Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

PHB

In terms of formation, I think Rafa sees two ways of playing,

The 4-2-3-1, similar to what United employ
With Gerrard in the AMC and Torres up front.
Then with the option of a simple 4-4-2.

The 4-2-3-1 would be for any top 4 games, any games against decent enough clubs (like Spurs or Everton) and any European games. Strong defending with fast counter-attack. More quality on the wings would make this a very good team, once the defence can get back to its old self with Agger there.

The 4-4-2 would be for any games against teams who try to defend and you have to break them down. This imo requires a new striker and winger talents, with Gerrard going back to the middle, or else on the wings, or whereever really.

IMO the problem in terms of winning the league will not be the 4-2-3-1, but whether or not they can get the 4-4-2 working properly.

If that's right, then the emphasis should be on wingers above all, and another striker to boot, but wing forwards are the ideal.
If Alonso goes, you need a replacement. Don't think Barry is good enough imo.

Mr Alan

PHB wrote: »

The 4-2-3-1, similar to what United employ

Or to wat Rafas Valencia played?

ibh

DeadSkin wrote: »

^^This will be a good place start.

Anyone think we need a decent back up for Reina. I know we haven't seen much of Itandje, but the bits we have seen he hasn't looked great.

Itandje is rubbish. I would prefer to see us have an older goalkeeper as back up. Someone like Dean Kiely, although i will admit i have seen nothing of him since he left Charlton but a keeper who is solid in PL is all you really need in back-up.

On the subject of summer transfers. I think £40m is a minimum net spend required. We really need to open the chequebook and pay for top players. Another striker and at least one wide player reqd. If Alonso leaves (i'd say he will) Rafa needs to decide if Lucas is ready to step up or he needs to buy for CM as well.

yom 1

DeadSkin wrote: »

^^This will be a good place start.

Anyone think we need a decent back up for Reina. I know we haven't seen much of Itandje, but the bits we have seen he hasn't looked great.

Yeah I'd agree with you there. He is a terrible player. Trouble is its hard to find a good keeper who is willing to sit and play second fiddle for the majority of the season. Is the reserve keeper Martin any good? I'd rather have him step up to be called upon than have Itandje there. Everytime he has played the defense looks to have no confidence in him.

ibh

PHB wrote: »

Don't think Barry is good enough imo.

Not likely to agree with you too often but Barry is definately not good enough. If we want a one paced honest player who can pass pretty well we can just tell Alonso to do what he has being doing for 18 months..!

I think Lucas will be the future there and i also think that Plessis may be good enough to follw him breaking into the team regularly, ala Lucas this year. At worst an older free transfer may be useful to keep things tight. Can't really think of anyone at the mo.... another Christian Poulson / Mascherano style midfielder may not be right however. I think a decent passer is the key in there beside Mascherano.

raven136

Why do we assume that there is 40m available(excluding selling players)?Tom Hicks has not got the money.the bank he deals with is looking for money back off shareholders to see them through a bad patch and hicks wants said bank to refinance his loans.Where do we see the 40m coming from

Mr Alan

raven136 wrote: »

Why do we assume that there is 40m available(excluding selling players)?Tom Hicks has not got the money.the bank he deals with is looking for money back off shareholders to see them through a bad patch and hicks wants said bank to refinance his loans.Where do we see the 40m coming from

when Hicks got the refinancing package in Jan it was inclusive of monies for transfers in Jan and the Summer.

raven136

was that not before a credit crunch and recession shut down 3 major banks and money started running out?

Mr Alan

not as far as i'm aware.

event

PHB wrote: »

The 4-2-3-1, similar to what United employ
.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Or to wat Rafas Valencia played?

lads, neither rafa nor fergie invented 4-2-3-1

though i presume neither of ye are suggesting that:p

Mr Alan

of course not Event

Stky10

raven136 wrote: »

was that not before a credit crunch and recession shut down 3 major banks and money started running out?

Thats why there was a 20m arrangement fee to arrange the loan. The credit situation has got way worse since, which is why I don't see G+H staying much longer.

zing

raven136 wrote: »

was that not before a credit crunch and recession shut down 3 major banks and money started running out?

Money is in the bank or there waiting to be drawn down. The credit crunch could affect how it's all allocated & spent though.

yom 1

Is there any word of when the interview will be aired tonight? I know they said this evening but will it be 6/7/8/ ???

LuckyLloyd

The other angle on the backup goalkeeper is the psychological effects of having no competition for Reina.

On the plus side, certainty of selection will help a goalkeeper's confidence. But it obviously can produce a slightly smug attitude which leads the unpressurized goalkeeper to training at 80 - 90% and being complacent about improvement and performance analysis.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The other angle on the backup goalkeeper is the psychological effects of having no competition for Reina.

On the plus side, certainty of selection will help a goalkeeper's confidence. But it obviously can produce a slightly smug attitude which leads the unpressurized goalkeeper to training at 80 - 90% and being complacent about improvement and performance analysis.

Very true point Lloyd, this happened with other goalkeepers in the past ! Lets hope it doesn't start wtih Reina

ibh

KaG1888 wrote: »

Very true point Lloyd, this happened with other goalkeepers in the past ! Lets hope it doesn't start wtih Reina

There is still the threat to Reina that we 'own' Carson so even though he isn't at training with him everyday Reina will be spurred on to keep ahead.
Actually in a way Reina has more to motivate him than most, as his biggest competition is someone playing in the PL every week with a good team and not some gimp sitting on the bench for the season.

jesus_thats_gre

raven136 wrote: »

was that not before a credit crunch and recession shut down 3 major banks and money started running out?

Pretty sure that there was an extra 60 million left over that was put in the club for transfers..

Bounty Hunter

ibh wrote: »

There is still the threat to Reina that we 'own' Carson so even though he isn't at training with him everyday Reina will be spurred on to keep ahead.
Actually in a way Reina has more to motivate him than most, as his biggest competition is someone playing in the PL every week with a good team and not some gimp sitting on the bench for the season.

add to that the fact that atm it looks like Villa will not be signing Carson at the seasons end and will instead prehaps look to either Jussi Jaaskelainen (for free) or Guzan (American keeper) so Carson should be headed back to anfield unused to being a No.2 to anyone in recent times.

herbieflowers

I read something in WS about Dudek saying that Benitez doesn't want an English no.2, sounded a bit provocative tbh

redspider

Whats the Hicks interview supposed to be about? Wasnt there supposed to be a board meeting this week sometime? Both Rafa and Parry were quoted over the weekend as wanting to discuss the issues with Hicks and Gillet. And Moores no doubt will probably get an earful from Hicks. Its all a big mess.

In terms of the moneis for purchases etc, I forget the details, they are probably somewhere in this mega-thread, but I thought the figure was something like 60m for stadium development and player purchases. Dont quote me on that though. The loan was 350m I think. I seem to recall it was for 12 months, was it, or was that 18 months. Jaysus, I must get a memory ...... ah, just too lazy, easy not to store this ....

clickety click .... google: hicks liverpool loan 350
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2246761,00.html

Tom Hicks and George Gillett are expected to cement their control of Liverpool this morning by announcing that they have secured a £350m loan to refinance their takeover and allow work to start on a new 70,000-seat stadium. The news will be a major setback to Dubai International Capital's attempts to buy out the Americans and to supporters in revolt at the co-chairmen's controversial reign.

The Liverpool owners had intended to unveil both the refinancing package and their new designs for a stadium on Stanley Park before yesterday's self-imposed deadline. That deadline passed without an announcement but it is understood terms were agreed with the Royal Bank of Scotland and the US investment bank Wachovia last night. The delays were the result of lawyers and accountants on both sides of the Atlantic having to sift through documentation concerning the loan, with the signing and announcement of the deal postponed until the start of business today at the request of RBS.

Gillett and Hicks believe the package will end the uncertainty over the ownership of the club after DIC re-emerged as a serious bidder. The hope that it will also allow them to regain favour with Liverpool supporters over the 18-month duration of the loan may prove more forlorn, because fans are now organising financial boycotts of the club and of Liverpool's sponsors. That will not deter the co-chairmen from populist moves in an attempt to regain supporters' confidence, however, with the long-term signing of Javier Mascherano a priority once the loan is in place.

The Argentina international is in the final six months of an 18-month loan spell at Anfield but is attracting interest from Manchester City, Barcelona and Juventus after Gillett and Hicks refused to sanction a £17m deal to sign him on a long-term basis. However, the midfielder has frequently stated that he would prefer to remain with Liverpool and the co-chairmen intend to revive talks with his owner, Kia Joorabchian, with a view to securing his signature before the end of this season.

A more direct route towards supporters' trust would be to end the uncertainty over the future of the popular Rafael Benítez, whom Hicks undermined further last week with the admission that he and Gillett had approached Jürgen Klinsmann with a view to having the German replace the Spaniard as manager. That confession accentuated a divide between the Liverpool co-chairmen over how much of the £350m loan should become a burden on the club, although Gillett did not take up an approach from DIC to present his business partner with an offer for his 50% share.

Hicks has since vowed to learn from the mistakes that have destabilised the Americans' reign and reassuring Benítez he has a long-term future at Anfield would be a start. But the Liverpool manager's relationship with the Texan remains fractious and whether Benítez would want to continue working for the current owners, despite his deep affection for the club, is uncertain. Benítez also knows he needs a strong run in this season's Champions League and a vast improvement in Liverpool's league form to persuade the Americans to allow him to continue his rebuilding of the club.

The RBS and Wachovia loan will enable Hicks and Gillett to repay the £298m they have borrowed over the past 12 months to purchase the club, absorb existing debts of £44.8m, sign players and finance work on the new stadium. The additional funds will repay interest and enable work on the stadium project - revised after Hicks's plans came in over budget - to commence. Designs for the stadium are expected to be made public along with the announcement of the loan.

Of the £350m refinancing package only £105m will be saddled on Liverpool, with £185m secured on Hicks's and Gillett's holding company, Kop Investment. The Americans have increased their personal guarantees from £30m each to about £55m.

The amount of debt on the club's books represents a battle won by the chief executive, Rick Parry, and the former chairman and now honorary president, David Moores, who both refused to sign up to plans to burden the club with responsibility for the full £350m loan. Neither was in a position to block the loan itself but they may pay a price for their intransigence once the Americans secure their hold on the club.

With £60m of the £105m club debt allocated to stadium costs Liverpool will be left with a working capital debt of £45m - almost identical to the working debt under Moores.

mike65

The Rafa interview will not be seen until tomorrow morning is the latest.

Mike.

zing

And what about the Hicks one ?

The Times reporting that part of the interview is him saying he'll offer 'Roffa' a new contract but they've no other details as to the contents on the interview. I doubt if there'll be anything sensational - just more of the same 'I fully support Roffa/I want rid of Parry/I want to buy the club/I want to rule the world' crap from him. If there was anything even remotely juicy in in there's no way Sky would have held off on it until tomorrow morning.

Note: he may talk about offering Rafa a new contract but that's not a decision for him to make - it's for the board to do so. So his talk of offering Rafa a new contract has about as much weight as him trying to sack Parry - he can do neither on his own.

Dont be at yourself

Is there a concensus here that bringing in Villa would be a smart move? Two years ago he had a phenomonal season, but he's come up short since then. 15 league goals last year, and a current total of 11 this year isn't wholly encouraging - especially when you consider his price tag.

I also dont want to see Rafa change the 4-2-3-1 system that is working so well for the likes of Torres, Gerrard, Mach and Alonso. Villa can and has played off a lone striker, but it would be a little bit of putting a square peg in a round hole.

As for Silva... I haven't heard any rumours about it, but I would be over the moon ifwe got him. He's young, quick, creative and I think he'd slot right into our formation, replacing either Babel or Kuyt. If I could have any player in the world move to Liverpool, Silva would be the one. Barca are supposedly sniffing around him though, hoping to make him their new Ronnie.

Barry'd be alright. He started out as a left-back, so as well as holding a midfield berth, he'd offer cover for one of our problem positions.

walshki

Nothing a whole lot new in the Hicks interview as far as I can see. Link

Parry's reign a disaster. He won't sell his share - wants to be majority stakeholder. Wants to remove debt from the club (thats original - I thought there wasn't meant to be any in the first place). Unless there's more that isn't included on their website its nothing much. Did admit that he had talks with DIC about them taking a 49% share but we pretty much knew that.

More importantly any sign of the Rafa interview?

dobsdave

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Is there a concensus here that bringing in Villa would be a smart move? Two years ago he had a phenomonal season, but he's come up short since then. 15 league goals last year, and a current total of 11 this year isn't wholly encouraging - especially when you consider his price tag.

I also dont want to see Rafa change the 4-2-3-1 system that is working so well for the likes of Torres, Gerrard, Mach and Alonso. Villa can and has played off a lone striker, but it would be a little bit of putting a square peg in a round hole.

As for Silva... I haven't heard any rumours about it, but I would be over the moon ifwe got him. He's young, quick, creative and I think he'd slot right into our formation, replacing either Babel or Kuyt. If I could have any player in the world move to Liverpool, Silva would be the one. Barca are supposedly sniffing around him though, hoping to make him their new Ronnie.

Barry'd be alright. He started out as a left-back, so as well as holding a midfield berth, he'd offer cover for one of our problem positions.

I think he scored those 11 goals from the wing though.(from 22 games)
In that interview he did,I thought he had a thinly veiled pop at the manager for playing him there.

zing

"If I were to buy George out, the first thing I would do is offer Rafa a one-year extension to make sure he is going to be here up to when we get the stadium," Hicks exclusively told Sky Sports News.

"Hopefully we could have some success and then extend him again.

"Rafa and the players have their heads down. They are playing great. We communicate regularly. I know he feels comfortable with the way things are going.

"I think we will continue to have success. I think Rafa has unique skills, he motivates the team and we have some great players who are learning how to play with each other."

Just a years contract extension for Rafa initially. Makes some amount of sense to bring it up to the date where we in theory move to the new stadium but would another year be enough to entice Roffa to stay on through all this crap ? Of course there's then the small issue of the stadium and how the work hasn't even started yet.

walshki

Obviously Sky Sports are going to turn this into ten stories from one interview - probably drip fed. Amazingly all George Gillette has to do is stay quiet and we'll still think he's the better owner. Hicks is starting to look very petty talking about George setting up the meeting with Klinsmann and Parry met him for two hours on his own etc. For all we know Malcolm Glazer could have met with Steve Staunton about becoming next Man U manager - the point being - we don't know and if he did nothing came of it and that's the way it should be.

zing

He's setting himself up for a nice case of constructive dismissal from Parry.

None of this sh!t should be in the public domain - it's embarrassing but Hicks clearly doesn't care about that.

monkey9

Tom Hicks is a liar! There he is, sitting in an armchair beside an open log fire. Who does he think he is? Santa?
He is just saying what he thinks the Liverpool fans want to hear. "I'm gonna extend Roffa's contract. Plough money into the club for transfers. Build a new stadium." He's just so full of sh!t. I swear, if Liverpool fans had an issue with the Pope and wanted him done in, Hicks would say he'd have it done.
"If i become the majority shareholder, i'll offer Roffa an extension to his contract, i'll make money available for transfers, i'll build the new stadium, i'll have the Pope assassinated, i'll buy the Sun newspaper and dissolve it straight away, i'll raise John Lennon and George Harrison from the dead, blah blah blah, etc etc etc."
He's like a dodgy politician promising the earth when everyone know he's lying. We should just call him Mayor Joe Quimby from now on. Offering Rafa a one year extension is a joke. You either back him or you don't. What's with this middle ground sh!te.
What part of F*ck Off does Hicks not understand

prendy

im sure stuff like this(meeting prospective managers etc) happens all the time in clubs but the bad thing here is that LFC's business for the first time ever is being done in public. Hick's should be told to shut up or ship out, its not the liverpool way to air your dirty laundry in public.

bottom line is that if the two owners cant even speak to each other how are key decisions on the club meant to be made. I worry because it seems at the moment they seem to contradict each other on everything.

IrishMike

monkey9 wrote: »

Tom Hicks is a liar! There he is, sitting in an armchair beside an open log fire. Who does he think he is? Santa?
He is just saying what he thinks the Liverpool fans want to hear. "I'm gonna extend Roffa's contract. Plough money into the club for transfers. Build a new stadium." He's just so full of sh!t. I swear, if Liverpool fans had an issue with the Pope and wanted him done in, Hicks would say he'd have it done.
"If i become the majority shareholder, i'll offer Roffa an extension to his contract, i'll make money available for transfers, i'll build the new stadium, i'll have the Pope assassinated, i'll buy the Sun newspaper and dissolve it straight away, i'll raise John Lennon and George Harrison from the dead, blah blah blah, etc etc etc."
He's like a dodgy politician promising the earth when everyone know he's lying. We should just call him Mayor Joe Quimby from now on. Offering Rafa a one year extension is a joke. You either back him or you don't. What's with this middle ground sh!te.
What part of F*ck Off does Hicks not understand

Why would liverpool fans want the pope dead?

yom 1

monkey9 wrote: »

Tom Hicks is a liar! There he is, sitting in an armchair beside an open log fire. Who does he think he is? Santa?
He is just saying what he thinks the Liverpool fans want to hear. "I'm gonna extend Roffa's contract. Plough money into the club for transfers. Build a new stadium." He's just so full of sh!t. I swear, if Liverpool fans had an issue with the Pope and wanted him done in, Hicks would say he'd have it done.
"If i become the majority shareholder, i'll offer Roffa an extension to his contract, i'll make money available for transfers, i'll build the new stadium, i'll have the Pope assassinated, i'll buy the Sun newspaper and dissolve it straight away, i'll raise John Lennon and George Harrison from the dead, blah blah blah, etc etc etc."
He's like a dodgy politician promising the earth when everyone know he's lying. We should just call him Mayor Joe Quimby from now on. Offering Rafa a one year extension is a joke. You either back him or you don't. What's with this middle ground sh!te.
What part of F*ck Off does Hicks not understand

lol:D:D:D

Contender for post of the year! And I agree 100% with it all.

The funniest thing about all of this is how deluded he is. He thinks by giving this interview fans will appreciate it. All that interview has done is put more bad light on the club. And I'm afraid it will get alot worse before it gets any better.

When you walk through a storm.....

I would be interested to see who these investors are that he talks about. I honestly cant see how a sensible business man would want to get involved in this with him being the majority owner.

Thanx 4 The Fish

IrishMike wrote: »

Why would liverpool fans want the pope dead?

So we could win the champions league :pac::pac:

ShiverinEskimo

Half is lies, half is Pool fans hate him so much that even if he wasn't lying he is lying.

monkey9

IrishMike wrote: »

Why would liverpool fans want the pope dead?

He has evil looking eyes!!

redspider

Thursday, 17 April 2008 07:40
Tom Hicks has branded Rick Parry's time as Liverpool chief executive 'a disaster' and warned co-owner George Gillett that the stalemate over the club's future will continue until he agrees to sell his stake.

Hicks has demanded Parry's resignation and vowed that his top priority if Gillett were to sell to him would be to offer Reds manager Rafael Benitez a one-year extension to his current deal.

The Texan also revealed that he plans to rid the club of all debt by heading up a group of financial backers willing to invest in the club.

Hicks, who revealed that Parry had taken part in the meeting with Jurgen Klinsmann that undermined Benitez, blamed him for Liverpool's failure to compete commercially with their Premier League rivals in a Sky Sports News interview.

'Look at what's happened under Rick. It has been a disaster,' claimed Hicks. 'We have fallen so far behind the other leading clubs.

'We should have the stadium built by now. We have a few major sponsors when we should have 15.

'We have still got the top brand in the world of football but that's no good if you don't know how to commercialise it.

'Rick needs to resign from Liverpool FC. He has put his heart into it but it is time for a change. You have to be able to work with the manager and Rick has proved he can't do that.'

On the meeting in New York last year about Klinsmann becoming manager, Hicks added: 'George became good friends with him (Klinsmann) a year ago.

'I get this call from George out of the blue in which he says "have your people do their research on Klinsmann". He and Rick set up the meeting in New York. I did go to the meeting along with my son Tom.

'Rick Parry had already met with Jurgen alone for a couple of hours when we arrived. We all then spoke to him for another four hours.

'Afterwards I told the truth to a reporter who asked the question and suddenly it is "Tom Hicks tried to get Jurgen Klinsmann". George initiated it but we all participated.'

Hicks and Gillett took over the club in February 2007 but Hicks admitted their relationship has now completely broken down.

'At this point it is unworkable,' he told Sky Sports News. 'We started this as friends but 50-50 is a difficult business proposition because you cannot do anything without your partner's approval.

'We had a good honeymoon but, over a period of time, there have been issues, the stadium being the main one. If George doesn't sell - because I am not going to sell - I guess we stay in this position that we are in.

'It's complicated but it's going to happen (Hicks buying Gillett out) although I can't force George to accept. I am planning to make him a very attractive offer. If I had a majority on it (ownership of Liverpool) I could put more capital in.

'My goal is take all the debt off the club except the working capital needed and get the permanent financing totally in place for the stadium.

'I want the finances of the club to be secure. I want to be the majority owner of a group that buys the club and I have got a 25-year track record of being a very successful investor around the world.

'The fans don't like the fact that we borrowed a lot of money to buy the club but I will fix that.'

Hicks ruled out any chance of Dubai International Capital (DIC), who came close to taking over Liverpool before the Reds turned instead to Hicks and Gillett, doing so now but admitted he had held meetings with them in the past.

'DIC has no seat at the table. They are masters of the British tabloid spin. They want to stir the pot of Liverpool to create dissension,' he said.

'I did talk to Dubai about being a 49% partner but it just didn't work out. They didn't share the same vision I have and I didn't think they could become minority partners. I am not going to have any more 50-50 partners.

Turning to his relationship with Benitez, Hicks said: 'If I were to buy George out the first thing I would do is offer Rafa a one-year extension to make sure he is going to be here up to when we get the stadium.

'Hopefully we could have some success and then extend him again.

'Rafa and the players have their heads down. They are playing great. We communicate regularly. I know he feels comfortable with the way things are going.'

Its a bit like the Kerryman joke - if you want to have a large succesful football club, you wouldnt start at this point! The mess continues and Hicks interview doesnt clear things up and doesnt point to a rosy outcome. Its war !

Parry's participation at the Klinsmann meeting is not an indication that he wanted rid of Rafa. Gillet has a connection with Klinsmann, and instigated exploratory talks. We all know that Rafa could leave at any time, so such talks are semi-benign to a certain extent. Of course Rafa could interpret it that they may have wanted him out, but he is also old enough to realise that any large football club such as Liverpool need to cover their options.

The blame that Hicks is placing on Parry for the lack of commercial success is also unwarranted: 'We should have the stadium built by now. We have a few major sponsors when we should have 15.' Parry has not been the owner of Liverpool. He was not responsible for financing a new stadium. Hicks knew this when he arrived and bought in, so why is he rasiing this red herring now? Stirring touble if you ask me. That is not helpful.

Hicks also stating that the relationship with Gillet is uworkable. Isnt this much more problematic than anything else? He and Gillet should be working on getting this rectified or else leaving Liverpool FC to somebody else for the good of the club. I think fans should now ask both owners to sell-up. Silent banners should do it.

'If George doesn't sell - because I am not going to sell - I guess we stay in this position that we are in.' - this is a stalemate.

'My goal is take all the debt off the club except the working capital needed and get the permanent financing totally in place for the stadium.' - debt off the club, moved as debt somewhere else is still debt, oits just moving from one pocket to the other and is accounting. The only way to get rid of the debt is to get people with money in to invest in/buy the club. I cant see him getting rid of the 350m in debt for less than 50% ownership, as that implies a value of over 700m.

'I have got a 25-year track record of being a very successful investor around the world' - yes, and less than a 2-year track record of falling out with a 50% joint-owner of LFC - the previous 23 years count for nothing.

'is offer Rafa a one-year extension' - whoop de whoop ....

Redspider

monkey9

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

So we could win the champions league :pac::pac:

Great reply!!!!!

shotamoose

Quote from Tom Hicks

"You have to be able to work with the manager and Rick has proved he can't do that."

Must have been another Tom Hicks trying to recruit Jurgen Klinnsman behind Rafa's back then.

IrishMike

redspider wrote: »

The blame that Hicks is placing on Parry for the lack of commercial success is also unwarranted: 'We should have the stadium built by now. We have a few major sponsors when we should have 15.' Parry has not been the owner of Liverpool. He was not responsible for financing a new stadium. Hicks knew this when he arrived and bought in, so why is he rasiing this red herring now? Stirring touble if you ask me. That is not helpful.

Granted he is not responsible for getting a new stadium in place but he
definitely has a point about the lack of serious sponsership
That is Parrys job and if he cant do it then its his job to appoint someone
who can. This is one of his many failings and when you see how completely
inept he seems to be in transfer dealings he really needs to go.
But at the moment we have bigger problems that Parry which is worrying

monkey9

shotamoose wrote: »

Quote from Tom Hicks



Must have been another Tom Hicks trying to recruit Jurgen Klinnsman behind Rafa's back then.

It must have been. Because according to Hicks, the man who of course loves football and loves Liverpool (yeah right, you fat Texan liar), he had to google Jurgen Klinnsmann to see who he was

ShiverinEskimo

redspider wrote:

Parry's participation at the Klinsmann meeting is not an indication that he wanted rid of Rafa.

Doesn't exactly absolve him of all blame either. He was participating and I doubt he went along for a free lunch. Be anti-hicks as much as hicks deserves it for this mess he's contributed to. But don't let your hatred for one cloud your judgement of others. There's 3 of them in it and all have contributed in one way or another to the mess Pool FC is in. The only victims are Rafa, the Team and the Fans.

Tusky

Its clear that at least two of the following WILL go. Rafa, Parry, Gillet, Hicks. Rafa/Hicks wont with Parry & Hicks & Gillet wont work together.

Hopefully Rafa will stay but this will surely be a test of his patience. I think a lot will depend on how much he is given to spend in the summer. If he doesn't get enough to complete with the other clubs I believe he will walk away from this mess and rightly so.

With talk of Grant being given 100m to spend and lining up Kaka & Messi (his words) Rafa will need to spend big in the summer. Will he be given the backing ?

IrishMike

Tusky wrote: »

Its clear that at least two of the following WILL go. Rafa, Parry, Gillet, Hicks. Rafa/Hicks wont with Parry & Hicks & Gillet wont work together.

Hopefully Rafa will stay but this will surely be a test of his patience. I think a lot will depend on how much he is given to spend in the summer. If he doesn't get enough to complete with the other clubs I believe he will walk away from this mess and rightly so.

With talk of Grant being given 100m to spend and lining up Kaka & Messi (his words) Rafa will need to spend big in the summer. Will he be given the backing ?

Grant wont spend that money if you ask me.
Would be some gamble by Ambramovich if he did.
Could also mean that he is actually deciding who they buy which makes
grant look even more inept.
Insane club and i dont think 100m can replace lampard drogba and the rest
who will go

Tusky

IrishMike wrote: »

Grant wont spend that money if you ask me.
Would be some gamble by Ambramovich if he did.
Could also mean that he is actually deciding who they buy which makes
grant look even more inept.
Insane club and i dont think 100m can replace lampard drogba and the rest
who will go

Of course it can! If Drogba goes, they will get big money for him. Same with Lampard. I doubt he would throw those figures around in a press conference if he wasn't confident that would be how much he could spend. He himself said 80 or 100m.

How Angry would Chelsea fans be if after that, he only spent 20 ?

mike65

Hicks interview as presented by handycam

http://www.dailymotion.com/scoopex/video/8577664

Mike.

dc69

The thing about the whole Hicks thing that is hilarious is idiots commentating on finance(particularily on Liverpool forums).99% of people talking about his financial sitation dont have a clue,personally I am willing to give the man a chance.How the average joe can comment about the recesion and how it will affect him is hilarious to me.I have experience in finace and recesion does not affect rich people,if anything it makes them richer while the average person gets poorer.

If he gets his loan it is because he will sell part of his company that controls all of his other ventures,that means the man is willing to sell parts of all his companys to gain revenue to get a loan for liverpool,that shows commitment to me.

They are both as bad as each other but IF he builds a stadium and fires parry,it WILL make us a better team,we have fallen behind and it is because of parry and lack of initiative and finace from previous owners.It seems David moores was happy for along time just keeping things the way they were(i.e renuing stupid sponsorship deals etc) and then when he realised in about 06,that the other clubs were getting bigger he panicked and decided to sell.If he had a proper business mentality he could have brought the club fowards himself.

No one.puts their personal money in a club apart fom Abramovich(that will be the demise of Chelsea),they all take loans out.That is how business are run.

Earlier in the week I said Parry was treated disgracefully and I stand by that but that doesnt take away from the fact he has to go.Everything Hicks has said is true.

If you look at his teams,the Dallas stars continually finish 3rd and 4th.Money in baseball is alot more than football,transfers etc

His Hockey team has won there conference league for the last 4 years in a row.

If he does do everything he says he will and sells after the stadium is built,then we may have debt but we will be in alot better a position than we are now.And future owners will be able to pay the debts easier and bring the club foward because the stadium will be generating revenue and our sponsorship should easily be 30-35% higher than it is.

I think this needs to get sorted pronto and if Hicks buys,then there is not alot we can do but there are positives from what he is saying.George gillette is supposed to be the more favoured owner among fans but George Gillette has said nothing about taking the club fowards,he says he may buy Hicks but has revealed no plans on what he plans to do,or how he is going to do it.

George Gillette is also I believe the reason their relationship broke down because he was unwilling to take the risks with his own assets to bring the club fowards.Hicks has already prooven he is willing to take thiose risks,because the only way he will raise the money to buy Gillette out is to float some of his own company on the exchange.

Obviously I take the view everyone else does,that I wish they never bought.
The reality now is that they have bought and one has to go and the above is my feeling on the matter the way it has panned out.

HashSlinging

I've always disliked parry anyway so any bad press aimed at him is good.

PHB

In all fairness, would anybody really be that sad if Gillete, Hicks and Parry all went? It's only about which one people hate the most.

monkey9

I know this is already on these pages but can't find it. Can someone tell what happened when he bought some player for his baseball team. He was an average player or something but they paid over the odds? In fact i think broke the transfer record or wage structure? Then paid a rival team to take the player off their hands.