Liverpool FC Forum

by **Igor Zidane** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:36 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.

I totally respect your opinion mate , although i totally disagree with it . When your making your arguement though try and deal with the facts and not idol speculation ( see saints post above ) . The yanks did not buy the club for £350 million , they borrowed the money to aquire the club for £247 million. There are claims that hicks now values the club at £1 BILLION . Dic have not offered £1 billion to buy the club.

Now it's little things like these facts ,that leave your arguement somewhat shallow. Do you seriously think that these two American's have the best interests of the club at heart, or is it as i suspect (and i apologise if i'm wrong) you don't give two fecks as long as they build the stadium and invest in players to make us successful . You couldn't care less where the money comes from ,just aslong as they've got it.

If it's the latter then fair enough mate cos your not alone. THere are some of us though, that care deeply about the club successul or not . We couldn't give two sh!tes if we won the league tomorrow with an all star squad and a nice new shiney stadium (no chance of this by the way) ,because its the club that matters you see. THe history and the traditions ,the fans and the players ,the very soul of this club is us not the owners . THe yanks were supposed to be custodians of all that and they've shat all over it from a big hieght , we've been made a laughing stock the world over and its literally breaking my heart seeing the club and all that goes with it being made a mockery of infront of the whole world.

by **parchpea** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:39 am

Its a two way thing in that we opended the door to these people and let them take over our club and they have not delivered what they promised.

Funny things is all the people involved in this mess are still on the payroll and in charge of our future and destiny so with good reason we can be very afraid as to what might happen.

by **Trewyn** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:40 am

Kharhaz wrote: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?

If he sells all his other interest and concentrates fully on LFC, I will reconsider my disgust for him. But hey, we all know the odds of that happening will be like Ferguson coming to manage Liverpool.

I respect you coming in here to be the devil's advocate... literally LoL For the record, keep it coming. Sometimes it's good to hear another side, even if it's sometimes a tad far-fetched.

Anyway, you mentioned something about don't believe everything you read in the media, well in my expert opinion (i am an editor for a very reputable news agency with over 100yrs of history) I feel that my assessment of who is a better custodian of Liverpool lies in the facts. Being, would you rather have a father who has $1.3b acting like he has $31b or a father who has $31b acting like he has $31b and if that $31b dries up, there's this other thing he has called black gold?

No self-respecting liverpool fan would want to even fathom the idea of risking liverpool be put into administration, which is what is happening now hence the unprecendented outcry.

by **Ciggy** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:52 am

Welcome to the world of foriegn investors :glare:

FIRING SQUAD.

Tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra has put Manchester City’s entire squad up for sale in the latest twist to his bizarre behaviour.

Thai billionaire Shinawatra, who is already set to sack manager Sven-Goran Eriksson, is apparently so disgusted with the team’s performances in the second half of the season that he wants a massive clear-out, including young stars such as Micah Richards, Michael Johnson and Joe Hart.

The news of the impending fire sale throws City even deeper into turmoil and will further antagonise fans, who staged a mass demonstration against Shinawatra last week.

They are threatening to withhold money for season tickets until it becomes clear who the manager will be next season and what players will be on the pitch. It also underlines the belief of many City insiders that Shinawatra does not understand football.

City’s owner, it is understood, has written a letter to each member of the team conveying his feelings.

He has put all contract talks on hold and wants to start next season from scratch with a new manager and new players. All this has prompted deputy chairman John Wardle, who is distraught at the crisis, to apologise to the players for selling the club to Shinawatra.

But the damage has been done and many players will be delighted to jump ship and relaunch their careers at a club with a less volatile owner.

Skipper Richard Dunne is expected to join Newcastle for £5million. The poor treatment of Eriksson was the final straw for Dunne, City’s Player of the Season. Richards is also unhappy.

He signed a new four-year contract in February because he was sure the club were going in the right direction. But Manchester United and Chelsea have now been alerted.

Johnson is a target for Liverpool, and goalkeeper Hart is being pursued by Tottenham, who also covet Martin Petrov, City’s Bulgarian winger.

Sunderland have been eyeing Stephen Ireland and there would be no shortage of bids for Elano.

Morale was so low that City lost Sunday’s final league game 8-1 against Middlesbrough.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/44612/Firing-squad

by **lakes10** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:07 am

not sure about the facts of this but CNN said that Hcks will need to sell Liverpool fc to keep his other intrests.

This will bring DIC back to the table with a bit of luck, the last report about them was they had given up for the time being.

by **Ciggy** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:10 am

lakes10 wrote:not sure about the facts of this but CNN said that Hcks will need to sell Liverpool fc to keep his other intrests.

This will bring DIC back to the table with a bit of luck, the last report about them was they had given up for the time being.

I think its the other way around , i think he will sell his other clubs, and put all his eggs in one basket with us.

We are a huge assit to his portfolio sadly

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:21 am

Ciggy wrote:
lakes10 wrote:not sure about the facts of this but CNN said that Hcks will need to sell Liverpool fc to keep his other intrests.

This will bring DIC back to the table with a bit of luck, the last report about them was they had given up for the time being.

I think its the other way around , i think he will sell his other clubs, and put all his eggs in one basket with us.

We are a huge assit to his portfolio sadly

true, its much more worldly recognized and makes a better profit in the long run. sad to see how the club is being trashed by a set of dogs.

by **lakes10** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:43 am

maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
lakes10 wrote:not sure about the facts of this but CNN said that Hcks will need to sell Liverpool fc to keep his other intrests.

This will bring DIC back to the table with a bit of luck, the last report about them was they had given up for the time being.

I think its the other way around , i think he will sell his other clubs, and put all his eggs in one basket with us.

We are a huge assit to his portfolio sadly

true, its much more worldly recognized and makes a better profit in the long run. sad to see how the club is being trashed by a set of dogs.

I can not see him give up his Ice hockey .

by **GRAHAM01** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:53 am

lakes10 wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
lakes10 wrote:not sure about the facts of this but CNN said that Hcks will need to sell Liverpool fc to keep his other intrests.

This will bring DIC back to the table with a bit of luck, the last report about them was they had given up for the time being.

I think its the other way around , i think he will sell his other clubs, and put all his eggs in one basket with us.

We are a huge assit to his portfolio sadly

true, its much more worldly recognized and makes a better profit in the long run. sad to see how the club is being trashed by a set of dogs.

I can not see him give up his Ice hockey .

that would mean him being loyal to something and i just can't see HIM being loyal to anything other than his love of money

i think he would sale his own grandmother for a few bucks

he knows that his biggest chance of more money is to keep hold of are beloved club and rape it for all he can

by **lakes10** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:59 am

GRAHAM01 wrote:
lakes10 wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
lakes10 wrote:not sure about the facts of this but CNN said that Hcks will need to sell Liverpool fc to keep his other intrests.

This will bring DIC back to the table with a bit of luck, the last report about them was they had given up for the time being.

I think its the other way around , i think he will sell his other clubs, and put all his eggs in one basket with us.

We are a huge assit to his portfolio sadly

true, its much more worldly recognized and makes a better profit in the long run. sad to see how the club is being trashed by a set of dogs.

I can not see him give up his Ice hockey .

that would mean him being loyal to something and i just can't see HIM being loyal to anything other than his love of money

i think he would sale his own grandmother for a few bucks

he knows that his biggest chance of more money is to keep hold of are beloved club and rape it for all he can

The sad fact is that i had to laugh at your post as it was so ture.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:04 am

GRAHAM01 wrote:
lakes10 wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
lakes10 wrote:not sure about the facts of this but CNN said that Hcks will need to sell Liverpool fc to keep his other intrests.

This will bring DIC back to the table with a bit of luck, the last report about them was they had given up for the time being.

I think its the other way around , i think he will sell his other clubs, and put all his eggs in one basket with us.

We are a huge assit to his portfolio sadly

true, its much more worldly recognized and makes a better profit in the long run. sad to see how the club is being trashed by a set of dogs.

I can not see him give up his Ice hockey .

that would mean him being loyal to something and i just can't see HIM being loyal to anything other than his love of money

i think he would sale his own grandmother for a few bucks

he knows that his biggest chance of more money is to keep hold of are beloved club and rape it for all he can

yeah he is only loyal to money ='(

by **Number 9** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:05 am

Moores and Parry's fault,they jumped in to quick!

They should have used lawyers to put together a contract to protect the club.
For example a date should have been set,if the promise to build the stadium was not met by a certain deadline,they should have made themselves legally entitled to scrap the deal and give them their money back.

And if other promises were broken say the fact the Yanks said "no debt would be put on the club"
this also should have entitled Moores and Parry to call the deal off and give them their dollars back.

It would have made sense at the time but it appears they were so desperate to sell such clauses were over looked.
Whoever their lawyer is should take a good look at himself as well,he could have stopped this from all happening if he had half a brain.

Some might say,no one would sign up to such a contract.But if they were serious with their promises and had the money and will to carry them through i doubt the buyer would have a problem!

All this time and still no sign of any resolve,fuc'king redneck kunts! :angry:

by **GRAHAM01** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:10 am

lakes10 wrote:
GRAHAM01 wrote:
lakes10 wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
lakes10 wrote:not sure about the facts of this but CNN said that Hcks will need to sell Liverpool fc to keep his other intrests.

This will bring DIC back to the table with a bit of luck, the last report about them was they had given up for the time being.

I think its the other way around , i think he will sell his other clubs, and put all his eggs in one basket with us.

We are a huge assit to his portfolio sadly

true, its much more worldly recognized and makes a better profit in the long run. sad to see how the club is being trashed by a set of dogs.

I can not see him give up his Ice hockey .

that would mean him being loyal to something and i just can't see HIM being loyal to anything other than his love of money

i think he would sale his own grandmother for a few bucks

he knows that his biggest chance of more money is to keep hold of are beloved club and rape it for all he can

The sad fact is that i had to laugh at your post as it was so ture.

it makes my heart sink more and more every time i hear that he is trying to get the money to buy out gillett and that dic have taken a step back, just hope that he can't get enough or that gillett will tell him to f**k off but i just can't see it

think gillett will sale to him just to get out of it and away from him because if it is true that gillett can't sale without his say so how can he go being part of the club, nothing would ever get done because they would just be fight each other

that one of the big things that worries me with the transfer market now open will we buy ANYONE of pure class that can move us on as that would mean a lot of money being handed out??

by **GRAHAM01** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:14 am

Number 9 wrote:Moores and Parry's fault,they jumped in to quick!

They should have used lawyers to put together a contract to protect the club.
For example a date should have been set,if the promise to build the stadium was not met by a certain deadline,they should have made themselves legally entitled to scrap the deal and give them their money back.

And if other promises were broken say the fact the Yanks said "no debt would be put on the club"
this also should have entitled Moores and Parry to call the deal off and give them their dollars back.

It would have made sense at the time but it appears they were so desperate to sell such clauses were over looked.
Whoever their lawyer is should take a good look at himself as well,he could have stopped this from all happening if he had half a brain.

Some might say,no one would sign up to such a contract.But if they were serious with their promises and had the money and will to carry them through i doubt the buyer would have a problem!

All this time and still no sign of any resolve,fuc'king redneck kunts!

imo i think parry got to moores and told him the yanks would be the better option, i think moores thought he was doing the right thing and got high on the dreams of what he was told

how parry is still in a job is beyond me that is the one and only thing i would ever agree with hick with

by **account deleted by request** » Fri May 16, 2008 4:56 pm

Record TV Money - The Premier League Monster
By dixon9 May 16 2008
16 years ago League Division 1 Chief Executives spearheaded by Rick Parry of Liverpool were the driving force behind the formation of the new Premier League. The top clubs at the time welcomed the move as they would earn much more TV revenue whilst the 2nd Division clubs claimed that the rich would get richer and the poor poorer. Figures released earlier this week provided eye-opening viewing. A new TV deal was struck last year and revenues for the 2007/8 season have increased by almost £300million. Each club was awarded a standard payment of £22.8million as only part of a total of an astronomic £2.7 billion deal over three years.

Next every Premier League club then received an amount corresponding to how many times they were screened live - Manchester United were on the silver screen the most, being shown 25 times and earned a further £12.1million total for these matches – even the least shown clubs such as Derby County were given a minimum £5.6million payment.

A third revenue stream came from the Premier League in the shape of “merit payments” which relate to the finishing position achieved. As Manchester United were top of the Premier League, they earned an additional £14.4million - but there is a yawning gap between top and bottom – Derby County earned a £720,000 merit payment from the Premier League for finishing bottom.

Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and even Newcastle were shown live more on TV than Chelsea – some would no doubt claim that this is because “Well you don’t play pretty football like we do!” etc etc blah blah (insert whatever spurious jump on the hate Chelsea bandwagon comment you can think of) but my own feeling is that we were only very recently challenging for the league title (Newcastle? Why were they shown more than us? Keegan? Got me there!). Newcastle earned almost £10million from 20 live screenings whilst we were shown 18 times, earning £9.1million. Last season I think we were 1st or 2nd in TV money, so it is a bit disappointing.

Looking at the table below, we can see that the gap between top and bottom has increased from £15.3million to more than £20million when comparing the previous season’s figures, but despite this disparity, Premier League officials insist that the new payment structure is actually fairer to small clubs. True, all Premier League clubs have received vastly increased payments (e.g. Aston Villa a £42.3million total consisting of the standard payment, quantity of live games shown and merit payment compared to the £22.4million received in the 2006-07 season) but we can see that even within the Premier League itself there is perhaps a disproportionate “rich richer, poor poorer” situation developing.

What is also surprising is that the relegated clubs - Reading, Birmingham City and Derby – all receive what is termed “parachute payments” for up to two seasons if they still remain outside the top flight. These payments have been increased from just under £6.5million to £11.4million. These figures, at first glance, might not seem that much but when you consider TV revenues in the Coca Cola Championship are only about a tenth of that figure it makes you realise that relegated Premier League clubs still have a significant advantage over their new competitors.

It’s not all greed though, some £125million is split between payments to the Football League, charities and other causes – 10 years ago this figure was the total turnover of the Premier League! The Football League receives 77.4million of this which includes £45.6million in parachute payments and £31.8million of revenue to be awarded to clubs for youth development and community schemes.

The Premier League is awash in cash at the moment and there’s still the small matter of Champions League revenue to be factored in (around an extra £30 million apparently for Chelsea and Manchester United) BUT when we look at the financial situation of some clubs the picture becomes a bit more sober – Manchester United for example, still owe some £50 odd million in unpaid transfers and roughly the same again in unpaid interest payments.

What makes the sky even more cloudy for some clubs is that even with all the extra money flying around – a great deal of it will have eventually been trousered by the likes of Glazer, Hicks & Gillette, when they sell up and leave –leaving the fans, once more, to help pick up the tab for the next owners.

Nothing like the good ol Corinthian spirit, hobnail boots and pints of bitter is there!

Revenues for 2007-08 season (from The Times)(2006-07 in brackets)

Manchester United £49.3m (£32m)Arsenal £47m (£29m)Chelsea £45.6m (£30.9m)Liverpool £45.4m (£28.4m)Everton £42.1m (£25.3m)
Aston Villa £42.3m (£22m)
Blackburn Rovers £40.2m (£22m)
Portsmouth £40.4m (£23m)
Manchester City £39.7m (£21m)
West Ham United £36.8m (£21.1m)
Tottenham Hotspur £36m (£27.3m)
Newcastle United £39.2m (£21.2m)
Middlesbrough £34.2m (£20.5m)
Wigan Athletic £33.4m (£18.4m)
Sunderland £33.6m (£6.5m*)
Bolton Wanderers £32m (£24.6m)
Fulham £31.3m (£20.4m)
Reading £30.6m (£23.6m)
Birmingham City £29.8m (£6.5m*)
Derby County £29.1m (n/a)

Total £815,175,812 (£502,533,570)
* denotes parachute payment for clubs promoted from the Coca-Cola Championship.

The total payout to the 20 Barclays Premier League clubs, excluding parachute payments, was £758.2m (up from £463.6m in 2006-07).

------------------------------------

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online