Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

Pighead

Rupert Mordoch is to all intents and purposes the Editor in Chief of both papers. For Liverpool fans to boycott The Sun yet proclaim the News of the World to be ok is absolutely ridiculous. Its all or nothing lads.

stick-dan

Pighead wrote: »

From the top of the link I posted.
"Steven Gerrard talks exclusively to the Sport of the World" so no it was not a press conference.

Also when he wrote his autobiography he sold the rights to the News of the World to print extracts from the book. Nice little earner.

Can you name for me the exact paper that liverpool fans refuse to acknowledge??

I think you'll find it's the s*n. I have no problem with the news of the world even with it's links to the s*n..It may be of the same trading group but operates separately as highlighted above by mr.alan what with their different editors, offices,etc..

~Rebel~

Pighead wrote: »

Yeah they often try and mislead you by letting you think its their interview but when they say "Talks Exclusively to" then you know that its definitely their interview.
eg http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0912_gerard.shtml

From your article, the NOTW EXCLUSIVE;

"If you'd told me five minutes after the final whistle against Marseille at Anfield we'd go into the last game knowing a win would secure our qualification, I'd have bitten your hand off at that offer," said the Kop captain.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0912_gerard.shtml

Meanwhile, from the Times;

Gerrard, the captain, said: “If you’d told me five minutes after the final whistle against Marseilles at Anfield that we’d go into the last game knowing a win would secure our qualification, I’d have bitten your hand off.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3026349.ece
Doesn't look quite so exclusive...


But anyway, the issue was never with Murdoch, it was with the Sun's chief Kelvin MacKenzie

stick-dan

Liking the exclusive there all right!!

Mr Alan

Pighead wrote: »

Rupert Mordoch is to all intents and purposes the Editor in Chief of both papers. For Liverpool fans to boycott The Sun yet proclaim the News of the World to be ok is absolutely ridiculous. Its all or nothing lads.

Pighead, you have no idea wat you are talking about my friend.

Its not "all or nothing". For a boycott to be successful, it should focus on one product and boycott that-hence the reason why the boycott of the s*n has been so successful in Liverpool.

Calvin Mc Kenzie is the man whom Liverpool fans hatred is directed at, not Rupert Murdoch.

Do Liverpool fans boycott Sky? No.

Reason? They have no beef with Sky TV or Murdoch, the beef is with Mc Kenzie and the S*n.

Now, i dont buy or read the NOTW, partly because of the links to the S*n, and partly cause its ****e, but there is no "official" boycott of it. I'd prefer if Liverpool players had no dealings with them either, but as i said, its after the S*n newspaper, whatever people wanna boycott is about personal choice.

Pighead

~Rebel~ wrote: »

See this is where they get you. They can say exclusive all they want, but with a quick bit of checking...

From your article, the NOTW EXCLUSIVE;

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0912_gerard.shtml

Meanwhile, from the Times;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3026349.ece
Doesn't look quite so exclusive...

Don't really see what that proves Rebel. To me its fairly obvious that Gerrard gave an exclusive to the NOTW which they printed. After they print it other papers are able to quote pieces from the interview as part of their story.

Now if The Times article had also claimed that their piece was an exclusive then it'd be fair to say that the NOTW were spouting rubbish.

Dub13

The NOTW is the Sunday Sun IMO,I would never buy it.

zing

Pighead wrote: »

Rupert Mordoch is to all intents and purposes the Editor in Chief of both papers. For Liverpool fans to boycott The Sun yet proclaim the News of the World to be ok is absolutely ridiculous. Its all or nothing lads.

Sure Sky Sports is basically just both of them on TV - should that be boycotted too ?

The boycott (not a ban as some people refer to it) is very much specifically against the Sun - not against Murdock or the rest of his media empire.

Pighead

Mr Alan wrote: »

Pighead, you have no idea wat you are talking about my friend.

Its not "all or nothing". For a boycott to be successful, it should focus on one product and boycott that-hence the reason why the boycott of the s*n has been so successful in Liverpool.

Calvin Mc Kenzie is the man whom Liverpool fans hatred is directed at, not Rupert Murdoch.

Do Liverpool fans boycott Sky? No.

Reason? They have no beef with Sky TV or Murdoch, the beef is with Mc Kenzie and the S*n.

Now, i dont buy or read the NOTW, partly because of the links to the S*n, and partly cause its ****e, but there is no "official" boycott of it. I'd prefer if Liverpool players had no dealings with them either, but as i said, its after the S*n newspaper, whatever people wanna boycott is about personal choice.

Thats ridiculous! They have a beef with McKenzie who left the paper 15 years ago yet they have no beef with Murdoch who's been overseeing the paper since its inception.

event

bang!

and the dirt is gone

alan answered the question already

zing

Pighead wrote: »

Thats ridiculous! They have a beef with McKenzie who left the paper 15 years ago yet they have no beef with Murdoch who's been overseeing the paper since its inception.

ridiculous in your eyes but that's the way it is. Maybe it is irrational but then hatred (towards McKenzie/The Sun) is often irrational. Also it's not just Liverpool fans - sure it's predominantly reds but the people of Liverpool/Merseyside were collectively tarnished that day by the Sun and many blues also boycott the paper

Pighead

event wrote: »

Mr Alan, what do you yourself think of the NOTW and the Sun, do you class them yourself as being linked?

Mr Alan has to consult the Liverpool message boards and the HJC before he gives you his opinion. They do his thinking for him. Very handy.

He'll be with you in a minute.

~Rebel~

Pighead wrote: »

Thats ridiculous! They have a beef with McKenzie who left the paper 15 years ago yet they have no beef with Murdoch who's been overseeing the paper since its inception.

To be fair, it was McKenzie who gave the go ahead for that headline as the editor, despite the author of the piece telling him there was no basis for any of it. Murdoch forced the paper to print a retraction and apology. Now i hate murdoch, but the act was carried by the sun and most likely had nothing to do with Murdoch in any direct way bar his ownership. As was mentioned if the NOTW is to be strictly boycotted then so too is skysports, theres no difference there. Despite the NOTW effectivly being a "sunday sun" (in that its under the same umbrella and offers the same style of content), it IS a seperate paper with seperate staff. I wouldn't read either to be honest, but the Sun is the one that bears the boycott.

Mr Alan

Pighead wrote: »

Mr Alan has to consult the Liverpool message boards and the HJC before he gives you his opinion. They do his thinking for him. Very handy.

He'll be with you in a minute.

I have a ****ing job Pighead. As much as I would like to be able to answer your queries immediately, unfortunately i cannot.

And as Event said, i already answered his question.

And Pighead, as far as i am aware, McKenzie writes for the S*n still a couple of days a week, but obviously i cant confirm that as i dont read it

and the HJC's stance on this is quite important. Owen and Gerrard both consulted it before doing any business with the NOTW.

ob

stick-dan wrote: »

Thus why he should not make inappropriate comments about our current manager

You are entitled to think they are inappropriate, but not everybody shares your opinion, so maybe he should make comments like that.

stick-dan wrote: »

Some of the fans would take truth from his stupid comments and begin to doubt rafa.

Again, your opinion on the comments. Many of us have doubted Rafa well before Souness voiced any opinions.

zing

Mr Alan wrote: »

and the HJC's stance on this is quite important. Owen and Gerrard both consulted it before doing any business with the NOTW.

Bascombe also consulted with them before accepting a job with the NotW.

There was an interesting documentary on bbc (I think) a year or 2 back which followed the then (current ?) editor of the s*n to Liverpool to meet with the HJC/HFSG and try and put this behind everyone for once and for all. I remember watching it and he seemed to be going fine until he basically told them that if the families accepted an apology from them then the S*n would pledge X amount towards the campaign - in other words he tried to buy an apology which didn't go down too well. On the other hand if he'd apologised and made a no strings attached donation to the cause then he'd probably have gotten a very different reaction. It may or may not have been accepted but good will goes a long way towards forgiveness.

Pighead

~Rebel~ wrote: »

To be fair, it was McKenzie who gave the go ahead for that headline as the editor, despite the author of the piece telling him there was no basis for any of it. Murdoch forced the paper to print a retraction and apology. Now i hate murdoch, but the act was carried by the sun and most likely had nothing to do with Murdoch in any direct way bar his ownership. As was mentioned if the NOTW is to be strictly boycotted then so too is skysports, theres no difference there. Despite the NOTW effectivly being a "sunday sun" (in that its under the same umbrella and offers the same style of content), it IS a seperate paper with seperate staff. I wouldn't read either to be honest, but the Sun is the one that bears the boycott.

From what I've read, Liverpool fans do think that Murdoch had something to do with giving the go ahead for the story. Yer man John mac is always banging on about how Murdoch is just as much to blame for the whole thing.

lpool2k05

More Breaking News regarding Hicks and DIC


http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N159122080310-1724.htm


Goodbye DIC?

~Rebel~

Pighead wrote: »

From what I've read, Liverpool fans do think that Murdoch had something to do with giving the go ahead for the story. Yer man John mac is always banging on about how Murdoch is just as much to blame for the whole thing.

The bottom line of all this is do YOU really think that 2 liverpool born and bred players would do anything they felt was against this boycott? Honestly? We can argue about this all day, but to be honest I think Carra and Gerrard have more sense, and enough money to not do something that would enrage pretty much everyone they know in the city. I have faith that they wouldn't have done anything they ever thought would go against that boycott, and to be honest its only common sense, they know the ins and outs of it much better then any of us can, they grew up surrounded by LFC.


Thought id just point it was this;

Pighead wrote: »

Mr Alan wrote: »

also bit rich, his talking about the "liverpool way" when he sold his story to that rag.

Rafa has more of the "Liverpool way" running through the veins in his little finger than Souness does in his whole body.

Steven Gerrard is always selling his stories to that rag. Do you have a problem with him not doing it the "Liverpool Way"?

which started this discussion, a statement which from the off was wrong.

Mr Alan

Pighead wrote: »

Yer man John mac is always banging on about how Murdoch is just as much to blame for the whole thing.

LOL, i'll tell ya now, John Mac does not view the NOTW and The S*n as the same thing. And even if he did, he is only another fan, granted he has excellent contacts at the club etc that would all mean nothing when it came to how he viewed a newspaper.

Mr Alan

Just **** off Hicks!!!!!!

~Rebel~

Mr Alan wrote: »

Just **** off Hicks!!!!!!

Agh, just read the .tv front page. Fcking asshole! Why won't he just accept something that will make him even richer and leave us alone! Fcktard.

Tom Hicks, co-owner of Kop Football (Holdings) Limited and, through it, of Liverpool Football Club, today issued the following statement.

"Based on a meeting held earlier today in Dubai between my representatives and officials of Dubai International Capital LLC, as well as other recent contacts between us and them, I have decided to terminate any further discussions with DIC regarding their possible purchase of a minority stake in Kop and, in turn, in the Club.

"DIC made it clear that if they invested in the Club, they would want it to be managed by committee. Based on my thirteen years of successful experience as an owner of professional sports teams, and based in particular on the situation at Liverpool Football Club over the past year, it is clear to me that such a committee approach would not be in the best interest of Kop, of the Club or of the Club's loyal and passionate supporters.

"Accordingly, I have decided to exercise my right under the Kop Football (Holdings) Limited partnership agreement to veto any sale of any portion of Kop and the Club to DIC.

"I and my colleagues and representatives will continue to explore a number of other options with regard to the ownership of Kop and the Club aimed at achieving an appropriate ownership, financial and organizational structure for Kop and the Club over the long term."

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N159122080310-1724.htm


Pighead, i've decided im giving you some of the blame for this for bringin negativity onto the thread!

Pighead

Mr Alan wrote: »

LOL, i'll tell ya now, John Mac does not view the NOTW and The S*n as the same thing. And even if he did, he is only another fan, granted he has excellent contacts at the club etc that would all mean nothing when it came to how he viewed a newspaper.

Never said he viewed them as the same thing. Said he thought Murdoch was party to running the story. Heres what he wrote.

"I have no doubt that as proprietor of the rag and part of the establishment, Rupert Murdoch was party to the decision to run this story. Make no mistake the boycott of The S*n hits Murdoch. Some people ask shouldn't we boycott all of Murdoch's media interests? The fact is that other arms of his media empire did not attack Liverpool fans in the same way as The S*n, so to extend the boycot to these organisations would be seen as unfair. To extend the boycott only serves to dilute it and weaken its effectiveness."

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Pighead, i've decided im giving you some of the blame for this for bring negativity onto the thread!

Lol, sorry bout that Rebel! I'll piss off now from this thread for a couple of days. Maybe Hicks will change his mind!

Mr Alan

i'm really starting to fear we are ****ed.

whatawaster

Hicks is a Cnut.

~Rebel~

Mr Alan wrote: »

i'm really starting to fear we are ****ed.

+1

Worst thing is theres not a fucking thing we can do about it.

Mr Alan

Pighead wrote: »

Never said he viewed them as the same thing. Said he thought Murdoch was party to running the story. Heres what he wrote.

"I have no doubt that as proprietor of the rag and part of the establishment, Rupert Murdoch was party to the decision to run this story. Make no mistake the boycott of The S*n hits Murdoch. Some people ask shouldn't we boycott all of Murdoch's media interests? The fact is that other arms of his media empire did not attack Liverpool fans in the same way as The S*n, so to extend the boycot to these organisations would be seen as unfair. To extend the boycott only serves to dilute it and weaken its effectiveness."

First off-do you appreciate the irony of slating me about "consulting" messages boards official stances and then going and getting that post to back up you point?

And second of all, have you ****ing read the post you quoted!?!?!

it sums up wat i've said, dont like the NOTW, but there is no official boycott!! ****s sake pighead.

zing

What a c#@^ - would you ever just F#)! OFF Hicks. Hopefully this will just see DIC go after Gillet's whole stake. They were understood to have found a way around his veto but compromised to avoid dragging it out and instead bring stability to the club.

Melion

Has anyone else thought of this?

Gillett sells his 49% to DIC, DIC have a stake in the club, pump money in and let it be known that its their money. Eventually Hicks will have enough of it and then go away.

~Rebel~

and what the **** is this supposed to mean;

DIC made it clear that if they invested in the Club, they would want it to be managed by committee.

So effectively he wants the board to have no power. I could understand if the person who is in charge, was the right man for the job, but that fucktard has shown time and time again in his dealings and the handling of his dealings that he's the absolute Worst person to be in total charge of the club!

Pighead

Mr Alan wrote: »

First off-do you appreciate the irony of slating me about "consulting" messages boards official stances and then going and getting that post to back up you point?

And second of all, have you ****ing read the post you quoted!?!?!

it sums up wat i've said, dont like the NOTW, but there is no official boycott!! ****s sake pighead.

Jesus Mr Alan do you even read other peoples posts?

I'll bbreak down slowly what just happened between us.

1/ Rebel said he didn't think Murdoch had anything to do with breaking the Hillsborough story.

2/ I said yer man John Mac reckons Murdoch did have something to do with breaking it.

3/ You came blustering in half arsed as usual and say " LOL Pighead I'll tell you now John Mac doesn't view The Sun and The News of the World as the same thing".

4/ Puzzled, I reply saying "Eh yeah I know I never said he did. I then told you what I did say and quoted the piece that he wrote which is what I was talking about.

5/ You come back and say "Jesus Pighead you're such a spanner, I was right you were wrong face it buddy na na na na na "

quarryman

Mr Alan wrote: »

i'm really starting to fear we are ****ed.

This stuff is hilarious. How exactly are you ****ed?

Liverpool are sitting in 4th place in position for next year's Champ league.
They are in good condition to win the current European cup.
They are on an excellent run of form.

You'd swear you were in the relegation zone in admin.

A little perspective is required.

~Rebel~

Pighead wrote: »

Jesus Mr Alan do you even read other peoples posts?

I'll bbreak down slowly what just happened between us.

1/ Rebel said he didn't think Murdoch had anything to do with breaking the Hillsborough story.

2/ I said yer man John Mac reckons Murdoch did have something to do with breaking it.

3/ You came blustering in half arsed as usual and say " LOL Pighead I'll tell you now John Mac doesn't view The Sun and The News of the World as the same thing".

4/ Puzzled, I reply saying "Eh yeah I know I never said he did. I then told you what I did say and quoted the piece that he wrote which is what I was talking about.

5/ You come back and say "Jesus Pighead you're such a spanner, I was right you were wrong face it buddy na na na na na "

that post you put up a min ago did still effectively end the argument that the boycott does not extend to the NOTW and that nobody has done anything wrong, so case closed - good man Detective Pighead, now fuck off with your bad karma!



Melion, DIC at the moment cant buy that 49% without Hicks consent. As it stands, unless they can actually find some way around Hicks veto, the DIC deal is dead in the water.

~Rebel~

quarryman wrote: »

This stuff is hilarious. How exactly are you ****ed?

Liverpool are sitting in 4th place in position for next year's Champ league.
They are in good condition to win the current European cup.
They are on an excellent run of form.

You'd swear you were in the relegation zone in admin.

A little perspective is required.

We're still pretty fcked relative to how we could have been if that asshole had just gone through with the deal. We've just gone from a position of being wiped clean of debt by DIC, to the guarantee of 600million (+interest) debt being placed on the club within the next 2years.

There is still a decent chance of this move being back on the cards in around 15months when Hicks has to try and renegotiate the outstanding 350mill debt, as well as secure another 300mill, that is if he even plans on building the new stadium (shovel still hasn't broken dirt)

quarryman

exactly. far from fcuked.

step into a Leeds fans shoes for a day and you guys wouldn't be whinging as much.

Fact is, its a solid club that will eventually find the right buyer. Be greatful for Torres is what I say.

whatawaster

this veto business is ridiculous. Effectively, it can mean one of the partners might be unable to ever sell their share to anyone. How could Gillet get himself into a position whereby he might have no way out.

~Rebel~

quarryman wrote: »

exactly. far from fcuked.

step into a Leeds fans shoes for a day and you guys wouldn't be whinging as much.

Fact is, its a solid club that will eventually find the right buyer. Be greatful for Torres is what I say.

Christ, there's always a worse position to be in like, regardless, we've still just gone from a potential probable position of being able to challenge with solid investment and free of debt, to a position of guarantee'd debt under the guidance of a chairman who frankly, while a good businessman in the selfish sense, should obviously not be in charge of the club, when he clearly only ever has his own interests at heart.

With your argument, i can just as easily say you've no right to be unhappy about leeds situation, sur a meteor could have crashed down on Ellend Road and killed everyone, destroying the club forever, so chin up old boy. We're all allowed to be pissed off when something bad happens even if its not the worst thing possible.

Mr Alan

Pighead wrote: »

Jesus Mr Alan do you even read other peoples posts?.

Occassionally.

Pighead wrote: »

I'll bbreak down slowly what just happened between us.

Thank you

Pighead wrote: »

2/ I said yer man John Mac reckons Murdoch did have something to do with breaking it.

JohnnyMac is just a Liverpool fan like any of us, doubt he has many sources that were there at the time within the walls of News Incorporate or watever the **** they're called. When it comes to club news, there is no better source, but! wat we are talking about? all he can ever give is his opinion-no one has to agree with it.

Pighead wrote: »

You came blustering in half arsed as usual and say " LOL Pighead I'll tell you now John Mac doesn't view The Sun and The News of the World as the same thing".

Because you were using JohnnyMacs opinion as an attempt to strenghten your "NOTW and S*n are the same" argument. That players are ***** for talking to the NOTW etc etc.

When in actual fact the post you quoted from RAOTL (presumably?) strenghtens the point i was making all along and you were denying-ie:that the S*n and the NOTW are different papers and there is only a boycott on one.The S*n.

It was also quite hilarious that you did that considering you only a couple of minutes previous accused me of getting my opinions from forums and having to consult them when answering questions here. Then you next response being. . . . . "well johnnymac said blah blah blah"

See rebels post as to how this whole conversation started-

it started with you talking nonsense and has continued that way pretty much since.

You said Gerrard sells his story all the time to the S*n. He doesnt.

This conversation is over for me pighead. I get it, you dont like me. fair enough.

Jesus Wept

Nunu wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR8EU8UaHZo

Interviewer: I'm told you're already selling more shirts than Stevie?
Torres: That's because everyone in Liverpool already owns Stevie's shirt!

class.

Pighead wrote: »

Lol, sorry bout that Rebel! I'll piss off now Pighead will piss off now from this thread for a couple of days. Maybe Hicks will change his mind!

FYP PIGGY.

mike65

You always know when something bad has happened - RAWK won't load.

Hicks really is a persistant pain in the ass. I'd say the point has now been reached where he won't sell just to be a nusiance. I think Liverpool are stuck with him (as sole "owner") for a while yet.

Mike.

zing

event wrote: »

bang!

and the dirt is gone

Any chance that sh!t would work on Hicks too ?

stick-dan

ob wrote: »

You are entitled to think they are inappropriate, but not everybody shares your opinion, so maybe he should make comments like that.


Again, your opinion on the comments. Many of us have doubted Rafa well before Souness voiced any opinions.

point taken:rolleyes:

guess i'm one of those annoying fans who decided to support our manager

Mr Velo

mike65 wrote: »

You always know when something bad has happened - RAWK won't load.

Hicks really is a persistant pain in the ass. I'd say the point has now been reached where he won't sell just to be a nusiance. I think Liverpool are stuck with him (as sole "owner") for a while yet.

Mike.

Yep - fully agree.
RAWK has gone into meltdown. Really can't believe that Hicks won't just sell the fcuk up and get out. The guy isn't wanted and its beyond me how he can justify sticking around. He no longer attends games - cos he knows full well the implications of that - so what is the damn point of owning the club.

Take your profit and fcuk off Hicks!:mad::mad:

jesus_thats_gre

Gillet wants to sell, that much is obvious and he is entitled to do so.. In order to sell, Hicks seems to have first option on buying. If he doesn't want to or can't buy, he has to give his approval to whoever Gillet lines up as a buyer. Being in a position to approve the new buyer effectively means he can veto the sale.

If there is only one buyer interested and said buyer remains interested and Hicks is unable to buy the other half, you would have to wonder how long he can basically go about preventing Gillet from selling his stake. Can he basically prevent Gillet from ever selling his stake? This does not seem to have been touched on by any papers for some reason.

DIC are holding out for equal control of the club but Hicks doesn't want this. He wants to have full control over things. DIC are obviously holding their ground but so is Hicks. Someone will have to stand down for things to advance. I am guessing that he wants a large bundle of cash.

NotWormBoy

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

DIC are holding out for equal control of the club but Hicks doesn't want this. He wants to have full control over things. DIC are obviously holding their ground but so is Hicks. Someone will have to stand down for things to advance. I am guessing that he wants a large bundle of cash.

Now all we need are a thousand supporters to come up with about a grand each and they can give him the million to shag off.

Stky10

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Gillet wants to sell, that much is obvious and he is entitled to do so.. In order to sell, Hicks seems to have first option on buying. If he doesn't want to or can't buy, he has to give his approval to whoever Gillet lines up as a buyer. Being in a position to approve the new buyer effectively means he can veto the sale.

If there is only one buyer interested and said buyer remains interested and Hicks is unable to buy the other half, you would have to wonder how long he can basically go about preventing Gillet from selling his stake. Can he basically prevent Gillet from ever selling his stake? This does not seem to have been touched on by any papers for some reason.

DIC are holding out for equal control of the club but Hicks doesn't want this. He wants to have full control over things. DIC are obviously holding their ground but so is Hicks. Someone will have to stand down for things to advance. I am guessing that he wants a large bundle of cash.

Apparently (ie take with a few grains of salt), from reading forums most of the weekend, it considered that the clause that one partner can veto the other selling their shares isn't legally watertight. There is a fairly strong chance that in court it would be overturned. However for DIC to go ahead with this would probably mean a court case they weren't 100% certain to win, so thats why they were willing to go along with the 49% option. Now that that has been in effect rejected, it may mean them going back to that first option and trying to force through the purchase of the full 50% (ie all Gillett's share).

This could get very messy for Hicks. I'm thinking that all it would take to create a fan boycott would be the likes of Dalglish to come out in support of it. If the level of farce continues will Rafa and some of the players walk as well. And DIC aren't people to mess with I'd imagine. They've way more influence and money than Redneck Tom

Mr Alan

mike65 wrote: »

You always know when something bad has happened - RAWK won't load.

Mike! wat have i told ya about that site!?!? :eek:;)

~Rebel~

Soon as i left work about 6ish, i flicked onto BBC5live in the car, they were talking about hicks and liverpool. Whatever guy they had on, he was saying he was sure this was Hicks playing hardball, that his sources in DIC were far from thinking this deal was finished and that this was just another twist and Hicks decided to bring into the public forum for whatever reason...

There surely has to be Something where Gilette can get out of this deal, because it makes no sense that he's simply trapped indefinitely...I dunno, just soo pissed off with this whole thing, why must everything be so fcking complicated?!

Mr Alan

i blame Pighead.

zing

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Soon as i left work about 6ish, i flicked onto BBC5live in the car, they were talking about hicks and liverpool. Whatever guy they had on, he was saying he was sure this was Hicks playing hardball, that his sources in DIC were far from thinking this deal was finished and that this was just another twist and Hicks decided to bring into the public forum for whatever reason...

Have been thinking about it since I first saw the news and have come to a similar conclusion. This is all just part of the courtship. Hicks is simply trying to get DIC to compromise and weaken their position again. I'd love for DIC/Gillet to pursue the legal option over the veto Hicks/Gillet appear to have over each other but that's just dragging the club through the courts and who wants that.