Liverpool FC Forum

by **Reg** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:00 pm

Why has it gone so quiet?

Weren't there refinancing deadlines that had to be met, werent the RBOS who are in the mire themselves wanting the loan repaid?
Werent the banks telling Hicks to sling his hook - and since then the banking situation is far worse.

Whats keeping Hicks alive, where is he getting the cash from to refinance the deal and find 18 mio for Barry?
Why has Gillett disappeared off the radar - again - and wasnt he selling his shares to anyone but Hicks?

Whos is running the show at Anfield on a daily basis, the pr@t who walked into the Sandon or the other tw@ats son?
At least the fat fooker is keeping his mouth shut for once.

I dont get it.

by **Igor Zidane** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:49 pm

Reg wrote:Why has it gone so quiet?

Weren't there refinancing deadlines that had to be met, werent the RBOS who are in the mire themselves wanting the loan repaid?
Werent the banks telling Hicks to sling his hook - and since then the banking situation is far worse.

Whats keeping Hicks alive, where is he getting the cash from to refinance the deal and find 18 mio for Barry?
Why has Gillett disappeared off the radar - again - and wasnt he selling his shares to anyone but Hicks?

Whos is running the show at Anfield on a daily basis, the pr@t who walked into the Sandon or the other tw@ats son?
At least the fat fooker is keeping his mouth shut for once.

I dont get it.

The only thing i'm clinging to at the moment reg , is no news is good news. DIC haven't made a statement that their not interested anymore , if they weren't interested i'm almost certain twit and tw@t would be shouting it from the rooftops .

As for the refinancing i'm sure they've got until november until they have to refinance again and find the money for the new stadium (with not a spade in the ground thus far) but i'm not 100% on that .

by **Penguins** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:26 pm

Once again great logic by DIC to pay 5 times the amount
they could have paid one and a half a year ago.

Especially since the club now has loans of 350-400 millions and still haven't put finance for a stadium in place...

Yeah, yeah I know as supporters you can become a bit subjective, but no matter how you look at that it would be utter folly by DIC to come in with the billion that Hicks wants.

And I thought it was clear after the yanks refinanced the loans last february that they would not have to renegotiate them for another 18 months= next summer.

Still not 1 penny put into the club from those *****
and the worst part is the silence= which indirectly means an acceptance of the owners.

Rafa doesn't get backing and don't win= Owners hide behind Rafa and he gets the sack.
And if someone thinks the one who replaces him will get better backing better think again. Just isn't going to happen.

I'm baffled that banks, hedge funds or whatever seem to be
contect with loaning as much money as the owners take out no matter how much that already is owned.

Next summer the loans originally taken to buy the club will surely be close to half a billion and that is not even counting
the stadium which will make the debt around 900 million next summer.
And then I have not taken into account all the new signings, cause they will all be paid for by loans.

And still those 2 ***** takes out money from the club, like CL money and so on.

I just wonder where this is all heading, because if someone thinks that Hicks will, as DIC said, come out of dreamland in his valuation, they are in for a dissapointment cause Bush's buddy is one stubborn SOB.

by **Penguins** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:30 pm

And no, the stadium will not pay for itself just like that.

In the very very long run it will I guess, but if you look at Arsenal they aren't really setting the transfer market alight are they?

As far as I know they have to pay some heavy interest on it.

What about us then who will have to service a debt that will have interest costs of more than 50 million/year?

by **Reg** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:28 am

To answer various points.

Igor, DIC said they werent interested so why should they repeat it at 4 monthly intervals? The silence to me shows DIC 'are' out and H&G have calm for the timebeing before the next crisis.

If we have calm, is the club being run well, who is running the show, Coco or one of the inbreds?
Whoever it is has actioned all the young player purchases, staff appointments and senior squad buys.

Many years back, LFC had the choice, remodel the Kemlyn Road or spend the cash on the squad. We chose the former and is now seen as one of the major reasons why we lost our supremacy. Has the same decision been taken, to shelve the new stadium for a couple of years and buy in juniors and senior squad? Is this not an acceptable decision?

Rafa IS playing politics and playing well, look how much $$ he's got out of T&T, all he had to do was take his position to the edge and count on fan support - and call Coco a tw@t in public which always goes down well.

Hicks called for Coco to resign to win a majority in the Board Room, Coco told him to sling his hook - how did that pan out? Coco is safe again, Gillett, G-Son, Coco and Moores still hold the majority on the Board? If so, how can G and G-son be so low profile if they are the majority on the Board. How does that work? Begs the question again, who is actually running the club on a daily basis and who is/are ruling the board room finding the $$ for Keane, Barry etc..

One interpretation of the silence is harmony. But no stadium.

We have to sell players before we buy either because we cant afford additional wages or because we cant raise additional loans due either lack of security (already pledged). We are trading on the edge of our financial ability. As a business, what are we doing in this position and yet STILL trying to spend, isnt that how business' go bust?

This saga makes the Barry transfer speculation seem like a stroll in the park ! :laugh:

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:08 pm

Ex-Anfield chief Peter Robinson: Why ground share still makes sense
By Administrator on Aug 8, 08 11:28 AM in Journalists
WHAT now for Everton - and Liverpool? Former Anfield club secretary Peter Robinson tells Paddy Shennan why his controversial ground share idea still makes sense . . .

Despite Everton and Liverpool having kicked the always-controversial idea into touch at various times since the 1960s, it continues to be brought back into the public domain.

Mr Robinson said: "People are entitled to their opinions, but I do think the majority of fans, if a shared stadium ever came about, would quickly accept it."

Just over two months ago the shared stadium idea was given yet another airing, this time by sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe and culture secretary Andy Burnham.

Mr Burnham, a Blues season-ticket holder, said he believed the idea was "highly attractive".

Mr Sutcliffe said: "It is important all options are carefully considered.

"Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. It is a matter for the two clubs."

Five years ago, a high-profile Merseyside businessman and football fan said: "If there are one or two solid ingredients in place, a ground share could be a valid option."

He added: "Although it is not ideal in terms of timing for the clubs because they are at different stages of development (this was in 2003) one thing I have learned in business is that if a good opportunity comes along you just have to take it."

The businessman in question? Sir Terry Leahy, special adviser to Everton and chief executive of Tesco.

Is opportunity still knocking?

Liverpool Post

So on the back of problems raising £8 million to complete the Barry transfer (supposedly Rafa already has £10million) we now see the old ground sharing idea raise it head yet again.

Don't they start digging this month (don't laugh its a serious question! )

by **Reg** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:41 pm

Regardless of the partisan reasons for not going with a shared stadium, the key long term advantage of this would be a larger and better designed stadium that would be of world cup, CL final etc.. quality (additional income and prestige) and being shared, would be a reduced financial burden allowing us to continue to focus on funding the best squad - which must always be our priority.

I´m not for it but I´m not against it, show me a great stadium design and I might be swayed. Everyone will know it is Liverpool´s stadium and Everton would be there to help pay the bills.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:20 pm

I am not sure how "in the long run" a shared stadium can be of ANY benefit. A shared stadium probably means less income from sponsors and certainly means that the identity of the club is lessened.

While costs will be halved it also means that profits from prestigous events (WC/CL final etc) would be halved also.

While many will object to losing the identity of our club, our stadium, our team, there is also the considerable cost (both in money and quality of playing surface) of maintaining a pitch that will be played on EVERY WEEK with little or no recovery time.

We would lose some of the fear factor of our stadium as other clubs would play twice as often at the ground and also the colours of the dressing rooms, seats and stadium would have to either be neutral, or Red AND Blue!

While I can see short term advantages to a shared stadium, in the long term it will be a bad mistake, and surely the whole idea of a new stadium is to secure our future not pawn it! I would prefer to expand and develop Anfield rather than sell our individuality, our history and our future.

by **Reg** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:08 pm

How would you lose income if we had a 80,000 seater and we got the swag from our games and the bitters from theirs??

We would have our sponsers and the bitters would have Tesco and some Chinese beer.

Naming the stadium today is not an issue as neither club have sold the rights so far.

The only point to be considered in depth is whether we would lose our identity. When we played Juve was the excitement of the game, passion or prestige of a CL 1/4 final cliff hanger reduced by the fact Torino also play in the same stadium? Not at all.

That AC and Inter play in the same stadium? You´re still as nervous as $%¨& before a big game over there arent you?

Undoubtedly the bigger club has the turf association advantage over the smaller partner, so once again we would get a cracking stadium and fill it, the bitters would share Liverpool´s cracking stadium and only use two of the stands.

When ANY club plays LFC home or away, league or europe they know what their in for. Painting the changing room one colour or another is neither here nor there.

Like I say I´m not for it, but I can see a lot of sense in actually doing it. The bitters should be more concerned than us.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:56 pm

Would we get an 80k stadium if we shared with the bitters? Why would they agree to a stadium size they can't fill? They would fight for a 60k stadium (which is the limit agreed at the moment). Can you see them paying out for the extra infrastructure and cost of transport improvements THAT THEY WILL NEVER NEED?

Most sponsers pay the big money for exclusivity of brand, something our stadium WOULDN'T HAVE if we shared it. Naming rights would be a big issue , even if we haven't sold the rights yet, there is no doubt WE WILL.

The weather and pitches are different in Italy than England, clubs have problems here NOW trying to keep a decent playing surface. Twice the games and that problem is more than doubled. Maybe that wont matter to the kick and rush style that Everton seem to employ, but for us it could prove costly, especially if it costs us a game or two.

Once you agree to go down that route, the decisions become joint, not the bigger club making the decisions. There will be no talk of the bigger club getting turf advantage (whatever that is?), a shared stadium is what it says SHARED!!! I don't particularly want Liverpools future linked to the meagre aspirations of the Bitters.

The only reason this has raised its head again is that Everton's supposed Tesco value move has hit the rocks yet again.

Unthinkable, unworkable and unwanted !!!

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:21 pm

Friday, 8 August 2008

It was thought that Barry would secure a move to Liverpool this week

Fears have been expressed today over the future of Liverpool's bid to sign Gareth Barry as the club's ownership battle threatens to flare up again.

The fact the club's American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, have yet to produce the promised short-term loan to allow boss Rafael Benitez to complete the £18m transfer has promoted speculation the deal could soon be dead.

Benitez has waited all week for money to be put in place to allow him to end the Barry saga before he sells any more players to fund the deal.

But the longer the delay, the more likely it becomes that Benitez could be forced to abandon the long-drawn-out deal.

The failure to produce funds which Benitez expected a week ago has prompted long-term suitors Dubai International Capital to let it be known they are still waiting in the wings with their own proposals for the club.

A source close to DIC said: "Just because it is has been a quiet summer does not mean DIC have lost interest. They are happy that things have now become low key, and they are awaiting developments."

And there is also speculation a former prospective buyer of the club, and several rich American-based Liverpool fans, have let it be known they are prepared to help the club out of their cash problems.
Observers believe plans for the new stadium have as yet not included confirmed building contracts or the lease being agreed with the local council.

The club's owners are also going to have to find cash soon to fund the stadium as well as re-finance the current loans.

A Liverpool Council spokesman explained the current situation over the lease for Stanley Park, claiming it should be signed in a month.

He said: "It is normal legal procedure for companies to wait three months after the granting of planning permission before signing the lease.

"This is because under planning laws, the public have a right of appeal for three months after the planning permission is given.

"We expect the lease on Stanley Park to be signed in a matter of weeks."

But the delay over the Barry deal is beginning to embarrass Liverpool. As soon as it was suggested the American owners were looking to borrow money to fund the deal, there were City sources - admittedly close to the DIC bid - who insisted borrowing would be difficult in the current climate.

link

by **heimdall** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:55 pm

So DIC are still sniffing around are they, am I the only one getting bored of this now, great timing to have this flair up again right before the start of the new season :no

by **Reg** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:00 pm

Its whats known as a slow news day.

by **zarababe** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:25 pm

looks like more board room vs Benitez tensions - all before the new season begins that's all we need !

The Times - 9 August

With the Gareth Barry deal hanging in the balance, Rafael Benítez, the Liverpool manager, must have known when he sat down on Thursday afternoon and expressed hope in an interview with this newspaper that the new season would be free of the turbulence that blighted the previous campaign, he was asking for the impossible.

As it turns out, the season has yet to begin and already Benítez appears to be on another collision course with Liverpool's controversial American co-owners, the outcome of which is probably too difficult to predict at this early stage.

Ignoring for a moment the ins and outs of the Barry saga and where the responsibility lies for the collapse of the summer's most protracted and farcical transfer, it is first worth asking how Benítez will respond to being undermined for a second time by Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr.

Benítez had to grin and bear it the first time after it had emerged that Hicks and Gillett had met Jürgen Klinsmann not once but twice with a view to the former Germany coach, now in charge at Bayern Munich, taking over the reins at Anfield. Whether he is prepared to stomach the ignominy of being embarrassed so publicly yet again, however, is an altogether different question.

Benítez may have handled the prospective Barry transfer poorly and, in doing so, irked the owners, but that Hicks and Gillett let it drag on for so long, only to pull the plug at the eleventh hour after questioning the manager's judgment opens up a whole new can of worms.

The Spaniard has insisted that he wants to see through what he started at Anfield in 2004, but whether the manager now views his position to be untenable after being defied in public once again remains to be seen.

The Barry deal could certainly have been handled better on Benítez's part. The Americans were initially led to believe that the Aston Villa midfield player would cost considerably less than £18million, hence Liverpool's opening offer of £10 million, and that a deal was all but in place to sell Xabi Alonso to Juventus for £16million. But, when a formal offer for Alonso from Juventus - or from any other club for that matter - failed to materialise and the cost of signing Barry soared, Hicks and Gillett began to ask questions.

In addition to concerns about Barry's price and resale value, the owners believed that, with Alonso still on the books and a host of other central midfield players to pick from in Steven Gerrard, Javier Mascherano, Lucas Leiva and Damien Plessis, Benítez had more than enough cover in that department.

Contrary to widespread belief, Hicks and Gillett are understood to have had the money to sign Barry, but the fact that they even rejected a £12million interest-free loan from a wealthy Liverpool supporter underlines just how opposed they were to paying through the nose for a 27-year-old. Having already spent a projected £20.3million this summer on a 28-year-old in Robbie Keane, the former Tottenham Hotspur striker, they felt that a comparable outlay on a player of a similar age made no sense.

In some respects, it is a fair point, but even accounting for the way in which they feel they have been misled, the Americans could have informed their manager much earlier than they did that there was little appetite for the deal at that price and while Alonso was still at the club. By failing to do so, though, they have dealt a potentially fatal blow to Benítez's pride.

Furthermore, where all this leaves Barry has almost been forgotten. Having made no secret of his desire to join Liverpool, the England midfield player has incurred the wrath of both sets of supporters and Martin O'Neill, the Villa manager, and, unless Arsenal come to his rescue, he will have a lot of bridges to rebuild. Whether Benítez and Liverpool's owners can do the same, however, is unclear

by **lewerty** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:40 pm

they didnt give liverpool the 20 million for keane rafa had to sell there has been no money from the americans

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online