Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

Zapp Brannigan

Mascherano was immense today. Bossed everything. Thought Gerrard went missing at times but popped up at important times. Riise annoyed me, as did Kewell in the 2nd half.

But overall this is exactly what we needed and we should be able to hammer Derby leaving us on a nice run of form going to Citeh.

MonkeyTennis

links to goals?

Unearthly

el dude wrote: »

You on a wind-up or what? If not then pull your head out of your arse would ya? Thanks!!

Sheeesh! Some right beauts on here who like to pretend their Eamonn Dunphy!!

and some right fanboys of their teams who can't cant accept criticism :rolleyes:

Mr Alan

great result today. hopefully arsenal and utd can drop some points over the next couple of weeks and we'll be right there!

if we were to get rid of crouch or voronin or kuyt and replace with Anelka, we'd be sorted up front and think we'd be in a much better position to challenge for the league.

fingers crossed

NotWormBoy

mike65 wrote: »

Is that all competition?

Mike.

For the league:
Adebayor 10
Anelka 10
Benjani 9
Ronaldo 9
Yakubu 9
Keane 8
Torres 8

According to the beeb.

Chardee MacDennis

Mr Alan wrote: »

if we were to get rid of crouch or voronin or kuyt and replace with Anelka, we'd be sorted up front and think we'd be in a much better position to challenge for the league.

fingers crossed

i am still angry that Ged choose Diouf over Anelka. he seemed to like it here and he is a top player, i would love to see him in a liverpool shirt again.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Unlikely, although himself and Torres up top would be incredible. think City will end up with him myself.

shotamoose

whatawaster wrote: »

Kuyt was largely awful. Torres didn't actually do great until his goals but i'll forgive him,

Torres made the first two goals and terrorised their defence throughout, and I thought Kuyt was very good, again mostly for the non-showy business of pressuring their defenders and making space with runs off the ball.

whatawaster

shotamoose wrote: »

Torres made the first two goals and terrorised their defence throughout, and I thought Kuyt was very good, again mostly for the non-showy business of pressuring their defenders and making space with runs off the ball.

I didn't think Torres was bad, he just kept running into defenders which was frustrating, but I wasn't angry at him like I would have been with some other players, because he didn't let it get to his confidence and kept trying. Kuyt's passing was dreadful yesterday, the amount of times he kicked the ball straight out of play or straight to a Portsmouth player was staggering, though he linked up well on a couple of occasions with Gerrard and Torres. I'm a huge fan of his, so i'm just wondering where the Kuyt from last season has disappeared to. He's still our second best striker whilst Rafa persists with Babel on the wing.

Thanx 4 The Fish

I enjoy watching Kuyt play, he puts pressure on and makes chances by drawing defenders away from the other striker. He does not score as many goals as the chances he makes dictate he should but the chances that he does take along with the assists he gets mean that he is a very useful player to have, if he got to fifteen this season and torres 25-30 I would be happy with that return.

PHB

Who wouldn't be? But the question isn't just of numbers.
Torres is gona be double marked by any decent team who has the ability to do it, at which point, you're other striker can't just be someone who creates space for others and puts pressure on them. Kuyt needs more to his game to be able to help Liverpool win the big games.

DeadSkin

shotamoose wrote: »

Kuyt was very good, again mostly for the non-showy business of pressuring their defenders and making space with runs off the ball.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I enjoy watching Kuyt play, he puts pressure on and makes chances by drawing defenders away from the other striker. He does not score as many goals as the chances he makes dictate he should but the chances that he does take along with the assists he gets mean that he is a very useful player to have

+1, that's what I love about Kuyt, his work rate is second to none. Finally we have a striker in Torres who will score goals and loads of 'em.

On the game, Portsmouth were a very poor show yesterday, a team that had won their last 6 away games just didn't turn up. But we did the job, scored some nice goals and got the 3 points in the bag.

Unearthly

Reckon Torres will play Stephens Day?

In my FF team and I never know how Benitez works, and I imagine he'll be even more unpredictable Christmas time

The faith of my Fantasy Football is in YOUR hands!

Guy:Incognito

shotamoose wrote: »

Torres made the first two goals and terrorised their defence throughout, and I thought Kuyt was very good, again mostly for the non-showy business of pressuring their defenders and making space with runs off the ball.

Your not allowed be a fan of a hard workign Kuyt on here. It doesnt matter thats he's very often our fist line of defence (he breaks up a lot of attacks before they happen by harrassing their defenders when in possesion). People need to look past the black and white of Kuyt's number of goals scored. Some people dont accept that though.

It's generally accepted that Rafa knows more than us mere mortals and he seems to recognise Kuyt's contribution through the amount of work he does that can indirectly lead to goals/attempts and stifeling attacks.

Babel is doing a great job of coming off the bench against players that have an hour of football and doing really well. Why change that? He might not be nearly as effective playing from the start. I cant see it being a problem having a Solskjear in the squad, if he ends up as good then brilliant.

Chardee MacDennis

PHB wrote: »

Who wouldn't be? But the question isn't just of numbers.
Torres is gona be double marked by any decent team who has the ability to do it, at which point, you're other striker can't just be someone who creates space for others and puts pressure on them. Kuyt needs more to his game to be able to help Liverpool win the big games.

i think this is where Babel will come into it, if he is up front with Torres and they double mark nando, babel will have a huge amount of space which he can exploit with his pace and his touch...

mayordenis

kuyt is pretty vital to the team, he's had a bad half season in front of goal but all i need to think about is the goal he scored against chelsea last year, against milan and that thunderbolt against west ham and im satisfied theres more to come from disneys hurcules.

Tusky

uh oh.

Fernando Torres, starting to pay back his £21million transfer fee, scored twice yesterday as Rafa Benitez's Liverpool trounced Portsmouth 4-1 at Anfield to stay in touch with the Premier League pacesetters.

But off the field, the failure so far of efforts by American owners George Gillett jnr and Tom Hicks to refinance the £220million they borrowed from the Royal Bank of Scotland to fund their takeover of the club 10 months ago is pushing Liverpool towards an unprecedented period of uncertainty.

The American owners have missed a selfimposed deadline to strike a deal with RBS before Christmas.

The bank will not allow the club to go under but the problems facing Gillett and Hicks could hasten their departure — and see Dubai International Capital, the state-backed investment firm who were in pole position to buy Liverpool before the arrival of the Americans, back in the market as potential new owners.

Adding to the intrigue over the club's future, it is understood that former Germany World Cup coach Jurgen Klinsmann has been sounded out as a replacement for Benitez.

It is believed that contact between Klinsmann and the club has taken place at a high level and the German is thought to be interested in taking over at Anfield.

Despite assurances that there is money to spend in the January window, Benitez's public rift with Hicks and Gillett over the club's transfer policy may be beyond repair.

Boardroom backing for Benitez has been lukewarm in the wake of reports linking Klinsmann with the job.

Sources close to the ex- Tottenham striker and former Footballer of the Year believe he is eager to end his self-imposed exile from football and take a top manager's job.

A move for Klinsmann could proceed regardless of whether Hicks and Gillett remain the owners of Liverpool, but the crisis in their refinancing plans threatens to undermine the club both on and off the pitch.

Despite revelations last week that talks with RBS and American bank Wachovia over a new £350m loan had stalled, Kekst, the American owners' New York-based PR firm, continued to brief that a deal would be done before Christmas.

But Friday, the last day for business before the festive break, passed without announcement and although it is understood that negotiations will continue, banking sources on this side of Atlantic believe an impasse has been reached.

Hicks and Gillett have until February to refinance the £220m they borrowed from RBS to fund their takeover, plus the interest which has accrued in the past year, the credit notes used to buy Torres and Ryan Babel, and £60m to cover initial work on a new stadium.

If they are unable to strike a deal before the deadline and unable to persuade RBS to take up the option of extending the existing loan for another year, the bank stand to become the de facto owners of the club.

By Chris Bascombe

LIVERPOOL face the shocking possibility of a second takeover within a year.
Anfield insiders believe American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett will be forced to put the club up for sale again to avoid financial meltdown just 10 months after completing their Mersey swoop.

And that has alerted Dubai International Capital, who were also interested in the club last February.

READ: LIVERFOOLS

There are major doubts that Hicks and Gillett have the funds to pay for a £300million stadium on Stanley Park or even give manager Rafa Benitez a big transfer war chest. DIC were stunned when they were outflanked by Hicks and Gillett earlier this year but a fresh New Year bid is now a realistic prospect.

Hicks has denied considering diluting his 50 per cent shareholding but it's clear the financial demands upon the owners are beyond their expectations.

The Americans will want at least three times the £219m they paid less than a year ago. But as they have to repay a £298m loan by February, and have no deal in place to pay this debt or for a stadium, circumstances may soon give them little option but to welcome bids.

Chardee MacDennis

Tusky wrote: »

uh oh.

FFS, anyone else wish Shinawatra took over considering the money he is putting into Citeh?

Maybe Kraft could step in and bail the lads out, from what I've seen at the NE Patriots he is in it for the success and not just the money. since his take over they have gone from strength to strength unlike Hicks and Gillets teams.

Tusky

Call_me_al wrote: »

FFS, anyone else wish Shinawatra took over considering the money he is putting into Citeh?

Maybe Kraft could step in and bail the lads out, from what I've seen at the NE Patriots he is in it for the success and not just the money. since his take over they have gone from strength to strength unlike Hicks and Gillets teams.

I always wanted DIC to take over. They have a personal fortune of 12 trillion...! There certainly wouldn't be any bickering over a measly 5m to buy a CB anyway.

Chardee MacDennis

DIC have the money but wasnt there a document floating around saying it was a 5 year investment and purely for profit?

zAbbo

Tusky wrote: »

I always wanted DIC to take over. They have a personal fortune of 12 trillion...! There certainly wouldn't be any bickering over a measly 5m to buy a CB anyway.

Yup me too, not impressed with the new owners in the last 2months.

el rabitos

whatever about any of it, its just been and is embarassing and a bit of a joke. not used to seeing the club being made look like a circus. too much talk and not enough do, lately.

mayordenis

i'm just gonna try and not listen to any takeover talk again if it comes up it stresses me out too much.

dc69

I think this could all be rubbish,if you think about it,these guys own between them,the texas rangers,the dallas stars and the montrial canadians.they arent idiots and would not have bought the team unless they knew they could finance it,make the club successful and make a profit.you dont hear people talking about how thaksin shinawatra funded his takeover,but i can gaurantee you it wasnt out of his own pocket,he took out a loan,when people are dealing with takovers and large sums of money,even if they have the money,they will take out a loan.i wouldnt be worried at all!
the stadium thing is a kick in the bollox,but i think that is due to them not wanting to waste their money.if you think about it,both stadiums will be 70,000 seater,so they will draw the same amount of money each year with ticket prices.one looks nicer but costs a few hundred million more to build and more to run each year,it makes smarter business sence to go with the cheaper option,as it will make just as much money!it doesnt mean they arent prepared to put money in,if anything it means we will be given more money for players.

I know people hate bascombe anyway,but i think its laughable that he would write a story on how a multi million takeover is being funded,when he probably cant count the change in his pocket and i doubt even with his insiders,that anyone in england apart from foster gillette knows a thing about it,i would say parry doesnt even know

Guy:Incognito

Call_me_al wrote: »

FFS, anyone else wish Shinawatra took over considering the money he is putting into Citeh?
.

TBH no. He's seems a right gangster and would rather he wasnt involved with Liverpool.

DIC seems a good bet so hopefully they step in.

PHB

Some people just haven't realised that these guys are just another version of the Glaziers. The loan debt wasn't as much because the value of the club wasn't as much, but the takeovers have been pretty much the exact same. The only difference was in how they handled the PR of how it was percieved, and lots of people bought it (and to be fair, lots of fans realised they were getting screwed over aswell)
The loan to takeover the club was always effectively secured against future earnings, and the difference between them latching it to the club and them not, was simply that if things went fine they never would have to latch it to the club, if things didn't go fine, it was always gona go on. It was a PR move, nothing more.

They messed up the financing for the stadium, didn't cost it properly. Wasted probably a million on the plans for the new stadium aswell, now they go back to the old one, and delay work even more. They also still have to raise the money for the stadium, which they haven't shown to be capable of doing, and don't want to dip into their own pockets.

They are business men, absolutely, but business men do make mistakes, and when they do, they know how to cut and run. That said, DIC are gona have to make it profitable for them to leave, and will they be willing to do that?

dc69

PHB wrote: »

Some people just haven't realised that these guys are just another version of the Glaziers. The loan debt wasn't as much because the value of the club wasn't as much, but the takeovers have been pretty much the exact same. The only difference was in how they handled the PR of how it was percieved, and lots of people bought it (and to be fair, lots of fans realised they were getting screwed over aswell)
The loan to takeover the club was always effectively secured against future earnings, and the difference between them latching it to the club and them not, was simply that if things went fine they never would have to latch it to the club, if things didn't go fine, it was always gona go on. It was a PR move, nothing more.

They messed up the financing for the stadium, didn't cost it properly. Wasted probably a million on the plans for the new stadium aswell, now they go back to the old one, and delay work even more. They also still have to raise the money for the stadium, which they haven't shown to be capable of doing, and don't want to dip into their own pockets.

They are business men, absolutely, but business men do make mistakes, and when they do, they know how to cut and run. That said, DIC are gona have to make it profitable for them to leave, and will they be willing to do that?

no,you are completely wrong!the glaziers took out all of their loans against manchester united and put the debt on the clubs balance sheet.hicks and gilette havent done this,so it isnt even comparible.becuase if united get into a bit of trouble they are ****ed and could be the next leeds,liverpool cant

PHB

Why?
If the interest gets too much for Gill and Hicks, they will just switch the loans onto the club, and let the club take the brunt of it. There is no way to stop them doing this. The only reason they haven't done this yet is PR.

They however are considering doing it now, because they are worried about it.
The way out is a new owner, just like the only way out for the Glazers if the club starts to go leeds is another owner.

dc69

PHB wrote: »

Why?

as i have explained above.If gillete and hicks cant repay the loan,its bad news for liverpool but if the same were to happen to united ,the club owes the money t the bank,and it would destroy the club

PHB

But Gill and Hicks can just transfer the debt onto the club pretty much instantly. There is little to no difference, except that they are just not doing this for PR reasons. It's always been effectively hanging over the club.
Indeed the refinance deal for 350 million that is being talked about specifically ties it to the clubs future earnings.

Chardee MacDennis

Yup PHB is right here. and as the article says if they dont sort it out by Feb RBS will own us anyway.

dc69

Call_me_al wrote: »

Yup PHB is right here. and as the article says if they dont sort it out by Feb RBS will own us anyway.

doubt that,its what im studying so i should know,i justr amnt explaining it properly:).RBS won own us becuase the loan deal involves 3 or 4 banks,rbs just being the main bank they are using in the uk,they are also using an investment bank in the us etc.gillete and hicks also have a 12 month extension on their loan and if they realise they are going to default on the payment ,then they will sell before that happens to DIC ,so RBS wil never own liverpool.unless gilette and hicks cant pay the loan or sell the club by feb 09(which wont happen),and their would also have been contracts drawn up etc as to what would happen to the club,so i wouldnt worry about it tbh

the fundamentals of the takeover are completely differat to the united takeover,as to how the funds were secured and if hicks and gillette were going to take a loan out against the club in the future,why would moores have sold?he could have done this!he was completely against this and i can gaurantee you there is a clause in the contract that says gillete and hicks cannot secure loans on the clubs financial books. would never have sold it to them,if he thought they would have done that.i would say that is why he didnt sell to DIC in the first place.

that is why moores paid for kuyt out of his own pocket.

mike65

READ: LIVERFOOLS

Chris Bascombe really knows how to ingratiate himself with the old faithfull eh?

As for Klinsman thats tosh of the first order. His name comes up only cos G&H might have heard of him (being a Californian dude these days).

Mike.

Chardee MacDennis

you may be right dc69 but i am pretty sure i read an article on them transfering the debt onto us.

Anyway this Klinsmann thing is really annoying me now, no smoke without fire and all, the rumor has persisted and been reported in a few different papers that there may be something in it at this stage. if Rafa was replaced by him it is a step down.

oh and i have a feeling we wont have any money to spend in the summer, even if Rafa is being supported. Why would they risk more money, we'll have to sell to buy.

dc69

why would they even consider klinsman,Has he even managed a club?weve seen this type of crap before,i hope its not true,

Guy:Incognito

Back on the subject of wingers. I wonder would Bentley be available in Jan or the summer. Been watching him the last few weeks and been impressed. Definately rather have him than Pennant tbh.

Dr Galen

dc69 wrote: »

doubt that,its what im studying so i should know,i justr amnt explaining it properly:).RBS won own us becuase the loan deal involves 3 or 4 banks,rbs just being the main bank they are using in the uk,they are also using an investment bank in the us etc.gillete and hicks also have a 12 month extension on their loan and if they realise they are going to default on the payment ,then they will sell before that happens to DIC ,so RBS wil never own liverpool.unless gilette and hicks cant pay the loan or sell the club by feb 09(which wont happen),and their would also have been contracts drawn up etc as to what would happen to the club,so i wouldnt worry about it tbh

the fundamentals of the takeover are completely differat to the united takeover,as to how the funds were secured and if hicks and gillette were going to take a loan out against the club in the future,why would moores have sold?he could have done this!he was completely against this and i can gaurantee you there is a clause in the contract that says gillete and hicks cannot secure loans on the clubs financial books. would never have sold it to them,if he thought they would have done that.i would say that is why he didnt sell to DIC in the first place.

that is why moores paid for kuyt out of his own pocket.

guarantees in the contract the G&H signed? I doubt that very much, tho i'll stand corrected if you can back it up. Like someone else said their pretty sucessful businessmen and there'd be no way that they'd undertake the financial cost of fnding and running the club plus the stadium build with a clause like this in the contract.

as you'd know, being a student of such things and all, debt transferrance like this is fairly common in the wider business world, but its only now that clubs ahev gotten so expensive and takeovers more common the the football world has been introduced to the concept. I also read something recently though about the club taking on the debt. I'll have a hunt for the source

personally, whether they have the money or not, there's been too much messing around going on lately. Maybe us Liverpool fans aren't used to this sorta nonsense, in the 20 years I've been a supporter I've never felt so at unease with whats going on in the club.

dc69

just thought you guys might like some cheering up.

http://soccerlens.com/top-50-most-exciting-teen-footballers-2007/4258/

no 10 Gerardo Bruna,we signed him earlier this year.:)

"Bruna will arrive at Anfield on an initial three-year youth contract and will sign a professional contract after his 17th birthday. He will train with the senior team at their Melwood training complex rather than with the fellow youth players at the Liverpool F.C. Academy. He carrys with him a big reputation after some impressive performances in midfield for the Real Madrid youth set-up.

His talent has been compared to that of FC Barcelona's Lionel Messi, Bojan Krkic and Giovani dos Santos at a similar stage in their development. "



also note the number 1 prospect is a striker who plays for athletico madrid,now we know why they agreed to sell torres lol

zing

Bascombe has little or no credibility these days so I'm not not going to worry about that article just yet. As for DIC - I've never been a fan. Sure Sheikh wassisname may be worth a small forture (or a bloody big forture) but the proposed take over was not by him - it was by an investment company owned & controlled by one of his companies which in turn is probably owned & controller by one of his companies and so on ... i.e. it's very far removed from him and his deep deep pockets.

DIC also owns the likes of Tussaud's, Travellodge, etc.. but I doubt if the sheikh has any involvement in any of them. In fact the closest to any of the DIC companies he probably gets is being driven around in a Daimler.

DIC is an investment house - plain and simple - and that was what was trying to buy LFC. All the Sheikh's own personal sporting interests (horses, etc..) are owned by other parts of his business empire. For me the only thing DIC had going for them was that it was fronted locally by a life long red - nothing else really made me feel comfortable about them. Not saying Gillet & Hicks are better but I'm just not sure that they're any different than DIC would have been.

Dr Galen

this is the kinda thing i read about the refinancing deal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/12/16/cnlfc116.xml

comes from the business section of the Telegraph not the sport section either so maybe a little more reliable than Bascombe

The refinancing of a loan worth about £300m taken out by American businessmen Tom Hicks and George Gillett to buy Liverpool Football Club is on a knife-edge.


The pair are trying to refinance a bridging loan provided by Royal Bank of Scotland, which they used to carry out the original £219m purchase of the club.


Liverpool captain, Steven Gerrard leaps for the ball at Anfield while playing against Tottenham

However, it is understood that the refinancing - which is also intended to raise an extra £450m to build a new stadium - has had to be put on hold as a result of the recent turmoil in the credit markets.

Hicks and Gillett are also trying to remove their personal assets as security for the original acquisition debt. During the takeover, Liverpool chairman David Moores, who owned just over half of the club, insisted that none of its assets could be used as collateral for the loan to finance the takeover.

As a result, Hicks, who controls the Dallas Stars ice hockey team and the Texas Rangers baseball team, and Gillett, the owner of the Montreal Canadians ice hockey club, offered their own US-based assets as security instead, according to people familiar with the matter.

It is not clear why Liverpool's new owners want to remove their own assets as security for the club's debt, although a refinancing needs to be completed by the end of February 2008, when RBS's bridge loan expires.


Wachovia, the American bank, is thought to be leading the refinancing of the RBS bridge loan.

PHB

The difference is actually an illusion. This alledged clause in the contract that says they can't transfer sounds lovely, but I haven't seen anything of it, linky?

The article above lines out exactly what is happening, and what was always gona happen if things didn't work out exactly as planned.

Dr Galen

so whats the alternative, not DIC for my money, investment vechicles and football clubs shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence unless the words "bad idea" follow shortly after.

outlook for January doesn't look great though seemingly there are 2 Bosmans on the way plus a CB. Unfortunately Man City are doing well otherwise I'd like to have tested them with Richard Dunne bid. Looks like we might be more in pick up an unknown in the ilke of Agger who hopefully will come good

dc69

PHB wrote: »

The difference is actually an illusion. This alledged clause in the contract that says they can't transfer sounds lovely, but I haven't seen anything of it, linky?

The article above lines out exactly what is happening, and what was always gona happen if things didn't work out exactly as planned.

I never said i had a link,i said i dont think moores would have sold the club to anyone who intended to do that,that would explain why dic didnt get the club becuase that is what they would have done.It is easily put into a contract,for the initial loans taken out to purchase the club,not to be taken against the club,gillette and hicks would have had to show him a business plan and how they inended to finance the deal,so i dont see how they would have had a problem with it.

lpool2k05

Sorry if its being said but anybody know why liverpools second leg away Inter is a week later than all the other champions leagues games??
2nd leg is tues 11th march while all the other second legs are a week before!

Guy:Incognito

lpool2k05 wrote: »

Sorry if its being said but anybody know why liverpools second leg away Inter is a week later than all the other champions leagues games??
2nd leg is tues 11th march while all the other second legs are a week before!

Because Inter & Milan were both drawn to play at home the same week and that can't happen.

~Rebel~

lpool2k05 wrote:

Sorry if its being said but anybody know why liverpools second leg away Inter is a week later than all the other champions leagues games??
2nd leg is tues 11th march while all the other second legs are a week before!

Id imagine because Arsenal and Liverpool both finished second in their groups, and both drew the Milan teams (who share a stadium). Probably can't have 2 games in 2 days, and as an aside i doubt they want 2 massive lots of english fans in the city at the same time.

lpool2k05

Thanks a million lads!!should of thought of that myself!!

oobydooby

So we should be the featured game on TV that night;) The RTE boys will be spitting brimstone and hellfire if we get anything from that one. Old Chippy especially:p . Is it hard to get tickets for these away games? The QFs if we make it are near my b'day and a trip to Europe in the springtime sounds good right now...

Drag00n79

It'll be interesting to see who shows the second leg alright. Setanta showed Celtic's CL tie in the San Siro a few weeks back. With United, Celtic and Arsenal all playing the other evening in the Second Round RTE might have to let the Chelsea game go to Setanta on the 5th March to show us on the 11th. Either way ITV will show both legs as both are on Tuesdays. Sky is effectively losing a CL match if it goes ahead as scheduled on 11th March.

Chardee MacDennis

Shamrok wrote: »

Sky is effectively losing a CL match if it goes ahead as scheduled on 11th March.

why is that? coz they show them all?