Liverpool FC Forum

by **big al** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:22 am

LFC2007 Liverpool is a family club rooted in the community of Liverpool. I have always said that to the Scousers on here that they are the real fans. The city of Liverpool has history that is steeped in more than the football. Many Liverpudlians have given the lives for their country. That sacrifice is only something I can halve imagine. The Spion Kop in Anfield was named after a hilltop in South Africa where young lads from Liverpool lost there lives and the memories that fill Anfield are more valuable than a greedy rich tyrant who has no genuine interest in the team or the people of Liverpool. Mentioning Abramhovic is as if I give a fiddlers about that him and his filthy past is not a justifiable reason to allow another abuser of children and human rights to take over the club. I posted on this site a few years ago when another scumbag wanted control of the club.

by **Thingy** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:25 am

Cant see them wanting to share owenership with Hicks, at least not in the long run. Really hope if and when DIC take over it will be a fresh start for us, forget about the past year and focus soley on matters on the pitch.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:36 am

big al wrote:LFC2007 Liverpool is a family club rooted in the community of Liverpool. I have always said that to the Scousers on here that they are the real fans. The city of Liverpool has history that is steeped in more than the football. Many Liverpudlians have given the lives for their country. That sacrifice is only something I can halve imagine. The Spion Kop in Anfield was named after a hilltop in South Africa where young lads from Liverpool lost there lives and the memories that fill Anfield are more valuable than a greedy rich tyrant who has no genuine interest in the team or the people of Liverpool. Mentioning Abramhovic is as if I give a fiddlers about that him and his filthy past is not a justifiable reason to allow another abuser of children and human rights to take over the club. I posted on this site a few years ago when another scumbag wanted control of the club.

I'm not overly concerned about the ethical background of the Maktoum regime, the Dubai gov't may have a questionable policy when it comes to labour conditions etc. as do many other governments and as do many other businesses that you might not immediately consider to be that bad on first impression. Some of the working conditions in Dubai are fantastic, I can tell you that by close second hand account. As far as I'm concerned, it's really a non-issue.

We have to be owned by someone, whether we like it or not. If we have realistic expectations of ever growing as a club to meet our potential, we need owners with deep pockets, and plenty of financial clout. Although nothing is ever certain, and they could well turn out to be as bad if not worse than the yanks, my personal view is that they fit the bill as well as anyone else.

by **big al** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:38 am

flombs I would love to see the group of fans trying to take over succeed. Failing that I would rather have Hicks in control on his own. If the fans have raised £50m and are prepared to stomp up £5000 a touch then maybe they should approach Hicks and help him raise the money if he gives them gaurantees. In my view £5000 is a good deal for a 5 year season ticket in the new main stand. If Hicks sold 20,000 he'd raise £100m. Likewise if he offered long term leases on executive boxes he could raise more funds. Working with both the current owners should stop, one man on his own would be better.

by **big al** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:44 am

LFC2007 you may not be worried about ethics, but I am that's my point for posting in this tread and you;ll never convince me otherwise. You can debate with me all night about finances being more important. I suppose there are still some who think winning the premiership is more important than dignity, freedom and above all Life but I do care about what else happens in this world and that includes human rights violations in UAE.

by **Kharhaz** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:47 am

big al wrote:flombs I would love to see the group of fans trying to take over succeed. Failing that I would rather have Hicks in control on his own. If the fans have raised £50m and are prepared to stomp up £5000 a touch then maybe they should approach Hicks and help him raise the money if he gives them gaurantees. In my view £5000 is a good deal for a 5 year season ticket in the new main stand. If Hicks sold 20,000 he'd raise £100m. Likewise if he offered long term leases on executive boxes he could raise more funds. Working with both the current owners should stop, one man on his own would be better.

I would rather gillett put up more of a fight against hicks rather than sit back and let him dictate on what is happening with the club. Like ive said previous, gillett has stayed in the background and said nothing unlike hicks. We have two americans in charge at the moment and the lesser of the two is power mad.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:16 am

big al wrote:LFC2007 you may not be worried about ethics, but I am that's my point for posting in this tread and you;ll never convince me otherwise. You can debate with me all night about finances being more important. I suppose there are still some who think winning the premiership is more important than dignity, freedom and above all Life but I do care about what else happens in this world and that includes human rights violations in UAE.

I'll just say this; In certain instances but mainly for large construction projects, workers are kept in relatively poor conditions and are paid unreasonably low wages - invariably in these intances the Dubai Gov't has been directly responsible for this (However, as far as I'm aware construction unions are now allowed in Dubai). In other instances of exploitation, such as human trafficking for prostitution and trafficking of child camel jockeys, the Dubai gov't is invariably not directly responsible. They've taken steps to try and protect those most prone to exploitation. Those who practice in the trafficking of child jockeys will face imprisonment or severe financial penalties. Those who practice in human trafficking on a broader scale will also face imprisonment, some for life for the most severe offences, 5 years as a minimum sentence for the most trivial involvement. Most of the time, the trafficker isn't even from the host emirate Dubai. Accusations of 'human rights violations' cannot be levelled at the Dubai Gov't, in these instances.

With regards to the exploitation of workers' rights in the past, pertaining to large-scale construction projects, they are culpable. However, I don't view Sheikh Maktoum as a tyrant, perhaps just a bit of a c...t at times in the past. They do a lot of work to fulfil their corporate social responsibilities elsewhere, for example - the Dubai Cares initiative that aims to raise to financial support to help educate 1 million children. Sheikh Maktoum donated £5bn of his own wealth to the project last summer even. As for the allegation that he's an 'abuser of children', it's frankly ridiculous. There wasn't even a case brought against him, and the allegations didn't concern direct 'child abuse' by Sheikh Maktoum anyway. What that article also failed to mention was that the UAE freed almost a thousand victims of child camel jockey slavery, repatriates victims, and works with UNICEF to provide shelter for victims.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:41 am

Hicks orders Dubai visit for talks on Liverpool impasse

07th March

The Guardian

......................................................

Lawyers representing Tom Hicks intend to travel to Dubai next week to discuss a possible working relationship with Dubai International Capital, one that is based on the Texan's terms as he strives to become the majority Liverpool shareholder.
Anfield's co-owner appeared to soften his stance on the future ownership of the club yesterday when DIC claimed he was willing to meet them and to allow his co-chairman, George Gillett, to sell his 50% stake to the investment arm of the Dubai government for around £215m.

Hicks, however, has not veered from a determination to become the club's major influence and has instructed his lawyers to see whether DIC will reconsider their own ambitions to gain majority control. That is not an offer the Dubai company are currently prepared to accept.
Despite continuing efforts to raise funds for a rival bid for Gillett's investment and the power of veto over any sale to a third party, Hicks has indicated to DIC that he would allow his co-owner to sell them his stake, though only 49% or less. The leverage buyout expert is seeking a minimum 51% holding in Liverpool and remains resolute in his insistence that any new shareholder coming into the club would have to accept a minority stake.

The American's hardline stance continues to present a fundamental obstacle to DIC's intentions and the company will have to increase its £200m offer for Hicks' 50% before the co-chairman even reconsiders his position. DIC are also becoming increasingly exasperated by Gillett, and next week's meeting in Dubai is unlikely to go ahead unless he has finally accepted their bid for his 13-month investment.

Gillett has been offered a £40m profit on his 50% stake as a premium for dissolving his business relationship with Hicks and thereby allowing DIC to exert pressure on Hicks to follow suit. Over two days have now passed since Gillett was given a deadline to accept or reject DIC's package, however, and he has not given a decision.

DIC's representatives are continuing to work on a deal with Gillett's lawyers and are exploring ways for him to sell without his co-owner's permission, but until the sports tycoon agrees to sell there is no working relationship for Hicks and DIC to discuss.

Hicks has no plans personally to meet Amanda Staveley of private equity firm and DIC's advisors, PCP Capital Partners, and will have 90 days to lodge a formal rival offer for Gillett's shareholding should he block any attempt by his co-owner to sell his 50%. Although DIC remain confident a deal can eventually be struck with the Americans they may have to revise their intentions for Liverpool should the current impasse continue.
.................................................

by **LegBarnes** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:10 am

DIC are for real i for one dont want liverpool run as a play thing i want it run as a buisness lets face it clubs that aint run like a buisness fail , FACT

Cos football is about money nowa days and if your club dont make money you lose every thing so i would be happy to have DIC to come in cos they think big , do big and make loads of money.

Let them come in and make money but also let them come and invest in LFC and get us back at the top where we all know we should be.

I meen think of all the good deals we get with our LFC membership on holidays over there in his new hotels and parks it gonna be sweet. :lookaround

Tbh i just want us to start to beat the mancs agian every year if it takes DIC to come in and make that happen then so be it.

by **Penguins** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:27 am

Hicks is such a moron if he thinks DIC is going to bend over and buy 49% of the club and be some kind of cashcow and invest money in the team as a minority owner while Hicks sits by investing nothing and still gets control and a piece of the action.
Can't someone show him how unwanted he really is?

And no matter what reason, a person who want Hicks as majority owner needs to get their head examined.
Because unless Hitler comes in with a bid anything and I MEAN anything is better than that leveraged :censored:

.

And to start going on about morals etc when every single person that has bought a PL club the last few years, isn't exactly holy Mary.

Must be ok to save our morals at the expense of the future of the club while all our competitiors could care less if they come from Thailand and accussed of corruption or Russia.

Right now we are headed towards a Leeds scenario. If anyone wants to save our club from going in that direction, I'll welcome that new owner.

Save the club> keep a moral high ground when no other club gives a ****

by **The Manhattan Project** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:41 am

Personally I don't care about morals.

Just money.

If the people of Dubai don't like Jews but DIC give up the money to build Stanley Park, then fook it.

We'll be a bunch of fans-with-a-new-stadium-built-by-jew-hating-arabs-with-loads-of-money muthafookers.

LFC comes first, above anything.

by **SupitsJonF** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:30 am

The way I see it is that Jews can still go to LFC games in the new stadium, support LFC, and etc. So unless they restrict access to jews (illegal) it isn't too bad. Not great, brings some shame to the club, but not much at all.

by **takeactionnow** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:21 am

blimey now we are going all political ffs come on its not like everyone else in the premiership is squeaky clean the important bit is to get rid of the muppet show first

by **heimdall** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:11 pm

I also have no problem with DIC, sure they aren't angels but they are getting better all the time, they have too if they want people to come to DisneyDubai or whatever it's called.

Anyway I'm sticking by my prediction of 13th March for this all to be more or less sorted.

Why does everybody think that Gillet is so nice though, I actually think he is a bigger pr1ck than Hicks, Gillet is a cowardly fecker who won't even show his face at Anfield or make any statements at all and showed massive disrespect to us by ordering his son back to America and consequently leaving us in the sh1t.

Both Hicks and Gillet are complete c*nts!! :veryangry

by **Reg** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:23 pm

Not good news........

AP NewsBreak: Dubai group will accept buying just 49 percent of Liverpool
2008-03-07 12:08:57 -

MANCHESTER, England (AP) - The Dubai consortium battling for ownership of Liverpool is now willing to purchase less than 50 percent of the club, the Associated Press has learned.

Dubai International Capital will cede to the demands of Tom Hicks that his co-owner George Gillett Jr. can only sell 49 percent of the club _
with Hicks wanting the final percent for a majority stake _ an executive close to DIC told the AP. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

DIC was initially only interested in gaining a controlling interest, but is willing to settle for an initial partnership with Hicks at Anfield, with the long-term aim of taking full control, the executive said. Negotiations are now under way with Gillett to seal the deal.
Gillett had been offered up to 80 million pounds (US$158 million; €104 million), including a share of future profits, to sell his full stake end his turbulent year in English soccer.

Hicks and Gillett bought Liverpool for 218.9 million pounds (then US$431 million) in March 2007, and hold 50 percent each of the club.
The executive working on the DIC bid insisted that Hicks is preparing to hold face-to-face talks with DIC next week _ despite rebuffing the consortium's initial 500 million pound (US$993 million; €650 million) bid for the whole club. That would include paying off the 350 million-pound refinancing package the Americans negotiated in January for the loan used to purchase the Reds. Initial estimates had put the bid at 400 million pounds (US$794 million; €522 million).

The executive claimed Hicks, who also owns the Texas Rangers and the Dallas Stars, spoke by telephone Wednesday with Amanda Staveley, DIC's lead negotiator, to arrange a meeting in England early next week to bring the situation to a conclusion.
The Hicks camp denied that claim Thursday.

The uncertainty surrounding the club's future ownership has overshadowed Wednesday's 4-0 victory over West Ham, which restored Liverpool to fourth in the Premier League standings.
Liverpool fans staged a protest during the game, urging the American owners to sell to DIC.
Fans are upset that the duo have saddled the club with debt, failed to start building a new stadium and sought to replace popular manager Rafa Benitez.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online