on xenophobia any time outsiders grab a piece of England's national game.

Liverpool, with its glorious history and with its distinct local culture, would arguably present an even greater challenge than the other clubs. From the outset, the battle for scouser acceptance was an uphill battle, with the local press jumping on any suggestion the Americans didn't fully comprehend the game or its idiosyncratic business and didn't share the supporters' undying passion.

Gillett at least understood that kind of dynamic, having gone through much the same thing when he bought the Montreal Canadiens. He managed to defuse most of the resistance there by hiring good, unimpeachable people to run the team and by approaching the whole cultural issue from a posture of humility.

With Liverpool, his son, Foster, moved to the city full-time to help run the team, just as he had previously moved to Montreal, and though George Gillett quickly stopped talking to the local press, he stayed visible among the fans, employing his considerable charm toward convincing the supporter base that his heart was in the right place.

For Hicks, though, who owns the Texas Rangers of Major League Baseball and the Dallas Stars of the NHL, this was all new territory, and he stepped into trouble again and again. Much of the most recent media firestorm in Britain, including the admission the owners had dallied with Jurgen Klinsmann (who subsequently accepted the job of managing Bayern Munich beginning next season) while Rafael Benitez was still under contract as the Liverpool manager, can be laid at Hicks's feet.

That clash in styles - as much as the oft-reported question of the club's refinancing in order to underwrite the construction of a new, much larger stadium to replace the fabled Anfield - seems to be at the heart of the current ownership crisis.

It is highly likely that by next week it will be announced the owners' refinancing plan has been completed - a tricky proposition in these times of tight credit - allowing Liverpool both to turn sod for the new stadium this coming summer, with opening scheduled for 2011, and to be active participants in the transfer market going forward. The extra seats and extra revenue possibilities of the new Anfield will allow whoever owns the team to proceed from a position of strength in the ultracompetitive upper echelon of the English Premier League.

But just who is that going to be?

It's an open question right now. Hicks and Gillett are equal partners. The first option will be for one to buy the other out - whether Hicks's heart is still in the game is difficult to judge, but Gillett at very least seems interested in continuing his association with soccer, either at Liverpool or elsewhere, where he might invest the proceeds of a buyout.

If either is seeking a new partner, there are a plenty of available candidates waiting in the wings, including Dubai Investment Capital, which was beaten to the punch by the Americans last year. Similarly, if both Hicks's and Gillett's share goes on the open market, there would be no shortage of interested buyers, and the Americans could be expected to claim a healthy return on their initial investment.

But the sense is that Gillett, if he has his druthers, would prefer to hang in - and if it's in a buyout scenario, almost certainly with a new partner.

That might not be the perfect ending for the hardcore Liverpool loyalists, who no doubt dream of having one of their own sitting in the front row of the directors' box, someone who has lived and breathed the team and the city his or her entire life.

But assuming that that's a fantasy now, that the choice is between one American, another American, and the investment arm of an oil-rich Arab emirate, it shouldn't really be so tough.

A hockey fan in Montreal could tell them they could do much worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very pro Gillett article, which seems to go with the widely held view that Hicks is the "master of disaster", and Gillett would prefer a more PR friendly approach to club ownership.

I think personally all the protesting in the world won't change their minds one jot. A boycott of the ground might change the banks mind however. Nothing like a reminder that profits at the end of the day are still to a large extent fan related.

Not that I would advocate a boycott, as I just don't think it could be done effectively in the time available. Unfortunately a protest inside the ground while allowing people to show their feelings, will no doubt be dismissed or simply ignored by our owners, while being great for the media to use in whatever way they choose.

If it could be arranged so that less than 10,000 or so would go in the ground (without threats of, or actual violence)I think it would certainly speak much louder than even the Kop in full voice. The likelyhood of this happening are nil in my opinion, certainly in the small window of opportunity available.

I think we are left hoping money talks even louder and that DIC are willing to shout

I dont agree mate!

Again its media hype.These billionairse have people that they pay to spin stories (as above) to take the heat off them when things get hot!

Its all to perfect..lets percieve one as the bad guy and one as the good guy!These fu.ckers are way to thick and are intertwined in so many ways financially to go there seperate ways.
What they are really thinking is ..Ok hicks your not popular,take a backseat and let Gillett stay upfront,the fans dont hate him!!

WRONG ...we should be too wise for this,its classsic good cop bad cop and its nothing but media spin,straight from the bowels of America.The problem is that too many of our journos are just waiting on the next story jumping the atlantic into their pathetic little grubby paws.They are only too happy to manipulate a bad situation and try to put it across as worse..and they do because that is their lowlife job!

Until G&H or whatever they want to be called put their money where their mouth 'was' not is they can fu.ck off and stop spinning us a freepost of lies via airmail every day there is a paper released!

People need to realise that these billionaires employ people to manipulate the market and we are a pawn in that market!

What i suggest for now is an in ground protest,but nothing rash.Just continue to love LFC,support the players and manager as usual...If we stay true to what we have been and are,we can ride them out by doing nothing but what we always did and will do...LOVING LFC!!

Show them that passion cannot be bought and if they want a circus they should have bought Everton!

by **Woollyback** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:15 am

mighty mo wrote:
skatesy wrote:
Woollyback wrote:i never thought i'd be thinking a bunch of arabs would be pillars of honesty and dignity

That is got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on here.

Come off it man, get a grip.

that disgraceful wolly, that has racist overtones IMHO

get away to f.uck you tool, how old are you, 12? same goes to skatesy, whoever the f.uck you are

by **GOAT** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:20 am

Woollyback wrote:
mighty mo wrote:
skatesy wrote:
Woollyback wrote:i never thought i'd be thinking a bunch of arabs would be pillars of honesty and dignity

That is got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on here.

Come off it man, get a grip.

that disgraceful wolly, that has racist overtones IMHO

get away to f.uck you tool, how old are you, 12? same goes to skatesy, whoever the f.uck you are

Racist

messin

by **metalhead** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:20 am

s@int wrote:RAWK and TLW are both saying that Al Jazeera are now reporting that Hicks INVITED DIC to make a bid. Sounds good to me.

Al Jazeera sports are reliable source, they did say that we would get mascherano on loan 3 weeks before we got him

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:24 am

metalhead wrote:
s@int wrote:RAWK and TLW are both saying that Al Jazeera are now reporting that Hicks INVITED DIC to make a bid. Sounds good to me.

Al Jazeera sports are reliable source, they did say that we would get mascherano on loan 3 weeks before we got him

So you are implying that the western news sources arn't reliable...... Racist!!!

Only messing mate, just didn't want to leave you out

Did you see anything on Al Jazeera metalhead ? Or are you too busy playing on that damn x-box!

by **metalhead** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:28 am

s@int wrote:
metalhead wrote:
s@int wrote:RAWK and TLW are both saying that Al Jazeera are now reporting that Hicks INVITED DIC to make a bid. Sounds good to me.

Al Jazeera sports are reliable source, they did say that we would get mascherano on loan 3 weeks before we got him

So you are implying that the western news sources arn't reliable...... Racist!!!

Only messing mate, just didn't want to leave you out

Did you see anything on Al Jazeera metalhead ? Or are you too busy playing on that damn x-box!

I was watching Al Jazeera sports news the other day, they were saying that DIC are really serious and G + H are are willing to be interested in any offer that would guarentee them a profit.

by **ConnO'var** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:29 am

Updated: Jan. 19, 2008 - Soccernet
REDS SET FOR FRESH TAKEOVER BID

Dubai International Capital - the investment arm of the Dubai Government - is preparing to launch a £500million bid to buy Liverpool, according to reports.

BBC Sport claim an offer is in the process of being made to American co-owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks.
Initially it was thought DIC, bankrolled by Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, were interested in buying Hicks' 50% share.
However, it is claimed DIC are now set to make an offer for the complete buy-out of the American duo.
The Dubai-based group were close to their own takeover of the Anfield club 12 months ago before the Reds' then chairman David Moores decided to go with the USA investors.
On Thursday a spokesman for Hicks insisted neither of the owners was considering selling their share and both remained fully committed to the club.

--------------------

Seems like the DIC rumour is persisting still...... no smoke without fire?
I certainly hope so..... I'm really sick of the current owners.

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:35 am

Exclusive by Chris Bascombe

LIVERPOOL will be bought for £350million by Dubai International Capital to end the club's American nightmare.
The Arabs are likely to make their move as early as the end of the week to oust owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

The Americans, who have had a tempestuous relationship with manager Rafa Benitez, controversially want to dump their debt on Anfield as they seek to re-finance to the tune of £350m. DIC had been negotiating with Gillett in a bid to oust Hicks but now they are determined to buy out BOTH Americans.

Hicks and Gillett can still sign a re-finance package with the Royal Bank of Scotland and American bank Wachovia.

That might give them six months breathing space but could cost them millions and insiders say it would only strengthen DIC's resolve to kick them out.

Debt

The last thing club insiders want is for them to maintain control, even for a few more months.

An Anfield source said: "In a strange way DIC may think it's worth waiting for the Americans' to refinance because it will lessen the value of the club because of the level of debt.

"But the best thing that can happen is for the pair of them to get out now. It's clear the old board has made a huge mistake selling to these two."

by **Kharhaz** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:40 am

It makes me wonder. Any supporter leaving Anfield after a match and offering there opinion to a journalist, would that make them an Anfield Source? And reports suggesting, does a memo from your boss reading "I reckon DIC are gonna make a £500 mill bid for liverpool, go with that one" count as a report?

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online