Liverpool FC Forum

by **heimdall** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:09 am

Igor Zidane wrote:I thought i would put this in here, just incase anyone thought that the mancs were managing there debt . If you read the post it shows just how much sh!t there in with regards the debt on there club.

£650 million and rising

How the Glazers' debt threatens our club

The Glazer Family paid a total of £921 million to buy United.

They borrowed at least £650 million* of that sum, some at 20% compound interest.

The terms of the debt, which has now been shifted onto the club, means that if it is not paid off it increases to £938 million within 5 years. That means the debt is growing at more than £300,000 per day.* No. We're not kidding.

This isn't our spin on the situation either, for these figures aren't open to interpretation. The numbers above are the facts as spelled out in the Offer Documents posted by the Glazers at Allen & Overy during the bid period. There is ample evidence to indicate that the debt is not only real, it's likely to be crushing.

The debt clock in the sidebar (over there on the right side of the page) gives an approximate debt calculation -- and we've even given the Glazers the benefit of the doubt that the clock didn't start ticking until the end of June 2005

http://www.joinmust.org/thefacts/theirdebt.php

Now think of what a money making machine utd is and how they wont be able to cope with the debt. That's our future under G+H and no signs of a new stadium.

Well that cheers me up, but I don't think it's actually all that bleak for man Utd, it just doesn't make sense, why would the debt suddenly jump up, really weird?
In any case I like the fact that all has now gone quiet again it means that DIC are trying a new more aggressive approach to get the club, which they will succeed in doing, around June

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:16 pm

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Hicks is here for as long as he wants, not as long as we want. So there's not a lot we can do, we can boycott this that and the other, but if the doesn't wish to leave then he won't. We've just got to get behind the lads and wish success on Liverpool Football Club rather than failure on Tom Hicks.

Strange one, this, since you've argued elsewhere that there is no chance Hicks would have fired Rafa for failing to beat Marseille due to pressure from the supporters. Now you say that Hicks can and will do what he wants. Were those other comments just a convenient argument in the great Reading substitution debate?

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:45 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Hicks is here for as long as he wants, not as long as we want. So there's not a lot we can do, we can boycott this that and the other, but if the doesn't wish to leave then he won't. We've just got to get behind the lads and wish success on Liverpool Football Club rather than failure on Tom Hicks.

Strange one, this, since you've argued elsewhere that there is no chance Hicks would have fired Rafa for failing to beat Marseille due to pressure from the supporters. Now you say that Hicks can and will do what he wants. Were those other comments just a convenient argument in the great Reading substitution debate?

Hicks wouldnt of fired Benitez because of fear of losing the fans even more. That's nothing to do with him stepping down as owner is it?

If he sacked Benitez then this whole incident of fans questioning wether they should even stand inside the ground would of happened a lot earlier and Hicks knew that. That's why he wouldn't of sacked Benitez.

He thought he still had the trust of the fans, he didn't want to lose the little trust he had, that's why he wouldn't of sacked Benitez, because of the fear of losing the trust. Now the trust has gone, he's staying on to try and regain the trust, something which he hasn't realised that can't happen.

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:05 pm

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Hicks is here for as long as he wants, not as long as we want. So there's not a lot we can do, we can boycott this that and the other, but if the doesn't wish to leave then he won't. We've just got to get behind the lads and wish success on Liverpool Football Club rather than failure on Tom Hicks.

Strange one, this, since you've argued elsewhere that there is no chance Hicks would have fired Rafa for failing to beat Marseille due to pressure from the supporters. Now you say that Hicks can and will do what he wants. Were those other comments just a convenient argument in the great Reading substitution debate?

Hicks wouldnt of fired Benitez because of fear of losing the fans even more. That's nothing to do with him stepping down as owner is it?

If he sacked Benitez then this whole incident of fans questioning wether they should even stand inside the ground would of happened a lot earlier and Hicks knew that. That's why he wouldn't of sacked Benitez.

He thought he still had the trust of the fans, he didn't want to lose the little trust he had, that's why he wouldn't of sacked Benitez, because of the fear of losing the trust. Now the trust has gone, he's staying on to try and regain the trust, something which he hasn't realised that can't happen.

So he "thought he still had the trust of the fans" but also feared "losing the fans even more"?

I'm not seeing the logic, mate.

IMO, he would have fired Rafa without hesitation had we crashed out of the Champions League at the group stages and I'm sure there would have been many supporters--including many on here--that would have endorsed that decision.

Bottom line, he doesn't give a toss about the supporters or he wouldn't have done half the things he's done since taking over. That's why this whole notion that Rafa would have been protected by supporters had things gone pear-shaped in Marseille rings hollow to me.

by **NANNY RED** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:57 pm

LAZARUS speaks again

Dollar is blow to George Gillett

Mar 14 2008 by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo

GEORGE Gillett today claimed the weakness of the US dollar in international currency markets is making it difficult for him to invest in Liverpool.

Liverpool's co-owner told journalists at the IMG World Congress of Sports that the slump in the dollar has left him frustrated.

He said: "We've invested internationally with Liverpool and with Montreal in Canada, and it's had a very positive effect on both of them from the standpoint of strengthening the value.

"On the other hand, it's made it more difficult in terms of investing in those businesses because the dollar is really tremendously weak compared to where we started. It just costs us more to send money to those franchises, those businesses."

Gillett – who also owns the Montreal Canadiens ice hockey team and the Evernham Motorsports NASCAR team, also insisted that despite the ongoing controversy of his co-ownership of the club with Tom Hicks, he is still enjoying being associated with one of the biggest names in world sport.

"I'm really enjoying all three teams, but for different reasons. In Liverpool, it's a long distance away and there's been a fair amount of controversy over there.

"In spite of that, the boys are playing very well and I'm proud of them."
___

by **nobybob** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:33 pm

Does the weakness of the dollar then not make it more attractive for him to sell his shares, as surely any deal would be done in pounds sterling thus giving him more dollars??

by **NANNY RED** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:37 pm

There waiting to see how we do in the champions league if we win it again, more value on the club they can ask for more money

Greedy ba.stards

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:12 am

Bad Bob wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Hicks is here for as long as he wants, not as long as we want. So there's not a lot we can do, we can boycott this that and the other, but if the doesn't wish to leave then he won't. We've just got to get behind the lads and wish success on Liverpool Football Club rather than failure on Tom Hicks.

Strange one, this, since you've argued elsewhere that there is no chance Hicks would have fired Rafa for failing to beat Marseille due to pressure from the supporters. Now you say that Hicks can and will do what he wants. Were those other comments just a convenient argument in the great Reading substitution debate?

Hicks wouldnt of fired Benitez because of fear of losing the fans even more. That's nothing to do with him stepping down as owner is it?

If he sacked Benitez then this whole incident of fans questioning wether they should even stand inside the ground would of happened a lot earlier and Hicks knew that. That's why he wouldn't of sacked Benitez.

He thought he still had the trust of the fans, he didn't want to lose the little trust he had, that's why he wouldn't of sacked Benitez, because of the fear of losing the trust. Now the trust has gone, he's staying on to try and regain the trust, something which he hasn't realised that can't happen.

So he "thought he still had the trust of the fans" but also feared "losing the fans even more"? I'm not seeing the logic, mate.

IMO, he would have fired Rafa without hesitation had we crashed out of the Champions League at the group stages and I'm sure there would have been many supporters--including many on here--that would have endorsed that decision.

Bottom line, he doesn't give a toss about the supporters or he wouldn't have done half the things he's done since taking over. That's why this whole notion that Rafa would have been protected by supporters had things gone pear-shaped in Marseille rings hollow to me.

I don't think Hicks would of sacked Benitez. If he was going to sack Benitez, he would of. The march certain fans went on for Benitez kept him his job IMO.

As for the selling, Hicks has convinced himself HE WILL SUCCEED and won't leave until he does. That's why I think he isn't interested in the opinions we as fans have on that side. One reason he doesn't want a representive on the board is because "Tom Hicks is a buisness man and doesn't need a fan to tell him to run a buisness"

Whereas, the fans know about football and Benitez is the best option (according to some people) and he had to listen to that because their only option was Klinsmann who decided to take over at Bayern Munich. They obviously know :censored:

all about football, so they listened to the folks who do. That's why they didn't sack Benitez because the people who know about football wanted Benitez to stay.

by **Toffeehater** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:05 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Hicks is here for as long as he wants, not as long as we want. So there's not a lot we can do, we can boycott this that and the other, but if the doesn't wish to leave then he won't. We've just got to get behind the lads and wish success on Liverpool Football Club rather than failure on Tom Hicks.

Strange one, this, since you've argued elsewhere that there is no chance Hicks would have fired Rafa for failing to beat Marseille due to pressure from the supporters. Now you say that Hicks can and will do what he wants. Were those other comments just a convenient argument in the great Reading substitution debate?

Hicks wouldnt of fired Benitez because of fear of losing the fans even more. That's nothing to do with him stepping down as owner is it?

If he sacked Benitez then this whole incident of fans questioning wether they should even stand inside the ground would of happened a lot earlier and Hicks knew that. That's why he wouldn't of sacked Benitez.

He thought he still had the trust of the fans, he didn't want to lose the little trust he had, that's why he wouldn't of sacked Benitez, because of the fear of losing the trust. Now the trust has gone, he's staying on to try and regain the trust, something which he hasn't realised that can't happen.

So he "thought he still had the trust of the fans" but also feared "losing the fans even more"? I'm not seeing the logic, mate.

IMO, he would have fired Rafa without hesitation had we crashed out of the Champions League at the group stages and I'm sure there would have been many supporters--including many on here--that would have endorsed that decision.

Bottom line, he doesn't give a toss about the supporters or he wouldn't have done half the things he's done since taking over. That's why this whole notion that Rafa would have been protected by supporters had things gone pear-shaped in Marseille rings hollow to me.

I don't think Hicks would of sacked Benitez. If he was going to sack Benitez, he would of. The march certain fans went on for Benitez kept him his job IMO.

As for the selling, Hicks has convinced himself HE WILL SUCCEED and won't leave until he does. That's why I think he isn't interested in the opinions we as fans have on that side. One reason he doesn't want a representive on the board is because "Tom Hicks is a buisness man and doesn't need a fan to tell him to run a buisness"

Whereas, the fans know about football and Benitez is the best option (according to some people) and he had to listen to that because their only option was Klinsmann who decided to take over at Bayern Munich. They obviously know all about football, so they listened to the folks who do. That's why they didn't sack Benitez because the people who know about football wanted Benitez to stay.

If he sacked rafa , they would be an up roar , prob boycott the games , stop buying shirts and that would mean his wallet would suffer , only pee wee would go to games still

He thinks by signing masch adn offering rafa a new contract that means that all has been swept under the rug well he's dreaming

by **nobybob** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:19 pm

I don't think Hicks would of sacked Benitez. If he was going to sack Benitez, he would of. The march certain fans went on for Benitez kept him his job IMO.

You seem to contradict yourself in the one line of text there John, thats a hard thing to do IMO----no its not

yes it is.

by **tubby** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:45 pm

NANNY RED wrote:There waiting to see how we do in the champions league if we win it again, more value on the club they can ask for more money

Greedy ba.stards

Not to mention new TV deals for next season including refresh deals for Champions League means more income = I can ask for more.

:censored:

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:48 pm

This isn't defending the yanks because they actually can't be defended, but at the start of the season when things went tits up all the blame fell on the owners, now that they're making the situation a whole lot worse than it was at the start of the season yet we're winning.

So how can people still say the off the field antics affected us? If it was affecting the players then it'd be affecting them now more than ever, yet right now everything is rosey. So I think the simple truth is, Benitez got it wrong on a regular basis up until mid Feburary where he's got almost everything right. I'd just like Benitez to come out and say that rather than let fans believe that it's still down to the owners we're not topping the table. The ongoings with the yanks right now would be affecting the players a lot more than it was around October/November but we're not struggling now. So I can't accept it's the yanks fault that we're eight points behind.

I will blame them for making the club a laughing stock, but not for the performances from players and staff on the field.

by **LFC2007** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:34 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:This isn't defending the yanks because they actually can't be defended, but at the start of the season when things went tits up all the blame fell on the owners, now that they're making the situation a whole lot worse than it was at the start of the season yet we're winning.

So how can people still say the off the field antics affected us? If it was affecting the players then it'd be affecting them now more than ever, yet right now everything is rosey.

It was inevitable that our form would improve after the extended series of blips we had, and it was actually at the time of the Klinnsmann approach that the media honed in on Rafa.

So I think the simple truth is, Benitez got it wrong on a regular basis up until mid Feburary where he's got almost everything right. I'd just like Benitez to come out and say that rather than let fans believe that it's still down to the owners we're not topping the table.The ongoings with the yanks right now would be affecting the players a lot more than it was around October/November but we're not struggling now. So I can't accept it's the yanks fault that we're eight points behind.

I will blame them for making the club a laughing stock, but not for the performances from players and staff on the field.

Did Rafa not say something along the lines of 'I could blame the owners for our poor form, but I'm not going to, it's up to us to perform etc..'?

If fans believe that our poor form was solely down to the owners, and that their actions exempt Rafa from criticism, then they're pretty stupid.

I haven't come across any fortunately. Most fans I know acknowledge that off-the-field conditions have made it tougher to do the job, and that it was bound to affect the players and manager to a fair degree.

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:00 am

from Chris Bascombe, the News of the World

Anfield co-owner George Gillett has received death threats from Liverpool fans warning him not to sell any of his stake in the club to partner Tom Hicks.

Gillett and his family have been targeted by a series of emails across the Atlantic, fuelled by The Kop's anger at reports he'll leave the club at the hands of his partner.

But Gillett insists he has no intention of selling Hicks any of his shares.

An Anfield source said: "George has assured the club he's not prepared to sell Tom even half a per cent, never mind one per cent.

"While the focus has been on what Hicks and Dubai International Capital want to do, it seems people have been ignoring the man who'll really decide who he sells his stake to."

Gillett is determined to break his ties on Merseyside after just one year in charge, but recognises the catastrophic legacy if he left Hicks in control.

But there remains cautious optimism the American ownership will draw to an inevitable conclusion in the months to come.

by **maguskwt** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:48 am

s@int wrote:from Chris Bascombe, the News of the World

Anfield co-owner George Gillett has received death threats from Liverpool fans warning him not to sell any of his stake in the club to partner Tom Hicks.

Gillett and his family have been targeted by a series of emails across the Atlantic, fuelled by The Kop's anger at reports he'll leave the club at the hands of his partner.

But Gillett insists he has no intention of selling Hicks any of his shares.

An Anfield source said: "George has assured the club he's not prepared to sell Tom even half a per cent, never mind one per cent.

"While the focus has been on what Hicks and Dubai International Capital want to do, it seems people have been ignoring the man who'll really decide who he sells his stake to."

Gillett is determined to break his ties on Merseyside after just one year in charge, but recognises the catastrophic legacy if he left Hicks in control.

But there remains cautious optimism the American ownership will draw to an inevitable conclusion in the months to come.

nice to hear that... perhaps Gillett does have some common sense...

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online