Liverpool FC Forum

by **Sabre** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:34 pm

Scottbot wrote:
zarababe wrote:To think all this talk of the summer buys, was also funded by the loan these clowns havn't spent a penny of their own money in the club - explains a lot

I think i read somewhere that they had pumped in about 7.5 mill of their own personal funds between them but you may well be right. It's unbelievable really, if you're already rich, you can borrow a sh...i...t load of money, buy a football club and then transfer the debt onto the club's books. How can that be right?

They call it the beautiful game but it isn't. It's ugly. I'd give anything for football to remain as it was through the 80's/early 90's and i don't mean coz we were winning everything. All the money, fat cat owners who couldn't give a toss, players who couldn't give a toss, the fact only four teams are in it, the plc's, the fan-base, the FA Cup means fook all etc

It's all bollox

Not a financial master here, probably should ask LFC2007.

But if Moores left because the club had to be bigger, that means the club couldn't spend much more with the current structure. Then if someone comes, doen't put a penny, and gets everything on loan, how can the structure of the club hold that spending? it should lead to bankrupcy!

That's why I found so hard to believe they didn't put a penny, I just assumed all the time that the club was put in relatively safe hands by Moore. It's all very shocking.

by **Scottbot** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:43 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
Scottbot wrote:I'd be very surprised if Hicks/Gillette don't sell up. I can only imagine this refinancing package is a move to improve their position. If they don't get the money they're screwed and it's a buyers market, DIC will hold all the cards. Get their loan re-financed and it's the other way around. Either way they will sell, it can't work out any other way. They will be taking a massive risk if they try and patch this up and stick around for the long(er) haul. You only have to look at the United situation. The Glazers got very lucky in a lot of ways, they bought the club, barely spent a penny, put the debt onto the books and had the fu**ers continued to struggle on the pitch (as they had the previous two seasons) they would have been screwed, having to repay the loans they took out. Fortunately for the Glazers, united won the title and had a very profitable run in the Champions League last season. We heard recently that they pulled in the biggest profits/revenue in years the past season but much of that money has to service the massive debt they have racked up. They rolled the dice and they got lucky.

That assumes that the Manc's winning the title and going on a decent run in the UCL boosted their revenue to the extent that had they not they been so successful on the pitch they would otherwise have been stuck financially. I don't think that's the case at all.

They've always been massively profitable, the increase in TV money and the expansion of their stadium are as much to do with this as anything else IMO. Success on the pitch has allowed them drive their commercial ventures, no question, but all you have to do is look at their pre-tax profits to know that they had no trouble meeting interest payments. They were well covered.

Yeah i see what you're are saying, maybe they did have it covered but i wonder if they would be so willing to pay the £30 mill (or thereabouts that they will have to fork out for tevez this summer had they not pulled in £20 mill from last years Champions League run, could they have still put money into the team if the club had missed out Champ League qualification all together, i don't know. But that wasn't really the point i was trying to emphasise. If these two wan...k...ers stick their debt onto the club they instantly put more pressure onto the team to get the job done on the pitch. We can't get anywhere near united's revenue (gate or merchandising) and we have not had the absolute guarantee/fix on Champions League qualification of united (who have only once/twice had to qualify in the past 7-8 seasons) over the same time-scale. I don't think they (G & H) will risk it. I reckon we'd be screwed if we missed a single season of Champ League money, it's obviously been very important to the club the past years but with the debt shifted to the club it would have even greater significance. Maybe the Glazers had everything well covered but do these two clowns? I've got no confidence. Moores was a class act, i'd do anything to have him back, but he was completely hoodwinked by these two poker players.

by **LFC2007** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:53 pm

Sabre wrote:But if Moores left because the club had to be bigger, that means the club couldn't spend much more with the current structure. Then if someone comes, doen't put a penny, and gets everything on loan, how can the structure of the club hold that spending? it should lead to bankrupcy!

That's why I found so hard to believe they didn't put a penny, I just assumed all the time that the club was put in relatively safe hands by Moore. It's all very shocking.

Their idea is and was to increase revenue, short-term however we all thought they'd be supporting the club financially. Moores sold to them on the basis they could increase our revenue (that's where they saw potential and that's where the potential will always be) but also on the basis that they had deep pockets; i) to fund the new stadium and ii) to support transfer spending on a level that goes some way to matching our rivals (at least in the short term). What we weren't aware of were their intentions to levy the club with debt and effectively absolve themselves of any financial liability.

by **imouthep** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:11 pm

Football has become a business in which miscalculations can mean financial ruin. Leeds banked on the champions league and spent like there was no tomorrow where are they now?? can you imagine liverpool going into administration. (I would hunt down and kill the yanks very slowly) But levying such a massive debt against this club could ruin it beyond repair. We could not sustain it, and with clubs like man city now being pumped full of money the champions league would no longer be a guarantee. Unless ofcourse we remain one step ahead of the rest with big investments. The yanks haven't yet contributed a penny and if they succceed in taking full ownership of the club I doubt that will change.

by **tubby** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:15 pm

Man Utd have arund 600Mil of debt to their name. But then again they have quality all over in their sqaud. In all honesty we are probably at least 60-70Mil away in terms of players in having depth and quaity to match Utd.

by **Scottbot** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:20 pm

Not sure if this article has been put up already. It indicates that £190million of the new deal/loan repaytment will be taken on by Hicks and Gillette with the rest going onto the club.

Hicks secures £350m funds for Liverpool
By JOHN EDWARDS - More by this author » Last updated at 20:59pm on 23rd January 2008

Comments Comments
Tom Hicks

Tom Hicks will strike a blow for his troubled Liverpool reign by announcing a £350million refinancing deal and unveiling detailed plans for a new stadium at nearby Stanley Park.

• More Liverpool news

After weeks of uncertainty over whether the new funds could be secured and with the deadline for repaying an initial loan for the purchase of the club only a fortnight away, Hicks is convinced he is in a position to confirm a key breakthrough for himself and co-owner George Gillett.

Under the deal, around £190m will be taken on by Kop Investment, the holding company set up by Hicks and Gillett immediately after last year's takeover, rather than the whole amount being added to Liverpool's debt.

The Americans agreed to the split after being lobbied by former chairman David Moores and chief executive Rick Parry, who were anxious to prevent such a burden being placed on club finances.

Their stance was a key reason for completion of the restructuring arrangement taking so long, but the go-ahead from the Royal Bank of Scotland and U.S. investment bank Wachovia is imminent.

While Hicks and Gillett hope the latest development will underline their determination to retain control, there was a further setback for Rafa Benitez ahead of Saturday's FA Cup fourth round tie with Havant and Waterlooville.

Already reeling from a fourth Barclays Premier League draw in a row, the Liverpool manager has had to add striker Andriy Voronin and defender Alvaro Arbeloa to a lengthening injury list.

Voronin twisted an ankle in training on Wednesday while Arbeloa is facing three weeks on the sidelines after suffering an abdominal strain in Monday's2-2drawwith Aston Villa.

There are also fears that centre back Daniel Agger may not play again this season after heading to Spain for treatment on a persistent metatarsal problem.

by **tubby** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:24 pm

. Looks like thats it then.

by **Ciggy** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:40 pm

FFS

Dein's Dubai link to Anfield suitors

22:20pm 23rd January 2008

Former Arsenal and FA power-broker David Dein has been linked with a behind-the-scenes involvement in Dubai International Capital's renewed attempts to buy Liverpool from beleaguered American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

The claims coming out of Dubai follow Dein stopping off in the United Arab Emirates capital for talks on his way back from a Christmas holiday in the Maldives.

In all likelihood he faces the longest of waits to return to the Arsenal boardroom, where a hostile set of directors have a lockdown agreement not to sell shares.

Dein, who was an Arsenal director when they agreed their massive stadium sponsorship deal with Emirates, has plenty of contacts in the UAE, including DIC personnel.

But Dein, chairman of Russian tycoon Alisher Usmanov's Red & White holdings vehicle who are looking to increase their 23 per cent stake in Arsenal, has pledged his lifelong support to the Gunners.

Since his acrimonious split with the board last April, he has turned down all offers to work for other clubs, including Barcelona, so any talks with DIC connections would only be on an advisory basis.

Meanwhile, mystery surrounds the future of Foster Gillett, the son of Liverpool co-owner George, who was employed to provide a direct link between boss Rafa Benitez and the owners.

Foster has not been seen around Anfield for a fortnight, with suggestions from inside the club that he 'hasn't cut the mustard' and 'was enjoying himself too much'. However, the club insisted yesterday that Foster and wife Lauren had already bought a house in Liverpool and were purely in the United States on a short break.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....=510049

Foster has resigned BTW.

by **RUSHIE#9** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:43 pm

I'm certainly not business minded so I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here but does the fact that £190 million is being held against this holding company mean that the banks go to the directors of that company and not Liverpool if the money ain't paid back? Or will LFC be an asset of that company should the debt collectors move in at anytime?

Having £105 million against the club is bad enough but if that is all that is held against the club and not the full £350 million doesn't seem as ghastly. It's still fooking wrong though and the prospect of Moores (and perversely) Parry losing their seats on the board would allow G&H to shift everything onto the clubs books meaning they get their way.

It's becoming more apparent that any kind of bid from DIC is slowly receeding and were gonna be stuck with Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee I fear.

by **NANNY RED** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:56 pm

This made me :censored:

laugh maybe its in the wrong thread but is he going soft in his old age or is he really lovin it

Give Benitez a break, says United manager Ferguson
By IAN OGDEN - More by this author »

Last updated at 21:25pm on 23rd January 2008

Sir Alex Ferguson has launched a passionate defence of Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez, urging Anfield's American owners to "show class" and act like a "big club".

Benitez is fighting to save his job due to the infighting that has seen the Spaniard challenge owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett over their failure to provide the funds for new players this month.

The outspoken Hicks has since driven a further wedge between himself and Benitez by admitting to talks with Jurgen Klinsmann over the possibility of the German replacing Benitez.

managers' union: Ferguson respects his rival Benitez

sition to Hicks and Gillett has hardened to the point where demonstrating fans are calling for their swift departure.

But Ferguson, who has forged a seemingly perfect working relationship with the Glazer family, Manchester United's American owners, claims Benitez has been treated shabbily.

Ferguson said of the Klinsmann meeting: "That was a bad piece of business on Liverpool's part. That sort of thing can be very upsetting for a manager.

"As a manager, there are quite a few moments in every week when you're on your own and people don't want to knock on your door because they think you're busy all the time, but you can be sitting there twiddling your thumbs.

"You can fill your time by phoning other managers and doing other things, but there's a lot of time spent on your own and, in moments like that, Rafa must feel very alone.

"How you react depends on what kind of person you are and Rafa seems a stubborn character who can put aside emotion, whereas Martin Jol seemed to be more affected by it when a similar thing happened to him at Spurs.

"I've been very fortunate at United because I have had good directors, people like Bobby Charlton and Martin Edwards, who always supported me very well. At big clubs, it is paramount that the board shows their class.

"Twenty years ago, Liverpool were a closely knit and well-run club and, when Peter Robinson was the secretary, a tightly run ship.

"Obviously results matter and they matter to me and they also matter to the likes of Arsene Wenger. But Wenger had great support from David Dein at Arsenal and I've had great support, too, ever since I came here.

"So there is unity there. You should allow a manager to get on with his job."

When Ferguson arrived at Old Trafford from Aberdeen in 1986, he admitted that his No 1 priority was to knock Liverpool off their perch.

It appeared a tall order, with Liverpool having collected four European Cups and nine League championships since United had lifted their last title in 1967.

But the United manager has left Liverpool in the shade during his 22 years in English football and he claims it will be more difficult for Liverpool to close the gap if Benitez is forced out.

Ferguson said: "The important thing is that big clubs should be seen to be big clubs. Most players want to play for Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool, but when they see a club that is topsy-turvy, with a divide between the manager and the directors, they might think twice. They want to join a stable club.

"One thing is that Rafa has brought in a lot of his players because of his Spanish connections. Now, if an English manager was to come into Liverpool, that connection is gone."

The disharmony at Anfield has coincided with the run of poor results that sees Liverpool lying in fifth place in the Premiership, 14 points adrift of leaders United.

Ferguson, due to return from United's trip to Saudi Arabia today, added: "Liverpool will be concentrating on trying to win the European Cup rather than the League this season. I say that because there are three clubs ahead of them rather than just one.

"It's a long way to Arsenal, Chelsea and ourselves. If it was just one club in front of them, you still couldn't write Liverpool off. But it is very difficult to think that three teams could ever drop that number of points and be caught."

by **metalhead** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:59 pm

RUSHIE#9 wrote:I'm certainly not business minded so I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here but does the fact that £190 million is being held against this holding company mean that the banks go to the directors of that company and not Liverpool if the money ain't paid back? Or will LFC be an asset of that company should the debt collectors move in at anytime?

To answer to your question mate, is that 190m quid is held by Kop Investment, so its between them and the bank (because the debt its in their books). While the rest is in Liverpool books. Liverpool has nothing to do with the 190m

so I think, I may be wrong, we are talking about two seperate accounts.

by **RUSHIE#9** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:10 am

metalhead wrote:
RUSHIE#9 wrote:I'm certainly not business minded so I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here but does the fact that £190 million is being held against this holding company mean that the banks go to the directors of that company and not Liverpool if the money ain't paid back? Or will LFC be an asset of that company should the debt collectors move in at anytime?

To answer to your question mate, is that 190m quid is held by Kop Investment, so its between them and the bank (because the debt its in their books). While the rest is in Liverpool books. Liverpool has nothing to do with the 190m

so I think, I may be wrong, we are talking about two seperate accounts.

I'm hoping that's the case mate cos then it doesn't sound as bad if the club is only accountable for £105 million compared to all £350 million. Although no doubt the club will end up paying all of the money back.

It's not knowing things like this that is making us fans angry and losing faith in G&H. If they can't manage to communicate these things to the clubs fans (who lets face are gonna be one of the main investors in repaying this loan) how are they gonna manage a business that's got a £350 million pound noose around it's neck?

by **metalhead** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:18 am

RUSHIE#9 wrote:It's not knowing things like this that is making us fans angry and losing faith in G&H. If they can't manage to communicate these things to the clubs fans (who lets face are gonna be one of the main investors in repaying this loan) how are they gonna manage a business that's got a £350 million pound noose around it's neck?

Well, getting the results on the pitch and pushing farther in domestic and european cups could help.

We just need to wait and see what happens now. :down:

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:21 am

Parry faces Liverpool funding dilemma
Independent.co.uk Web
By Nick Harris
Thursday, 24 January 2008

Liverpool's owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, remained insistent last night that they will today announce a £350m refinancing package and detailed plans for a new stadium. But fans sent a fresh, resounding message that they want the Americans out. Alternative investors from Dubai remain on standby, while the club's chief executive, Rick Parry, is perched on the horns of a dilemma that leaves his own future uncertain.

Hicks and Gillett have been claiming for months that refinancing is imminent. They plan to borrow £350m to repay the cash they used to buy Liverpool last year and start work on a new stadium. A sticking point has been a reluctance by the Americans to put a penny of their own money into the deal. Another fundamental block has been that Parry does not want the new debt piled on to the club's books secured against club assets.

For the refinancing to go through in such a fashion, Parry's signature, as a key player on the board, would be required, as well as those of Hicks, Gillett and the banks. If Parry refused to sign, his job could theoretically be at risk. If he signs, he risks the kind of fan backlash suffered by David Gill at Manchester United since the Glazer takeover at Old Trafford.

Liverpool's supporters now certainly seem vehemently anti-Hicks and Gillett. A poll in yesterday's Liverpool Daily Post showed that 89 per cent want the aspirant owners, Dubai International Capital, to run the club. DIC lost out last year but remain interested, and in touch with both Hicks and Gillett.

A Liverpool Echo survey showed that 92 per cent of fans want Hicks and Gillett to sell. A separate poll, by the Liverpool Supporters' network – an alliance of fanzines and websites – asked 2,000 fans: "Do you trust Hicks and Gillett?", to which 98 per cent replied "No". And asked whether the Americans or Benitez had the best interests of the club at heart, 99 per cent said Rafael Benitez, and one per cent the owners.

A finding that might most hurt Hicks and Gillett in their tenderest spots – their bottom lines – was that 76 per cent of fans said they would consider withdrawing their financial commitment to the club by not buying tickets or merchandise.

DIC were waiting yesterday for the American's next move. Sources are not ruling out DIC's continued pursuit of the club, even should the refinancing be concluded. Ownership of the club remains a "long term aim" for the Arab consortium.

by **ivor_the_injun** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:28 am

I must admit I do like the idea that Parry would be umming and ahhing because he's worried the fans might turn against him.

Given his absolutely terrible standing among our fans, what would a backlash against Rick Parry look like? A sudden passionate campaign to get him knighted?

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online