Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

Tusky

I just watched that documentary. I really cant believe (as someone has already said) that Souness was badmouthing Rafas tactics at a dinner with three currently serving players..! So disrespectful.

Mr Alan

i know people probably dont wanna hear this, but i think getting knocked out of the CL and finishing outside the top 4 might be needed in order to get this ****er to sell up.

greater good and all that

jesus_thats_gre

Yeah, thats it...............

Thanx 4 The Fish

That is far from the greater good. That would be the worst season I could imagine and I would imagine that all he would do would be to use it as an excuse not to build the new stadium.

Mr Alan

yea but, it also would make us a much much much less attractive proposition for him to make any attempt to take sole ownership. i'd bet that if that season happened, he'd sell up in the summer. and it'd be worth it to get rid to be honest.

Dubit10

Yeah.this news makes my day:mad:

oobydooby

Dunno if this is heresy but five good results on the trot and I couldn't care less about who owns the club. I just can't understand how these two lads can make such a massive profit so quickly with little appreciation of the club. If I really got into it, I'd blame the clowns who sold it. Imagine if the fans could have bought it and made 30% profit instantly.

Tusky wrote: »

I just watched that documentary. I really cant believe (as someone has already said) that Souness was badmouthing Rafas tactics at a dinner with three currently serving players..! So disrespectful.

As was pointed out before too, these are very humble lads, especially Torres who seems destined for superstardom. While I don't strongly disagree with Souness' views and I'm happy he's not bland, it would have been awful if one of these lads had said something in reply that could be manipulated by the anti-Liverpool media. Also, in front of the cameras Souness should support Rafa or change the topic.

Brilliant documentary, thanks for posting Nunu I'd meant to watch that.

Mr Alan

oobydooby wrote: »

Dunno if this is heresy but five good results on the trot and I couldn't care less about who owns the club.

you're right, that is heresy:mad:

Dubit10

Can now see DIC turning there attention to Newcastle or another mid table nothing club and turning them into genuine contenders:mad: I hope not but i fear the worst:mad:

PiE

I still blame Parry for all this.

_blank_

Everton would be prime targets imo.

Newky were just bought by a crazy millionaire fan.
Villa have already sold their soul to Amercans.
Man City owned by Shinawatra.
Arse/ManYoo/Chelsea already bought.

~Rebel~

DesF wrote: »

Everton would be prime targets imo.

Newky were just bought by a crazy millionaire fan.
Villa have already sold their soul to Amercans.
Man City owned by Shinawatra.
Arse/ManYoo/Chelsea already bought.

nice Des, way to suggest pretty much the only thing that could make me more depressed from a football pov!

Dubit10

PiE wrote: »

I still blame Parry for all this.

Parry will not be able to set foot in anfield if we dont get forth place this year.If we dont then i can see us begin to sell players (Gerrard,torres:() and then the long road to obscurity will have started.Football is all about money now and if you dont have it you wont win jack s**t. Sad but true:(

Dubit10

Everton.Please no:eek: I'd be gutted

_blank_

~Rebel~ wrote: »

nice Des, way to suggest pretty much the only thing that could make me more depressed from a football pov!

heh, just realised.

Be funny if it happened though:)

If it does happen, please don't lynch me please, Thread Regulars.

zing

Al Ansari (head of DIC) is the driving force behind this bid - he's been a red for years. After investing so much time & money over the last 18 months or so I just can't see them walking away now and certainly not turning their attention to another club in the short term. This is just another twist in the saga. e.g. BBC have this to say

But BBC Radio 5 Live's football correspondent Jonathan Legard understands that DIC will not be deterred from their interest in Liverpool.

"DIC are not discouraged and the show will go on," said Legard. "There are plenty more twists and turns to come."

Also Liverpool is the 3rd largest population center in england and I've read reports of plans by the UK gov to invest billions in the region over the next few years to further enhance it. That's the kind of investment opportunity that DIC would love to get in on.

Stky10

DesF wrote: »

heh, just realised.

Be funny if it happened though:)

If it does happen, please don't lynch me please, Thread Regulars.

Well you never know, stranger things have happened and it would be the ultimate "up yours" to Hicks, but I can't see it happening for two reasons

- Al Ansari is a liverpool fan
- DIC want a brand name not a football club per se, if they wanted a football club they could buy the likes of Reading for a comparitive pittance and build them up. Everton don't have "brand" no matter how they'd like to think they do. If they don't get Liverpool I think they'll go abroad to Spain or Italy

_blank_

Do you not think that if the "Brand Name" clubs in Italy or Spain were actually for sale, then some Americans would already be in there?

Milan? Burlesconi.

Barca? The fans.

etc etc.

gucci

DesF wrote: »

Do you not think that if the "Brand Name" clubs in Italy or Spain were actually for sale, then some Americans would already be in there?

Milan? Burlesconi.

Barca? The fans.

etc etc.

How is Serie A and La Liga marketed in USA/Asia? (i don't know i have never been!:))

Would they Americans rather buy into English teams because they are seen as more glamorous in USA than a large Italian team?

Chardee MacDennis

gucci wrote: »

How is Serie A and La Liga marketed in USA/Asia? (i don't know i have never been!:))

Would they Americans rather buy into English teams because they are seen as more glamorous in USA than a large Italian team?

i would be pretty sure the language barrier is enough to turn away most americans including the richest ones!

_blank_

gucci wrote: »

How is Serie A and La Liga marketed in USA/Asia? (i don't know i have never been!:))

Would they Americans rather buy into English teams because they are seen as more glamorous in USA than a large Italian team?

La Liga is quite big in the Southern states where Spanish is spoken by more than 75% of people in some places. Go to California, Florida etc and you'll see a lot of dual-language signage (Spanish/English).

I's imagine Serie A would have some kind of following among the Italian contingent in the Northern States, especially teams from Sicily

Call_me_al wrote: »

i would be pretty sure the language barrier is enough to turn away most americans including the richest ones!

Language barrier?

rofl, the majority of people interested in soccer in the US are Spanish speakers.

Dubit10

Funny that there has been no response from DIC yet Hope it may be that they are considering there opitions legally speaking. Back to on the field matters.Hopefully all this rubbish will not affect the performance tonight.It's vital we play an attacking formation and get the away goal.Cant see Inter scoring 4 against us no matter who we play at the back.Fingers crossed the masch is fit and ready for action tonight,Should be a great atmosphere.Got a text from my mate last night in milan and he said there is good banter between both sets of fans.Inter fans buying scousers drinks thanking them for 05 champions league win.apparently they hate AC in the same way we hate Man yoo.:)

shotamoose

Just watching that Michael Robinson documentary now (thanks for posting, Nunu!), and yes, Souness is a prick and a windbag. But I loved this line from Torres:

Liverpool es un club de la gente, los demás estamos de paso

Liverpool is a people's club, the rest of us are just guests here

zing

Dubit10 wrote: »

Funny that there has been no response from DIC yet

There is unlikely to be a public response from them - in fact I was kinda surprised there were any public comments from them in relation to this at all. Just doesn't seem to be their normal way of doing things.

Only Hicks has terminated talks. Until we see statements from DIC that they've withdrawn their offer and from Gillet that he's rejected the offer then the deal isn't dead. Also remember Hicks may be talking about bringing in other investors but Gillet will have the same veto on those investors that Hicks claims to have. Hicks might like to think he's calling all the shots here but he's just one of 3 parties involved.

Chardee MacDennis

DesF wrote: »

Language barrier?

rofl, the majority of people interested in soccer in the US are Spanish speakers.

yeh and they have loads of money and are definitely worth marketing too! in fact there is only one Mexican owner in the MLS out of 14 clubs - so why bother bringing La Liga to poor Mexicans (and other less well off spanish speaking nationalities), they have no relationship with Spain but the language as well.

unlike the Italians but as far as I could tell when I lived in San Fran they dont pay too much attention to football unless Italy are playing and the game is easy (accesibility wise) to watch.

so pick your patronising a$$ up off the floor...

PHB

DIC owning Everton is not a good situation for them. I wish people would get this into their head, foreign ownership in that sense is bad for the club!

DIC are only a better evil than G&H, but they will still try to strip the club dry of its money. The advantage however is that they will be able to build a new stadium and not link the club with huge debts. They will act like G&H in pretty much every other way.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

DIC owning Everton is not a good situation for them. I wish people would get this into their head, foreign ownership in that sense is bad for the club!

DIC are only a better evil than G&H, but they will still try to strip the club dry of its money. The advantage however is that they will be able to build a new stadium and not link the club with huge debts. They will act like G&H in pretty much every other way.

I'm not suggesting that foreign ownership is a good thing for Everton, but could they resist it, really?

Themselves and Blackburn would seem to the the "next in line" for a big rich investor to get behind them.

If DIC want into the EPL, either of these clubs wouldn't be a bad bet, imo.

If DIC get pissed off with the Scouse Yanks and just tell them to stuff it.

hamnegg

PHB wrote: »

DIC are only a better evil than G&H, but they will still try to strip the club dry of its money. The advantage however is that they will be able to build a new stadium and not link the club with huge debts. They will act like G&H in pretty much every other way.

Agreed. But is there any other way these days??

zing

PHB - I love the way you've lumped all foreign owners into the 'bad owners' category which implies that local/domestic owners wouldn't be bad for a club. You've got to look no further than Villa for an example of where the opposite seems to be true.

Whether or not DIC would be good owners of any club remains to be seen. First time round I was cautious of them - the whole investment house side of it didn't sit well with me. However given the mess the Gillet & Hicks partnership has turned into I welcome DIC with open arms this time round as they're the only other option.

PHB

zing wrote: »

PHB - I love the way you've lumped all foreign owners into the 'bad owners' category which implies that local/domestic owners wouldn't be bad for a club. You've got to look no further than Villa for an example of where the opposite seems to be true.

I specificall said in that sense, in the sense of the owner being a business man out to make money, which DIC are.

Whether or not DIC would be good owners of any club remains to be seen. First time round I was cautious of them - the whole investment house side of it didn't sit well with me. However given the mess the Gillet & Hicks partnership has turned into I welcome DIC with open arms this time round as they're the only other option.

They are only better than G&H. They are still terrible.
They will increase ticket prices as much as they possibly can.
They will restrict wages as much as they can.
They will decrease the transfer budget as much as they can.

English owners in general aren't as bad, as they aren't as successful business, and perhaps have a sense of where the bounary is. The foreign owners don't. [like charging youth players who actually played in the earlier rounds of the league cup for their tickets to the final]

If you get a foreign owner, all you can do is hope for a couple of things
A. They won't saddle you with depth
B. They will realise that in order to succedd you have to invest in players and wages in order to keep up
C. They will pick the right managers

DIC seem to be A, whether or not they are B is open to question, and C you can really only judge in the long term.
Liverpool have the addition caveat of wanting a new stadium, which DIC can provide with debt, which is impressive enough.

Liverpool fans by in large were innocent of the evils of G&H, thought that they wouldn't be like the Glaziers. Little did they know, they were similar to the Glaziers, except more incompetent than them. Now they are willing to accept a competent Glaziers who will wipe the debt, which removes the risk of the club going under, but in all practices, results in the same policies. Instead of DIC paying interest, they will be taking profits.

zing

DIC wanted a fans representitive on the board with typical board member voting rights ?
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/03/11/reds-owner-rejects-fans-in-boardroom-100252-20604824/

That just smells a little bit like showing a red rag to a bull - no way Hicks was going to entertain that.

PHB

DIC are just softening up the ground so that the fans will not see them as the enemy, and welcome them in, without any sort of financial boycott.

Still, the way its looking, Hicks is just trying to get as much as possible out of DIC, and at some point, DIC are gona look at the cost benefits analysis and just tell him to **** off. Hicks will then have to decide what to do, but he obviously still feels its possible to go it alone.

yom 1

PHB wrote: »

..... Hicks will then have to decide what to do, but he obviously still feels its possible to go it alone.

But how is it possible? He struggled to get the money for the refinancing deal. So where does he get the money to buy Gillett out(roughly 250m) and then 300m odd on top of that to fund the stadium. Then he has to consider refinancing again in 16 months time. This is without any money being invested in players?

Quick question......

Does anyone know whether the fans boycott of merchandising/shops is still happening?

hamnegg

yom 1 wrote: »

Quick question......

Does anyone know whether the fans boycott of merchandising/shops is still happening?

Was at the Sunderland game and they were handing out leaflets to boycott it.

Boro game it was all quiet again. Not sure what the craic is if it has died down.

This all is very similiar to Man Utd and the Glazers. They don't seem to be doing too bad!! 70 million on players last year. Very little sold to cover that. Benetez on the other hand had a bit of a clearout,

PHB

hamnegg wrote: »

This all is very similiar to Man Utd and the Glazers. They don't seem to be doing too bad!! 70 million on players last year. Very little sold to cover that. Benetez on the other hand had a bit of a clearout,

That figure is a very very very false figure. United's net spend in the 3 years since the Glaziers took over has been about 10-12 million a year.

Last year, the net spend was 22 million, (Hargreaves 17, Nani 15, Anderson 17, Tevez 2 [he's on loan don't forget] Then minus - Howard, 3, Jones 1, Smith, 6, Rossi 7, Richardson 5.5, Heinze 7] Indeed Liverpools net spend was roughly the same last year, at about 25 million.
These are inflated though, as United bought Hargreaves money from the previous season, and the new owners were trying to make an impression. I can't imagine the net spends of those clubs will be higher next year.

In the three years since the Glaziers have taken over, it's been a total net spend of about 28 million, about 9 million a year. That's in contrast to the 23 net spend average for the previous 3 years.

The owners will do whatever they can to get down transfer budgets.

--

Whether or not DIC would be good owners of any club remains to be seen. First time round I was cautious of them - the whole investment house side of it didn't sit well with me. However given the mess the Gillet & Hicks partnership has turned into I welcome DIC with open arms this time round as they're the only other option.

I've no idea to be honest. But to be honest, the credit crunch while damaging to them, can be overstated. Once they get the club back on stable football irrespective of the stadium, which they seem to be close to doing, it shouldn't be a huge issue for them to get investment loans in order to cover the costs of the stadium, as they can just guarantee them against future ticket sales.
The problem is with the current debts they have, and getting them to low cost debts.

zing

PHB wrote: »

DIC are just softening up the ground so that the fans will not see them as the enemy, and welcome them in, without any sort of financial boycott.

But they don't need to soften the ground - Hicks is seen as the bad guy and they know it. Their playing a pr game to make sure the fans are 100% behind them. They'll supposedly even have people traveling with supporters for the game today (and I bet they didn't need to meet the minimum away match criteria for tickets )

Still, the way its looking, Hicks is just trying to get as much as possible out of DIC, and at some point, DIC are gona look at the cost benefits analysis and just tell him to **** off. Hicks will then have to decide what to do, but he obviously still feels its possible to go it alone.

From what I've picked up from various articles (yeah I know they're hardly definitive) & public statements over the last week or so... It's believed that the agreement between Gillet & Hicks gives each other 90 days to come up with the $$$ to match any offer made for either of their stake in the club. After that they are free to sell. Hicks is said to have written to DIC/Gillet last week saying that he couldn't buy Gillet out and would not legally oppose DIC buying out Gillet. No doubt that had conditions attached to it such as selling on 1% to him, etc.. We do not know when that 90 days kicked in or if it has yet - it's presumably dependent on the offer formally being made in writing rather than based on ongoing discussions. However that letter from Hicks may nullify the 90 days but who knows. It'll be interesting to see Hicks try and match that offer. It's believed that he's been trying to get investors to buy into his Hicks Sports Group which in turns owns his stakes in the various teams/franchises/etc.. That's really the only way he can go it alone. And then Gillet can presumably say no - I'm not selling after all.

Then there is this supposed veto which from what we understand, from a legal pov, has to be based on the would be buyers being unsuitable in some way rather than him or Gillet just not liking the look of them. There's not many courts that would consider DIC to be unsuitable owners/part owners of any company - and as mentioned Hicks has supposedly already indicated his willingness to do business with them (albeit with conditions) which would further strengthen DICs position if it went to the legal route.

Can't see a quick resolution to this but can't see DIC walking away yet when it's still all to play for.

hamnegg

PHB wrote: »

That figure is a very very very false figure. United's net spend in the 3 years since the Glaziers took over has been about 10-12 million a year.

Last year, the net spend was 22 million, (Hargreaves 17, Nani 15, Anderson 17, Tevez 2 [he's on loan don't forget] Then minus - Howard, 3, Jones 1, Smith, 6, Rossi 7, Richardson 5.5, Heinze 7]

In the three years since the Glaziers have taken over, it's been a total net spend of about 28 million, about 9 million a year. That's in contrast to the 23 net spend average for the previous 3 years.

The owners will do whatever they can to get down transfer budgets.

Fair point. I think they've the option of signing Tevez this year, price i don't know. Heard 30 million but there is no way in hell he's worth that.

They are still making a lot of money each year, and look good for the premiership. Hope to God it doesn't happen. Alez Arsenal!.

What was Rafa's net this year just out of curiosity. I think i remember it being around the same. I could be wrong though

ironingbored

Forza Inter. Anyone else think Inter will win tonight? I reckon 3-0 or a 2-0 and winning in extra time or penos.

gucci

Call_me_al wrote: »

yeh and they have loads of money and are definitely worth marketing too! in fact there is only one Mexican owner in the MLS out of 14 clubs - so why bother bringing La Liga to poor Mexicans (and other less well off spanish speaking nationalities), they have no relationship with Spain but the language as well.

unlike the Italians but as far as I could tell when I lived in San Fran they dont pay too much attention to football unless Italy are playing and the game is easy (accessibility wise) to watch.

so pick your patronising a$$ up off the floor...

Not having a dig at you but a large volume of people can sometimes counter act the poverty of the people. Football clubs are breaking their balls trying to market to 1 billion people in china!
And look at how many clubs nakata was signed for because of his marketing appeal (obviously japanese might be more wealthy than the chinese)

Spud83

ironingbored wrote: »

Forza Inter. Anyone else think Inter will win tonight? I reckon 3-0 or a 2-0 and winning in extra time or penos.

Liverpool rarely concede that many goals especially when the are already in front by two goals. I doubt the will be showing to much desire to throw men forward (full-backs rarely leaving the half way, two midfields sitting right in front of the back four).

I think Liverpool will score on the counter and leave Milan with too much to do.

Milan definitly need an early goal (<30 mins) to try and rattle Liverpool a bit.

whatawaster

hamnegg wrote: »

Fair point. I think they've the option of signing Tevez this year, price i don't know. Heard 30 million but there is no way in hell he's worth that.

They are still making a lot of money each year, and look good for the premiership. Hope to God it doesn't happen. Alez Arsenal!.

What was Rafa's net this year just out of curiosity. I think i remember it being around the same. I could be wrong though

23-25 somewhere in that region. It's gone up now that we've bought Skrtel and Mascherano, but we sold Sissoko to offset it somewhat.

Dubit10

Tom Hicks new P.R. guru

jesus_thats_gre

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

Liverpool rarely concede that many goals especially when the are already in front by two goals. I doubt the will be showing to much desire to throw men forward (full-backs rarely leaving the half way, two midfields sitting right in front of the back four).

I think Liverpool will score on the counter and leave Milan with too much to do.

Milan definitly need an early goal (<30 mins) to try and rattle Liverpool a bit.

Fair assesment I think. I was very worried about being without Masch but he is available, thankfully. Should be a very exciting game

Tusky

whatawaster wrote: »

23-25 somewhere in that region. It's gone up now that we've bought Skrtel and Mascherano, but we sold Sissoko to offset it somewhat.

Must be more than that. Figures are off the top of my head so might be slightly off.

Torres - 22-26
Mascherano - 18.6
Babel - 10.6
Lucas - 6
Benayoun - 3-4
Skrtel - 6
Total: 66.2 - 71.2 (depending on which prices you believe)

Theres no way we sold 45 odd million worth of players.

machiavellianme

Dubit10 wrote: »

Tom Hicks new P.R. guru

ah, so thats why he was "In talks with the Middle East"

PiE

PHB wrote: »

If you get a foreign owner, all you can do is hope for a couple of things
A. They won't saddle you with depth
B. They will realise that in order to succedd you have to invest in players and wages in order to keep up
C. They will pick the right managers

Will you please stop posting all of your opinions as though they are fact? Those 3 possibilities are picked out of thin air and are completely arbitrary. While they're all succesfull businessmen, every owner will be different. There's no "How To Milk a Premier League Team Dry" handbook.

DIC seem to be A, whether or not they are B is open to question, and C you can really only judge in the long term.
Liverpool have the addition caveat of wanting a new stadium, which DIC can provide with debt, which is impressive enough.

DIC seem to be a lot of things but again you don't know. Stop plucking things out of your arse and gicking them onto this thread.

_blank_

PiE wrote: »

Stop plucking things out of your arse and gicking them onto this thread.

HAHAHA!

Tusky

PiE wrote: »

Stop plucking things out of your arse and gicking them onto this thread.

Post of the year!

LuckyLloyd

Tusky wrote: »

Post of the year!

+1

Looking forward to tonight's game. I think it is vital that we start well and manage to get a decent share of possession and gameflow for the first 30 mins. An early goal from them would put us under a huge amount of pressure and leave the whole tie up in the air.

Given recent displays going forward, I do believe that we are capable of getting a goal. But theory gets thrown out the window if they get on top early because it will make life difficult if they get a sniff and the crowd gets going (it can be a very, very intimidating place to go).

LETS GO!!

oobydooby

PiE wrote: »

Stop plucking things out of your arse and gicking them onto this thread.

You've just coined a really useful new verb. I think I'd heard that one in primary school with nose replacing arse. You should gick that post into the English forum.