Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

Tusky

missingtime wrote: »

I said it before and I'll say it again

Paul Anderson

The winger marked his first start for Swansea City with a fantastic goal during the midweek 2-0 win over Walsall in the Carling Cup. He made his Swans debut as a substitute during the 2-1 opening day defeat by Oldham, but missed Saturday's goalless draw with Nottingham Forest with a hamstring strain.

Source - http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/archivedirs/news/2007/aug/20/N156746070820-1451.htm

I'd prefer him to start over pennant next year.

Melion wrote: »

Insua looks class in the reserves, not decent. He should get a run in the premier league from about March if we're still in the CL.

Leto & El Zhar also look class the reserves. The first team is a different story. If you put someone like Kuyt or Riise in the reseves they would run amuck. Its a completely different game.

redspider

The way I read it, G&H and DIC are coming at this from two completey different angles financially. They may also have different approaches in terms of the sporting sense as well.

G&H are highly leveraged, and do not have the personal cash to fund whats needed. I can envisage them trying to do as much as they can with the LFC business, getting the stadium through and trying to get as much income in as possible to fund that and increase the asset value overall. This likely does not mean a club/business that will win trophies, as it will be a case of doing the bare minimum to get by. The plan may get unstuck if Liverpool do not qualify some season for the CL and/or do well in the league. I'd say its a 5 year plan.

DIC have a much deeper set of pockets and could run LFC without it being held back by a large debt. (Overall, where the debt is doesnt matter that much, whether on the Owners or LFC Ltd, as the Owners own LFC 100%, so they need to get the money from somewhere to pay back the debt). DIC may also be able to invest to accumulate, and even on pure business terms, this would be a different approach. Also, they could have a sporting interest and in that way LFC could be ran not necessarily as a money-making venture, which would be the ideal in terms of trying to attain success on the field, trophies and indeed entertainment as well.

How G&H were convinced to invest in Torres though is something we have to at least be thankful for. Perhaps they had visions of CL's and leagues and everything with this one-time large investment. Now that such success does not seem likely (although I am not ruling out a CL! ;-) ) they may be taking stock of that and holding down investment and going for a slimmer approach, reach 4th place, and get as far in the CL as poss, etc.

One thing is for sure, the G&H investment is not resting happy with many, and if Moores had to do the sale all over again, as he has LFC in his heart, he probably realises now that things would have been better with another owner.

All we can do on the sidelines is watch ..... and watch the football as well.

Redspider

Mr Alan

My understanding is that G&H bid for club won out for the simple reason that they offered more per share than DIC, despite DICs overall package being more impressive.

as much as moores does have the club at his heart, i think he needs to accept some of the responsibility for the current state of affairs. which would explain him trying to broker peace in the background.

Guy:Incognito

Anyone else looking at the FA cup sores? Havant & Waterlooville were 3-0 up against Swansea. It's 3-0 now coming up tp half time. Great result if they hang on. Long time to go though.

mike65

3-2 now don't get too excited!

Mike.

Guy:Incognito

mike65 wrote: »

3-2 now don't get too excited!

Mike.

I figured it'd go tits up alright.

mike65

H&W 4-2

Mike.

Guy:Incognito

4-2 :eek:

Mr Alan

super stuff from H&W

on a less serious note than all the rafa/americans stuff....

in case you ever doubted yourself in just how clueless andy grey is, he said two things last night about Riise:

1-if liverpool ever decided to sell him there would be a long queue of clubs for him.
2-liverpool would want to have someone really really top class in order to replace him.

hhhhhmmmmm, really Andy?!

mike65

I think he does it deliberatly!

That said there is a club interested which is one more than should be really.

Mike.

Guy:Incognito

I dont see what th eproblem was with him last night? Apart from 2 wayward shots, and lets face it, why should he not have a few efforts to try and scor and maybe find his form again, he didnt do anything wrong. Gerrard aside, he was as good as the rest last night. Nobody stood out and he did what was asked of him.

mike65

I think Mr Alan and I are going on the last 18 months.

Mike.

Guy:Incognito

mike65 wrote: »

I think Mr Alan and I are going on the last 18 months.

Mike.

Fair enough but he got a lot of stick during and after the match last night for that match alone. unjustified imo.

Mr Alan

No Ste, in fairness, he is ****e and has been for a couple of years at this stage. dont like slating our own players, but he deserves it tbh. the amount of attacks that break down because of his inability to do anything but shoot from anywhere up to 70 yards out is a disgrace.

the singing section in the kop last night towards the end:

ball breaks to carragher..."SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!"

ball breaks to Gerrard...."SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!"

breaks to Lucas...."SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!"

breaks to Riise...."PASS! PASS! PASS! PASS!"

love it!

mike65

H&W it is then! We better play our best 11! Liverpool will make them rich.

Mike.

Chardee MacDennis

mike65 wrote: »

H&W it is then! We better play our best 11! Liverpool will make them rich.

Mike.

excellent! fair play to them, i hope they give us a run for our money.

Guy:Incognito

Call_me_al wrote: »

i hope they give us a run for our money.

Surely we have to give them all our money? Maybe a few players too.:)


Anyhoo, cup upset on the cards.

whatawaster

Riise was absolutely awful last night, and has been consistently awful for two years. I have full confidence that Insua would do a better job than him, and it goes without saying that Aurelio and Arbeloa would.

citytillidie

Should play Carra up front in the next round of the cup

Guy:Incognito

citytillidie wrote: »

Should play Carra up front in the next round of the cup

Nah, he's not due his next goal till March 2013. No rush.:)

Tusky

I used to really like Riise but he has been awful for some time now. Its time he moved on.

Unearthly

Did anyone read the Sunday World last Sunday, it had exclusive news that Crouch was going to be swapped for Stephen Ireland

Very credible.....;)

Jesus Wept

Mr Alan wrote: »

super stuff from H&W

H&W

Mr Alan wrote: »

in case you ever doubted yourself in just how clueless andy grey is, he said two things last night about Riise:

1-if liverpool ever decided to sell him there would be a long queue of clubs for him.
2-liverpool would want to have someone really really top class in order to replace him.

hhhhhmmmmm, really Andy?!

He also said Rafa had spent £140 million. Whether that figure is accurate or not, it's idiotic not to include/mention money recouped from sales.


The real question in all this mess is if anything put on paper to prevent G&H from putting the debt onto the club.
They said they wouldn't do this and they offered a higher share price to shareholders but now are putting that onto the club, so in essence the club
paid for their deal.

Did Parry bother to get them to put it in writing as a condition of the sale or did he just ask them for their word and shake their hand stirringly and
leave feeling that their gentleman's agreement was a strong enough bond.

kida

The-Rigger wrote: »

He also said Rafa had spent £140 million. Whether that figure is accurate or not, it's idiotic not to include/mention money recouped from sales.

Why is it? Hes not there to balance the books? It actually highlighted how much he spent.

The-Rigger wrote: »

The real question in all this mess is if anything put on paper to prevent G&H from putting the debt onto the club.
They said they wouldn't do this and they offered a higher share price to shareholders but now are putting that onto the club, so in essence the club
paid for their deal.

Did Parry bother to get them to put it in writing as a condition of the sale or did he just ask them for their word and shake their hand stirringly and
leave feeling that their gentleman's agreement was a strong enough bond.

Everyone that knew anything about business laughed at Liverpools fans who thought that this was the case at the time.

Jesus Wept

kida wrote: »

Why is it? Hes not there to balance the books? It actually highlighted how much he spent.

Did I imply that Andy Gray should do Liverpool's accounts?
I don't believe I did?
Andy is paid to do his job, and that should include being accurate and not muddying the water.

I'll explain, when a club sells a player, they get to keep that money.
So to say they spent X/£140 million/Eleventy Billion and fail to mention or account for the money recouped
through sales during the same time period is incredibly poor misinforming punditry.

kida wrote: »

Everyone that knew anything about business laughed at Liverpools fans who thought that this was the case at the time.

Well bully for those clever business wigs eh? The biggest fool seems to be Parry, not Liverpool fans.
The question still remains whether or not it was put in writing or not.

kida

The-Rigger wrote: »

Did I imply that Andy Gray should do Liverpool's accounts?
I don't believe I did?
Andy is paid to do his job, and that should include being accurate and not muddying the water.

I'll explain, when a club sells a player, they get to keep that money.
So to say they spent X/£140 million/Eleventy Billion and fail to mention or account for the money recouped
through sales during the same time period is incredibly poor misinforming punditry.



The question still remains whether or not it was put in writing or not.

And most of what he sold was what he bought - cost high wages(this is money going out)

Regarding the "putting something in writing". Liverpools fan were very naieve to think this was there and if so that it would be worth the paper its written on. Anyone with any knowledge of business would know this was unenforcable.

zing

More doom & gloom from the press. Thing is though Kay is a red and from what I've seen tends to be fairly well informed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3200662.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=03QYYA0SHH4UZQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/sport/2008/01/17/sfnliv117.xml

Dr Galen

to be honest i never believed that the debt woulodn't in someway end up shifted to the club. In general, when any takeover happens of any business, the business and its assets are used to leverage funds to pay for the bid, even if the buyer actually has the cash.

Put it like this......if i won 10million on the lotto, I'd still have a mortgage for my 3 million euro gaff in the country......means that i haven't risked any of my own cash as such on the purchase, at least up front anyways.

Its really only in extreme circumstances, such as Abramovic that this doesn't happen. Thats been part of the problem. Liverpool fans (of which I'm one) have been comparing us with Utd and Chelsea, this isn't comparing like for like. As Utd's recent financial figures have shown they are light years ahead of us in terms of financial and commercial clout. Its why they can go and shell out season after season for players like Rio, Rooney, Tevez. Banks would be lining up to lend them cash to fund purchases like this as they know they'll get the money back with very little hassle. Chelsea obviously are in a league of their own, with Abramovich whipping the cash out of his back pocket, up til relatively recently anyway.

The reason why we've been signing players like Bellamy, Pennant etc is simply that Rafa has never really had the cash to go and spend massively on a single player, up til the Torres purchase. Yes he's spent a lot over the course of the 4 years, but think how much work he had to do with the squad. He probably "could" have funded a bid for Torres 2 years ago, but as we were pretty sh1t in other areas of the pitch we wouldn't have seen a huge difference to the play/squad/league performance overall, indeed we might actually have gone backwards a bit.

IMO the fact that Rafa is now buying players like Torres and to some extent Babel, which are big buys, seems to show that he's thinking that he is getting near to the end of the squad rebuilding excercise and he is now buying players to improve the first 11. Certainly there will continue to buy squad buys, like Benyoun etc but I'd predict that if he stays in charge for next season, we'll see another "big" signing in the 20 -25 million range in the summer plus one or two mid range buys.

kida

nurse_baz wrote: »

to be honest i never believed that the debt woulodn't in someway end up shifted to the club. In general, when any takeover happens of any business, the business and its assets are used to leverage funds to pay for the bid, even if the buyer actually has the cash.

Put it like this......if i won 10million on the lotto, I'd still have a mortgage for my 3 million euro gaff in the country......means that i haven't risked any of my own cash as such on the purchase, at least up front anyways.

Its really only in extreme circumstances, such as Abramovic that this doesn't happen. Thats been part of the problem. Liverpool fans (of which I'm one) have been comparing us with Utd and Chelsea, this isn't comparing like for like. As Utd's recent financial figures have shown they are light years ahead of us in terms of financial and commercial clout. Its why they can go and shell out season after season for players like Rio, Rooney, Tevez. Banks would be lining up to lend them cash to fund purchases like this as they know they'll get the money back with very little hassle. Chelsea obviously are in a league of their own, with Abramovich whipping the cash out of his back pocket, up til relatively recently anyway.

The reason why we've been signing players like Bellamy, Pennant etc is simply that Rafa has never really had the cash to go and spend massively on a single player, up til the Torres purchase. Yes he's spent a lot over the course of the 4 years, but think how much work he had to do with the squad. He probably "could" have funded a bid for Torres 2 years ago, but as we were pretty sh1t in other areas of the pitch we wouldn't have seen a huge difference to the play/squad/league performance overall, indeed we might actually have gone backwards a bit.

IMO the fact that Rafa is now buying players like Torres and to some extent Babel, which are big buys, seems to show that he's thinking that he is getting near to the end of the squad rebuilding excercise and he is now buying players to improve the first 11. Certainly there will continue to buy squad buys, like Benyoun etc but I'd predict that if he stays in charge for next season, we'll see another "big" signing in the 20 -25 million range in the summer plus one or two mid range buys.

I see what you are saying but part of the problem is that Rafa wants 2 players for every squad position and rather than using what he had or younger players he has effectively bought them all. He could easily have made do with some squad players or brought through younger players but he made the decision to buy all of these squad players rather than a few better quality players.

zing

kida wrote: »

I see what you are saying but part of the problem is that Rafa wants 2 players for every squad position and rather than using what he had or younger players he has effectively bought them all. He could easily have made do with some squad players or brought through younger players but he made the decision to buy all of these squad players rather than a few better quality players.

And what if the existing squad players aren't up to the job or are old and their contracts are up or ... or the younger players aren't ready for that step up or just aren't good enough.

We've been there and bought t-shirt many times with this whole argument. Not again - please ?

Mr Alan

Maybe he felt the sqaud players he had at his disposal werent good enough?! or were too old?! or had no time left on their contract?! just a thought.

and whoever asked in a previous post, H&W was for Havant and Waterlooville (damn you for making me type it! )

dc69

if the debt isnt shifted on the the club ,i see no way we can compete with utd and the likes for player transfers,look at utd,they are flourishing and have no problem,obviously i dont want to see it happening but i see no other way that we can afford the big players,abramovich is one in a million,no other owner is gona pay with their own money for players.albeit he gets its back.

I think we wil only start competing when we get the new stadium and we had better hope its over 70,000,if like everyone want them to do,g&h purchase big players,how do they pay it back?our stadium pulls in probly half of what utd's does,where else is the money gona come from?

Mr Alan

Serious noises on merseyside are that G&H will be long gone by the time a new stadium comes around.

prendy

im really happy for H&W...i see there all getting a holiday to vegas coz of the money the tie in anfield will generate.

whats the story with sissoko...no bids at all for him.maybe we should play him a bit and put him in the shop window!!!

zing

prendy wrote: »

whats the story with sissoko...no bids at all for him.maybe we should play him a bit and put him in the shop window!!!

Isn't he away at the African Nations Cup ? If so let him play away there and put himself in the shop window

Jesus Wept

kida wrote: »

And most of what he sold was what he bought

So that money doesn't count as recouped because he had purchased the player/s .

kida wrote: »

Regarding the "putting something in writing". Liverpools fan were very naieve to think this was there and if so that it would be worth the paper its written on. Anyone with any knowledge of business would know this was unenforcable.

On the naiveness thing, I don't think anyone here has said they assumed it was included. I've asked the question a few times because it's valid, we don't know the answer, and I haven't seen it asked.
H&G apparently stated prior to their bid been successful that they would not put the debt on the clubs books.

Whether or not it is enforceable is debatable and a side point, you could make the same argument about any contract, but you'd be wrong, otherwise there would be no contracts or written agreements in this world, only law suits.

The point is Parry could of at least suggested it as a condition of the sale to see what their reaction was to this suggestion was, and then maybe he might of realised that they were talking b0lloxs and weren't being honest about their intentions.

Whether it was unrealistic to think they wouldn't put the debt on the club again is a mute point, they said it, they knew it was b0lllox and they were just being deceitful to make their bid more appealing.

Unfortunately Parry has shown himself to be a complete mug yet again, or he was aware the whole time and was happy to go along with the facade.

event

prendy wrote: »

whats the story with sissoko...no bids at all for him.maybe we should play him a bit and put him in the shop window!!!

better off not letting him play;)

just kidding, seems strange that interest has cooled so quickly

mike65

The-Rigger wrote: »

H&W

Harland And Wolff of course! Nah only joking, Havant and Waterlooville

Mike.

Mr Alan

my understanding of the debt onto the club/legally binding situation is.....

if they were in negotiations with Liverpool and all along implied, even only verbally, that they would not be putting the debt onto the club, then that IS binding

BUT if they then increased their offer at any point after stating they wouldnt be putting the debt onto the club, that would mean it was a new offer (if ya get me) so any terms already discussed would not longer be applicable.

prendy

Isn't he away at the African Nations Cup ? If so let him play away there and put himself in the shop window

ya thats right sorry!
hopefully has a good tourney and adds another couple of million to the price!:D

Jesus Wept

mike65 wrote: »

Harland And Wolff of course! Nah only joking, Havant and Waterlooville

Mike.

lol, thanks. I kind of worked it out a few posts ago (eventually) with the Vegas trip thing, I was stumped till that though.

PHB

It doesn't matter whether the debt was ever actually latched onto the club, it was always effectively tied to it, in terms of the profits and assets being linked to it.

zing

Even if they agreed to buy the club with 'no debt on the club' as they claimed in their press conferences there's sfa stopping them transferring the debt onto the club down the road. Or transferring some/all of the debt onto the company that owns the club (Kop football or whatever it's called) .. or transferring it to a company that the clubs owns or ..

Whenever anyone borrows to buy a business then the end result is typically the same - they expect that business to service those loans one way or another.

Killme00

Mr Alan wrote: »

if they were in negotiations with Liverpool and all along implied, even only verbally, that they would not be putting the debt onto the club, then that IS binding

Unfortunately this isnt true. As owners of the club the can basically do as they please in terms of borrowing or debt restructuring.

zing

DIC to make fresh bid for LFC or 50% stake
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_headline=dic-to-make-bid-for-liverpool-fc%26method=full%26objectid=20361594%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

Mr Alan

loved the banner in the kop the other night:

YANKS OUT!
DUBAI SOS!

mike65

Thats interesting, DIC to buy HICKS half. Of course that supposes Gillet is guilt free rather than just having better manners. After all Jurgen the German must have been sounded out by both of them even if it came at Hicks suggestion (for example).

Mike.

zing

Interesting that 'the source close to DIC' said the offer would be delivered to Hicks - twice. Not Gillet & Hicks - just Hicks. That would suggest the offer is to buy him out - or maybe that could just be one of the options they'll put forward.

Some more intesting bits in the 2nd artcile:
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/page.cfm?objectid=20361596&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=Fans%20in%20fear%20as%20future%20of%20Liverpool%20on%20knife%20edge

After missing out to Hicks and George Gillett last time around Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum is understood to be ready to do everything in his power to ensure it does not happen again.

But despite being one of the richest men in the world Sheikh Mohammed does not use his immense wealth to pay over the odds for any business.

Is the Sheikh personally involved then ? Don't remember anything in the past to suggest he was - always looked liked just another DIC investment.

There has also been a reticence from honorary life president and former chairman David Moores and Parry to sign up to a refinancing package which will plunge the club into hundreds of millions of pounds of debt.

So Moores & Parry are indeed speaking up in the boardroom - good to hear at last.

Mr Alan

Noises in Liverpool the last few days have been that Parry and Moores have realised they've made a massive mistake and even that was willing to fall on his own sword in order to save the club. that i'll believe when i see.

mike65

The Telegraph reports

Liverpool's American owners are edging closer to clinching a breakthrough refinancing deal with banks despite growing tensions between the club's joint chairmen Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

According to City sources, a £350 million deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland and American investment bank Wachovia could be announced early next week. It is understood lawyers for both sides are now working through the fine print of the funding package which, if confirmed, will come six weeks before an existing one-year loan used to finance the American takeover expires. Once concluded the Americans hope the deal will restore a sense of calm to Anfield after a period of extraordinary instability.

But the Daily Telegraph has learned that there remains deep uncertainty about the relationship between Hicks and Gillett, the two US sports entrepreneurs who bought Liverpool in a £220 million deal last February. And even if the refinancing deal is confirmed, insiders are worried about how much longer the partnership will last.

Gillett is deeply unhappy with his joint owner following his explosive remarks in which he confirmed hat the pair had approached former Germany coach Jurgen Klinsmann about taking over from Rafa Benitez. Gillett has been seriously unsettled by the reaction.

He is understood to be all the more irritated as the Hicks gaffe came despite assurances from the Texan billionaire that he would stay silent until the club's future was more secure.

Gillett has also been reluctant to press ahead with the refinancing plans, fearing that the new structure will load too much debt on to the club's balance sheet. It is also known that Gillett, the less wealthy of the two men, has been struggling to meet the banks' demands to put up £75 million each of cash and personal guarantees.

At one stage the growing split threatened to plunge the club into a new takeover battle, just 12 months after the Americans squeezed out Dubai International Capital, the investment company of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

That remains a possibility, but any hopes DIC had of doing a deal with Gillett to buy out Hicks' 50 per cent holding appeared to be fading last night.

DIC are understood to be prepared to bide their time, believing that the relationship between Hicks and Gillett could be beyond repair and that the refinancing will only be a short-term measure.

Under the terms of the deal, around half of the £350 million of debt is to be placed on to Liverpool's books, partly to finance the start of work on the new £400 million stadium at Stanley Park and to refinance £20 million of loans for new players. The move is a reversal of the vow the Americans gave when they took control not to copy the approach taken by the Glazer family at Manchester United.

The rest is to be secured against Liverpool's parent company Kop Holdings. Having blocked attempts to load all the debt on to the club last year, former chairman David Moores, who remains a director, and chief executive Rick Parry, are uneasy about how the borrowing will be serviced, with interest payments of £30 million a year.

Mike.