Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

mike65

Bit soon to be getting all misty-eyed! 4th is no gimme this year, looks like Everton and Villa will push us all the way. If Olly Holt is willing to publish that story then I think we can be sure thats things are moving (albeit slowly), whether the new boss is better than the old one remains to be seen.

Mike

~Rebel~

stick-dan wrote: »

maybe for you... i agree everyone has their price..but in relistic terms that boy is the team and no player on the market at the moment could replace him for what he means and does to and for liverpool.You can buy pride for your locality, you can't buy tradition and you damn sure can't buy the love he has for the club.

50 million well wasted if we sell him.....

It'll be entirely down to him either way. If he doesn't want to go, theres no way pool would get away with selling him, and if he did decide to leave, like he very nearly did twice, there's no way we could keep him. Ball is firmly in his court. I do think he'll stay though after spurning his last minute U-turn in 05.


Aye Mike, probably gettin ahead of myself, just had a moment of reflection when i read that piece I really cant wait to see that 18,000 seater single tier Kop in person though!

stick-dan

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It'll be entirely down to him either way. If he doesn't want to go, theres no way pool would get away with selling him, and if he did decide to leave, like he very nearly did twice, there's no way we could keep him. Ball is firmly in his court. I do think he'll stay though after spurning his last minute U-turn in 05.


Aye Mike, probably gettin ahead of myself, just had a moment of reflection when i read that piece I really cant wait to see that 18,000 seater single tier Kop in person though!

That's where you are wrong though... Because there is a clear statement in gerrard's contract that he cannot just walk out on the club the year after next if we do happen to go on trophyless. Say the start of the 2009/2010 season if we have won nothing he cannot leave by his will unless another club wants to buy him and at that stage he will unfortunately be in his early early thirties if my calculations are right and that would mean that he would have dwindled in value and not alot of clubs might come looking...But either way he aint leaving via a transfer request if the club does start to deminish...and besides i don't know why i am even bothering to push this subject i feel stupid for doing so cos he don't want to leave.Lets face it it's not as if he was in a premiership winning club that lost it's flair the day he joined.We have been out of the loop for quiet a while now,He has everything to play for.

~Rebel~

stick-dan wrote: »

That's where you are wrong though... Because there is a clear statement in gerrard's contract that he cannot just walk out on the club the year after next if we do happen to go on trophyless. Say the start of the 2009/2010 season if we have won nothing he cannot leave by his will unless another club wants to buy him and at that stage he will unfortunately be in his early early thirties if my calculations are right and that would mean that he would have dwindled in value and not alot of clubs might come looking...But either way he aint leaving via a transfer request if the club does start to deminish...and besides i don't know why i am even bothering to push this subject i feel stupid for doing so cos he don't want to leave.Lets face it it's not as if he was in a premiership winning club that lost it's flair the day he joined.We have been out of the loop for quiet a while now,He has everything to play for.

Come on, contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on! If he does have something like that preventing him from requesting a transfer, all it will do is mean his agent will start making the odd comment, sound a few clubs out, and sure enough the bids will come. If he wanted to leave, they'd find a way. (Though as i said, i don't think he will.)

Jesus Wept

£50 million?

We'd be nuts not to sell him. Can't see that price being offered.

stick-dan

Yeah suppose your right i just hate seeing gerrard linked with real madrid and all that crap in the papers...It's annoying..I must stop reading the newpapers

and i agree with you i don't think he will leave!

Thanx 4 The Fish

I remember the mancs saying the same about Beckham.

leninbenjamin

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I remember the mancs saying the same about Beckham.

I was gonna mention that too, there certainly are some interesting parallels. I've said before i think Pool are too reliant on Gerrard and that if they ever are going to achieve anything they really have overcome this. if 30million came in i'd take it.

astrofool

If Gerrard appears with a boot shaped bruise on his head in the next few months, be worried

PHB

I can't see Madrid offering that much money for him, then again, they are absolutely nuts as a club so ya never know. Still, 30 million for him is plausibleish, and personally I think liverpool should take it.

jesus_thats_gre

It would be ****ing retarded not to the take it..

Mr Alan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/02/26/sfnbon226.xml

Telegraph also reporting that the yanks are on the verge of selling. wish they'd ever just hurry the **** up

Peyton Manning

stick-dan wrote: »

maybe for you... i agree everyone has their price..but in relistic terms that boy is the team and no player on the market at the moment could replace him for what he means and does to and for liverpool.You can buy pride for your locality, you can't buy tradition and you damn sure can't buy the love he has for the club.

50 million well wasted if we sell him.....

I agree about how important he is for the team, but you cant buy the love he has for the club? He sure was on the verge of selling until Chelsea lost interest...

Mr Alan

Archimedes wrote: »

I agree about how important he is for the team, but you cant buy the love he has for the club? He sure was on the verge of selling until Chelsea lost interest...

Until chelsea lost interest? at wat point was that? When he said he wasnt leaving?

Peyton Manning

Yeah, after he told Rick Parry that he wanted to leave before Chelsea wouldn't make a bid higher than £32 million.

Mr Alan

Archimedes wrote: »

Yeah, after he told Rick Parry that he wanted to leave before Chelsea wouldn't make a bid higher than £32 million.

Apologies. But that didnt happen.

He said he wanted to leave-Yes.

But i advise you perhaps read up on it more and find out why, he hadnt been offered a new improved deal by Liverpool and wanted to force their hand. Nothing to do with Chelsea not offering the right money or anything.

DeadSkin

From The Guardian, Hicks determined to keep his hold on Liverpool

Peyton Manning

Mr Alan wrote: »

Apologies. But that didnt happen.

He said he wanted to leave-Yes.

But i advise you perhaps read up on it more and find out why, he hadnt been offered a new improved deal by Liverpool and wanted to force their hand. Nothing to do with Chelsea not offering the right money or anything.

And these are the actions of someone who loves the club? Holding them ranson for more money by threatening to leave for one of their rivals? Pull the other one.

Mr Alan

Archimedes wrote: »

And these are the actions of someone who loves the club? Holding them ranson for more money by threatening to leave for one of their rivals? Pull the other one.

I really dont wanna get into it on this thread, its been done a thousand times. I'll PM you.

~Rebel~

Archimedes wrote: »

Yeah, after he told Rick Parry that he wanted to leave before Chelsea wouldn't make a bid higher than £32 million.

tbh find a reputable source for that being the reason for the turnaround and then i might listen.

Im sure you know well if a player wants to leave, they're gone. I very much doubt it happened like you mention above. For one thing i'm sure liverpool accepted their bid of around 30million

<edit> I see your stance has totally changed from Chelsea didn't offer enough, to Liverpool being held to ransom and it not having anything to do with chelsea's bid...

Mr Alan

DeadSkin wrote: »

From The Guardian, Hicks determined to keep his hold on Liverpool

If Gillette sells, which looks nailed on, its only a matter of time before Hicks leaves.

Peyton Manning

~Rebel~ wrote: »

tbh find a reputable source for that being the reason for the turnaround and then i might listen.

Im sure you know well if a player wants to leave, they're gone. I very much doubt it happened like you mention above. For one thing i'm sure liverpool accepted their bid of around 30million

Ok fair enough, his reasons for staying may be up in the air but I was merely pointing out that his love for the club is not 'unbuyable' as pointed out previously, when in comparison to say, Jamie Carragher.

Mr Alan

PM sent Archimedes.

spockety

Some of the stories are suggesting that while Gillett will up and leave altogether, Hicks is interested in selling some shares but retaining a minority shareholding and seats on the board , at least in the short term.

~Rebel~

spockety wrote: »

Some of the stories are suggesting that while Gillett will up and leave altogether, Hicks is interested in selling some shares but retaining a minority shareholding and seats on the board , at least in the short term.

Aye, thats probably the most likely option. Delighted Hicks couldn't afford to buy out Gillette's share at least.

I cant believe how quiet Gilette has been though, its been months since he said anything at all! Would think his camp would have made Some sort of comment, even just a congrats for beating Inter or something..I wonder if this whole thing was meant to be mostly for his son who decided he didn't fancy it and just went awol.

DeadSkin

Hicks has shown support to Rafa, may suggest that he still wants to have some involvement with the club.

zing

Hicks is digging his heals in and trying to hang on - he tried to buy Gillet out but couldn't raise the cash. Looks like Gillet will sell his stake to DIC within next few weeks with DIC also trying to dilute Hicks stake.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/02/26/dic-close-in-on-gillett-s-50-stake-in-reds-100252-20524930/

All of course to be confirmed but TB is as reliable a source for club info as you're likely to find.

walshki

zing wrote: »

Hicks is digging his heals in and trying to hang on - he tried to buy Gillet out but couldn't raise the cash. Looks like Gillet will sell his stake to DIC within next few weeks with DIC also trying to dilute Hicks stake.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/02/26/dic-close-in-on-gillett-s-50-stake-in-reds-100252-20524930/

All of course to be confirmed but TB is as reliable a source for club info as you're likely to find.

I think it makes a lot of sense for Hicks to hang on - say DIC offer him a 40m profit - instead he takes enough money to clear the debt and retains a 40m share. For the future - presumably DIC will put in the cash for the stadium and player purchases - great position for Hicks to be in. Possibly little or no ongoing outlay, no debt but a decent stake in the club and massive profit when the stadium is built.

Mr Alan

But isnt there a clause where if a partner isnt willing to put in the same money as the other one that they then must accept an offer for their share of the club?

ie: DIC wanna pump 200 million extra over 4 years into player acquisitions, Hicks doesnt wanna stump up his half (100million) therefore DIC can say, Hicks-we'll give you $Xmillion for your 50% as your holding us back.

99% sure there is that feature in the relationship with G&H, therefore presumably it would carry over to DIC and Hicks.

whatawaster

Mr Alan wrote: »

But isnt there a clause where if a partner isnt willing to put in the same money as the other one that they then must accept an offer for their share of the club?

ie: DIC wanna pump 200 million extra over 4 years into player acquisitions, Hicks doesnt wanna stump up his half (100million) therefore DIC can say, Hicks-we'll give you $Xmillion for your 50% as your holding us back.

99% sure there is that feature in the relationship with G&H, therefore presumably it would carry over to DIC and Hicks.

that wouldn't really be workable though, as the richer of the partners (Hicks) could at any time say "i propose to spend all of my wealth on new players" which Gillet obviously can't match. Surely he wouldn't be forced to sell.

mike65

This shows the perils of multiple owners.

Mike

Mr Alan

pretty sure that is the set up. If people remember correctly (and i could be wrong) but Hicks was meant to be more of a silent partner in this whole debacle in the first place. Gillette only brought him on board as he needed the additional financial clout as he was unable to mount the bid on his own, despite trying. it was Gillette who seemed the passionate one, who seemed decent enough.

spockety

Yeah, and in the end it looks like Gillett is doing to decent thing by keeping his mouth shut and just f**king right off.

astrofool

The original agreement would not carry through, unless both parties make the same agreement (essentially a new agreement).

walshki

It could create some interesting legal arguments. Imagine a situation where Hicks didn't want to spend on what was being proposed by DIC? They try to force him to sell - where does it stand then - after all - he could afford it but he didn't agree - I suppose he could be bound by a board decision - then it could be workable. It would make sense that there should be some clause. Difficult to work though as others have said.

mike65

SSN have a feature at 1.30, it'll probably just confirm the overnight story.

Mike.

spockety

astrofool wrote: »

The original agreement would not carry through, unless both parties make the same agreement (essentially a new agreement).

Unless it is a standing order (or similar) of Kop Holdings Ltd., and DIC are actually buying Gillette's half of Kop Holdings rather than half of Liverpool FC... ?

mike65

Hicks denies - everything! He says he is in for the long haul, however it was pointed out Gillett wants out for a decent profit and that Hicks was in Dubai talking to DIC so draw your own conclusions.

Mike.

Jazzy

cant wait to get rid of G&H
they bought us torres tho so cheers for that lads, but as they have said in interviews in the USA pool is apparantly going to be funding their yank clubs so cheerio fellas

now DIC, please buy me a Mancini and............ Sammy Eto'o

spockety

They didn't fund torres, the banks did.

G+H are business geniuses, of that there is no doubt. They managed to buy one of the most famous football clubs in the world without actually spending any of their own money, and they are going to get to walk away only a year later with profits far beyond the dreams of any fans. When you think about it... "wow".

stick-dan

Archimedes wrote: »

I agree about how important he is for the team, but you cant buy the love he has for the club? He sure was on the verge of selling until Chelsea lost interest...

Fact wrong,

the reason he wanted to leave the club was becuase the club didn't address his contract quick enough an action that they later apologised for to him. The club kept putting his contract negotiations on the back burner and since his contract wasn't being renewed it sucombed onto him that he wasn't needed at much at the club because his contract wasn't being made top priority. That's why he decided to leave..

Dubit10

Archimedes wrote: »

I agree about how important he is for the team, but you cant buy the love he has for the club? He sure was on the verge of selling until Chelsea lost interest...

Please get your facts straight before posting:rolleyes:

Dubit10

Thinks hicks is doing what any smart business type would do,bleed these investors for every last penny they are willing to pay.A lot will depend on how we get on in the champions league.Hicks knows that as bad as we are this year Rafa is the master when it comes to european football and there is a very good chance that we will lift number six this year. If that happens and he sells now he will have thrown away a great deal of dollars and that is something that sits very badly with him.He knows that one way or another he has burnt all his bridges with the people at the club(Fans,players,rafa, etc..) and he will have to sell out at some stage.:)

IrishMike

"Reports that I am about to sell my stake in the Liverpool Football Club, or to invite DIC to examine the club's books in preparation for such a sale - like other such reports planted in the UK press in recent weeks by parties with their own self-interested agenda - are absolutely and categorically false.

"The reality is that I am personally, professionally and financially committed to the club and its supporters and that I will continue to honour that commitment to the best of my ability now and in the future."

Move on you damn plank no one wants you!

PHB

Can we try and not like post every hopeful rumour that DIC are selling, what is this, the 5th? It's becoming like replacing Stan at this point.

---

Who cares if Gerrard loves the club or doesn't, only he knows that. Either way, 30 million could be better spend, especially since Mascherano, Alonso and Lucas are not a bad set of midfielders to have.

Mr Alan

In fairness PHB, its a little more than rumours, been reported on every major site today from the times to the telegraph to rte to bbc resulting in a Hicks statement this afternoon. its worth talking about. especially seen as Hicks denials mean nothing as all the stories are concerning Gillettes shares.

This thread is the place to talk about this stuff surely.

(ps.sorry about the other day again! )

stick-dan

PHB wrote: »

Can we try and not like post every hopeful rumour that DIC are selling, what is this, the 5th? It's becoming like replacing Stan at this point.

---

Who cares if Gerrard loves the club or doesn't, only he knows that. Either way, 30 million could be better spend, especially since Mascherano, Alonso and Lucas are not a bad set of midfielders to have.

So what are we supposed to be talking about then on this thread if we are not talking about current events concerning liverpool...

If selling speculation spurs an interview from the owners there is obviously something there and the fans which this is a thread for might also want to talk about the fact our captain is being sized up for a transfer overseas.

I mean nothing offensive by any of that i am just elaborating on the title of the thread.

PHB

This isn't me as a mod or anything, I just think it's silly If it happens it'll happen, but realistically, G&H have said like 50 times they aren't selling. Maybe they will, but how many 'secret sources' have said they were selling on a specific date that turned out to be crap?

stick-dan

point taken alright bt what i was hitting at was actually the gerrard fact more so. The whole Hicks and Gillett thing has gone on far to long. They are canon fodder for liverpool fans.

Mr Alan

Actually PHB, wat makes this so interesting is that Gillette hasnt said a single word about the whole deal. and hasnt said anything publically in months and months, incl things anything about the stadium or refinancing or anything.