Liverpool FC Forum

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2008 1:36 am**

saint i don't need to say how much i want the league. i'd snap your hand off if you offered us the league title. i couldn't give a monkey's toss who the owner, manager, captain or whatever was as long as we won the league. but I think the european cup will always take priority for this club, no matter who owns us. heimdall (spelling) and the rock have been two of the biggest moaners about how much they want the league then as soon as the european cup became a reality they were saying rest players for europe. igor's post in reply to it was one of the best i've seen on here. he summed it up perfectly.

me on the other hand am different to those two. i want the league and don't want us sacrificing that just to succeed in europe. ahead of the man city game i said i'd like to see a few of the kids given a go, but that's not because the game isn't important but since we can't move from fourth (which still sickens me) we might as well give a few a go to see what we're working with.

anyway i've gone a little off topic. back to these idiots in charge of our club. yes they may of taken money out to buy the players, but what would you rather have saint...debt and torres and mascherano or debt free and cisse and zenden? sometimes you have to sacrifice to gain. like i keep saying i don't want hicks/gillett at the club anymore than you do, but i wouldn't swap them to bring in someone who will keep us debt free but not win us anything. ideally obviously we'd be debt free and winning things, but these things don't happen over night. whoever comes in will have to fund benitez in the transfer market (money) repay the debts we already have (money) build a new stadium (money) pay wages (money) as well as keep some back for the future. for me (i don't claim to be any buisness expert, it wrecks me head if truth be told) whoever owns us, we'll be in debt because near enough every club in the world is in debt. not many owners because they put it on the club.

"The £10/20million we have been receiving from our CL runs is now not only desirable but it is becoming imperitive for the club to pay its debts" this is one reason why I'm desperate for us to succeed saint. the more we succeed, the more money gets put into the club, the more money in the club the more hicks and gillett can ask for from a buyer, the more the buyer offers the more likely hicks and gillett will fuck off, the more likely they are to fuck off the better for Liverpool Football Club, the better for Liverpool Football Club the better for us. so that's why i'd rather see us succeed now more than ever because it might give those two greedy bastards the little extra they're looking for to make them sod off.

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2008 2:06 am**

Its simple really mate, its like you borrowing money in a way. If you borrow money on the strength of your earnings it should be no problem unless you get laid off or sacked. However if you borrow money on the strength of overtime and bonus as well, it can become a problem because overtime is not guaranteed and maybe your bonus turns out to be not quite what you expected.

Same with Liverpool........ borrowing on the strength of earnings is ok, borrowing on the strength of success is very much a gamble because success while desirable is not guaranteed.

So what you get is a situation whereby if you fail to qualify for the CL (or even worse now where we not only have to qualify but reach the knockout stages ) you MAY have to sell players to meet the repayments. This in turn makes it harder to achieve success and then you have to sell even more players.

As with Leeds who gambled on CL qualification, it doesn't take long before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

The whole point behind Moores selling the club in the first place was because he didn't want to put us in a position where we were gambling with our future every season.

Then there is the added problem of funding the new stadium. Hicks can't get a loan for love or money for the half of Liverpool that Gillett owns, who the hell is going to lend him even more money to pay for a new stadium?

Do you want a new stadium built on the sale of Gerrard, Torres, Mascherano, Reina etc etc ?

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2008 2:18 am**

fair enough saint, i see the point being made and not in a million years do i want our star names being sold just to fund a new stadium.

but i'd still settle for success than the failure of hicks and gillett. why? because if hicks and gillett fail, while they're the owners of Liverpool Football Club, it would mean our club failing and that's something i can never wish for. i can only ever want liverpool to succeed as do the rest of us i should hope, but whereas some want us to succeed firstly on the pitch others want us to succeed off it first. difficult to choose between the two obviously, as the vote stands 10-9 in favour of success on the pitch but football comes first and foremost for me and always will.

playing and coaching staff do their job first, then the boardroom will come next.

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2008 8:06 am**

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:fair enough saint, i see the point being made and not in a million years do i want our star names being sold just to fund a new stadium.

but i'd still settle for success than the failure of hicks and gillett. why? because if hicks and gillett fail, while they're the owners of Liverpool Football Club, it would mean our club failing and that's something i can never wish for. i can only ever want liverpool to succeed as do the rest of us i should hope, but whereas some want us to succeed firstly on the pitch others want us to succeed off it first. difficult to choose between the two obviously, as the vote stands 10-9 in favour of success on the pitch but football comes first and foremost for me and always will.

playing and coaching staff do their job first, then the boardroom will come next.

perfectly put

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2008 9:47 am**

some sense being talked at last, football first is what i have been saying but sadly some see it other ways, probably because its me saying it to start with qand they can never agree with me

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2008 10:57 am**

peewee wrote:they can never agree with me

that's not true

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2008 11:11 am**

andy_g wrote:
peewee wrote:they can never agree with me

that's not true

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2008 11:32 am**

peewee wrote:probably because its me saying it to start with , they can never agree with me

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2008 11:37 am**

woof woof ! wrote:
peewee wrote:probably because its me saying it to start with , they can never agree with me

Posted: **Thu May 08, 2008 2:42 am**

vote stands at 10-10 now folks.

i wouldn't say those who'd rather see the back of hicks are wrong...they just aren't right :laugh:

no, no seriously i can understand why people wanna see the back of hicks but for me matters on the field must and always will take priority.

Posted: **Thu May 08, 2008 2:58 am**

yeah the same people who are defending our season are the same people saying that hicks is causing problems on the pitch,

Posted: **Thu May 08, 2008 3:04 am**

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:vote stands at 10-10 now folks.

also remember that I cant vote as i started the thread so it is in fact 11-10 in favour of the football being more important

Posted: **Thu May 08, 2008 7:15 pm**

Posted: **Thu May 08, 2008 8:26 pm**

football is more important. we're football fans not politicians... and i bet if we put league or hicks out EVERYNE would say league.

Posted: **Fri May 09, 2008 9:10 pm**

Both are important. Hicks and Gillett are undesirable but I think we will see the back of them sooner rather than later.

Its going to be a VERY interesting summer.

Liverpool FC Forum

What would you rather have