Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

prendy

my god does that hicks ever STFU...i mean what does he think the reaction will be when he says things like that.

Stky10

Groan, another bad morning of news. 90% want them out, but they're determined to stay and dump 300m debt on the club

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_headline=90-of-liverpool-fc-fans-want-george-gillett-and-tom-hicks-out%26method=full%26objectid=20383391%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/01/23/sfnliv223.xml

Masch looks more likely to leave

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/01/23/ufnliverpool123.xml

Garay looks like a no-go

http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=75313

And Leto looks like he's heading home

http://aliverpoolthing.blogspot.com/2008/01/loan-move-for-liverpool-winger.html

~Rebel~

I'm a sad panda.

Lets hope there are some big liverpool fans high up on RBS...if G&H get that refinancing deal DIC have no real leverage to get in. Price of the club also probably rises steeply.

So at the moment it looks like we're gonna keep the yanks, lose Rafa, lose Masch and probably lose a few of the spaniards who will follow Rafa. Also depending on who comes in as new manager, we may be a far less attractive club to join.

gucci

i really hope mascherano dosnt leave. there is at least 10 years of a great footballer/investment as a club in him

spockety

In case there is any doubt, the Daily Post survey reveals that 94% of supporters want Rafa to remain at Liverpool.

The anti's aren't even in a minority, they're a cluster.

flanzer

Anyone know if the Havant & Waterlooville match is being televised this Saturday? http://liveonsat.com/ don't seem to have it at all on their list but none of the 15:00 kick-off matches they have listed are being televised on BBC1 which may suggest Liverpool will be on......

EDIT: Just checked the BBC website, they're broadcasting Middlesborough at 12:15 and Chelsea at 17:15 so look like we won't be watching them live on TV

_blank_

spockety wrote: »

In case there is any doubt, the Daily Post survey reveals that 94% of supporters want Rafa to remain at Liverpool.

The anti's aren't even in a minority, they're a cluster.

*sigh*

It doesn't matter what the fans want really, though does it?

At the end of the day, Liverpool attract enough "consumer" type day trippers to keep Anfield full of paying watchers. The current owners don't care about fan opinion. They care about money.

These fan protests about the manager are not going to affect the decisions made by the owners, be they "the yanks" or DIC.

Who is to say that if/when DIC gain ownership that they, too, won't want Rafa ousted? Have they said they will keep Rafa?

kryogen

Call_me_al wrote: »

Well you should tell the writers of L'Equipe who have him as one of the 11 best players in the world at the moment. Anyone who doesn't rate Steven Gerrard or thinks Liverpool would be better without him isn't the full shilling.

thats a brave statement, im sure you probably thought the same about henry at arsenal then yeah? one player is not bigger then the team, and i must say i have to agree that unless gerrard is played in the best position that suits the system and the team he is a thorn in benitez side.... he demands to be played in the middle, the fans and media demand he is played in the middle, so benitez folds and plays him there, but it is not where he should be played and i know some liverpool fans understand this.

i think if liverpool sold gerrard they may in fact be better as a team, its not neccessary though i feel, i had said for 15 months before henry was sold, he should be sold cause it would be for the greater good of the team...

i said the same about RVN as much as i loved him, you have to see beyond one player and think about whats best for the team as a whole

i dont think liverpool have to sell gerrard but benitez needs to stand firm with what he knows is right on the gerrard issue










all just my opinion, not proven fact......

kryogen

Call_me_al wrote: »

no united didnt win the league in Fergies first 6 years, i suppose you wouldnt know that as you probably started supporting United in May 1992 or was it May 1993....

One of those years with all the glory hunters anyway....

its these statements that rile me, were liverpool a failure as a team when you started supporting them then?is that why your a pool fan? you like failure? or was it when liverpool were successful? i was born in the mid eightys so i didnt really have a choice as to when i started supporting united did i? it makes no difference that my father is from manchester and he and my grandad and my whole family were united fans, and that his family before him were united fans, and before that newton heath fans? that doesnt matter, no, i am only a united fan cuz we won the league when i was 8.... **** sake,

do you think liverpool have a large fan base despite their success or because of it? just out of curiosity

Chardee MacDennis

kryogen wrote: »

its these statements that rile me

that wasn't aimed at you, get over yourself. The poster I responded to claimed Man Utd had won the league in Fergies first four years, so i presumed he was a glory hunter with no knowledge of the club before he started supporting them. happy?

RE*AC*TOR

kryogen wrote: »

its these statements that rile me, were liverpool a failure as a team when you started supporting them then?is that why your a pool fan? you like failure? or was it when liverpool were successful? i was born in the mid eightys so i didnt really have a choice as to when i started supporting united did i? it makes no difference that my father is from manchester and he and my grandad and my whole family were united fans, and that his family before him were united fans, and before that newton heath fans? that doesnt matter, no, i am only a united fan cuz we won the league when i was 8.... **** sake,

do you think liverpool have a large fan base despite their success or because of it? just out of curiosity

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

zing

Momo reckons he could be a Juve player by the end of the week. No mention as to whether or not it's an initial loan. Could understand Juve wanting a loan with him risking injury while away at the african nations cup.
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_3072653,00.html

zing

Down to the ironing out the fine print now by the looks of it. At least they've had to come up with some of the money themselves.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/01/23/tom-hicks-re-financing-deal-will-go-ahead-100252-20384122/

Stadium also expected to be announced tomorrow. Shame we don't have the money to build it.

sweetie

what took em so long

Stky10

zing wrote: »

Down to the ironing out the fine print now by the looks of it. At least they've had to come up with some of the money themselves.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/01/23/tom-hicks-re-financing-deal-will-go-ahead-100252-20384122/

Stadium also expected to be announced tomorrow. Shame we don't have the money to build it.

So whats the story with Parry/Moores supposedly blocking the full amount being put on the club?. Yeah they're directors, but surely G+H have boardroom voting advantage with their son's also being directors, and could have Parry/Moores removed anytime they want if they get too uppity?

Its a dark day for the club alright. Doubt much can be done about it now though

Jesus Wept

sweetie wrote: »

what took em so long

Everyone else realised it had been done so many times before that it wasn't remotely original, or therefore funny.

And it's not because it pokes fun at us, it's because as stated, it's incredibly unoriginal, and has been done to death.

Find something fresh, and hence - funny.

Melion

Anyone else see a Leeds style scenario happening here?

An absolutely disgrace if we lose Masch, not too bothered about Garay going to Spurs. We dont need another centre half

PHB

Liverpool are too successful to have a Leeds style scenario, because while people get frustrated with the players, they are still not going to get anywhere near to relegated, even if you lost your current first 11.

G&H if they can't refinance will probably have to sell. Right now they are working out if they can refinance at a way to make them profitable/break even over the coming years. If they can, they might stay or still might go. If DIC come in, the differences we will see are no debt, but the money taken out for profits instead, and a stadium financed.

What surprises me is that with all this talk of selling, nobody else has stepped in suggesting they want to buy it.

Melion

PHB wrote: »

Liverpool are too successful to have a Leeds style scenario, because while people get frustrated with the players, they are still not going to get anywhere near to relegated, even if you lost your current first 11.

G&H if they can't refinance will probably have to sell. Right now they are working out if they can refinance at a way to make them profitable/break even over the coming years. If they can, they might stay or still might go. If DIC come in, the differences we will see are no debt, but the money taken out for profits instead, and a stadium financed.

What surprises me is that with all this talk of selling, nobody else has stepped in suggesting they want to buy it.

I'm sure people thought the same about Leeds. But if they do land the club with this huge debt and then fúck off back to the states, it leaves us in a lot of trouble.

PHB

It will leave you in trouble, but not Leeds style trouble. To understand how stupid Leeds were, you'd have to imagine that Aureilo was on 50k a week.

flanzer

I've a bad feeling the G&H will get to refinance with the Federal Bank reducing their base rate by 0.75% yesterday. Bad news for Liverpool fans, good news for American Investors

Melion

PHB wrote: »

It will leave you in trouble, but not Leeds style trouble. To understand how stupid Leeds were, you'd have to imagine that Aureilo was on 50k a week.

I wouldnt be surprised if he was.
Id say we have more than 5 players on more than 100k a week, thats a lot of money just on those 5 players.

PHB

Id say we have more than 5 players on more than 100k a week, thats a lot of money just on those 5 players.

Not a chance. I'd say Gerrard might be on that, and he is defo the highest earner at the club. Sure United just about have 3 players on more than 100k (Rooney, Ronaldo, Ferdinand), and they have a much higher wage budget.

Clubs like Liverpool aren't so desperate for success that they are going to **** over their wage structure for no good reason.

zing

If the figures in that article are to be believed the debt they originally borrowed for buying the club (180 or 190m or whatever it was) is still not technically on the club - it's on Kop Investment. I say technically as we all know that it is effectively on the club but it's in much the same way as they originally said they bought the club with no debt on the club - but we all know it's the club that'll have to pay for itself.

The increase in the loan is directly on the club though which is fair enough if it is being used to start the new stadium.

So technically they are keeping their word about buying the club with no debt on the club. Doesn't make me feel any better about it though.

This loan should be manageable by the club. It's the extra 300 or 400m that'll be needed to complete the stadium that worries me. Certainly some of that will come from selling naming rights to the stadium incorporating a new shirt sponsorship deal ala Arsenal but the rest will most likely have to come from borrowings. And then there's another few hundred million to develop 'Anfield Plaza'.. All in these loans would probably add up to around the billion pounds mark.

zing

Gerrard is the only LFC player I'm aware of who's on or above 100k per week

Mr Alan

Melion wrote: »

I wouldnt be surprised if he was.
Id say we have more than 5 players on more than 100k a week, thats a lot of money just on those 5 players.

Dont be so melodramatic.

We have Gerrard only at 100k per week, even Torres is on 90k or so, taking a paycut from his Athletico days.

shotamoose

Not sure how to interpret the news that G&H are being asked to put more of their money into the refinancing deal as guarantees. Maybe this indicates a real longer-term commitment to the club, but it also means they've had to put more in than they wanted, so maybe they'll be more tempted by a bid from DIC.

woodyg

There is a very good article about the deal in the Irish Times today by David Conn. Wouldnt usually read the paper but the boss pointed out the facts about the numbers they have regarding the loan.

Here's a summary

The fact that Hicks and Gillet had not spent one cent of their own money buying the club, but had borrowed fully £298 million to do so, was there in in the black and white of the official offer document, but few pointed it out as the men were embraced.
The document itemised how the loan was split: £174.1 million to the club itself, at £5,000 per share - top dollar - which meant David Moores, for selling his 51.5 per cent shareholding, was paid almost $90 million. A further £11 million was borrowed to pay banks and other advisers their fees. The loan also absorbed Liverpool's own debt, then £44.8 million. The rest, £70 million, was borrowed to keep the stadium project alive and "provide working capital".

That means money for the club to spend, so last summer, when Hicks and Gillet were again praised for "putting their hands in their pockets" to back Benitez with £26.5 million for Torres and $11.5 million for Babel, that was in fact, also borrowed money. Interest payable at 1.5 per cent above banks standard rate, which has been over 5 per cent, and the $185 million to buy the clun and pay the fees is formally repayable by February 5th, a week in Tuesday.

Hence the moves to replace the 12- month £298 million with a new loan, of up to £350 million with interest and additional money for the stadium.

As negotiations began with the RBS and Wachovia, Gillet and Hicks are understood to have intended the full new £350 - million loan, to fall on the club. The chief executive, Rick Parry, and Moores, the former majority shareholder, argued vehemently it should not.

Hicks and Gillet are understood to have agreed with that finally, and the proposed new deal will see the cost of buying the club and the fees, £185 million, secured on the holding company.

Gillet and Hicks are believed to have committed to putting in around £40 million cash between them- their first actual spending on buying Liverpool- and providing substantial personal guarantees to secure the lending.



Very intresting read and gives some insight to the size of the loan and who actually owns the club.

mike65

Breaking news - Voronin has suspected broken leg.

Mike.

prendy

so thats why he's been so bad!:D

mike65

Pity it wasn't Kuyt tbh.

Mike.

gucci

News Just InStevie Gerard is doing his own bit of re-financing......maybe he is planning a takeover? :D

zing

mike65 wrote: »

Pity it wasn't Kuyt tbh.

Mike.

Club claiming it's an ankle injury. Arbeloa also out of action for 2 or 3 weeks.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N158550080123-1350.htm

LuckyLloyd

kryogen wrote: »

[/B]

thats a brave statement, im sure you probably thought the same about henry at arsenal then yeah? one player is not bigger then the team, and i must say i have to agree that unless gerrard is played in the best position that suits the system and the team he is a thorn in benitez side.... he demands to be played in the middle, the fans and media demand he is played in the middle, so benitez folds and plays him there, but it is not where he should be played and i know some liverpool fans understand this.

i think if liverpool sold gerrard they may in fact be better as a team, its not neccessary though i feel, i had said for 15 months before henry was sold, he should be sold cause it would be for the greater good of the team...

i said the same about RVN as much as i loved him, you have to see beyond one player and think about whats best for the team as a whole

i dont think liverpool have to sell gerrard but benitez needs to stand firm with what he knows is right on the gerrard issue










all just my opinion, not proven fact......

The Henry situation of last year is a completely different kettle of fish to the question of how much Gerrard is worth to Liverpool at present. Henry had stopped contributing in away matches - failing to put in the kind of work rate and movement that one would expect of a star player and captain. In simple terms he was no longer a fully professional and positive role model for a young side because the effort wasn't there 100% of the time. The price available for his services amounted to an over valuation given his age - and selling him on was nowhere near as difficult a decision for Wenger as people may think.

I would prefer if Gerrard shut the fudge up and played on the right flank. HOWEVER, in all probability he directly accounts for an average of 6 -8 victories a season playing through the middle (by this I mean games where he is singlehandedly the deciding influence). And on the days he is off with his passing and shooting - he is still a ferocious presence off the ball given his dynamic athleticism and work rate. In the most basic terms, his best days are beastly and his off days do not set a bad example to the rest of the team or make it impossible for them to win.

There is also the valid question of who do you bring in if he goes? You may say that a potential transfer fee represents a price that is more than fair for him; that one player doesn't make a team; and that no - one is irreplaceable in theory. If Gerrard was currently at a club like Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal or Real such a rationale would be perfectly understandable. But he isn't at a club with numerous top shelf world class players. He is a massively influential standout player in a generally decent squad. You take him away you automatically are a certain amount of games in the hole. And 40 - 50m plus a more balanced system may not do much more than make up that difference.

We need to be adding players of the ability of Torres and Gerrard to the squad. Not losing one Gerrard to bring in two Alonso's (if you follow!), i.e. taking two steps back before eventually ending up roughly where you were to begin with.

I'll be the first person to admit that Gerrard is frequently made out to be more of a player than he actually is by the English media and the standard Liverpool fan. He is undoubtedly an exceptional player - but he lacks the key ingredient the true greats all possessed: consistency. And sometimes, this costs us. But that is the price we pay. And we just don't have the luxury of moving him on IMO.

Peyton Manning

Whoa, they said earlier on SSN that he was injured but could be back for the West Ham game next week - hardly likely now...

mike65

15 goals so far, and proberly 10 assists says we can't let him go this season. But yes stick him wide/roaming.

Pity about Arbeloa as that means Riise might/will get more games.

Mike.

Chardee MacDennis

mike65 wrote: »

Pity about Arbeloa as that means Riise might/will get more games.

Mike.

worse than that, if a bid comes in for Riise we may not be able to take it now...

herbieflowers

is it just me or has Riise gone way down in recent times? I think in his first or second season he was incredible, got so many Fantasy Football points off him...hehe

Nailz

Call_me_al wrote: »

that wasn't aimed at you, get over yourself. The poster I responded to claimed Man Utd had won the league in Fergies first four years, so i presumed he was a glory hunter with no knowledge of the club before he started supporting them. happy?

No I didn't, show me were I claimed this shit... Or do you only read what you want to? :rolleyes:

mike65

Newcastle in for Riise? or is it Hyypia?

Mike.

ButcherOfNog

Can't see Hyypia leaving, I think he'll be about till he retires and end up with a coaching position of some sort. He's solid and won't whinge about not getting his game once Agger comes back. The sort of squad player we need.

Guy:Incognito

Theres no point in selling Hyypia unless he really wants to leave. He's worth more as backup than whatever few quid we'll get for him.

Thanx 4 The Fish

cannot see and would not like to see Hyppia moving on, has been a great servant and could really show the young lads a thing or two on the training ground.

mike65

All that + 6.5 milion for Riise! :eek:

Mike.

Guy:Incognito

We should buy back Warnock, he's looked quality for Blackburn.

Maybe its the way Rafa is making players play thats the problem:eek:

zing

Yeah - but remember it's the barcodes who are supposedly bidding for him.

LuckyLloyd

Stekelly wrote: »

We should buy back Warnock, he's looked quality for Blackburn.

Maybe its the way Rafa is making players play thats the problem:eek:

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a possibility that players mature and can develop rapidly during certain stages of their career with guaranteed first team football.

Guy:Incognito

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a possibility that players mature and can develop rapidly during certain stages of their career with guaranteed first team football.

So who's fault is it that they are not maturig and getting the football at Liverpool? Are we to abandone all sort of youth football and only sign players who are 23+?

Tusky

Stekelly wrote: »

We should buy back Warnock, he's looked quality for Blackburn.

Maybe its the way Rafa is making players play thats the problem:eek:

Warnock always played well for us. Never set the world alight but never let us down. As for buying him back ? No thank you.

Guy:Incognito

Tusky wrote: »

Warnock always played well for us. Never set the world alight but never let us down. As for buying him back ? No thank you.

TBh I know its not an option but it was more to do with the point about players doing well when they leave.