Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:45 am

heimdall wrote:I bet people thought that when Ranieri left Chelsea they would take years to bounce back!

No.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:39 am

JoeTerp wrote:
s@int wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:if it were possible to ignore the fact that it was being done publicly and possibly for alt. reasons, wouldn't people be happy to hear that Parry was going to be on his way out? On the conduct side of things Gillett seems to outclass Hicks, but if GG is pro Parry and pro Klinnsman and Hicks is pro rafa, then I would be forced to change sides and say that hicks is the lesser of the two evils, and that people just need to stop freaking out about what they read in the papers, doesn't seem to be affecting the play much ( and i seriously doubt that it ever was). I just want Rafa back next season, so whatever ownership outcome is neccessary for that is what I am rooting for.

It Hicks NOT Gillet who has remained in contact with Klinsmann. Its Hicks that has supposedly been divulging details of Rafa's future transfer plans. Hardly a great way of showing support for Rafa is it ..... going asking a rival manager what he thinks of Rafa's transfer plans?

Parry going is not, and should not be the issue UNTIL Hicks and Gillet have been forced out of the club. Once they are gone I think Parry will be close behind them.

ok looks like i mixed up the klinnsman thing, but it does seem that gillett was the the one who originally set that up, but it was Hicks who first revealed it to the public.

Yes, I do realize that you cannot take the situation out of context and that in the context it looks REALLY REALLY bad, I am just saying that if you could isolate the idea, and make it private, and take away the possible alt. motives (which I know you can't) then most people on here would be happy to see Rick Parry leave the club.

If it was MY millions of pounds that someone else was spending, and I knew FECK All about footy, I would want to bring in someone else's opinion on my manager's targets too. Not saying that it was good that any of that information made the papers, but the move by itself wasn't dumb.

I think when you have a manager you have to back his judgement. Imagine if Hicks had asked about Torres, and been told by Klinsmann (or Sabre)that Torres wasn't a 20 goal a season striker and would never make it in English football! We may have finished up with Darren Bent.

(I suppose Sabre was right..... Torres is not a twenty goals a season striker....... he's a 30 goals a season striker

)

by **LFC2007** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:49 am

PMSL

by **redtrader74** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:22 am

Or Dean Ashton

by **Owzat** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:34 am

s@int wrote:(I suppose Sabre was right..... Torres is not a twenty goals a season striker....... he's a 30 goals a season striker )

Just remind me what was said, possibly by Rafa, about not wanting a 20 goals a season striker but four who could score 10 or 15. I think Benayoun got to 10 before Kuyt, Crouch and Voronin haven't got there yet while Torres has three times that number.

No 10

When the various players scored their 10th goal of the season (total in brackets)

Torres (30) - 28/11/07 vs Porto
Gerrard (21)- 08/12/07 vs Reading
Benayoun (10) - 26/01/08 vs Havant & W
Kuyt (10) - 02/04/08 vs Arsenal

Crouch (9) hasn't got there yet, neither has Voronin (5) and noone else has either. Torres is already on 30 goals, Crouch is the leading current striker with 40 for Liverpool so it won't take Torres long to over-take him - if he stays fit.

Gerrard's goal yesterday was his 65th under Rafa, he's scoring at exactly a goal every three games and this season at 0.438 goals/appearance. He's scored twenty in a season twice in the past three seasons and scored at least ten every season under Rafa. It's no wonder Rafa is playing him right up with Torres, he is the second best goalscorer in the squad.

by **stmichael** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:28 am

No-one else is to blame for the mess we are in the moment other then Moores and Parry. Moores took the word of the americans but the deal with DIC should have been completed before then. When dealing in a multi million business you dont take someones word. You do a full financial breakdown of the person you are involved with.

Moores and Parry thought they personally would be better off under the American but its backfired on them and now they are trying to :censored:

there way out of it.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:40 am

When the Americans approached Moore and Parry, I wonder what exactly they told them.

Did they say "Sure we have billions of dollars!"

If they did then they were liars, but Moores and Parry are still entirely to blame for being so naive.

If they said "We'll borrow it all" and they STILL sold the club to them, then they are entirely to blame.

by **Anfield rapper** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:55 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:When the Americans approached Moore and Parry, I wonder what exactly they told them.

Did they say "Sure we have billions of dollars!"

If they did then they were liars, but Moores and Parry are still entirely to blame for being so naive.

If they said "We'll borrow it all" and they STILL sold the club to them, then they are entirely to blame.

I'm pretty sure i remember at the time everybody knew they didn't have billions. That was the main reason the fans wanted the DIC bid to win. The only things that might have swayed Moores decision to sell to the yanks are, the price they were offering was more than DIC or, the yanks said they would keep both Moores and Parry involved with the club. I'm sure DIC would have probably kept Moores there in some capacity and i'm sure they would have invested in a new stadium (which the yanks also promissed but have yet to get started). They might have got rid of Parry which wouldn't have been a bad choice. So it leads me into thinking was it the extra cash that swayed Moores.

by **puroresu** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:58 am

Remember the quotes from Parry about the club being secure for 100 years etc. They way him and Moore's were talking u would of thought they did there own diligence on the Yanks to make sure they were the real deal. However as we know they didnt and now we are paying for it.

by **Dimshen** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:00 pm

i think they were afriad of dealing with the arabs. but when they say 'sure we have billions of dollars' im more inclined to believe them. because they do.

by **lakes10** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:38 pm

BBC and Sky news are on there way to Liverpool

(from a media forum,prnewswire)

by **Roger Red Hat** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:58 pm

lakes10 wrote:BBC and Sky news are on there way to Liverpool
(from a media forum,prnewswire)

your joking!? no! so is my Uncle! must mean something is gonna happen this afternoon of major importance...

...oh yeah, he'll be delivering chickens to a farm.

by **dawson99** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:00 pm

looked up chicken farmers...

so if anyone sees him, bewary of takeovers!!!

by **Judge** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:03 pm

Lee J wrote:
lakes10 wrote:BBC and Sky news are on there way to Liverpool
(from a media forum,prnewswire)

your joking!? no! so is my Uncle! must mean something is gonna happen this afternoon of major importance...

...oh yeah, he'll be delivering chickens in sussys to my house.

figures

by **Reg** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:04 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:When the Americans approached Moore and Parry, I wonder what exactly they told them.

Did they say "Sure we have billions of dollars!"

If they did then they were liars, but Moores and Parry are still entirely to blame for being so naive.

If they said "We'll borrow it all" and they STILL sold the club to them, then they are entirely to blame.

The questions is whether they did sufficient due diligence prior to the deal.
The resounding answer would appear to be NO.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online