Liverpool Signings and General Rumours Thread

el rabitos

define "irony" - a chelsea fan saying liverpool have ruined football

missingtime

Must get to see a few games before the move.
I presume the stadium name wont be named after the investors or their products.
Stanley Park i guess.

PHB

Theres no debt right, but do they plan to get a complete takeover of the club, like say 90%, so they can take it off the stock exchange?

Daemonic

PHB wrote:

Theres no debt right, but do they plan to get a complete takeover of the club, like say 90%, so they can take it off the stock exchange?

AFAIK Liverpool is not a PLC so not on the stock exchange to begin with.

Chardee MacDennis

yes but if they buy 90% of the shares, they can make a compulsary purchase of the remaining ten per cent for complete control of the club.

also from bbc

Gillett added: "If the naming rights are worth one great player a year in transfer spending, we will certainly look at that as a serious option."

:eek:

Now if it was worth 1 STAR player a year maybe - but I really would like us to hold on to the name, I like Stanley Park....

el rabitos

personally i'm not too bothered right now about the name of the new stadium, its not anfield so changing the name wont have the same emotional effect as it would if we were staying at anfield and they tried to change the name.

just out of interest, what would people prefer the new stadium to be called?

anfield?
anfield 2
new anfield
anfield version 1.5
stanley park?
*insert random sponsor or brand name - stadium*

i dont think theres been an official name given to it yet, other than its location, ie stanley park

Redundo

I had always assumed it was going to remain as Anfield. I suppose given the corporate sponsorship climate in football at the moment it was a silly assumption to make...

I would be ok with sponsorship naming provided the ground will still revert to Anfield (Stanley Park, whatever) after a couple of years. The money brought in would also have to significantly benefit the club in the transfer market too.

Dub13

The new Ground should be called Anfield.

redzerdrog

or even Anfield park

Dub13

Dub13 wrote:

We (IrishKop.com) are running a trip over to the Sheffield utd game,the price is €160 this includes Boat,coach match ticket and one night accommodation.

PM me if interested.

An update on this trip.

We have sold out the apartments and the bus,we are working on alternative accommodation and may be able to put on a bigger bus.This is looking like its going to be a major success and lets hope it becomes a regular thing as the price just will not be beaten.One travel agent is charging e349 for a day trip to this game.

copacetic

gillet already saying he will sell the naming rights 'if it is worth one player a year' which of course it will be.

so it starts..

RasTa

I wonder if the Die hard pool fans will leave and set up there own team, ala the love united hate glazer brigade. I can't wait to hear the new stadium name, sure you might as well change the team name to something more "American"
Liverpool Chargers Football Club ??

PHB

Yeh, I'm wondering whether or not these guys will have complete control over the club

el rabitos

daveym wrote:

gillet already saying he will sell the naming rights 'if it is worth one player a year' which of course it will be.

so it starts..

christ man, watch the press conference. he said nothing of the sort. he was asked the question and he said it was a possibility they would look into if the offer was significant to bring in a top player every year to the club, he said the matter would be discussed with parry and thats how the decision process would go. parrys role yesterday under moores is the same as in the future with this crowd. so if parry had been against selling naming rights to the stadium before he'll still be against it now.

copacetic

I did watch the press conference. Also here is direct quote of Gillet from liverpool website:

""If the naming rights are worth one great player a year in transfer spending, we will certainly look at that as a serious option."

which I think is much closer to what I said above than what you posted. It wouldn't matter a damn is Parry is against it if he wants to sell the rights..

jesus_thats_gre

It is the end of the world!! Giving serious consideration to such a move is definetly the beginning of the end for Liverpool FC.

el rabitos

daveym wrote:

I did watch the press conference. Also here is direct quote of Gillet from liverpool website:

""If the naming rights are worth one great player a year in transfer spending, we will certainly look at that as a serious option."

which I think is much closer to what I said above than what you posted. It wouldn't matter a damn is Parry is against it if he wants to sell the rights..

it wouldnt matter a damn what the guy who's actually in charge of the day to day running of the club thinks? cop on

he said they would look at the possibilty of naming rights if it came up. he'd consult parry, thats it. dont start making out the devil just took over the bleedin club.

copacetic

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

What is wrong with that It is only a name like and if it means 20 million a year that would be put into the transfer kitty?!?!?!?!

personally i feel it is much more than 'only a name' there should be some things you won't sell..

copacetic

el rabitos wrote:

it wouldnt matter a damn what the guy who's actually in charge of the day to day running of the club thinks? cop on

he said they would look at the possibilty of naming rights if it came up. he'd consult parry, thats it. dont start making out the devil just took over the bleedin club.

look, thats a direct quote from the liverpool website. read it. it is not what you are saying. i didn't say it doesn't matter what Parry thinks, i said if Gillet wants to sell the naming rights he will, whatever Parry 'thinks'. He is in charge now in case that has slipped by you.

el rabitos

daveym wrote:

personally i feel it is much more than 'only a name' there should be some things you won't sell..

and i'd agree if it was anfield we're talking about, but we're not. the new ground doesnt have anfields history, its a new stadium.

daveym wrote:

look, thats a direct quote from the liverpool website. read it. it is not what you are saying. i didn't say it doesn't matter what Parry thinks, i said if Gillet wants to sell the naming rights he will, whatever Parry 'thinks'. He is in charge now in case that has slipped by you.

of course he *could* just do what he wants, but theres 2 of them, and its not going to be run like a dictatorship, they've both alluded to the idea that moores and parry know more about whats best for the club right now. if they didnt need parrys input or the presence of moores around the place, they would be gone. they're not. lets not start making them out to be the worst thing to happen to the club because they know how to maximise revenue.

arsenal sold the naming rights to their stadium, they havent suddenly imploded as a club, liverpool as a club will move along just fine without playing in "stanley park" or "new anflied". as long as the premiership title is won at the place sooner than later i'll be happy.

futuredeath

i agree with the ethos "its not anfield so shut the **** up" its simply as stated isnt anfield i would bet that moores and parry, DIC and parry or gillett/hicks and parry would all equally consider a deal of this kind, in the financial state of football at the moment nearly every completely new stadium will come with naming rights (emirates, JJB, reebok, etc. etc.)

mike65

*shruggs* I'm less concerned with what the stadium is called and more interested in the number of match winning touchdowns inside it.

Mike.

~Rebel~

daveym wrote:

gillet already saying he will sell the naming rights 'if it is worth one player a year' which of course it will be.

does not equal

daveym wrote:

""If the naming rights are worth one great player a year in transfer spending, we will certainly look at that as a serious option."

The first says HE will definitely sell the naming rights, the second says THEY will look at it as a possibility.

Both very different. To be fair you've counteracted your own argument, first with saying its up to him when he in facts says WE and the fact that he repeatedly says Parry is still in charge and they're taking a backseat.

Also it changes from Will sell it if its worth a star player, to will consider it if its worth a star player.

Id imagine it would be quite stupid to not consider every option, taking into account the revenue, the feelings of parry and the board and the feelings of the fans.

Personally i think if a great offer came in and it wasn't a poxy sounding name i wouldn't mind seeing as it is a fresh start. Heinze Ketchup stadium - no thanks, Nike Arena - maybe..

gary the great

So are liverpool in huge debt now like Man Usa (woops, better not say that anymore!)

I dont know the details, but didnt glazier have to go into massive debt to fund the purchase of United? Want to know if its the same for liverpool?

~Rebel~

Nope no debt. If you look back through the last 2 pages of the thread you'll see that the 2 guys have bought the club, written off the debt and are funding the new stadium. Though to be fair some of the stadium if bound to be financed by loans, but that would probably be the case regardless of the owner. nice amount of it is already being financed by grants anyway which look like being honoured, meaning the construction will start within the next 2 months, which is great.

So debt free and promised financial backing for Parry and Rafa to build the team.
Very different to glazers as he borrowed from banks against the value of the club, putting a stable profitable club into serious debt. Thank god we had Moores able to take his time to find a bidder who wouldn't screw us over.

Aquos76

How can you say debt free as they did not say where they originally got the money to buy the club. All they decleared was the amount of debt they had took over.

PHB

Yeh, which is the reason I'm still wondering are they planning to buy out the minor shareholders, cause if they get 90%, they can then transfer the debt onto the club.

Also, considering the initial reports about their personal wealth, I don't think see how they couldnt have borrowed to fund the purchase of the club. In which case, even if they are carrying the personal debt, the debt is still effectively secured against the club, and if they get into difficulties, the same situation as United will happen.

~Rebel~

well im just going by what they said in the press conference and what sky sports news reported after. Both said the club was now debt free. i doubt Moores would have allowed the sale if the club would have been buried in debt because of it, he seemed to be looking for were people who would take the club forward on their own back.

Heres stuff for Gillett himself saying we're grand.

http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=446558&CPID=8&clid=14&lid=&title=Gillett:+No+debt+for+Reds

George Gillett Jnr has confirmed money has not been borrowed against Liverpool's debt in order to buy the Premiership club.

"There were many concerns that the chairman (David Moores) expressed about that subject and we listened to him carefully.

"So we've structured it in a way, I think, will be good for the club and good for the fans going forward."

Gillett is also prepared to hand manager Rafa Benitez a sizeable transfer kitty for new players and is trying to put the focus on long-term glory, rather than short-term success.

"I don't think it's about buying a year or two of success, we are trying to create sustainable winning for this club, so the fans can be proud of sustainable success, as well as just winning occasionally.

"We want to create a club that has that wonderful success on the pitch."

zing

Gillet stated today that they were purchasing the club with no debt on the club - one of the very first questions they were asked iirc. Now they themselves may have borrowed the money and if they get to the position of being able to buy out all shares they can of course transfer the debt any which way the want without any of us ever knowing but for now all we can do is take their comments literally.

Always hoped to buy a share or two someday - wish I had now just to get the option to purchase a season ticket

Guy:Incognito

Change of direction time.

Whats the situation with the new stadium? IS there provision to go bigger again in the future? I mean, building a new stadium limited to 60,000 is a bit short sighted is it not.

Is arsenals stadium expandable does anyone know?

el rabitos

Stekelly wrote:

Change of direction time.

Whats the situation with the new stadium? IS there provision to go bigger again in the future? I mean, building a new stadium limited to 60,000 is a bit short sighted is it not.

Is arsenals stadium expandable does anyone know?

well gillette said in the press converance that they would be sending in their own team to look at the plans for the stadium and see what they could do within the boundarys (sp?) of the current plan.

i dont mind a 60,000 seater if its easily expanded, but the current design doesnt look to be expandable at all, and the seats are too far away from the pitch for my liking.

copacetic

~Rebel~ wrote:

does not equal


The first says HE will definitely sell the naming rights, the second says THEY will look at it as a possibility.

Both very different. To be fair you've counteracted your own argument, first with saying its up to him when he in facts says WE and the fact that he repeatedly says Parry is still in charge and they're taking a backseat.

Also it changes from Will sell it if its worth a star player, to will consider it if its worth a star player.

Id imagine it would be quite stupid to not consider every option, taking into account the revenue, the feelings of parry and the board and the feelings of the fans.

Personally i think if a great offer came in and it wasn't a poxy sounding name i wouldn't mind seeing as it is a fresh start. Heinze Ketchup stadium - no thanks, Nike Arena - maybe..

i haven't 'counteracted' my own argument, that would be impossible, it's not a word. all I did was quote what gillet said ffs. 'seriously consider' is management speak for we are going to do it.

fair enough if you guys think it is fine to sell the stadium name, but don't let on that he isn't going to do it. he is, and MY OPINION is it's crap. I'm not asking anyone to agree..

~Rebel~

daveym wrote:

i haven't 'counteracted' my own argument, that would be impossible, it's not a word.

Really?
coun·ter·act·ed
To oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action

Dictionary.com; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counteracted

And yes you did just quote Gillett, in the second posting. My point is that your first posting is completely different.
One says HE WILL sell the naming rights, the other says WE MAY CONSIDER selling the naming rights. Very different statements, for the 2 reasons i pointed out earlier.

Stky10

Tom Dumb.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2007357,00.html

Chardee MacDennis

well there are lots of problems with that article first of all:

His promise yesterday to make funds available if a great player was on the market should make Liverpool fans sit up.

he never said that, that is very generous paraphrasing. In Baseball the owners are much more involved with who the club buys, look at the Yankees and Steinbrenner (sp?). Also in baseball they do pay outragous money for players, while this is a stupid deal look at ~30m for Sheva, ~30m for Veron. These bad deals happen and sometimes at this much money.

While i am not saying Hicks is definitely not the guy portrayed in the article, i'll give him a chance....

yom 1

Call_me_al wrote:

........... i'll give him a chance....

At the end of the day that is all we can do.

They have bought the club with the view to:

1) Do there best to uphold the traditions and heritage of the club
2) Keep a steady ship, no change in management or how the club is run
3) Get the new stadium built and fast
4) Provide money for new players that Rafa and Rick want
5) Clear the clubs Debt

IMO Moores has done a good job in finding the new owners. Its been well documented the we need the investment to keep up with the big boys. And in a new owner the above is all we could ask for. Hopefully they do deliver all the above and in doing so help us finally end our long search for number 19.

redspider

I'm not overly comfortable with these guys running the 'Liverpool franchise'. Maybe it will work out okay in the end but here is what I heard Hicks say yesterday, paraphrasing:

"Its amazing what you can do with Google. I found out all about the history of the club, 125 years. And all those championships, 18 in all, that is something. Also winning against Milan, coming back from behind.", etc, etc.

He has no clue about Liverpool and is a Johnny come lately. By his own admission, he is only into sports recently (last 8 years or so) and clearly from this google search he didnt know anything about the Champions League win when it happened, and that was very recently in 2005. So clearly he has no experience about football club businesses.

These guys know nothing about football, nothing about running major football clubs in Europe, and probably dont know that much about business in Europe at all.

Having said that, maybe they can:
a) learn on their watch
b) are smart enough to get in good advisors, lets hope its not radical advice
c) do okay in the long-term by making gentle adjustments

They are probably thinking, how hard can it be, as they have transformed themselves from running meat procssing businesses (think about those types of business people in Ireland!) to running baseball franchises in the US, a sport which they also hadn't a clue about before they got into it.

Sometimes these things work out, but sometimes they dont and I think there is a risk of that. How high a risk, well that depends on their behaviour and decision making. Only time will tell and all that Liverpool fans can do is sit back, and hope, but be vociferous with their opinions when needed.

However, if I was a custodian of Liverpool FC as Moores effectively was, I would not have sold out to these two guys. They are affable fella's, and had some money, but that's not good enough in my assessment.

In terms of the debt, on paper it may not be on Liverpool's books, but these guys are getting leverage from somewhere as they do not have the cash or wealth to pay at those levels. The stadium is bound to be funded by loans, and it raises again the question many of us have been raising - Moores didnt need to sell to build the stadium.

I have sympathy with the Dubai lads who must be really miffed, after being given the red-carpet treatment, the preferred bidders treatment, the only bidderstreatment, etc, then to be dropped at the last second. To borrow a baseball phrase that Gillet and Hicks will be familiar with, that change came from 'left field' and shocked many Liverpool watchers.

One final point, even though the deal was announced yesterday as a fait accompli, it still hasnt closed yet and I havent heard what Morgan has to say about it.

Redspider

redspider

el rabitos wrote:

personally i'm not too bothered right now about the name of the new stadium, its not anfield so changing the name wont have the same emotional effect as it would if we were staying at anfield and they tried to change the name.

just out of interest, what would people prefer the new stadium to be called?

anfield?
anfield 2
new anfield
anfield version 1.5
stanley park?
*insert random sponsor or brand name - stadium*

i dont think theres been an official name given to it yet, other than its location, ie stanley park

I think that Anfield is a strong brand that fans can identify with. In terms of naming rights, I think that clubs should be able to change the stadium name sponsor when they want to, it shouldnt be a lifetime thing. My suggestion would therefore be to combine the Anfield or Liverpool brand with a sponsor, if the decision to go down that route is made, so something like:

The Adidas Anfield stadium

Another option would be to drop Anfield as a brand and use Liverpool as the sole brand instead. So the sign in the new tunnel would change to:

"This is Liverpool"

and the stadium to:

The Adidas Liverpool stadium


I'm no fan of names like these:

The Reebok Stadium
The Emirates Stadium
The Heineken Cup
The FA Cup sponsored by E.ON
Barcalycard Premiership
Eircom League
etc

I prefer proper meaningful names ....

Redspider

copacetic

~Rebel~ wrote:

Really?
coun·ter·act·ed
To oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action

Dictionary.com; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counteracted

And yes you did just quote Gillett, in the second posting. My point is that your first posting is completely different.
One says HE WILL sell the naming rights, the other says WE MAY CONSIDER selling the naming rights. Very different statements, for the 2 reasons i pointed out earlier.

may have been a bit drunk when I replied last night!

I still disagree though, first post I para phrased what I believe he meant. Second one I put the direct quote. You are not quoting me properly. He didnt say 'may' consider he said "we will certainly look at that as a serious option." Which is not something they would have said at this time if they weren't going to do it. They are business men, when they say something like that it is as good as done. In my opinion of course.

event

anyone read this?

Quite funny

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8751_1900497,00.html

iregk

i'm just wondering now if the liverpool fans are looking forward to being reminded of all the muck they threw United and Cheslea's way for being taken over by business men who knew nothing about football!!! Hows The HBO Liverpool Gilette Stadium sound? Great name for your new franchise home...

The Rooster

On the face of it it looks like Liverpool are getting a better deal than ManU - although nobody will really know until 5/10 years down the line. I do believe that if ManU had turned down Glazer, they would have received a significantly better deal from someone else. But as fans, especially fans living in another country, there's not a whole lot we can do about it, just have to be optimisitic and hope for the best!

Chardee MacDennis

iregk wrote:

i'm just wondering now if the liverpool fans are looking forward to being reminded of all the muck they threw United and Cheslea's way for being taken over by business men who knew nothing about football!!! Hows The HBO Liverpool Gilette Stadium sound? Great name for your new franchise...

that's a stadium name - the franchise is the club itself, if you;re gonna try to be smart get it right.

also we havent thrown our toys out of the pram (yet), and burned USA flags and set up our own team. the abuse from Liverpool fans was really just to provoke the already irrate United fans, imo anyway....

iregk

Call_me_al wrote:

that's a stadium name - the franchise is the club itself, if you;re gonna try to be smart get it right.

well sorry, i forgot one word! fitting though, now that liverpool are a "Sawker" club.

LostinBlanch

iregk wrote:

well sorry, i forgot one word! fitting though, now that liverpool are a "Sawker" club.

Yeah with a new club badge!

SectionF

Maybe I'm not reading the thread properly, but I'm surprised that there's been so little mention of the franchise row. Gillett used the word to describe the club on BBC News last night, before shame-facedly correcting himself.
How does this sit with those who have hissy-fits whenever the term is used on this board?

eirebhoy

I don't know why he'd correct himself. He used the word about 10 times in the press conference.

mike65

Americans call thier teams 'franchises' - so what?

Mike.

SectionF

Are you saying you don't know or don't consider there to be a difference between the two? Yer man certainly does: he was very careful to correct himself. Perhaps someone had marked his cards in the interim.

redspider

There is a difference between an NFL franchise and a English league club business.

In NFL (or NHL or NBA), there is a limited number of teams and there is no promotion or relegation. For example, there is nothing to stop anyone here from going to England, or close to it (Wales, Scottish borders, etc), forming a club, entering a local league and playing your way up via promotions and leagues allowing you do to so, etc, all the way to the top level, ala Wimbledon. That doesnt happen under the NFL franchise system as the number of clubs are limited and hence there is an inherent value to that team no matter how bad it does. Aussie rules is the same I believe. You could that that the GAA is similar, 32 counties plus New York and London. And in club rugby Ireland has just 4 teams, and no chance of anyone else getting in under the current structure.

If there were franchises in english football, there would be no promotion or relegation between the championship and the top-flight. So, Liverpool FC is clealy not a franchise in a business sense. It certainly is a brand though.

In business terms, perhaps a limited league is better, especially when the gap between the top-flight and the next level is large, and getting larger (money-wise). But in sporting terms, relegation is healthy for competitive reasons and gives everyone a chance.

Redpider