Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Thu May 15, 2008 11:39 pm

Shhh...

by **Rush Job** » Thu May 15, 2008 11:46 pm

Is he still selling the Rangers to Bush? It seems to me he`s trying to free up the money to buy out Gillete, hope im wrong though and its him on the way out.
I just cant see him dropping all his plans and selling all? his clubs, the fact he`s cutting loses elsewhere says to me his desire to keep hold of his prize asset, he knows what we could be worth.

by **NANNY RED** » Thu May 15, 2008 11:54 pm

LFC2007 wrote:Shhh...

Never mind shush :laugh:

im a nosy Bi.tch and i give my place of birth in there and where i am now , erm Leon the bounty hunter eh :nod

by **Kharhaz** » Fri May 16, 2008 2:10 am

Rush Job wrote:Is he still selling the Rangers to Bush? It seems to me he`s trying to free up the money to buy out Gillete, hope im wrong though and its him on the way out.
I just cant see him dropping all his plans and selling all? his clubs, the fact he`s cutting loses elsewhere says to me his desire to keep hold of his prize asset, he knows what we could be worth.

Its not a case of you being wrong, its a case of contradictions that are written in which people believe . An expression you have already put forward. Many things dont make sense. This being one of many. And on another point, supposing he is investing all his interest in lfc. Supposing he does want to sell his other assets to invest in the club. Supposing he is willing to invest all he has in the club. Does it change the opinion of those opposing hicks? supposing his money buys new players, buys the new stadium, would he still be opposed? or is it down to simple stubborness on the supporters half?

by **Rush Job** » Fri May 16, 2008 2:38 am

Kharhaz wrote:
Rush Job wrote:Is he still selling the Rangers to Bush? It seems to me he`s trying to free up the money to buy out Gillete, hope im wrong though and its him on the way out.
I just cant see him dropping all his plans and selling all? his clubs, the fact he`s cutting loses elsewhere says to me his desire to keep hold of his prize asset, he knows what we could be worth.
Does it change the opinion of those opposing hicks? supposing his money buys new players, buys the new stadium, would he still be opposed? or is it down to simple stubborness on the supporters half?

No i dont think it would change much, the man would still be a liar and he would still be risking the club with the way he does deals.

by **Kharhaz** » Fri May 16, 2008 2:44 am

Rush Job wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:
Rush Job wrote:Is he still selling the Rangers to Bush? It seems to me he`s trying to free up the money to buy out Gillete, hope im wrong though and its him on the way out.
I just cant see him dropping all his plans and selling all? his clubs, the fact he`s cutting loses elsewhere says to me his desire to keep hold of his prize asset, he knows what we could be worth.
Does it change the opinion of those opposing hicks? supposing his money buys new players, buys the new stadium, would he still be opposed? or is it down to simple stubborness on the supporters half?

No i dont think it would change much, the man would still be a liar and he would still be risking the club with the way he does deals.

Oh of course. But if the money was there, and the new stadium was built, as long as his lies are not directly in interference with the club to me at least it doesnt matter what lies he spins, because lets be honest, as long as the club benefit he can call a blue day sunny as sin for all I care.

by **Rush Job** » Fri May 16, 2008 2:55 am

Kharhaz wrote:
Rush Job wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:
Rush Job wrote:Is he still selling the Rangers to Bush? It seems to me he`s trying to free up the money to buy out Gillete, hope im wrong though and its him on the way out.
I just cant see him dropping all his plans and selling all? his clubs, the fact he`s cutting loses elsewhere says to me his desire to keep hold of his prize asset, he knows what we could be worth.
Does it change the opinion of those opposing hicks? supposing his money buys new players, buys the new stadium, would he still be opposed? or is it down to simple stubborness on the supporters half?

No i dont think it would change much, the man would still be a liar and he would still be risking the club with the way he does deals.

Oh of course. But if the money was there, and the new stadium was built, as long as his lies are not directly in interference with the club to me at least it doesnt matter what lies he spins, because lets be honest, as long as the club benefit he can call a blue day sunny as sin for all I care.

IF the club were clearly benifiting short term and long term then yes i`d happly let it go. After all thats what it is about the best for the club, i just cant see it happening, in one year he`s already draged the name of the club through the muck and hawked us over the globe like a meff asking for change.

by **Kharhaz** » Fri May 16, 2008 2:59 am

IF the club were clearly benifiting short term and long term then yes i`d happly let it go. After all thats what it is about the best for the club, i just cant see it happening, in one year he`s already draged the name of the club through the muck and hawked us over the globe like a meff asking for change.

Its true, and its this that raises my doubts about gillett also. Is he really in a position where hicks dictates everything? At the beginning I thought hicks was the bad guy but as this goes on and on gillett isnt looking as rosy. Whatever we think of hicks he at least is voicing opinion and doing something, which is more than what gillett is. There is more to this than any of us know.

by **Rush Job** » Fri May 16, 2008 3:21 am

Kharhaz wrote:
IF the club were clearly benifiting short term and long term then yes i`d happly let it go. After all thats what it is about the best for the club, i just cant see it happening, in one year he`s already draged the name of the club through the muck and hawked us over the globe like a meff asking for change.

Its true, and its this that raises my doubts about gillett also. Is he really in a position where hicks dictates everything? At the beginning I thought hicks was the bad guy but as this goes on and on gillett isnt looking as rosy. Whatever we think of hicks he at least is voicing opinion and doing something, which is more than what gillett is. There is more to this than any of us know.

True imo there is no good side and bad side to this non of them are good enough and you can include Parry int that, he`s been holding us back for years its so important to have a good CEO, how many times has he failed to bring in Rafas top targets? and offered substandard deals to the likes of Alves.Also i bet it was him in Moores ear saying we can get more money out of DIC that cocked it up. Hate the man he doesnt deserve to be anywhere near the club.

by **Kharhaz** » Fri May 16, 2008 3:37 am

Rush Job wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:
IF the club were clearly benifiting short term and long term then yes i`d happly let it go. After all thats what it is about the best for the club, i just cant see it happening, in one year he`s already draged the name of the club through the muck and hawked us over the globe like a meff asking for change.

Its true, and its this that raises my doubts about gillett also. Is he really in a position where hicks dictates everything? At the beginning I thought hicks was the bad guy but as this goes on and on gillett isnt looking as rosy. Whatever we think of hicks he at least is voicing opinion and doing something, which is more than what gillett is. There is more to this than any of us know.

True imo there is no good side and bad side to this non of them are good enough and you can include Parry int that, he`s been holding us back for years its so important to have a good CEO, how many times has he failed to bring in Rafas top targets? and offered substandard deals to the likes of Alves.Also i bet it was him in Moores ear saying we can get more money out of DIC that cocked it up. Hate the man he doesnt deserve to be anywhere near the club.

Thats the downside to all of this argument. Out of all that are involved, everybody insists that only the bad things can happen to this club. All we have are opinions, all we can do as supporters is form our own judgement, and the judgement has been that we are doomed. Parry, hicks, gillett, moores. Its time we changed it. Boycotting matches and not buying the new shirts is not the way to go. I will buy it. Will I be one of the ones willing our club to continue, or will I be one of the ones rebelling against the current owners. Buy or not to buy. All we have, all any of us have are rumours. If hicks buys out gillett, it will happen, it doesnt matter what we have to say, if gillett buys out hicks, again, it doesnt matter what we say. One thing or the other will happen. One thing for sure that will happen, and a guarantee, all of us will sit here waiting to see what does happen. Everybody sat here waiting on DIC as our saviours, give it up, it isnt going to happen, for all there money and yet they still dont own the club. A price has been set on the club and they cannot match it. One of the two yanks will own our club and all we can do is sit back and watch.

by **Kharhaz** » Fri May 16, 2008 3:55 am

The yanks bought us for £350 mill. DIC were rejected. Obviously there offer wasnt good enough. The fact that moores sold to the yanks on the promise of taking the club forward. Which makes me wonder, what did DIC offer? was it really that poor an offer that moores looked at the yanks offer as a more attractrive one? £ 1 billion to buy out the club according to hicks as proposed to DIC for there offer and yet they couldnt better £350 million. Like I said, so many things we dont know. Its easy to question things, its much harder to get answers.

by **SupitsJonF** » Fri May 16, 2008 4:10 am

I know the jist of the whole Gillet, Hicks, and DIC events... But DIC offered 1 billion dollars....?

by **Rush Job** » Fri May 16, 2008 4:45 am

Kharhaz wrote:The yanks bought us for £350 mill. DIC were rejected. Obviously there offer wasnt good enough. The fact that moores sold to the yanks on the promise of taking the club forward. Which makes me wonder, what did DIC offer? was it really that poor an offer that moores looked at the yanks offer as a more attractrive one? £ 1 billion to buy out the club according to hicks as proposed to DIC for there offer and yet they couldnt better £350 million. Like I said, so many things we dont know. Its easy to question things, its much harder to get answers.

Mate DIC pulled out, they had a hand shake and an aggrement the deal was as good as done then they were messed about by Moores and Parry who started to dither and have secret talks with the yanks who were feeding them lie after lie.Its worth remembering that Gillette had his eye on us for a number of years and tryed to buy us on his own but failed to show he had the finance needed, now surly he new that so you might ask what the fecks his game was and tell him to hop it instead of letting him go away grab the first billionare (never really new Hicks) and tell him about this ecsentric Englishman whos willing to practically give away his market leading franchise as long as we say this this and this.As far as i can see and IMHO Gillette prayed on Moores,Hicks was just last minute muscle the fact the yanks have hardly any previous relationship says it all Gillette must have been desperate not to let his mark get away, and i bet the idea to impose a time limit on DIC came from one of the yanks i`d put my house on it.
What did we do to end up with baffoons like Moores and Parry.?

by **account deleted by request** » Fri May 16, 2008 4:50 am

Kharhaz wrote:The yanks bought us for £350 mill. DIC were rejected. Obviously there offer wasnt good enough. The fact that moores sold to the yanks on the promise of taking the club forward. Which makes me wonder, what did DIC offer? was it really that poor an offer that moores looked at the yanks offer as a more attractrive one? £ 1 billion to buy out the club according to hicks as proposed to DIC for there offer and yet they couldnt better £350 million. Like I said, so many things we dont know. Its easy to question things, its much harder to get answers.

Even harder to get things right - The yanks DIDN'T buy the club for £350million.

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty dealing with facts, maybe you would be better off staying in your fantasy world of IF ?

Fact - They lied about putting no debt on the club
Fact - They lied about building the stadium
Fact - They lied about the approach to Klinsmann
Fact - They lied about respecting the traditions of the club
Fact - They lied about negotiating with DIC

But they turn round and promise that they will eventually build the stadium - and you believe it and roll on the floor for your belly to be rubbed like a little puppy :laugh:

It will take a little more than fine promises to make me change my mind about that pair of liars.

by **Rush Job** » Fri May 16, 2008 4:58 am

And people talk of the liverpool way but, was it the liverpool way to agree a deal ( with a company that had EVERY intention to do what was promised ) shake on it then go on the phones to the yanks one of whitch has already been proved to be full of sh!t?

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online