Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

mike65

SSN mentioned it.

Mike.

redspider

Whilst it is good to see DIC publicly state their interest in Liverpool FC, there are several bad aspects to the situation which are currently holding Liverpool FC back.

For one, as Gillet is not 'getting on' with Hicks and vice versa, this must be hampering day to day operations and decisions. If co-operation is lost in business partners, it affects the business detrimentally. By how much, who can tell, but this is not a good situation for Liverpool FC and it trickles down to the pitch. Neither players nor staff can be happy with the status quo and fans are in the same boat.

Second, Gillet seems to be a 'good guy' and Hicks the 'bad guy' in all of this. Hicks brinkmanship will no doubt mean that DIC will have to pay over the odds to get Liverpool FC, if they really want it, which will take money out of the club no matter what, even if DIC have deep pockets - money is money and 100m is 100m.

Whilst Gillet seems to be the more generous of the two, he may ask for less money than Hicks for his share, at the same time, I cant see him seeing it as a charity case and he will extract a fair level of profit as well. It would be ironic though if he did a covert deal with DIC and stayed on as a 50-50 partner, or that DIC post the sale sold their share back.

I expect this to drag on though as there is a ways to go in terms of the most recent 18-month loan deal, and wheeling and dealing by all parties is likely.

But overall, the previous owners of the club (Moores, etc) have a lot to answer for as they let this debacle happen on their watch. Whilst they may have stated they had the best intentions for Liverpool football club, and I dont doubt their bona fide's in the main, they have been responsible for this mess by not vetting the new owners carefully enough and by their handling of it.

Also, DIC are semi-culpable too and are no saints in the matter. The previous owners were looking for the best value for their ownership, and DIC could have upped their bid to compete with G&H but they didnt.

At the end of the day, there is a lot of bluster about loyalty etc to LFC from these owners and owner wannabes and previous owners, but they are more interested in the 'filthy lucre' than in LFC. There are no 'Mother Teresa's in the football ownership echelons, alas.

By the way, I realise that Rick Parry gets a lot of venom from Liverpool supporters, but he I understand is an executive worker and only a small shareholder (was I think, although not now) at best. He may be the face and the voice at times, but I dont think he is to blame. It has never been his club.

How it will end up is anyone's guess. But until the situation is changed with a unified ownership who are behind making Liverpool a succesful club and are in it apart from 'just making money', until that happens, Liverpool FC will be held back.

Redspider

_blank_

redspider wrote: »

How it will end up is anyone's guess. But until the situation is changed with a unified ownership who are behind making Liverpool a succesful club and are in it apart from 'just making money', until that happens, Liverpool FC will be held back.

Hilarious Utopian Bolloxology.

EVERY SINGLE club owner these days is in it for the money, especially the owners of EPL clubs.

To think these Arabs are any different is stupid.

And just because the owners are in it for the money, doesn't mean the club can't be successful either.

Have Manchester United not won the league with American owners in it for the money, or am I missing something?

PHB

Mr Alan wrote: »

the facts are that, they were going to sack him, they had started sounding out replacements, the fans protested, he's still in a job.

The facts were
they were considering sacking him
they had started sounding out replacements
Kosovo declared independence
he's still in a job.

Both statements have the same logic

Nobody has offered any logical reason why the fans had any effect, and nobody can tbh

redspider

DesF wrote: »

Hilarious Utopian Bolloxology.
EVERY SINGLE club owner these days is in it for the money, especially the owners of EPL clubs.
To think these Arabs are any different is stupid.
And just because the owners are in it for the money, doesn't mean the club can't be successful either.
Have Manchester United not won the league with American owners in it for the money, or am I missing something?

Des, there is extaction of money and there there is bleeding, it depends on how much money the owners extract or otherwise allow to be reinvested/spent at any given time. These clubs get more than sufficient income to survive as a profitable business. However, some clubs can be held back in progression and success as they 'sell players on' to make a few quid, dont expend heavily on salaries/players, etc. Its not easy to see where this line is or to measure it.

However, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that Abramovich is trying to buy success at Chelsea by expending more than its income. No-one is saying that Abramovich is holding back Chelsea. His level of spending is easy to see.

But all owners spend/invest/dont extract varying amounts/percentages from their clubs.

At Man Utd, the owners are extracting profits. Yes, Man Utd have success, but if a more 'altruistic' set of owners were in place Man Utd who were extracting less, Man Utd could be winning the league every year and the CL and have a 'galacticos' (albeit of the type that Ferguson would want). Success is relative.

I totally agree that DIC are no saints, I didnt say they were.

> am I missing something?

In this instance, probably.

Redspider

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

The facts were
they were considering sacking him
they had started sounding out replacements
Kosovo declared independence
he's still in a job.

Both statements have the same logic

Nobody has offered any logical reason why the fans had any effect, and nobody can tbh

The bastards.

Serbia ftw.

_blank_

redspider wrote: »

However, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that Abramovich is trying to buy success at Chelsea by expending more than its income. No-one is saying that Abramovich is holding back Chelsea. His level of spending is easy to see.

Roman is completely different to all the other owners. He has Chelsea as a plaything, he doesn't need to make money from it. A bit like Shinawatra at City imo.

They both have money they seemingly want rid of.

The Americans, at Manchester and Liverpool and Villa and wherever. The Irish at Sunderland. These people are in it to make money, by whatever means possible.

redspider wrote: »

But all owners spend/invest/dont extract varying amounts/percentages from their clubs.

But you can be damn sure they'll "extract" enough to make a tidy profit for themselves.

redspider wrote: »

At Man Utd, the owners are extracting profits. Yes, Man Utd have success, but if a more 'altruistic' set of owners were in place Man Utd who were extracting less, Man Utd could be winning the league every year and the CL and have a 'galacticos' (albeit of the type that Ferguson would want).

Er, if the United owners were spending that kind of money, the club would go out of business, and there's be NO profits to be made.

These people aren't idiots. They are successful business men, in the main. They know exactly how to make money from sporting franchises.

redspider wrote: »

Success is relative.

Yes, winning the league is relatively more successful than finishing fourth, sure.

redspider wrote: »

> am I missing something?

In this instance, probably.

Redspider

Care to point out what it is then?

mike65

He doesn't know cos he's missing it?

Mike.

Mr Alan

PHB; do you genuinely think that Kosovo declaring its independence has the same relevance to Rafas position as a fans protest march in support of him? or you just trying to be humerous?

Hobart

DesF wrote: »

Hilarious Utopian Bolloxology.

EVERY SINGLE club owner these days is in it for the money, especially the owners of EPL clubs.

To think these Arabs are any different is stupid.

And just because the owners are in it for the money, doesn't mean the club can't be successful either.

Have Manchester United not won the league with American owners in it for the money, or am I missing something?

Lol, what a wide sweeping statement. Somebody should inform Mike Ashley, Al Fayed, our Friend in MC and you might have to make a call to a certain London club aswell. Maybe you could get a job with them and steer them in the right direction DesF.

As for the fans influence on the club owners, it's patently obvious (or else the worlds biggest coincidence) that Gillet/Hicks took stock of the road they werre going down, when the fans backlash came in. Of course the fans have power, sure who pays the wages? Buys the replica kits? Season Tickets etc....

Chardee MacDennis

Mr Alan wrote: »

PHB; do you genuinely think that Kosovo declaring its independence has the same relevance to Rafas position as a fans protest march in support of him? or you just trying to be humerous?

i dont think the fans played an influential part in Rafa staying - i think if we had never found out about the Klinsmann story Rafa would still be there.

Now G&H may have planned to not offer Rafa a new contract and that may have changed, but who knows?

_blank_

mike65 wrote: »

He doesn't know cos he's missing it?

He was quoting me, but he doesn't like to use Boards own quoting system, he just puts a little arrow beside the lines he's quoting.

He's special like that.

Mr Alan wrote: »

PHB; do you genuinely think that Kosovo declaring its independence has the same relevance to Rafas position as a fans protest march in support of him?

Yes, ie, absolutely zero.

Alan, can you please explain why the American Owners would care a shiney shíte what the fans think?

Afraid losing the crowds?

You know, I know and they damn well sure know, Anfield would be full of Daytrippers anyway, people who don't give a flying fig who the manager is.

Afraid of not being able to go to Liverpool?

They coped without going there for their whole lives up to now, they can run the club from America.

What is it?

You can't just keep saying "here's the facts", "that is the way it is" all the time.

What makes you think they care about tha fans.

You DO think they don't care about the club, so why the fans?

Mr Alan wrote: »

or you just trying to be humerous?

I liked it, it was right out of left field.

mike65

He was quoting me, but he doesn't like to use Boards own quoting system, he just puts a little arrow beside the lines he's quoting.

He's special like that.

I fear DesFs personal growth is slipping into trollish regression

Mike.

PHB

Mr Alan wrote: »

PHB; do you genuinely think that Kosovo declaring its independence has the same relevance to Rafas position as a fans protest march in support of him? or you just trying to be humerous?

I don't know, I thought it was pretty funny

The only difference between those two events might be that G&H noticed one, although Kosovo only declared independence recently, but it was always coming, but that's for another board

Of course the fans have power, sure who pays the wages? Buys the replica kits? Season Tickets etc....

I agree, the fans do have power. That is their power. Their only power. Protesting is not part of that power. The Liverpool fans could try get G&H out by refusing to buy season tickets, kits, etc. They could do that.
But they didn't, and imo won't.
They marched for like 10 minutes. That has 0 effect on the owners.

I know people like to think that the fans have great power, but they just don't. They have the same power as any other customer, infact they have less power, because their demand is highly inelastic.

Just because it alledgely happened after it doesn't mean it was because of it. You need to show some sort of logical link. But you can't, because we know what G&H are like, we know what they care about, money, and the fans didn't do anything which would affect that.

kaimera

...DesF..trollish

:O Not Des!

Hobart

PHB wrote: »

I don't know, I thought it was pretty funny

The only difference between those two events might be that G&H noticed one, although Kosovo only declared independence recently, but it was always coming, but that's for another board



I agree, the fans do have power. That is their power. Their only power. Protesting is not part of that power. The Liverpool fans could try get G&H out by refusing to buy season tickets, kits, etc. They could do that.
But they didn't, and imo won't.
They marched for like 10 minutes. That has 0 effect on the owners.

I know people like to think that the fans have great power, but they just don't. They have the same power as any other customer, infact they have less power, because their demand is highly inelastic.

Just because it alledgely happened after it doesn't mean it was because of it. You need to show some sort of logical link. But you can't, because we know what G&H are like, we know what they care about, money, and the fans didn't do anything which would affect that.

It really is a cyclical argument full of opinion and conjecture. Maybe it was a coincidence? I don't think so, you do. I don't know, neither do you. It doesn't really matter tbh. We are were we are today.

redspider

DesF wrote: »

Roman is completely different to all the other owners. He has Chelsea as a plaything, he doesn't need to make money from it.

The Americans, at Manchester and Liverpool and Villa and wherever. The Irish at Sunderland. These people are in it to make money, by whatever means possible.

But you can be damn sure they'll "extract" enough to make a tidy profit for themselves.

Er, if the United owners were spending that kind of money, the club would go out of business, and there's be NO profits to be made.

Des, its the amount of money Owner A extracts in comparison to the amount of money Owner B extracts, these amounts are not all the same. All Owners are not exactly equal.

Abramovich doesnt need to extract anything and is pumping money in, so his case is an obvious one. Shinawatra, the jury is still out on that one and more details are needed. The Glazers do need to extract money (to pay for debt, etc) and are taking money out of Man Utd. If Man Utd had different owners, they could have more money to pay for footballing endeavours.

Success is relative - I guess I'll have to spell that out too, as in Man Utd winning the league regularly versus Man Utd winning the league and the CL regularly. Man Utd certaubly have the income to warrant more succes than they have. Check the Deloitte report for the money table, that drives a club's capability.

It is well known that money cant guarantee success, its a funny old game and all that, and I think you would agree with that too, but money certainly helps and mega amounts make that difference more visible and obvious, such as in Chelsea's case.

comprendez?

Redspider

PHB

Hobart wrote: »

It really is a cyclical argument full of opinion and conjecture. Maybe it was a coincidence? I don't think so, you do. I don't know, neither do you. It doesn't really matter tbh. We are were we are today.

Nobody knows anything. Everything is created. Language is an instrument of power! Post-Modernism is fun.

There is no causal link between what the fans did and any action done by the owners, and nobodies shown any.

We'd all like to think the fans have power, but they don't in English clubs. It's a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.

Mr Alan

The protests against G&H made news all around the world, incl the USA.
This was awful PR for G&H, PR is something which is very important for them.
Bad PR is in turn bad for any future investments they may want to make.
I ain't kidding myself that the love the fans have for Rafa melted their cold cold hearts.
I think the protest and subsequent bad press they would have recieved would affect future business opportunities for them.
Therefore they decided to keep onto rafa to avoid that.
Therefore the march played a vital role in Rafa keeping his job. imo.

PHB

But that is all based on the idea that bad PR is bad in of its own. Bad PR is only bad if it has any economic effect, which this didn't.

leninbenjamin

i can't help noting the numerous mentions of the American's financial mismanagement of the club, whilst fans are completely ignoring the impact of the credit crunch. have no fear the Glazers would be in a remarkably similar position had they not gotten their loans in place before this all kicked off. no doubt that DIC and their crudely earned cash will not have the same difficulties, but the malice shown to the American's over what is a completely exogenous variable is completely daft. as is the faith displayed by many towards Benitez (which in my mind is as much an excuse to have a go at the American's than having any sound rationale).

edit: and on the Benitez front alone, the fact remains that the American's spent invested relatively heavily in him this summer and he didn't deliver. It's baffling how the fans would criticize the American's for seemingly having more ambition than Bentiez displays...

yom 1

leninbenjamin wrote: »

i can't help noting the numerous mentions of the American's financial mismanagement of the club, whilst fans are completely ignoring the impact of the credit crunch. have no fear the Glazers would be in a remarkably similar position had they not gotten their loans in place before this all kicked off. no doubt that DIC and their crudely earned cash will not have the same difficulties, but the malice shown to the American's over what is a completely exogenous variable is completely daft. as is the faith displayed by many towards Benitez (which in my mind is as much an excuse to have a go at the American's than having any sound rationale).

can open......worms everywhere

please dont start the "we hate them cos they said this and did that" AGAIN

Mr Alan

No but it would have a massive effect on future investments they try and make. for example-if DIC buy them out now and they go back to the US and lick their wounds for a while (25million profit should make that easy:() but a time will come when they look to invest in more sports teams, be it "soccer" american football, baseball watever, simple fact it will be far easier for them to get their foot in the door if they have a decent enough public image. something that would have been tarnished irrepairably if they had have sacked Rafa due to the subsequent protests (which would have turned very nasty).

IMO, the march in support of Rafa showed them the volume of support he had among the fanbase and that they believed passionately in keeping him. G&H realised that there would have been mountains and mountains of awful press/PR if they went ahead with their plans.

which would have effected them "economically" in the future.

Mr Alan

leninbenjamin wrote: »

i can't help noting the numerous mentions of the American's financial mismanagement of the club, whilst fans are completely ignoring the impact of the credit crunch. have no fear the Glazers would be in a remarkably similar position had they not gotten their loans in place before this all kicked off. no doubt that DIC and their crudely earned cash will not have the same difficulties, but the malice shown to the American's over what is a completely exogenous variable is completely daft. as is the faith displayed by many towards Benitez (which in my mind is as much an excuse to have a go at the American's than having any sound rationale).

you my friend need to do a bit of checking up on the reaons the americans are so hated.seriously

~Rebel~

PHB wrote: »

But that is all based on the idea that bad PR is bad in of its own. Bad PR is only bad if it has any economic effect, which this didn't.

But, we'll say what if all this had happened at a previous club, before they went in to challenge DIC and try to buy Liverpool. Lets say one of hicks teams fans came out in force against him saying what a horrible crap owner he was, marching against him, demanding the much loved manager be kept, he ignored them and did what he wanted. Would Hicks have had the opportunity to buy Liverpool if this was the case? I very much doubt it.

Considering between them they have 5 teams, theres a good chance they might try buying other teams after LFC. If they have a reputation of putting clubs in debt and not listening to fans, they will probably not be able to buy in so easily, especially if the club is somewhat privately owned like Pool was with Moores as major shareholder.

<edit> pretty much what alan said just before me.

leninbenjamin

Mr Alan wrote: »

you my friend need to do a bit of checking up on the reaons the americans are so hated.seriously

oooh, well that's helpful. is there any reason why you can't provide me with that reason so? have you a dislocated finger that prevents you typing out certain words or something?

zing

Another article from Tony Barrett.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/03/04/tom-hicks-holds-key-to-liverpool-future-100252-20555455/

~Rebel~

leninbenjamin wrote: »

oooh, well that's helpful. is there any reason why you can't provide me with that reason so? have you a dislocated finger that prevents you typing out certain words or something?

well just in particular on the instance you mentioned, with the loans and credit crunch, they promised the fans and Moore's and Parry when they moved in that no Debt would be placed on the club. They have placed more debt then has ever been on the club in Liverpools history.

Melion

Every fúckin morning we have this bollox talk. DIC wont get the club, Rafa will be gone in the summer and G&H will still be in charge. Grow to accept it

~Rebel~

Melion wrote: »

Every fúckin morning we have this bollox talk. DIC wont get the club, Rafa will be gone in the summer and G&H will still be in charge. Grow to accept it

could you give me 6 random numbers there if you dont mind? fancy my chances on the lotto with that forsight!

Melion

~Rebel~ wrote: »

could you give me 6 random numbers there if you dont mind? fancy my chances on the lotto with that forsight!

And you'd have more chance of winning it than DIC have of getting their hands on the club

Melion

Our reserves are playing Bolton tonight, hoping to pull further ahead in the league:

Starting XI
Liverpool team:

Peter Gulacsi
Stephen Darby (Captain)
Emiliano Insua
Mikel San Jose
Daniel Agger
Damien Plessis
Ryan Flynn
Jay Spearing
Jordy Brouwer
Krisztian Nemeth
Ray Putterill

Hopefully Agger gets another 45-60 mins under his belt. And of course a performance from Insua is a certainty at this stage

~Rebel~

Hope Nemeth keeps up his form. Rafa mentioned him either today or yesterday on the official site, saying he think's he could be an important player for the future of LFC. Whatever about the problems with the first team, the youths at the club really do inspire some confidence for the future.

Melion

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Hope Nemeth keeps up his form. Rafa mentioned him either today or yesterday on the official site, saying he think's he could be an important player for the future of LFC. Whatever about the problems with the first team, the youths at the club really do inspire some confidence for the future.

Thats why i think Rafa(if hes in charge) wont go mad spending huge on a striker in the summer

Mr Alan

any word from G&H yet? the longer its going without them commenting, the more excited i'm getting that it may be accepted.

DeadSkin

True we've being havin' this bollox talk every mornin'. And that's what it was, all speculation, was sick of it myself.
But now we have confirmation of a bid put in by DIC.
One yank wants out, t'other says he wants to stay.
There is a nice tidy profit of £25m per yank if they can come to some sort of settlement.
Nice profit and good business in a litle over a year if ya ask me.
So fingers crossed.

Mr Alan

PHB???? have you conceded that the fans protest "may" have had an effect of Rafas position at Liverpool?

Dubit10

Mr Alan wrote: »

wasnt Rafa due to get the sack until the fans protest?

This is correct.The protests made a huge difference.

Dubit10

~Rebel~ wrote: »

could you give me 6 random numbers there if you dont mind? fancy my chances on the lotto with that forsight!

:D:D +1

Mr Alan

DIC bid turned down. **** off Hicks.

Melion

And now for my lotto numbers.........

zing

Mr Alan wrote: »

DIC bid turned down. **** off Hicks.

If it has.. Remember we had reports this morning that there was an ultimatum which was since denied. Hard to know what's going on here - esp as it appears to be a given that Gillet wants out and doesn't want to sell to Hicks if he can avoid it.

Also from what I've seen of the rejections they've both names against them which is in itself odd given that the pair of them haven't put their names against anything together for months and are said to no longer even communicate directly with each other.

Mr Alan

true. doesnt appear to be an official rejection, just "Sky Sports understands" type buzz

Melion

Lads please just let it go. The bid was rejected

Mr Alan

gimme a link so Melion where they've officially rejected it-and it'll be let go

Melion

I just dont see the point in continually pinning our hopes on this when Hicks does NOT want to sell. If this keeps up it is going to affect who we sign in the summer which will affect our performances next season and it will end up just like this year, a waste.

And if DIC were to come in i dont think Rafa would be kept on anyway. How would that go down in Liverpool? We all give out about G&H's treatment of Rafa but how would we react if DIC come in and fire him straight away?

Tusky

And on it goes...

Most likely outcome is Hicks owning 100% of the club. He can barely afford to buy the club, how is he going to fund transfers ?

Tusky

Mr Alan wrote: »

gimme a link so Melion where they've officially rejected it-and it'll be let go

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/soccer/wires/03/04/2080.ap.eu.spt.soc.liverpool.takeover.bid.3rd.ld.0194/index.html

Mr Alan

Tusky wrote: »

The Associated Press has learned.

no mention of them actually rejectin it. just speculation that they have. they also say there was a 24 hr deadline, which there wasnt.

spockety

there is no official release on it.. just an AP article..

Setanta Sports News are reporting that Tom Hicks has said he HAS NOT rejected an official offer, but that he 'remains unwilling to sell'... whatever that means..