Hicks on Gillett, Klinsmann, Parry, Rafa and finance
Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks’ eagerly-awaited interview with Sky Sports News went out at 6am this morning, UK time, and is bound to attract massive attention. There’s little doubt that chief executive Rick Parry, fellow co-owners George Gillett and former chairman David Moores will be in contact with each other to discuss their responses, whether individually or as a group. And it would be a surprise if Dubai International Capital weren’t party to those discussions. This is big news, and although it still seems difficult to work out how it could make any difference to the final outcome of the ownership fight, everyone involved seems determined to be heard. But did we learn anything new?
The recent phase of publicity with regards to the ownership began with George Gillett speaking on Canadian radio, where the co-owner spoke about his relationship with Hicks having broken down, insisting that death threats made him decide not to sell to Hicks, who he said had run out time anyway. Last week Rick Parry received a letter from Tom Hicks, asking that he resign from his post at the club, a request Parry has resisted.
Today Hicks explained why he wants Parry out: “If you look at what has happened under Rick’s leadership, it has been a disaster. We have fallen so far behind the other top clubs. The new stadium should have been built three or four years ago.
“We have two sponsors, maybe three. We should have 12 or 15. We are not doing anything in Asia the way Manchester United and Barcelona are. We have a tremendous number of fans in Asia. So we have got the top brand in the world of football, but we just don’t know how to commercialise and get the money for it to use to buy great players.
“Rick needs to resign from Liverpool football club. He’s put his heart into it, but it is time for a change.”
The letter from Hicks to Parry was said to contain those same concerns as its reasons for suggesting Parry moves on before he gets moved on. That would be Hicks’ intention if he took over. Parry chose to respond by saying he was going to seek legal advice over the letter. Nothing further has been said by Parry on what legal action he might take. There are numerous reasons why he’s been quiet in that respect, but it’s quite possible he’s been told that there is nothing in the letter he can legally complain about. Certainly he would have a tough job complaining about the contents of the letter in terms of what is expected of him. The club have fallen well behind in those areas, and it’s difficult to see how Rick Parry could defend his role in allowing that to happen.
Ironically Parry probably agrees with the complaint from Hicks about how the stadium should have been built some time ago, and if he’d known how things would have worked out perhaps the club would have borrowed the stadium-building costs itself. We’d have then had the “Parry Bowl”, which when it was announced in 2003 was said could be ready before 2008. The club would already be making the increased revenue from the increased capacity.
He also pointed out how he felt Parry’s relationship with Benítez was causing the club problems: “You have to be able to work with the general manager and Rick has proved he can’t do that.”
Hicks mentioned frustrations he said Rafa had faced when Parry was unable to get transfers tied up, his job being to finalise the contracts. Claims Parry’s approach to getting such deals finalised saw the Reds miss out on key targets aren’t new, but until now the claims were never backed up with any real quotes. If true then it’s no wonder Rafa would be frustrated, and suggests his outburst post-Athens may have been aimed at Parry as much as anyone else.
But the fact remains that last November Rafa was close to leaving the club. Worries he was about to leave of his own accord have been given as one reason an approach to Jurgen Klinsmann was made. But whether that was seen by Hicks and Gillett as an “insurance policy” as claimed by Hicks or as a genuine aim to replace Rafa regardless isn’t clear.
But according to Hicks, Gillett seemed to feel there was a real issue with Rafa. Hicks explained that Gillett knew the German before the meetings took place: “George became good friends with him 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.”
Hicks says the meeting had been underway for a while when he got there: “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.”
The meeting was of course followed up by another at the Texan’s home in California. It was this meeting that was referred to by Hicks when he spoke to the Echo in January to own up to having spoken to Klinsmann. The interview followed reports coming from senior figures at the German FA and at Bayern Munich that the club had approached Klinsmann for the manager’s role. Hicks decided to own up to the meeting, a decision which is widely reported to have angered George Gillett.
Hicks feels he was unfairly given the blame for this meeting with the German. He was there, he clearly felt that Rafa’s future was in doubt one way or other, but he didn’t start the ball rolling he says: “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.”
Some fans and observers have defended Parry for his role in this pursuit of Klinsmann, a role he kept from Rafa Benítez. It’s part of his job to attend meetings of this nature, and he’d be criticised if he learned of them happening but didn’t attend. And obviously the need to remain silent about the issue is understandable, so informing Rafa he’d been at this meeting could have seen him sacked. But Rafa was clearly still annoyed at Parry’s role when he spoke after the Blackburn game, and perhaps it related to Rafa expecting honesty from Parry at later talks they’ve had. Rafa will also want to know how much of a role Parry might have played in the owners becoming fearful over Rafa’s intentions. Parry said publicly earlier in the week that he was willing to talk to Rafa about it.
There is quite a clear indication coming from Rafa’s words, from those who’ve seen him at press conferences, that he has grown so tired of Parry that it’s now got to a “him or me” situation. He is said to have told reporters to switch the microphones off again on Sunday, before telling them just what was on his mind with regards to Parry.
Hicks says that he’d give Rafa a 12-month extension to his current deal, which has two years to run. This is something that is vital if Hicks does take over and Rafa is to remain as boss, because the speculation about Rafa’s future will not go away otherwise. The contract extension is no guarantee the speculation would end either, but it would help dampen it down a little: “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.”
Hicks also said that the manager and his squad were getting on with their jobs rather than letting off-field issues get in the way: “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.”
And he also said he thinks Rafa has special qualities to help the club keep winning: “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.”
If he’s getting on with Rafa, he’s not getting on with Gillett. We all know this, but he was asked to confirm if the relationship really had broken down: “At this point it is unworkable. 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.”
Quite what the stadium issue is wasn’t clear. Was it an issue between the two of them relating to the stadium? Certainly we know that the stadium plans announced in July were scrapped on cost grounds. That resulted in both the Texan firm responsible for those July plans and the Manchester firm responsible for the older plans being given a chance to try again, at the new budget. The Texan firm got the nod in the end, but there were whispers at the time that Hicks was the only one who wanted those plans, and that Gillett, Parry and the club’s advisors all preferred the Manchester option. Other than that, and it’s of course nothing more than a whisper, there never seemed to be any actual issues with each other over the stadium. Of course by the time that version of the stadium was unveiled, the relationship between the two owners was already far from perfect.
Now that relationship sees George Gillett claiming he won’t sell. Hicks admits he can’t force Gillett to sell, and although he didn’t mention any veto in this interview he did point out that if Gillett didn’t sell that we’d be stuck in the current state of limbo: “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 is going to happen although I can’t force George to accept. I am planning to make him a very attractive offer. If I had a majority on I could put more capital in.”
Hicks’ critics claim he hasn’t got the capital to put in, but this has never been anything more than speculation based on the general state of the financial world, particularly in the US, mixed with alleged tip-offs from finance staff at various institutions.
The reports that the end of May is the end of a deadline for Hicks to buy Gillett’s half before DIC can’t be stopped from doing so has gathered pace to the extent it’s now being reported as fact. Certainly I believe that DIC’s PR people are reaffirming that claim, and if true it would mean Hicks could face having new partners in the summer. But nobody else seems to be making the claim, and only DIC can say if 50% would suit them.
For all the complaints about the Klinsmann situation, the main burning issue is the club’s finances, in particular the debt. The actual debt the club is directly or indirectly responsible for is now £52m more than at takeover, but none of it was on the club’s books back then. Hicks says he wants to get rid of the biggest part of the debt on the club, and to get the finance ready for the new stadium. “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,” he said.
He also explained how he sees the purchase of the club taking place if he’s successful. It will not be necessarily done with loans to pay off Gillett’s loans: “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.”
Again, Hicks’ critics will dismiss that claim, putting it down to being all talk. He said the right things – we don’t like that debt on the club, we don’t like the thought of not being able to fund the stadium – now it’s time to do the right things.
He pulled few punches when he described DIC’s tactics to get back in contention for ownership of the club: “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. I did talk to Dubai about being a 49 per cent 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.”
If Hicks can get the finance it’s difficult to see how Gillett could both refuse his offer and accept one from DIC, so much depends on him getting that finance in place. If this end-of-May deadline is true, and Hicks fails to meet it, then the ball is in DIC’s court and depends on if they are willing to go 50-50 with Hicks, and if they feel they’ve got the ability to either work with him or force him out in such a partnership. But if Gillett receives an offer from Hicks tomorrow, that matches anything from DIC, Gillett’s choice will surely be to sell to Hicks or not at all. And the latter means more limbo.
Nothing in the interview came as a surprise.
Parry and Rafa clearly have problems working together, and if these problems can’t be resolved then it absolutely has to see the end of one of their careers at Anfield. In most cases fans have no feelings towards members of the board room, but strong feelings towards a manager. Rafa’s surely in the stronger position if fans’ views are to be taken into account.
Claims of some players being unwilling to work with Rafa if he supports Hicks have started to spread, but again it comes down to a choice. That’s if it’s actually true. Do fans prefer Rafa with five players missing from his squad, or Parry, a new manager, and possibly more changes to the squad? But whatever the fans prefer, it’s hardly their choice anyway. No matter how much any owner is prepared to listen to fans, a line will always be drawn somewhere.
The fact it’s got to this kind of talk is regrettable. ‘Rafa or Parry’ and ‘Rafa or Key-Player’ – is just not a great state of affairs. But the hate and the anger will continue to grow for as long as we have this stand-off. Whether claims or accusations come in the form of strongly-believed rumours or carefully worded quotes in the media they will continue to add fuel to this fire.
It’s understandable why Hicks gave this interview. He wanted to set the story ‘straight’. His version anyway.
He had a lot of stick over the Klinsmann admissions, and in fact got the full blame for it for much of the time. No doubt Parry and Gillett will have a different version of events, and we’ll probably hear them before the day is out, but Hicks clearly wasn’t happy at how the others, particularly Gillett, had got away almost scot-free with their part in those talks.
He also got much stick for his treatment of Rafa. Leading on from those Klinsmann talks and the orders to “concentrate on coaching”, the “Rafa pouted” quip in the US press showed him to have what looked like contempt for the greatest manager the club has had since the legendary Kenny Dalglish stepped down. Now he’s talking about how Rafa seems to appreciate him, and how he’s prepared to offer him an extended contract.
And finance was addressed. His “goal” is to take the debt off the club. The club’s always had some form of debt, usually in the form of overdrafts, as many clubs do, and perhaps this was the “working capital” he referred to. He implies that removing the debt from the club will come by way of him adding capital, and a new group of which he’s the majority owner taking control of the club. No details were given, but he seemed sure this would be what the fans would prefer. But questions will still need to be asked, including questions on the long-term structure of the investment. Putting the money in place to help a manager bring number 19 is just the start, we want to eventually be winning numbers twenty onwards, and we don’t want to be waiting until the twenties for that to start. Likewise we don’t want to see our club abandoned in the twenties, with all the potential realised and profits down to a minimum.
So, he addressed the main issues, and if he’s being completely honest then more supporters than before could be willing to give him a chance. But it remains, for now, just talk.
And talk isn’t getting us anywhere.
another yank lie get out please on day the manager must concentrate on coaching the team and the next the same man is the best thing sliced bread get out yanks
Good summary, Jim.
The solution here is simple. Gillett, the short-term owner who wants out, needs to take his only viable offer and sell to Hicks. Anything less is just George Gillett trashing the club out of his own pride.
Then the Gillett/Parry team opposed to Rafa will be gone, and Hicks/Rafa can get on with improving the club as they know how.
Can Hicks reveal DIC’s 5-10 yr plan for LFC, and details of why he failed to reach agreement with them, without getting sued?
If this thing really is going to be played out in the press, surely it won’t be long before confidential offer agreements, investment plans start to appear?
Personally I feel Hicks as sole owner would be my first choice. Never liked Parry and quite frankly I beleive in Rafa. Should he go my faith in Liverpool FC could be shaken to the core. I only hope this May deadline is true, just so that our boys can concentrate on the field….
In Rafa We Trust
Oh yes improving it like he did at Corinthians. Improving their home strip so much he actually changed their home strip colours………oh sorry perhaps you mean improving like he did with Texas Rangers signing Rodriguez for $252m dollars making it the biggest most expensive sporting blunder in history. Remind us how Hick’s improvements have led to the massive success at Texas Rangers, come on tell us all about the honours they have won.
Parry needs removing asap because just like Dawg he’s a parasite.
The above folks are obviously Tom Hicks employees. Whats the odds you get 2 folks out of 3 in the comments saying they support Hicks. Weak attempt kids, just like the effort of your boss to convince us.
Under Hicks Rangers finished as follows
1998 1st
1999 1st
2000 4th last
2001 4th last
2002 4th last
2003 4th last
2004 3rd
2005 3rd
2006 3rd
2007 4th last
I just can’t wait for Hick’s “improvements” to take effect.
Parry gone, Moores gone, Rafa gone (or at least one bad run in the league away from being publicly humiliated) and all that’s left is this Hicks!
This is an anathema to the club that Shankly built.
“Oh yes improving it like he did at Corinthians. Improving their home strip so much he actually changed their home strip colours………oh sorry perhaps you mean improving like he did with Texas Rangers signing Rodriguez for $252m dollars making it the biggest most expensive sporting blunder in history. Remind us how Hick’s improvements have led to the massive success at Texas Rangers, come on tell us all about the honours they have won.”
1) Once again equating Corinthians with Liverpool I see. Pretty silly as always.
2) The Rodriguez deal didn’t improve the Rangers performance, but it demonstrated that Hicks was willing to put a lot of money into the club in order to win. And it wasn’t “the most expensive sporting blunder in history”. There are many, many more contracts that have produced far worse returns for teams than the Rodriguez deal did. The Rangers have been very, very bad for their entire existence. That Tom Hicks hasn’t been able to win with them isn’t for his lack of trying (i.e. spending a lot of money) and it isn’t much of a knock against him since no one has EVER won with the Rangers.
3) Tom Hicks’s other two teams, the Dallas Stars and Texas Longhorns football, have won championships (first time EVER for the Stars, first time in decades for the Longhorns) after he got involved. You forgot to mention this for some reason, Fred.
Fred, in pretending that is some major argument against Hicks, you make it very clear that you know absolutely nothing about the Rangers or Major League Baseball.
Whats clear is that he doesn’t bring sporting success.
It’s pathetically naive to equate winning with investing loads of money.
L.A. Galaxy & Beckham
Stars
2002/3 Lost semis
2003/4 Lost quarter final
2005/6 Lost quarter final
2006/7 Lost quarter final
Another impressive record of Hickabilly’s “improvements”. Also lets not forget the Stanley cup win was 1999. Whats happened since?
I agree its silly to compare Corinthians to Liverpool they are after all both football clubs both brought by Hicks both promised stadia that hasn’t appeared both lied to by Hicks and Corinthians are now in the 2nd division.
Ah, another election-style speech from Tom Hicks…
Vote for ME and I’ll reduce the debt on the club that I put there to begin with so I could buy the club. Vote for ME and I’ll give our manager an extended contract even though I participated in two meetings and publicly humiliated him last November. Vote for ME and I’ll fire the club’s chief executive for doing such a poor job even though I’ve had more than a year to analyse this situation and could have dealt with this in a discrete manner that saved embarrassment to the club. Hicks would be better off saving all the money he’s poured into his PR campaign and use it instead for more fruitful purposes – his motives in this are as transparant as glass. (By the way, in case you were wondering why the rah-rah-for-me interview was aired on Sky, a quick Google search will illustrate the number of boards sat on by both Tom Hicks and Rupert Murdoch – seems that they’re buddies.)
As Hicks is not the majority shareholder of Liverpool, he is speaking on behalf of himself and not the club, and thus Rick Parry surely has grounds for legal reply. More worryingly, his use of Rafa as a pawn in his powerplay must surely infuriate our manager, and frankly I wouldn’t blame Rafa in the least for throwing his hands up disgust at the blatant manipulation of his rock-solid favour with the fans. On more than one occasion since the change in ownership, rallies and stadium protests have circled around Rafa in support and protection. Hicks is so obviously trying to handcuff himself to Rafa’s wrist to avail himself of that same fan loyalty. As if.
As I’ve wondered elsewhere here, it’s inconceivable that no exit strategy was built into the original shared-ownership contract to lay out guidelines for how to dissolve the partnership if a situation like this evolved. If there’s no first-refusal clause (which may or may not be up at the end of May), then there’s something else in the contract that’s drawing Hicks out into a public forum now – something else that has him scrambling to throw down the challenge that if Gillett doesn’t sell, then the stalemate continues (conveniently putting the responsibility for the statemate on Gillett’s plate).
Hicks neglected to mention (must have slipped his mind) that the stalemate can be broken by the lending companies who hold the loans and he could be forced to sell whether he wants to or not. This would place the club in limbo for at least another year.
There’s an opinion piece in today’s Guardian speculating that this whole sorry mess is a result of David Moores choosing an extra £8million share profit over conducting any due dilegence on the American suitors when deciding between them and DIC last year. Moores can well shake his head now and say how sad he is, but a better response would be an apology to Liverpool supporters and an £8million donation to the Hillsborough Justice Committee.
Just like to add you are 100% correct I don’t know much about baseball as over here we call it rounders and its played by girls
I dont have much time for a “World Series” consisting of errm 2 countries!!
I want this all sorted soon.
For me, nothing has changed, Hicks has just given his version of what we already knew.
Plus, seeing him with his grandchildren up at 7am watching Liverpool…
MADE. ME. CRINGE.
Those kids didn’t even know what was going on!
Then he’s sitting around with his Liverpool mug, talking about Everton not liking our win against Blackburn!
I really despise those cheesy PR stunts. I just hope people don’t get taken in by this nonsense.
The only way for Liverpool to truly move on is all parties involved to leave. If Hicks stays as sole owner, then maybe the media frenzy will die down, but he’s proved again and again that he will not run a tight ship.
He has a bumbling nature, a lack of subtlety and wit. Clearly he has more money than sense. His timing is outrageous, just like George Gillets, in using the press in that way to conduct exclusives etc…to talk about the club, he has gone against everything the club USED to stand for…AGAIN. What happened to keeping things private?
Thanks to Hicks and Gillett we are the laughing stock of the footballing world, who would want to come and play for us? When nobody knows if we’ll still have Rafa.
This is one big joke. Gillett, Parry, Moores, Hicks…all must leave for this to be settled. My greatest fear is that Hicks will take over completely. We’ll never be free from controversy if he does. The club will never settle. Some fans will forgive him and forget, but he has scarred too many of us for the wound to completely heal.
The majority of fans will NEVER trust the owner again, and that doesn’t bode well for the future of our great club.
Hicks and Gillett are like two schoolkids name calling using the media, with every interview, with every comment, with every leaked letter or email…they are pushing the knife further into the heart of the club. Damaging us in ways they clearly are not understanding.
Notice the way i say ‘THEY’ I will not support Hicks or Gillett, they have shown to me their true natures. Sky have done nothing but LIverpool bash for the last 10 years, so Hicks gives them a ‘World Exclusive’…sorry Tom but since when does the nation matter? They don’t care about us, they laugh at us and mock us.
He has done this in a very bad way, just like Gillett and Parry have done.
This
Is
Terrible.
YNWA.
Jim cheers for the read and in response to your article:
You say below Jim
“There are numerous reasons why he’s been quiet in that respect, but it’s quite possible he’s been told that there is nothing in the letter he can legally complain about.”
That is possible Jim but it is also very conceivable that Parry’s quieter approach to the situation is because Parry understands situations like this should be sorted out in a much less public fashion. If there is one thing I will commend Parry on it is his ability not to shoot from the hip Hicks style in front of camera.
Again Jim you say
“Certainly he would have a tough job complaining about the contents of the letter in terms of what is expected of him. The club have fallen well behind in those areas, and it’s difficult to see how Rick Parry could defend his role in allowing that to happen”
I completely agree with you here Jim, Parry hasn’t done enough to propel us to the where we should be, the commercial forefront of the football world but I just think his position as CEO could have been put under the spotlight at a more appropriate time. The week of the Hillsborough Anniversary and a week before a champion’s league semi final is surely no time to be voicing boardroom discrepancies not to mind in public. I know you will argue that this is as good as time as any but surely what has been said in the press will come as a huge distraction for the manager and team when this whole issue could’ve been broached a month from now after seasons finish. Is it a case that in a month’s time it will be too late for such a similar type Hicks PR exercise to have the necessary effect to help him wrestle control from Gilette before the reported veto runs out?
In relation to some of Hicks comments;
“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.”
Hicks comment’s here sound to like an attempt to make himself less accountable for the Klinsmann situation. Whether or not Gilette did initiate the meetings with Klinsmann (which it seems it pretty clear he did) to me is more of an irrelevance. Hicks was still involved and still met him for a second time so his attempt to absolve himself or make himself less accountable is irrelevant. Whether he met Klinsmann for 2 hours or 20 hours that day doesn’t matter. He had agreed to do so with the possibility in mind of replacing Benitez. Who’s to say that Parry’s extended time in Klinsmanns presence wasn’t just down to something as simple as differing flight times between himself and Hicks.
“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.”
In relation to the above remark Hicks is hardly going to come out and say he will sack Benitez if he takes control. He has seen how the fans reacted when that was originally mooted back in January so whether he thinks Rafa is the right man or not we just don’t know. We are left to take him at his word, and we know from our own experiences we have been let down by that very word so many times before.
Again Jim also in reference to a couple of more points you make below
“Do fans prefer Rafa with five players missing from his squad, or Parry, a new manager, and possibly more changes to the squad?”
Fans would prefer a clean slate at boardroom level with Hicks Gilette and Parry gone and in its place DIC (as they seem like the only viable alternative) with Benitez being given the necessary funds to compete. Maybe its asking a bit much but from what I can see that is the preferred solution.
“It’s understandable why Hicks gave this interview. He wanted to set the story ‘straight’. His version anyway.”
Fair enough point Jim but the timing sucked.
And just one final point for those who believe in Hicks as a result of his much improved relationship with Benitez. Why wouldn’t Rafa want Hicks to take full control. Hicks is the only option where he is guaranteed to keep his job for another year at least. He knows Gillette was the man who initiated his sacking so chances are Gilette would attempt to replace him again in the future if given half a chance. His relationship with Parry had broken down for some time now and if DIC were to take over there was always the chance they would want to work with their own man.
There is a war going on for our mind.
Two sides shouting at us to choose their way.
But we have the power to say none.
We don’t have to choose any of these people.
We have the power to say no.
I for one will not support any of these moguls.
YNWA.
Rupert Murdoch is said to have described Kelvin MacKenzie as his all-time “favourite editor”.
More of “the Truth” from Tom Hicks then!
I wonder if Murdoch is advising Hicks?
The rodriguez deal makes me want hicks even more! Its not hicks’ job to choose the players but to pay for them. it is the manager’s fault the player didn’t work out! at least the rodriguez deal shows hicks is ready to put his money where his mouth it… gillett on the other hand is a cowboy – he’s been bankrupt before too!! nice… mmm.
give hicks a chance! as long as he doesnt change the kit colours
doubt he would!
Hicks is THE cancer within our club.
In these mad days, where up is down and left is right, it actually does my heart good to hear the fat mouth shout, bully, order and pontificate. For it simply illustrates a carpet-bagger in his death throes.
He knows the game is almost up. The time limit, re buying his partner out, seemingly ends on the last day of May. Six more weeks and the Hickster is fuked. Gillett will be able to sell to whoever the hell he likes come June 1st.
So boo hoo, Hicks. Go on, shout, bully and knock yourself out. It does my heart good to see a bully blubbering.
This article seems to me to be quite pro Hicks without stating as much. I personally find the way he is playing it out in the media a very deliberate attempt to take the pressure off himself. If it was merely about Parry’s failures at his job It would more than likely be a boardroom issue and not played out in the media circus arena. Pure political agenda and very little actual intentions. Wether you are a fan of Rafa or not he could be the one thing holding this club together right now so lets just hope he doesn’t decide he has had enough of this kind of drama
i agree with one thing and one thing only parry has to go he should have went years ago he has been holdin the club back in the financal market. while the otfer clubs sold their brand around the world he looked on we need money to compete for the signing of better players to compete domesticaly. then we need the two fat yanks to sort their problems out privately and not wash there dirty linen in public its makeing our club an embaressment. its a joke rick and david you took in the yanks bravo on that one just shows you didnt have a clue so get the f out . time for the fans to get together and take control of our club
I can’t understand all of the ’supporters’ who have now fallen for Hicks’ words for the second time, are they 12 years old or something?
Either that or they’re just plain ignorant.
Now as for Parry, I agree with most people that we’ve fallen behind some of the other clubs commercially over the last 10 years, which he has to be held at least partially accountable for, but what noone seems to be picking up on, is what life without Parry will be like.
As far as I can make out, Ian Ayre is the man that Hicks wants to take his place. This is what Hicks had to say about Ayre back in July last year:
(he is )…”the right man to rapidly develop the Reds’ huge commercial and marketing potential around the world”.
Wait a minute………….. I thought this is what he’s been criticising Parry for NOT doing.
If Ian Ayre was appointed to do this (rapidly) back in July, why is Hicks asking Parry to resign for LFC’s failure to develop the Red’s huge commercial and marketing potential worldwide? Surely this is now Ian Ayre’s responsibility, the very man that Hicks wants to replace Parry?
I smell a rat.
If anyone should be blamed for this particular failing during Hick’s tenure, it should be Ian Ayre, as what has he been doing exactly since July? He’s certainly not been RAPIDLY developing the Red’s huge commercial and marketing potential.
So the grass is not always greener on the other side. Hicks wants Parry out because he’s not his yes man. Quite frankly, I’m bloody glad that he’s not his yes man. Otherwise we would be massively in debt right now. If Ian Ayre is going to be a Hicks yes man then I’m not interested in him taking Parry’s place.
Think about it. If the fans HATE Hicks, but Ayre is promoted to the top job by Hicks, is Ayre going to be looking out for the fans? No chance.
What we need is Hicks to accept any offer that comes his way and get the hell out of the club.
And only then should we be concerning ourselves with Parry’s failings, because at the moment, he is one of our only unlikely allies.
Hicks OUT, and take your yes men with you!!!
Don’t believe his lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim Boardman – Dunk
Anfield road – Koptalk
Spot the difference!!!
Whatever it takes to get rich!!!
“It’s pathetically naive to equate winning with investing loads of money.”
I’ve never done that. I simply pointed out that he will spend lots of money in attempt to win.
“Also lets not forget the Stanley cup win was 1999. Whats happened since?”
The Stars had NEVER won the Stanley Cup before. Now Hicks should be blamed because they don’t do it every year. The point is that you said Hicks hasn’t been successful with any sports teams and that has proven to be false.
“Plus, seeing him with his grandchildren up at 7am watching Liverpool…”
He doesn’t have any grandchildren.
“Gillett will be able to sell to whoever the hell he likes come June 1st.”
That’s false.
St Chris, Juan, toshackrises, Fred, Edward. I agree will all of you. We need to rid ourselves of the entire board. That is the only way this club will thrive. Moores and Parry are idiots but Hicks and Gillett are extremely sinister characters. Gillett knows the game is up so Hicks is the guy who is obviously getting most of the attention.
I find it sickening to see the PR stunt perpetrated on us this morning. We had a similar PR stunt inflicted on us when they first took over. We vowed never to fall for it again yet some people seem to have fogotten and are prepared to take him on this word. I find that unbelievable.
Hicks has had a team of PR consultants working on an angle to win us over and its obvious he sees Rafa as the key to our support. How he can use this extremely honourable and sincere man in this manner is horrendous. Rafa is being driven out of this club by the behaviour of the board and I for one wouldn’t blame him if he left. If I were him I would resign immediately after the final whistle in Moscow – win or lose.
Nobody is defending Parry (why would we) so Hicks is using this to make sensible points about his failure to exploit markets. All I can say is that Hicks can’t even exploit the Texas market for his clubs (check out the attendances) so how are we to assume he will manage to turn us around. He has ZERO track record in doing so. We need proven winners at our club at all levels. Nobody not even the most ardent fan of Hicks can claim he is a proven winner. Most Hicks supporters on this site claim the Rangers never won anything before Hicks so Hicks has just continued that record. Thats hardly a ringing endorsement of his credentials. Liverpool need to be brought to the next level something Hicks’ so called 25 years of sporting excellence has been shown to be incapable of doing. This is not a provincial club playing a sport only followed in a handful of countries. This is Liverpool one of the biggest football clubs on the planet playing the most popular sport on the planet.
Hicks idea of having multiple stakeholders buying into the club but with him in control is a recipe for disaster. We need one owner with one direction. Whose to say Hicks won’t come under extreme pressure to get rid of Rafa if things aren’t going well and these guys see their investment crumbling. He will be answerable to these investors as nobody will be prepared to fund his purchase of Gillett with capital and not have a say in how the club is run.
Hicks claims that he will pair down the debt on the club. He has absolutely no track record in this. We need to look at the facts here – thats all we have. Promises are nothing. Debt, debt, debt that is all Hicks knows.
Jim, I know you are very hostile to Gillett and DIC’s PR machines. Fair enough, so am I but what is the story with all of Hicks PR guys flooding this and many other websites. Is there not something we can do? At least we should not engage them as if they are Liverpool fans, as they are clearly not. If Hicks took over Barcelona – Oh if only we were such a club – as we know nobody can touch them – but if he did these guys such as Texas Dawg would be off to the their fan sites to pester them with inane rubbish. Respect to Liverpool fans must come first (and that hasn’t been happening of late).
cynical and sickening gambit to hoodwink reds again by Hicks – he must think we are dumb.
But worries me and exposes his ruthless disregard of the L:FC is his use of Rafa to wage war on Parry ; if successful in driving Parry away in disgust he will follow with a drive against Moore – all to get his own yes men on the board.
Oh the crocodile tears for Rafa and the blatant untruth about eventually taking off the debt on the Club he put on in the first place!
He disgusts me and makes Gillette appear benign in comparison; I want both out of LFC but Hicks most of all.
Sorry – I didnt realise that there is another Irish Red on the website!!! Just say his post there
Texas Dawg, are you Hicks Junior or something?
The fact is Hicks has lost our trust. His PR stunts are exactly that – stunts.
We do not want to hear about everything that goes on in the boardroom – it is for board members to sort out. Because your daddy hasn’t gotten his way (as a result of Gillett / Parry / Moores) he’s throwing his dummy out of the pram and having a strop on worldwide TV.
He is the one who is not capable of running an organisation.
Tell him to take his bank loans back to America and stop mouthing off in public whenever he can’t get his own way in the boardroom. He’s a disgrace to the heritage of this GREAT club!!!
Get out!!!!
Not his grandchildren? Who were they then Texas_Dawg? His hareem?
“Texas Dawg, are you Hicks Junior or something?”
No. Just a friend, as I’ve said many times now.
“Not his grandchildren? Who were they then Texas_Dawg? His hareem?”
I didn’t see the interview. Maybe his youngest son or daughter had friends over to watch the game.
It’s not good enough to spend lots of money in an attempt to win.
What’s this ‘attempt’ business ! This is Liverpool!
“That’s false”
You seem pretty sure of yourself here. Would you like to elaborate a bit more because clearly you know more the the average man. You Toms missus?
Seriously though Texas Dawg who exactly are you?
Its clear you are not winning any popularity contests on this site so why are you so intent on coming back here.
If you are a plant from the Hicks side you are only causing more antagonism and hatred towards the man.
Well Texas Dawg, please could you pass on my best wishes to him and politely ask him to sell the club to anyone else who wants it?
We don’t mind if he makes a small profit – as long as he leaves it in exactly the same manner as he found it!!
Many thanks!!
“Its clear you are not winning any popularity contests on this site so why are you so intent on coming back here.”
Because I enjoy the news and discussion. Why do you come here?
“If you are a plant from the Hicks side you are only causing more antagonism and hatred towards the man.”
I’m not, so I’m not worried about that.
“Well Texas Dawg, please could you pass on my best wishes to him and politely ask him to sell the club to anyone else who wants it?”
I know he’s very aware that you and many others want him to leave.
He wants to own the club though and win with it, unlike Gillett who clearly wants out and is just holding out for more money.
Texas Dawg – a friend you say.
Are you friends enough to be able to tell him how much the fans loathe his presence at Liverpool and will never back a Hicks led regime.
I seriously doubt your credibilty as a Friend of Tom Hicks, more like a mischieveous wind up merchant
Well whatever floats your boat – you just seem to get far too much air time
Deputy Dawg
“That’s false”
Prove it.
“Are you friends enough to be able to tell him how much the fans loathe his presence at Liverpool and will never back a Hicks led regime.”
Of course. But do you really think he doesn’t already know that?
I would have more support for Hick’s position if he wasn’t so public in his criticism of individuals. Rafa and now Parry have been the target of very public statements. Maybe it’s an American thing but it flies in the face of the more subtle way things are handled at Liverpool. and generally in the UK.
There’s no doubting that Americans are generally very good at marketing and if Liverpool FC can benefit in the long term from Hicks’ talents then I’m sure more poeple would support his cause.
Rick Parry may not be the best CE we’ve had but public calls for him to resign are out of order. The man deserves to be treated with respect whatever his failings.
Try the softly-softly approach Mr Hicks and you may find you have us on your side. Continue to belittle LFC board members and you wil most certainly not win us over however much you promise us.
Dawg,
Explain why we should entrust our club to someone
who ‘attempts’ to win!
Winners win!
“I know he’s very aware that you and many others want him to leave.”
That’s besides the point – can you ask him my question anyway? Or are you talking shit about pretending to know him?
“He wants to own the club though and win with it, unlike Gillett who clearly wants out and is just holding out for more money.”
He’s not fit to own the club and his actions make it more difficult to win things. He should realise that we won’t allow him to use the club as a toy and treat us with no respect. He should hold out for a bit more money like Gillet and then go and invest in something more appropriate – like Weetabix again. He looks like he enjoys his cereal.
“Dawg,
Explain why we should entrust our club to someone
who ‘attempts’ to win!”
Edward, I simply was answering the critics saying he wouldn’t spend money on the club. You have made more of my point than was there.
“Winners win!”
I agree. And Tom Hicks has won the ultimate prize with 2 of the 3 clubs (besides Liverpool) that he has had a major role in. And those were clubs that had long been way down. Liverpool is the first club he’s owned that is already near the top of its league.
This is the conclusion to Tony Evans’s short piece in the Times today. It conveys any same man’s response to the latest outrageaous piece of spin by Thicks:
‘Yet Hicks’s attempt to woo his opponents is bound to fail. Like all propaganda, it is just words. The supporters know that the American has not got the money to sustain long-term ownership of the club. Words are cheap. Breaking ground on the new stadium in Stanley Park is expensive.
Liverpool supporters have been fooled once. It won’t work again.’
“Why do you come here?”
I come here in anticipation of seeing an article Jim may have already started working on. I believe the title will go something like
“Hicks Loses out to DIC in battle for ownership of Liverpool FC”
A work in progress, im never one to judge a book by its cover but its bound to be a great read…………..
“That’s besides the point – can you ask him my question anyway?”
I can. Kind of pointless though.
Me: “Hey, Tom… some anonymous guy on the internet wanted me to ask you this…”
Tom: “Of course, I already know that.”
“Or are you talking shit about pretending to know him?”
No.
Yeah Texas_Dawg…i just read a good comment on you…if your truly an ally to Hicks….all your doing is causing more damage.
Your annoying everyone and stirring the pot, thus creating more disdain towards Hicks.
Your faithful and 100% blinkered view on the man is only creating enemies. So this leads me to believe that you could actually be anti-hicks, and basically becoming cheerleader in a campaign against him. In fact…your more of a piñata.
Good job.
Pierre: I also thought Tony Evan’s observation in the paragraph that preceded the one you quote where he remarks on Hicks’s tactic of “divide and conquer” (in relation to Parry and Rafa) to achieve his ambitions was on the mark.
juan: brilliant – I’ve already preordered my copy.
“Yeah Texas_Dawg…i just read a good comment on you…if your truly an ally to Hicks….all your doing is causing more damage.”
Just like his interview today only made fans hate him more, etc., etc.
Time and results are the only things capable of repairing Hicks’s image with fans, ST Chris. Of course, some fans will always complain and dislike him, but if the club succeeds, wins championships, and improves financially under Hicks, his image with fans will improve and this problem will largely be over.
What is said now really changes no one’s opinion. You, I, and Tom Hicks all know that, of course. Time and results will do the talking.
“He wants to own the club though and win with it, unlike Gillett who clearly wants out and is just holding out for more money.”
Gillett would have sold to DIC only Hickabilly veto’d the deal so how is he holding out for money?
We need to get this idiot out of our club and fast.Step up the protests,boycott all club merchandise including lfctv, anything that can be done should be done. We all have a part to play.These american c***s are ruining our club and parry the parasite has to walk too after getting us into this mess.
BOYCOTT ALL LFC MECHANDISE!!!!!!!!
1 cup is success??
Hicks is crying big time. He’s a man not in control of his own destiny, hence the toys out of the pram. Vengeance is pumping around every vein. He’s throwing major haymakers at shadows. It’s a delight to see.
Keep the media outbursts coming fukwit. You’re only marginalising yourself even further at Liverpool (if that were possible).
“Gillett would have sold to DIC only Hickabilly veto’d the deal so how is he holding out for money?”
The deal was vetoed and now he is holding out for more money from Hicks.
“1 cup is success??”
When the team hasn’t won the cup ever before, yes.
Pierre (Belgium) // Apr 17, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Since only Julie appears to have read the Evans article in the Times, here it is in full for all my fellow reds (and I agree with you, Julie, on this article being spot on to depict Thicks’s nauseating ‘divide and rule’ tactics, which is certainly not going to fool foxy rafa):
“Liverpool won’t get fooled again
Tony Evans
There are many things you can say about Tom Hicks, the man who owns half of Liverpool, but you can’t deny he’s clever. He bought – with George Gillett Jr – Anfield on the cheap and will make a huge profit when he eventually leaves.
Hicks has also taken the initiative in the propaganda war. After almost sacking Rafael Benitez in December, he has realised the strength of feeling among the fans and performed a remarkable U-turn on the manager. Almost as astute has been his targetting of Rick Parry, the chief executive.
Parry is not so popular among the fans – after all, he brokered the deal to Hicks and Gillett. But the disatisfaction with Parry runs deeper. The chief executive carried the can for the Athens ticket fiasco, when Liverpool fans were in uproar over the scanty percentage of the 17,000 ticket allocation that made its way to the suppporters. His refusal to ‘play the numbers game’ over where the tickets went alienated the support.
So when Hicks turned his ire on Parry, saying the chief executive had showed contempt for the fans, it muddied the waters. Even the Texan’s biggest opponents couldn’t help but agree. And now he wants to keep Rafa at the club for even longer than his present contract – who can argue with that? Classic divide and conquer tactics.
Yet Hicks’s attempt to woo his opponents is bound to fail. Like all propaganda, it is just words. The supporters know that the American has not got the money to sustain long-term ownership of the club. Words are cheap. Breaking ground on the new stadium in Stanley Park is expensive.
Liverpool supporters have been fooled once. It won’t work again.”
ash // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Jim Boardman – Dunk
Anfield road – Koptalk
Spot the difference!!!
Whatever it takes to get rich!!!
That’s about the worst insult you could give anyone.
Now if you’ll pay your £30 subscription and click on the spyware-distributing ads then we can talk more.
There’s an old adage which applies very much here:
“Fool me once, shame on you.. Fool me twice, shame on me”.
Irrespective of whether Tom Hicks the man is telling the truth this time or not, he doesn’t deserve to be given the chance and it’s as simple as that really.
He has no precedent with us whatsoever to support his claims which rightly or wrongly means that we must dismiss this latest attempt as propoganda.
Anyway, maybe we will get the chance to see what his actions are if he gets his way. If he doesn’t totally deliver (which i don’t see realistically how he is) then he’d do well not to risk his face around Liverpool. I just hope he realises, Dawg, that these are people’s lives he is affecting. Any human being with an ounce or decency, whether they truly believe they can deliver on their future promises or not, should realise the opposition, hurt, and hatred they are causing and should do the right thing and give those people they hurt so much what they want, in this case leave.
To put it simply, Thomas O. Hicks is disillusioned if he thinks he can ever repair the fans affinity towards him. To me it doesn’t matter how much is Hicks fault, how much is DIC spin, how much Parry, etc, etc. If the man had any morals he’d be heading towards the exit door out of good will.
Hicks is a millionaire though, and few of them get to that position without being an intelligent bully, which explains a lot.
Please Tom, you have the chance to make a lot of people happy AND make some money in the process. Let me tell you, you are, as you seem to want to make your point towards, not going to win out of this in a Hicks and fans perspective, only maybe make more money. The sad thing is Hicks knows this already. Please, just leave.
Texas_Dawg, Can you answer me this Question….
What is the difference between last year when Hicks came out saying all sorts of things (i.e) Money, Stadium, players, No Debt on the Club, and what he is saying to the Media now???
This be the verse;-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=560326&in_page_id=1779
Now hicks is saying he’ll remove the debt from the club. It would be utterly astounding if his motives weren’t so pathetically transparent.
The owner from hell.
sign the petition!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/parry-gillett-out/
the best short term solution is to get parry and gillett out. they’ve both been more deceitful than hicks and are holding the club back. like or loathe him hicks isn’t going to budge any time soon and it’s in his interests to make us successful. atleast his talk hints at ambition, parry’s words never have in 10 years.
Gillett replies (from the BBC website):
Gillett hits back at Hicks in row
Liverpool co-owner George Gillett says he will not sell his shareholding to Tom Hicks and has accused him of creating “turmoil” at the club.
Gillett was responding to Hicks’s claim that he is preparing a “very attractive offer” to buy out his fellow American.
The relationship between the two men broke down some time ago, leading to civil war breaking out at Anfield.
Hicks wants Liverpool chief executive and Gillett ally Rick Parry to quit, labelling his tenure a “disaster”.
But Parry has the support of Gillett and a majority in his favour among the club’s six-man board.
Gillett said: “I am saddened at this latest outburst from Tom Hicks.
“Here we are, a few days away from a vital Champions League semi-final match and Tom has once again created turmoil with his comments.
“Tom should stop. He knows that Rick Parry has my support and that airing his comments in this way will not change my position.
“His failure to discuss this with the Board or the management committee is significant.”
“What is the difference between last year when Hicks came out saying all sorts of things (i.e) Money, Stadium, players, No Debt on the Club, and what he is saying to the Media now???”
You’ll have to be more specific.
NHL Stanley Cup playoffs:
Montreal is leading its first round series vs. Boston, 3 games to 1.
Dallas is leading its first round series vs. Anaheim, 2 games to 1.
It looks like Dallas and Montreal will be 2 of the final 8 teams in the NHL playoffs.
How great would a Montreal vs. Dallas Stanley Cup finals be? Maybe we could say that the loser must sell his half of Liverpool.
enjoyed that article jim, moreso the reaction Hick’s words received.
he does seem like he wants to succeed with us.
Another Bush-loving neocon spewing yet more lies and bullshit. This crapamoroony is an insult to our intelligence. He really has no clue as to our culture and, in particular, the culture involved in our being supporters of this wonderful unique club.
As for the bit in his TV interview about his family loving our city, I really just have to puke!!
These Yanks do not see very professional in the way they conduct business.
All this dirty laundry should be dealt with behind closed doors and not in public.
Lets face it , the success of Liverpool FC is what everyone is concerned with and all the politics and back biting is detrimiental to that.
No one has mentioned that going for Klinsman is idiotic.He has had one coaching job , that of Germany and I think that his 2nd in charge was the person with the football brains.
Klinsman has had no club coaching experience anywhere , never mind England.
Liverpool supporters need to turn up the heat on the Yanks , afteral why would they invest or run a club where everyone hated them and everytime they went to a match they were abused.
Jim
Thanks for the site and the opportunity to have a passionate and at least semi-informed debate about all the boardroom goings on.
As I understand the current position, and if we take Gillett and Hicks at their word (gulp?) then this is how it looks to me:-
George Gillett
wants to keep CEO Parry
will not sell to Hicks but wants out
will sell to another buyer if and when he is able
instigated the move to line up Klinsmann
is making no pretensions to be getting on with Rafa
has less money than Hicks
Tom Hicks
has more money than Gillett
went along with the Klinsmann thing
will hold onto his half for the foreseeable future
is wooing Rafa
will offer, with his pals, to buy out Gillett (who will not accept)
wants to get rid of Parry (and Moores?)
will be happy if Rafa and fans turn against Parry (and Moores?) and Gillett.
So assuming no dramatic change of heart by either man, then LFC will remain split indefinitely.
Is there anything that the ordinary fan can do to affect a change in the position of either man? I don’t think so as I believe both are more committed to their own self interest than the club, so……
my solution…
get behind Rafa and the team and IGNORE the boardroom
There’s an interesting article in the Telegraph on the PR battle currently being waged at Liverpool:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/04/17/ufnliv117.xml
And it seems the cover of a few posters here has been blown (excerpt from the same article):
It [the television interview] gave the uncompromising nature of the message a more palatable feel. The Hicks family are also reportedly keen on sending text messages to fans and are said to have targeted supporters’ websites.
the cover of these *plants* needs to be blown.
bogus fans need to be OUTTED.
I don’t think there are any “plants”, toshack.
I’m sure the Hicks family has reached out to Liverpool fan club leaders and website operators in order to present their case and counter some of the errors in the press.
Hicks has actually been pretty open about this:
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/04/17/liverpool-fc-owner-tom-hicks-calls-protest-petition-fan-64375-20780621/
Hiring plants isn’t really their thing. I’m sure they realize what a waste of time and effort that would be anyway.
I don’t know how easy it would be spot a plant from the info they leave here to post. Email address and name, plus their IP address is stored. It’s not difficult to hide your true IP address, and free email address are easy to come by. Nobody I’ve ever checked out has ever shown any signs of being an obvious plant for any side in this.
Dawgs no plant,he’s too much of a prick!! I would imagine if the Hillbillies were going to have a person posting on this site they would at least have someone with intelligence something dawg’s lacking.
Here’s a random example of life under Hicks. These are 2 posts from some guys called Mike.
The link is:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2007/06/tom_hicks_wait_till_next_year.php
FIRST POST
“if he CONTINUES to do a good job”??? ROFL…Old man Hicks must be on crack. Where DID he find that Daniels clown?…under the closest rock? Whatever the reason, Hicks has no clue about owning a pro sports team. Actually, I have no problem with his owning non-local teams and running them into the ground. He’s learned how to do that well”
SECOND POST
“I am 35 and have been a Rangers fan for as long as I can remember. Watching how Hicks has taken this already bad franchise and make it the worst in sports is sickening.”
Hiring Hart was his first mistake followed by waiting too long to get rid of him. Then as much I think he is a nice guy Daniels has failed miserably. He clearly was not ready for the job. I agree though at least he is more of a man than Hart which hid the whole time he was here.
Just thinking about all of the bad moves over the past 10 years is truly amazing. We used to have Pudge (been to 2 world series since leaving), A-Rod (we are still paying the Yankees over $10mm a year to hit hrs), Travis Hafner, Soriano (how did the Senators get him to play LF?) Chris Young & Adrian Gonzales (both young players for cheap $$$).
We have no top prospects coming up and good luck trying to sign a top FA to play here without overpaying. This thing is a train wreck and its time for it be over. Hicks and crew have to go. Hopefully Hicks will start losing enough money that he sells the team. Thankfully football season is almost here.”
Interesting article here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=560380&in_page_id=1779&ito=newsnow
The views of many seems to be that Hicks has been turned down quite a few times in his attempts to get financial backing, something DIC are fully aware of and time is rapidly running out for Hicks. The interview today is a last desperate attempt to secure some backing and win over the fans. Many seem to think that Gillett has an agreement with DIC and its just a matter of time before he can sell his 50% to them.That would then give DIC 2 seats on the board plus Moores and parasite if he is still there leaving Hicks to be nothing more than a passenger.
“Dawgs no plant,he’s too much of a prick!! I would imagine if the Hillbillies were going to have a person posting on this site they would at least have someone with intelligence something dawg’s lacking.”
Well put, Fred. I couldn’t agree more.
“Here’s a random example of life under Hicks.”
I’m just as much a Rangers fan as that guy, Edward. I don’t agree with every move Hicks has made with the Rangers, but then again, neither does Hicks.
I agree with that guy that the Hart hire was bad, but he is absolutely dead wrong about Daniels.
And if you go to a Dallas Stars or Texas Longhorns fan site, you will find that most of those fans very much like what their teams have done since Hicks got involved.
Texas Dawg – Whats your name? And can you provide some specific details on how you know Hicks other than just saying you’re ‘a friend’? I’m prepared to listen to your opinions if you can explain specifically how you know the man you laud.
thanks. look forward to the explanation.
Hicks interview on TV is ALL politics, designed to devide and conquor. Be exceptionally wary of a wounded lion, he will bite anyone he sees.
LFC fans would be very silly if they thought Hicks would be good for the club, his number one goal is money not the welfare of the club.
Say what you will but, for me DIC is still the best option, they have the resources, which Hicks admits he needs partners, DIC understand the game, Hicks clearly does not, DIC is professional, Hicks is a con man.
First up Julie, I thought your comment regarding Moores’ making 8M donation to Hillsborough Justice Committee was fantastic and right on the money (so to speak).
And Irish Red – we have to beat Chelsea over two legs before we get to Moscow, unless Chelsea are planning on forfeiting, but point taken.
One thing that really annoys me is that the Gillett/Parry camp keep on blaming Hicks for disrupting the club through the media and implying that they are lily-white themselves. Well Gillett gave Gillett’s interview on Canadian radio, not Hicks. And it wasn’t Hicks who went to the press recently with further allegations regarding Hicks’ relationship with Klinsmann. So rather than sympathising with Parry, the more he condescendingly points to ‘the Liverpool Way’ and ‘dirty linen’, the more he p*sses me off.
Why would Gillett and Hicks even talk to Klinsmann about replacing Rafa in the first place? What prompted them to do that? Is it possible Parry had already been in their ear suggesting that Rafa wasn’t reliable? I bet Gillett didn’t just wake up one morning and think out of the blue “I wonder if my buddy Jurgen wants to come and manage Liverpool for us…” No doubt there would have been many conversations before they even got in touch with Klinsmann, and we’re to believe that Parry had nothing to do with it except being ‘ordered to attend the meeting in New York’?
Just as some people worry about falling for Hicks spin, people should also worry about falling for Gillett/Parry spin.
There is a quote in one of the press articles: ‘The Liverpool crisis was sparked by chief executive Rick Parry’s refusal to allow [245M pounds] of… debt to be loaded onto the club, it has been claimed.’ Claimed by whom? The Parry and Gillett team? Sorry I’m just v. suspicious of these guys now. These claims imply that if Hicks got hold of the club the debt would be fully on the club (which it is indirectly anyway) whereas Hicks has just gone on the record in saying that he wants to take the debt off the club, except for working capital.
We are being played, but we’re being played by more than just Hicks.
Fernando Torres future under threat as banks keep watchful eye on Liverpool
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3768457.ece
Fred: interesting article – if Hicks had already secured other investors to help him buy out Gillett’s share, he would have gone ahead and done it (especially before the possible end-of-May right-of-refusal deadline) instead of going on television and blustering about how he was putting together the bid. If he had the means already to buy out Gillett, he would have done it and fired Parry, whom he seems so keen to be rid of.
Edward: that’s really really scary, especially if the ownership (which now equals “lack of leadership”) limbo continues. Ironically, it really knocks the wind of out pro-Hicks arguments that refer to bringing in Torres as an example of how good Hicks is for Liverpool. Seems Hicks neglected to mention that he never even paid for our Number 9. Anyone got Leeds’s phone number? We may need to find out if there’s room for one more in the goddamn poor house.
If Hicks’s PR team is getting paid by the number of articles generated from the Sky interview, they’ll be carrying it in by the bagful. Of course, if they’re only being paid for the positive ones, then they might be looking elsewhere for their lunch money.
Superb piece in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/04/18/sfnjim118.xml
”Texas Dawg – Whats your name? And can you provide some specific details on how you know Hicks other than just saying you’re ‘a friend’? I’m prepared to listen to your opinions if you can explain specifically how you know the man you laud.”
I’m not going to give you my name, but Jim was able to verify my claim through some savvy Googling. I’m no one famous or important. Just a friend. Not a big deal.
“Fernando Torres future under threat as banks keep watchful eye on Liverpool”
Now that is pretty funny.
‘Today Hicks explained why he wants Parry out: “If you look at what has happened under Rick’s leadership, it has been a disaster. We have fallen so far behind the other top clubs. The new stadium should have been built three or four years ago.’
Is this guy a joke? How is it Parry’s fault that the stadium is not built yet???
Hicks is a liar and has no integrity. He screwed Brasilian fans of Corinthians and now he wants to screw us over.
Tom Hicks, please do us all a favour and F%#K OFF!
Jim, even by your now sadly woeful standards, this piece is really poor. Just more evidence that you’ve become Hicks’s willing mouthpiece in trying to totally reinvent the history of the last 15 months. There are so many things wrong with this piece I don’t even know where to start in trying to list them.
Not one Liverpool fan I know was “eagerly awaiting” any further word from Tom Hicks. We’ve all been hoping this parasite will have a heart attack and die………but you’ve somehow converted us all into “eagerly awaiting” his latest self-serving rant. You have euphemistically (and dishonestly) described this as an “interview” but it was no interview. It was a carefully stage managed, pre-prepared sermon from a master bullshitter. No pressure of any kind was applied to him regarding any of his comments or to have him explain how any of his wide-ranging but hopelessly vague promises would, or could, ever possibly be fulfilled………………….and yet every word is reported by you as gospel without the slightest hint of critical analysis.
Regarding the Klinsman affair it would appear Hicks has tried to carefully choose his words so as to create the impression this was really all Gillett and Parry’s idea and that poor meek little Hicks only went along reluctantly. BULLSHIT !!!! If there is anyone out there in any danger of believing this revisionist bollocks then just go back and take a look at Hicks’s interviews, public statements and interviews in the period from summer 07 to November/December 07 period. What you see is a scowling, menacing, angry Hicks barely managing to conceal his anger at Rafa and looking for the first decent excuse to chop him for the crime of publicly challenging Hicks and Gillett to live up to their promises. Consider also Hicks’s personality and the fact that he never made any of these allegations before until recently when it became politically convenient to make Parry and Gillett the bad guys…………and yet we’re now supposed to believe that an unwilling Hicks’s had his will overridden by Gillett and his own employee Parry. BULLSHIT !!!
Hicks now says the Klinsman meeting (of course not referring to the one he and Klinsman attended alone) was “set up” by Gillett and Parry. Hicks deliberately chose words that could mean anything precisely because because he knows that in reality they mean nothing. This deliberate vagueness means he can avoid later being pinned down on a lie. Hicks knows the record will show that the “research” on Klinsman was done by his own people and not Gillett’s. Therefore he’s tried to cover this off as best he can by implying that, although unwilling, he was “told” to do this research by Gillett. More BULLSHIT !!!
Jim, you say “Hicks feels he was unfairly given the blame for this meeting…..” How the f**k would you know what Hicks feels about this unless you live inside his head. All you know is that this is what Hicks now finds it convenient to say……but the fact remains that Hicks was to blame for the Klinsman affair, at least as much, if not moreso than any other person………..and he was 100% to blame for destabilizing the Club by publicly announcing this mid-season when it served no one but undermined Rafa and stuffed any chance of a title challenge. In your twisted mind you’ve tried to paint Hicks up as some kind of hero for doing this but he was really just unbelievably arrogant and dumb. No wonder Gillett was incensed at having to put up with a partner like this.
You’ve even tried to imply that Hicks’s public announcment (more accurately trumpeting) of the RBS refinancing package was heroic and that Gillett was dishonest for not adding his name to Hicks’s announcement of this. More bullshit !!! The reality is that Gillett, whatever his other sins, at least had the deceny to realize that publicly trumpeting another broken promise was tacky and unworthy. Hence his refusal to go along with it.
So much of what you say about Rafa is just over the top, unsupportable bullshit without any sources and based on pure speculation. Rafa already has an existing two year contract. It would cost him a fortune to break this but Hicks’s “promise” (as if that word means anything coming from him) of adding on one more year is supposed to make all the difference. BULLSHIT !!!
Rafa knows if he went to Real Madrid or Barcelona he wouldn’t get even half the autonomy he gets at Liverpool. If Hicks took over the Club him and Rafa wouldn’t last two months before the same problems they had before resurfaced for exactly the same reasons……………and we all know who would be forced out then. No-one should be fooled by anthing Hicks says or does right now because his greed is only temporarily keeping his rampant arrogance in check.
We all know Rafa is a low key individual. We all know he does not like to be put in the public spotlight. Most of the other respectable broadsheets are reporting that Rafa is embarrassed and unsettled by the public spat and by being put at the centre of it in a way that puts huge pressure on him and will likely sap his and the team’s moral at the worst possible time. Contrary to your piece other papers are reporting that Rafa does not trust Hicks at all and of course you’ve failed to even mention Hicks’s ongoing recent contact with Klinsman !!! Nor, despite the prevalent rumour and speculation which pervades your entire piece, have you mentioned the reports now leaking out about players saying they will leave the Club if Hicks gets ownership. Where would Rafa have been without Stevie G in Istanbul or at Cardiff in 06 ?? God forbid that having to deal with real issues like this should get in the way of serving Hicks’s political agenda.
You’ve also done your best to underplay Hicks’s second private meeting with Klinsman when Parry and Gillett were not present and Hicks’s ongoing contact with Klinsman since then. What a pity it would be for you and Hicks if Liverpool fans were to the get the right idea about that. Only the stupidest or most wilfully corrupted among us could possibly claim what Hicks is now doing is for the good of the Club.
You keep referring to Gillett as “claiming” that he won’t sell because of death threats but you are conveniently misreading Gillett’s comments and misleading readers about this. Gillett may not have liked being threatened but what Gillett was trying to say was not that he was afraid to sell to Hicks because of threats but rather that the threats had convinced him of the strength of feeling against Hicks from the fans. He did not want to make a sale that was opposed by virtually all fans. Whether you believe this or not it is not your prerogative to change the meaning to suit yourself.
You’ve also repeatedly implied that Gillett is lying about receiving death threats but I personally know of more than one Liverpool supporter who has threatened Gillett’s life (if he sold to Hicks) and they were very happy to tell me about it. Knowing the strength of passions Hicks has aroused I have no trouble at all believing Gillett on this issue.
You’ve made statements several times based on nothing more than “I believe….” failing once again to realize that for most of us the real question is do we believe you ?? With respect…………your credibility is so far gone I wouldn’t believe anything you said or wrote now.
Just like a US election year politician Hicks is now (after 15 months of doing f**k all but make an arse of himself and the Club) suddenly making all sorts of promises and proposing grand action plans for his future as head of LFC. Except that the words are always carefully chosen so as to be either non-binding on him or too vague to really mean anything. He said several times “my goal is to do this…” or “I want to do this…” On the occasions he used the word “will” it was “I will fix this”. What the f**k does that mean bullshitter ??? This is the question people like you (who claim to want whats best for the Club) should be asking (and demanding detailed answers to) instead of trying to pad out Hicks’s meaningless one liners so that they appear to actually mean something.
Hicks’s latest rant, and your summary both referred to Liverpool’s claimed lack sponsorship deals. Of course you again conveniently neglected to mention that Hicks’s own man (Ian Ayre) has been in charge of arranging commercial sponsorship deals since last July but has failed to gain a single deal of any note since that time. The lamest thing of all in Hicks’s “interview” were his shamelessly dishonest and illogical attempts to try and link Parry with the failure to progress the stadium over the last 15 months. This is entirely the fault of the Americans (and Hicks every bit as much as Gillett) but the man has absolutely no shame.
Your whole discussion of finance conveniently forgot to mention that the only reason Hicks is in this embarrassing position is because no one in the financial world will now touch him with a barge pole. Like any other small time chump with pretensions of being a bigtime player (and with ambitions that far outstrip either his resources or ability) Hicks’s rant was conspicuously short on detail. What we do know for certain is that every “promise” Hicks has made so far has been broken without even a serious attempt at fulfilment. In every case Hicks has later offered some unbelievable, after-the-fact explanation as to why this is really all the fault of someone else ……………..usually one of his (many) enemies. You can be certain that if Hicks gets sole ownership none of his promises will be kept…………..but 12 months down the track he will again reinvent history so that some patsy like Parry is really to blame for this. The same Parry Hicks praised effusively 15 months ago for his great work over the preceding 10 years. Jim Boardman will probably also be there to assist Hicks again by pointing out that Hicks didn’ t really “promise” this, he merely said it was his “goal” or only said he “wanted” to do this. People who protest at this will be accused of “telling lies” and not having an open mind about whatever new lies Hicks wants to tell at that time. Meanwhile Jim will gladly pad out whatever lame sounding excuse Hicks offers up (if any) with more far fetched and unbelievable revisionist bollocks masquerading as journalism.
One other thing we know for certain is that Hicks has plenty of experience of US – Karl Rove – George Bush style electioneering tactics. He and his surrogates will now blitz the UK media over the next 6 weeks. Hicks will be on a “charm offensive” (more accurately known as a “bullshit offensive” outside Texas) while other surrogates do the real hatchet work on Parry, Gillett, Moores and DIC. Mysterious parasites from Texas with names like “Texas Dawg” or “Modus Operandi” who know, and care, nothing about Liverpool Football Club will suddenly be posting non-stop on fan websites with a constant stream of disinformation, praising Hicks and abusing those who stand in his way……………..and just reminding us all in the process how well deserved Texans’ reputation for being utter morons really is. Parry will be blamed for everything since the Battle of Hastings and they will use Hicks’s own refusal to release money for transfers (which he doesn’t want to do anyway) to try to ratchet up the pressure within the Club to breaking point in the hope we’ll we’ll all feel so paralyzed by their pressure that we just give Hicks whatever he wants to end the pain. ………………………..But we can all forget about the Champions League and the Premiership. Our long cherished ambition to be no. 1 in Europe again will mean nothing to a man whose only real concern is how many mugs and t-shirts we sell in China and how much money he can make from this “brand loyalty.”
More good news for the many who want Hicks out
Merrill Lynch is to shed anywhere between 3000 and 4000 jobs after posting losses of $2 billion
RBS is looking to launch a rights issue to raise upto £12 billion as it tries to shore up its finances due to the global credit crunch.
Hicks doesn’t seem to have a hope in hell in raising the finances he needs and taking into account GG’s statement that he won’t sell to him its not looking too good
Link to the Hicks interview if anyone hasn’t seen it:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x53uz9_tom-hicks-interview-with-sky-sports_sport
Dawg
But I follow the American sports scene closely, so let me point out your BS…
” The Rodriguez deal didn’t improve the Rangers performance, but it demonstrated that Hicks was willing to put a lot of money into the club in order to win………. That Tom Hicks hasn’t been able to win with them isn’t for his lack of trying (i.e. spending a lot of money) and it isn’t much of a knock against him since no one has EVER won with the Rangers.”
First of all, Rangers ranks 20th out of 30 teams in players payroll this season , and similar positions in recent seasons
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3325028
I wonder if that qualify as “lack of trying” ?
Yes, Hicks gave ARod the biggest contract in baseball history back in 2000. But only 3 years into the 10 years contract Hicks traded him away (during which ARod broke all kinds of individual records ) when the revenue he thought ARod would bring in didn’t materialize, and realizing that one superstar player cannot turn the team around. That showed what kind of “vision” Hicks has….
And since then the Rangers hasn’t splashed out any big money and has basically been bottom dweller.
“Tom Hicks’s other two teams, the Dallas Stars and Texas Longhorns football, have won championships (first time EVER for the Stars, first time in decades for the Longhorns) after he got involved. ”
Yes, the Dallas Stars won the Cup under his ownership. I’ll give you that.
Texas Longhorns is the football team of the University of Texas, a public funded university. How does it became “Hicks’s team”??
Hicks is a big “booster” ( in America,it means someone who donates money to a university’s athletic program )of U of Texas. And Hicks could have had certain influence in the program , under the table.
But realistically, Universtiy of Texas winning the college football title has as little to do with Hicks as our win in Istanbul had to do with Harry Kewell.
So Dawg, you can stop making up all that stuff to my fellow Reds across the pond.
Texas Dawg,
If you are indeed Hicks’s ’special friend’, why is he not raising his concerns in the boardroom rather than on national television?
Also, does he (and you) honestly believe that we will fall for this sham of a publicity stunt?
If you go on to tell me that words won’t change anything and it’s only actions etc etc, then why the hell is he constantly spouting his mouth (and words) off on TV? Like you say – it’s pointless!!
So he should just SHUT THE FUCK UP and deal with any issues privately in the boardroom and not in the media (i.e the Liverpool Way). It’s about time his loud mouth was canned so we can concentrate on the thing that really matters – the football.
But I suspect the real reason he is spouting off in the media is because he is trying to turn the fans against the people that are preventing him from getting his own way in the boardroom – Gillett, Parry and Moores. He is desperately trying to hang on in there because he can smell a buck or two. Well we don’t want him!!
And we won’t fall for his PR machine (I include you in that)!
Lets not forget, so far he has fallen out with Benitez and the fans, then Gillett and now Parry. He sounds like an amiable fellow!!
Fascinating and best discussion out there on the saga. Can someone please shed more light on the alleged “pro-Parry”, “anti-Hicks” players in our squad ? I pray we don’t have a situation where the players themsevles are taking sides (eg; English versus Spanish). Please someone talk more about this. anfielder, what do you know, how ?
After a truly appalling week for Liverpool courtesy of Tom Hicks some better news from today’s Independent.
“Undeterred by the latest public outburst by Liverpool’s co-owner Tom Hicks, the Arab consortium Dubai International Capital is ready to buy out his partner George Gillett within six weeks when a legal bar on the sale of his 50 per cent stake is lifted.”
…………………….”but this will not deter DIC from a plan to take over Gillett’s 50 per cent share in Liverpool – when pre-emption rights preventing the sale expire – enduring Hicks for as long as they must and then attempting to force Hicks out of the club by putting up money for Liverpool’s new stadium and challenging him to do the same. They believe he will be unable to do so.”
Lets hope this is true, but it fits in with what George Gillett allegedly said to the staff at Anfield last week when asked about job security.
But the question remains can we hold on to Rafa ? (and Torres ?)
And the comments in the Independent are better news how?
The question remains, will we be any better off with DIC holding 50% of the club rather than Gillett? 50:50 ownership is a recipe for disaster, whoever the shareholders are. Until there is majority ownership for someone, I don’t think we’re gonna get anywhere.
‘JR’ Hick’s fireside chat has ‘raised’ the LFC boardroom battle to the level of the popular 80’s soap Dallas. The tabloids are having their own battle with the ’serious’ press for the most outrageous/insightful articles, and the war is being fought using all modern means of communication.
Parry is, in my view ,underestimating this phenomena as a “sideshow” when in fact this is the ‘main event’. He has said he has not watched the ‘interview’ but he will be more or less the only one who hasn’t.
Matters on the pitch are just not as entertaining for the British public as the ‘Tom and George’ show, with guest stars Parry, Amanda and DIC.
Issues such as whether or not Gerrard and Torres will be rested at the weekend for the Chelsea game are bland in comparison to ‘what was George drinking from that mug’
After all, the EPL/Champions league comes around every year but the sort of ‘Reality Soap’ we are seeing played out at Anfield is once in a lifetime stuff.
Football may be more important than life or death but the ’soap’ is of ultimate significance in the 21st century.
What I would really like to see is some proper scouse humour to put it all in perspective. Did you hear the one about …..
Hop,
Read the second paragraph, DIC are in a far stronger position to oust Hicks than Gillett. It will take a little time unfortunately but they can do it. See also previous posts about Hicks’ precarious financial position.
The only other alternative is for Hicks and Gillett to agree to sell to the same buyer which I can’t see.
Great post Anfielder!
Of all weeks for Hicks to use the word “disaster”. Not selling a few extra shirts in Asia?
Here’s how John Aldridge put it in perspective after Hillsborough:
“Hillsborough was a real tragedy on a real day involving real people. We often talk of nightmares in our lives, of disaster, of tragedies, but most of us don’t really know what we’re talking about. I was injured playing for Liverpool the season before Hillsborough and I called it a personal disaster. Disaster? When you know people have died in your vicinity you realise missing a football match or two through injury is irrelevant. Most things are irrelevant. The death of the innocent – the suffering, the injustice – is a real disaster. A real tragedy.”
Another reliably brilliant and typically forthright post from Anfielder. Thanks for saying some things that needed to be said about the recent writing on this site.
I would say great post anfielder. At least you are someone consistent with your comments. Like us majority of true LFC fans, we want HIcks out of our club because we realise how bad the situation is at the moment and how potentially it would be in the future if Hicks managed to be the majority shareholder in our club.
The major issue I have with all the recent posts of Mr Jim Boardman is how he has managed to somehow turn his vitriolic comments he had about Hicks not so long ago to sweet and cuddly comments at the present. How he thinks Hicks is the real deal and is the only one who really cares about LFC. I simply do not comprehend how people can change their opinion so quickly and without any real reason to why. I haven’t seen anything that has made me change my mind about the situation at the present and I believe the same to be true for the majority of LFC fans. That’s when I start to become cynical about things!!!
Anyway, that’s my rant about things. Hopefully things will be sorted out soon and we can go back to discuss all matters to footie only.
A.
DIC are in a Strong position, Hicks and Gillett are not, Gillett wants to sell, Hicks doesn´t!!! I think that Hicks has enough to buy out Gillett, but with all this talk recently, where does the money come for the Stadium?? How on Earth will he “Shift” the debt off the club, as it is Secured on the club?? I hope May 1st is the D-Day for us, this has to be resolved now, not talking in the Media, these two must be forced to meet!! and that they must come up with an answer.
Texas_Dawg
“What is the difference between last year when Hicks came out saying all sorts of things (i.e) Money, Stadium, players, No Debt on the Club, and what he is saying to the Media now???”
What i mean by that is, Money was promised for players (Not the banks money) We were told the Stadium would be built, NO DEBT WOULD BE SECURED ON THE CLUB. He is saying to the media now pretty much what he said last year…
Anyone else here making the trip to see Fulham V Liverpool tomorrow? Cant wait, even if it’s likely to be a reserve side!
As usual Anfielder’s post incisively sums up what most of us feel Hicks-wise. Congratulations, Anfielder. On the other hand, I feel that some vituperations do not come from civilized human beings. Just in case, ash, ‘dunk’ is spelt with a final ‘g’. Jim does not deserve this kind of abuse. I wouldn’t be surprised if , for some obscure reasons, Jim relished now being the scapegoat of all Hick-haters. I too think that his shift in Hicks appraisal has been pretty brutal, but it is clear that he remains a very respectable red. Unlike a couple of ranters on this site.
Talk about spin!
Apparently it’s not log fire season in Texas.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/04/tom_hicks_throws_another_log_o.php
As for Sky sports?
“My favorite part of this Sky 4 report is the very end: “Tom Hicks is a popular figure in Dallas” He is? Hats off to the fans in Liverpool who discovered rather quickly that Tom Hicks is one of the worst owners in professional sports.”
“Apparently it’s not log fire season in Texas.”
That part of the interview was hilarious. It’s probably hotter in Texas right now than it is in Liverpool in the summer.
““My favorite part of this Sky 4 report is the very end: ‘Tom Hicks is a popular figure in Dallas’ He is?”
That fan may not like Hicks, but he’s definitely not unpopular in Dallas, fwiw.
With reference to the story of Hicks asking Klinsmann for advice on Rafa transfer targets:-
“Tom has not had any contact with Klinsmann on this matter. He has not seen him since the meeting in November. So the story is just plain wrong.”
Spin Spin Spin – three little words “on this matter” could easily mean he has been in regular email/phone contact on all sorts of matters relating to the future of the club.
Yet again, a public statement that has the potential to hide more than it discloses. JR would be proud.
And that out of season ‘log fire’ – I really am starting to thoroughly enjoy the soap.
All we need now is for George to put on a pair of ski’s and start talking about going down a slippery slope just not being the Liverpool way!
Can we just lighten up?
Further to the revelation that Hicks plans to go on the PR offensive (emphasis on the “offensive”) in the next six weeks and to The Abbott’s comment above about George on skis, how about we take a poll on which new media tactics will be employed to woo supporters (the only common theme being that a fire must be employed somehow in the image)…
(a) Hicks by a campfire in moonlight, strumming an official Liverpool guitar and softly crooning “You’ll Never Walk Alone” as wild horses in full kit prance in the background.
(b) Hicks in his Dallas boardroom, working on importantly looking documents about the new stadium, surrounded by men in suits nodding studiously at him, as he slams his official Liverpool mug on the table, yells out, “This is a disaster,” and sets flame to the documents with his official Liverpool lighter.
(c) Hicks on his official Liverpool mobile phone to another supporter who has publicly complained about his complete mismanagement of the club – showing that he knows how to relate to the average fan – the glow outside his window a reflection of the roaring bonfire as Rick Parry’s desk is tossed in for fuel.
I have only posted once on this site although it never got printed? I am a lifelong LFC fan and I have taken great interest in reading the posts/articles on this site in the last few days in order to get a clearer picture of what is happening to the club.
It is quite clear that the Hicks interview was a huge PR stunt. Yes Hicks is saying all of the right things but this is for political manoeuvring – he is trying to get onside with the fans of that there can be no doubt. Will he keep to his word if he gets control – only time will tell.
What both Gillette and Hicks are doing is dividing the fans. This is wrong. The timing is disrespectful to both the supporters and the team.
I personally felt like being sick at the sight of Hicks with the LFC mug. The guy is interested in LFC for one reason only …$$$.
Ideally LFC would be owned by a true red – but this is not the case. So if the club is to be owned by a businessman then ideally they will act in a supportive fashion to the board, manager, team and show respect to the fans. Neither owner is demonstrating this as we all know. But if there are divisions at board level then there must be at least support for the manager and the team if both are performing well. And respect must be shown to supporters.
The divisions and infighting is disrespectful and unsupportive on all fronts. I realise that it is difficult to keep this private but it should not have come to the public mud slinging that we have seen in the last few days. This is a sign that the people involved do not know or do not care about the traditions of the club. At least Parry tries to get things back to football matters.
It is a sad state of affairs that it has come to this with football. Parry may or may not deserve to move on, of this I am unsure of because I think Rafa is the only one who can really say if he has hindered transfers. Yes, we have fallen behind the other big teams in merchandising etc. – this is clear to see from the Torres range online – which in my opinion could be improved to say the least and is weak in quality, presentation and product range. Is it solely Rick Parry’s fault a new stadium wasnt built earlier or that we dont have more sponsors?
The one thing that seems to be absolutely crystal clear is that Benitez is a damn good manager. People talk of rotation, well Ferguson rotates, all of the time, but he has the quality to do so. To some extent LFC still are lacking in certain areas. I have faith in Rafa that should he gain a couple more signings of the quality of Babel, Torres, Mascherano then we will be able to challenge for the title. The current team is much better than previous years and we have real foundations. Therefore to lose Rafa would be detrimental to say the least.
There are just a couple of things I would like to mention…
Jim the site is interesting but you do appear to show some loyalty to Hicks in your writing for reasons I cannot fathom. Even if he delivers all of his promises I will still not like the man because he is a fake. You also seem to have already condemned Parry without Rafa actually speaking out. Therefore for these 2 reasons I am struggling to find you 100% objective.
Texas Dawg – you are a strange charachter. Why are you here? Who gets this much time to post (as you do) and gets this involved if they do not have a vested interest? At best you are pro-hicks and are interested in football. Which in my eyes makes you a wind up merchant who is playing devils advocate. At worst, you work for Hicks, which would be disgraceful, particularly considering your lack of empathy and timing in your posts on the day of the Hillsborough Aniversary. Why are you so pro Hicks?
Benitez committed to Liverpool:
“At this moment I have two years of my contract still to go, I am really pleased and really happy here. And I want to stay. And I want to stay for a long time.”
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jt4glXTGy2tm7IlI6Yp6OmEpH9eg
“(a) Hicks by a campfire in moonlight, strumming an official Liverpool guitar and softly crooning “You’ll Never Walk Alone” as wild horses in full kit prance in the background.
(b) Hicks in his Dallas boardroom, working on importantly looking documents about the new stadium, surrounded by men in suits nodding studiously at him, as he slams his official Liverpool mug on the table, yells out, “This is a disaster,” and sets flame to the documents with his official Liverpool lighter.
(c) Hicks on his official Liverpool mobile phone to another supporter who has publicly complained about his complete mismanagement of the club – showing that he knows how to relate to the average fan – the glow outside his window a reflection of the roaring bonfire as Rick Parry’s desk is tossed in for fuel”
Julie Lol – Its funny because its true. Its just so easy to visualise all of the above.
Im sure Texas Dawg will be straight on the blower to Tom – “Tom bad news your campfire liverpool guitar wild horses stunt has been rumbled”
The only thing Im surprised about yesterday video is that Tom didnt have the kids in the Liverpool tops rocking on his knee.
It more like an ad for Werthers Original….
dawg,
‘Oscar from Los Angeles’ who posted up there at 9:28 a.m. reckons your full of BS.
As for the ‘fire going during his interview with British TV?’
If that’s an hilarious distortion of fact and reality, then it doesn’t take much to conclude that the entire ‘interview’ (promotional video?) was as well.
On the lighter side of things heres a video of Will Ferrell taking off President Bush.
Ferrell would definitley do a good Hicks and in fact I reckon this is probably pretty similar to the filming of yesterdays interview with Sky.
Any Will Ferrell fans take a look………….
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q5r6TqpOQGc
“It more like an ad for Werthers Original….”
LOL. Seriously.
juan: perfect – if they’ve scuppered the guitar-roaring camptire plan, we need to compensate them with one that includes children (a la Werthers)…
How about:
Hicks on a football pitch talking on his official Liverpool mobile again, surrounded by eleven small children fully kitted out in the usual starting XI (a little Gerrard, a little Torres, a little Carra) running around in smiling glee as Hicks yells out, “You there in the red top, Jurgen says you have to go home now.”
More from today’s Independent;-
“The Texan’s (Hicks) esteem took a further hit by revelations yesterday that he personally called the leader of a supporters’ group trying to raise a petition to oust him. “He asked me what I was playing at,” said John McCaffrey. “He was stuttering a bit at first.” ”
And here’s the petition, sign up and watch the fun.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/AR10308/
More good news:-
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jt4glXTGy2tm7IlI6Yp6OmEpH9eg
Sounds like Rafa has smoothed things over with Parry, lets hope so.
Things are lightening up TG
Rafa sounds happy having decided that the key is to avoid
talking to anyone on the Anfield Board at the present time. That appears like a very good strategy!
Julie and Juan are getting into the swing of things and even Tex is not taking himself too seriously!
By the way my guess is that that the LFC mug was full of BS!
Anfielder: Great post per usual. In addition, George can saw from the beginning that he has bitten off far more than he can chew thusbringing Hick’s into the owners equation to help bolster his move. He now sadly states that he made an error and wants to sell his share to people who he believes will stabalise the club and he cannot see that with his current partner. Fair play…at least he knows he doesn’t have the funds to propel LFC towards the top of the pile and in the same breath he can also see that Hick’s will not be able to do it either.
Also if Hicks can just about muster support and finance from other investors (which appears to proving difficult), where on earth will he get the extra funds to rid the club of its debt, buy players, start work on the new stadium etc?… Just a thought.
Why do my comments “await moderation” and never get printed?
Twice now….
Are the players in the squad split on Hicks, Rafa and Parry ? If so, how?
Can we read anything, as far as the boardroom battle, into the fact that we’re suddenly being linked with 4 English players ? Strange players to be linked with I think, not exactly world class. Does Rafa even know what his budget is this summer? Are Parry and Rafa scouting different sets of players ? Can we read anything into the rumour that Crouch is waiting to see if Rafa will still be in his job before deciding whether to sign his contract ?
Excellent post by Anfielder. My only criticism is that you didn’t use the word “bullshit” enough times in describing the appropriate response to Hicks and his comments.
You’re right Jofrad, this article is good news but it more or less sums up what I’ve suspected all along. A bit of strain between the CEO and coach is to be expected at any club but I don’t believe the relationship between Rafa and Parry is anywhere near as bad as Hicks would like it to be right now or would like to have us believe.
Again it involves making an assumption (to some extent) but even if the relationship were absolutely awful (and it clearly is not) I don’t expect Parry to remain after DIC come in anyway and tI’m sure Rafa knows this so he’s not interested at all in having some big “him or me” style showdown with Parry before the end of May like Hicks’s surrogates want us to believe. Its Hicks who’s desperate to try and provoke this feeling of desperation for Parry to leave but its definitely not Rafa.
Rafa loves the Club and he knows that with or without Parry he’ll still get far more autonomy over transfers and so forth than he would get ever get at one of Spain’s big two. Even the greatest coaches usually only last a short time at those clubs and man-managing a collection of huge egos like the Real Madrid or Barcelona dressing rooms is definitely not Rafa’s forte. Rafa is ultimately a conservative coach and would never survive at those clubs because they don’t appreciate the importance of tactical defensive discipline. Can you imagine the outcry at a club like Real if Rafa tried to sign and play players like Peter Crouch or Dirk Kuyt.
If there is one thing that poses a risk where Rafa is concerned its Hicks’s tactics of trying to trying to drag Rafa into the centre of an ongoing embarrassing public spat which Rafa clearly doesn’t want a bar of and finds incredibly irritating and distracting from his work. The other thing that might effect Rafa is the size of his transfer budget. Hicks can promise till he’s blue in the face but clearly DIC are a far better prospect in terms of future transfer budgets than Hicks.
Jofrad, here’s the audio for the pre-match with Fulham
http://www.footballaudio.com/content/audio/2008/04/BENI1804.mp3
I think it’s a bit premature to be talking about smoothing things over with Parry.though. On a positive note, with one obvious exception, everyone now seems to be focusing on the football.
That’s a hell of a long post Anfielder. And it sounds unbelievably over the top – in my view.
I’m half-inclined to ignore it, but what the hell…
“Eagerly awaited” was my phrase to describe what I saw on numerous forums and heard from different people about exactly what Hicks’ interview might contain. In fact on one site I saw a quip in a thread devoted to the upcoming interview, and it made me laugh. It was posted about 6.30am, after the interview will have aired, and it said; “10 pages and you’re all asleep!” Eagerly awaiting to hail Hicks as a Keegan-like messiah or eagerly awaiting to rip his every word apart, a lot of people were, as I say, eagerly awaiting that interview. Yet you claim not to know a single fan who was waiting to hear. But all the fans you do know actually would celebrate if his death was announced? I know we’ve some extreme views from some angry and extreme fans but wishing death on someone is way over the top – in my view.
In fact to be honest you’re beginning to sound hysterical, and if I was as pro-Hicks as you once again seem to imply I’d be making sure your rant got extra prominence!
Using the word “interview” is “dishonest”? Seriously?
Of course no pressure was applied to him. No pressure in interviews has been applied to anybody involved in this mess, including Parry, Moores and Gillett. Parry knows who his allies are in the press, Moores spoke once, to a paper often condemned for editorial pressures put on its writers, Gillett chatted to a journalist he trusted for his radio interview a couple of days before the derby. Isn’t this obvious? It was disappointing that he wasn’t asked to explain what he meant by taking the debt off the club, or how he’d get the finance, and so on. No critical analysis? What can I say other than, for example, he says he can put capital in, his critics will say he can’t, and nobody actually knows? Do you know if he can or not? Disregard any ‘facts’ that stem from PR working for DIC before you answer that. I’m not saying he can by the way, because I’ve not got a clue if he can. But I’ve not seen anything anywhere I trust that says he, personally, can’t.
As for reporting it as gospel – exactly what do I need to say? “Tom Hicks said, ‘ whatever,’ but we have to remember that he might be lying,” or something?
Klinsmann… I didn’t read his version of the Klinsmann events as being anything more than him pointing something out that seemed to be an attempt at him getting his version of events across. I think so anyway. The whole episode, from the November press conference to the eventual Klinsmann admission, has seen Hicks blamed pretty much in full for it. I heard it as him saying that Gillett kicked it all off, Parry went along to one of the meetings with G&H, they both (G&H) took it over from there, and nothing came of it. I don’t think he said he was reluctant, more that he wasn’t the one kicking it all off and driving it along.
I will try and go back though, as you say, and read the interviews for that time-frame. I remember reading them at the time and interpreting them the way you are above. But I’d like to read them again at some point.
I don’t think Hicks had his will overridden, or expects us to think he had. I need to re-watch the interview but didn’t he say (claim, lie, fib, make up, whatever suits) that George had told him there was a problem with Rafa, they need to speak to Klinsmann? As you’ll say, it could be nonsense, but it’s possible he’s responded to claims from Gillett and Parry about Rafa’s conduct when transfers were mentioned. Rafa’s frustrations must have played a huge part in this situation, and only Rafa knows what he was really frustrated about. If Hicks got a claim from Melwood that Rafa was getting set for another outburst I can imagine how he would be left having to choose between the word of his partner and / or CEO and the word of his manager. The idea Gillett might have set all this going isn’t all that new. If that’s true, would you take the word of your partner or your manager? It wasn’t handled well by any stretch of the imagination, although there are so many variations to the story, and so many pieces to it we don’t know, it’s not done anyone any favours.
I don’t understand what this is about Hicks researching Klinsmann before Gillett. Again, you’ve possibly let your anger get ahead of your thinking. Gillett and Klinsmann were reported to have been in business together ages ago, when the allegations about Klinsmann first surfaced I think. Klinsmann is part of some soccer/sport consultancy, and Gillett was allegedly using him well before November. I’ve not gone back to check where that’s from, but I remember reading about it ages ago. From the off one of my concerns has been that Gillett picked Klinsmann because he knew him personally, rather than for his skills (?) as a coach. I’m going off memory, but the link between Gillett and Klinsmann was reported long ago. I think it’s obvious, personally, from there that Gillett didn’t need to do any research to know who Klinsmann was. Hicks hadn’t heard of him by the sounds of it. If Gillett wanted Hicks to hire Klinsmann then Gillett is quite likely to have said, “We could try Jurgen Klinsmann, I know him, you should do some research”. Is that so far-fetched?
Ah, the old “how do you know what he feels?” question. It gets a bit cumbersome to say, “From what Hicks has just been saying in this interview and the hints he makes elsewhere it doesn’t half sound pretty obvious to me that he feels…” I’ll consider that version next time. How do you know who was more to blame for the Klinsmann situation? Because Parry told you? Gillett? DIC? You read it somewhere in a story written by someone briefed by one of those? You were at the meetings too? You don’t know, you think. You could be right too, although I don’t think Gillett’s response to the Klinsmann stuff last night would have been as vague had it been as complete and bare-faced a lie as you think.
Twisted mind? Anfielder, if anybody fails to go along with your opinions does that mean they are always of a twisted mind? The club was destabilized before Hicks came out with that admission about Klinsmann. The crap run in the league had begun before that, and was because of the speculation that wasn’t going away about Rafa being on the verge of the sack. Even back when I was still falling 100% for the DIC version of events and would barely hear a word said against them I thought Hicks had almost been forced into revealing what happened with Klinsmann, because it had come out in Germany. Gillett (reportedly) thought it would blow over. At the time I didn’t think it would, I thought it would keep coming up in every interview, after every defeat. I never thought more of it even then that Hicks was convinced the world believed Klinsmann had been approached, and wanted to give an excuse for it. I didn’t believe the excuses he gave though, and still don’t think that it was down to fears over what the tabloids said, or CL results, as was stated. I’ve heard a few theories about what it might have been down to, and none of them exactly match what was given in the revelations in January. One of them puts Gillett in a bad light, one puts Gillet and Hicks both in a bad light, one even puts Rafa in a bad light. I don’t think we’ll ever find out the whole truth.
This bit’s confused me to be honest: “You’ve even tried to imply that Hicks’s public announcment (more accurately trumpeting) of the RBS refinancing package was heroic and that Gillett was dishonest for not adding his name to Hicks’s announcement of this.” Where? Sorry if I’ve missed it. But I seriously don’t know what you refer to.
And this: ”So much of what you say about Rafa is just over the top, unsupportable bullshit without any sources and based on pure speculation.” Not sure what you mean.
Anyway: ”Rafa knows if he went to Real Madrid or Barcelona he wouldn’t get even half the autonomy he gets at Liverpool. If Hicks took over the Club him and Rafa wouldn’t last two months before the same problems they had before resurfaced for exactly the same reasons……………and we all know who would be forced out then. No-one should be fooled by anthing Hicks says or does right now because his greed is only temporarily keeping his rampant arrogance in check. I don’t fully understand your point here. I think you mean that Rafa knows he’d have less control at other clubs, so wants to stay here for that reason? But if he stays he’s been fooled? Apologies if that’s not what you mean. You could be right, but what do we know about the reasons for Rafa’s unhappiness and the board’s (for want of a better word) approach to Klinsmann? It’s equally plausible that Rafa was unhappy with Parry, Gillett, Foster or Hicks.
I know for a fact that at least one ‘quality broadsheet’ Liverpool-supporting journalist is getting the biggest part of his most recent stories from DIC. I don’t want to attack him for doing this, or for falling for this. Firstly because it might actually be true and he might actually have been shown the all the evidence he needs to back up what he’s now reporting, and secondly because I don’t believe he’s doing it for any other reason than he thinks personally it’s best for the club to follow the DIC way. I certainly hope the second point is true. What you’ve said about Rafa could be true, he might be embarrassed. In fact I’ve heard a wide spectrum of views on what Rafa thinks. Only Rafa actually knows.
If you’ve got links to Rafa not trusting Hicks please post them. I’m not saying it hasn’t been said, I’d like to see it for myself if it’s in the papers. As for the Hicks ongoing contact with Klinsmann, it’s quite an interesting point. Hicks denied it, but it’s very easily proved. It just takes someone who has one of the emails (if that’s what was used for contact) to leak it. Maybe that’s about to happen? It’s a story that obviously came from either Parry or Gillett, so the ball’s in their court now to show how Hicks’ denial was false. They can easily produce the email from Klinsmann that originated with Hicks showing the questions about the transfer targets. It won’t take a minute to do. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather see it either proved by Parry/Gillett, or for them to make a statement that it isn’t true. I could see them doing the first one at a push, but not the second one. Which means it stays up in the air and speculative. If they’re going to go to the paper to leak something to attack Hicks that’s fine – but how they defend themselves from doing that when attacking Hicks for talking to the media is hard to fathom.
You could be right when you say of Rafa: “by being put at the centre of it in a way that puts huge pressure on him and will likely sap his and the team’s moral at the worst possible time.” But make sure you don’t miss out whoever it was out of “the Club” who leaked this story about emails from Hicks to Klinsmann when you’re launching your attacks.
Interesting you mentioned “reports now leaking out about players saying they will leave the Club if Hicks gets ownership.” Again, where do you think these rumours came from? Why do you believe them?
This bit: “You’ve also done your best to underplay Hicks’s second private meeting with Klinsman when Parry and Gillett were not present and Hicks’s ongoing contact with Klinsman since then. I’ve just covered the “ongoing contact” above, and await something that’s more than just the leaked word of one board member against another. As for the “second private meeting… when Parry and Gillett were not present…” I’d like to see where you read this please. My understanding was that meeting no 1 was in NY with Hicks, Gillett and Parry, and this is the meeting we’ve only just learned about, and that meeting no 2 was in California, with Hicks and Gillett present. Again, can you point me to somewhere where your version has been written?
In fact I think I’ve left you with enough there to come back to me with. I got to the point where you implied I was stupid or wilfully corrupt and thought about stopping here. But I’ll carry on. Just don’t forget to find me the details I’ve asked for, I think it’s only fair.
This is your opinion: “You keep referring to Gillett as “claiming” that he won’t sell because of death threats but you are conveniently misreading Gillett’s comments and misleading readers about this. Gillett may not have liked being threatened but what Gillett was trying to say was not that he was afraid to sell to Hicks because of threats but rather that the threats had convinced him of the strength of feeling against Hicks from the fans. He did not want to make a sale that was opposed by virtually all fans. Whether you believe this or not it is not your prerogative to change the meaning to suit yourself. I don’t believe a word of it.
And this: ”You’ve also repeatedly implied that Gillett is lying about receiving death threats but I personally know of more than one Liverpool supporter who has threatened Gillett’s life (if he sold to Hicks) and they were very happy to tell me about it. Knowing the strength of passions Hicks has aroused I have no trouble at all believing Gillett on this issue.” And did you believe him? Seriously? Did you really believe that he would actually kill Gillett for selling to Hicks? I don’t mean people using a figure of speech to explain how annoyed they are, or some idiot in the pub trying to impress other idiots. I mean the sort of person that is a complete embarrassment to our support and if from Liverpool itself then an embarrassment to the city too. Then again, you pointed out that all the Liverpool fans you know have been hoping for Hicks to have a heart attack and die. And I think we’re starting to see something of a pattern here.
I’ll keep going for now, despite having reservations about the type of person I’m trying to engage: “You’ve made statements several times based on nothing more than “I believe….” failing once again to realize that for most of us the real question is do we believe you ?? With respect…………your credibility is so far gone I wouldn’t believe anything you said or wrote now.” I’m not surprised that you don’t believe anything I say. You refuse to believe anything I say, because it doesn’t fit your own opinions. Anything that might question what you believe is thrown out, DIC’s job done. I write what I believe, and I’m not going to pretend to believe something else to fit in with bullying posts of this nature. I might change my beliefs if I’m given some well-thought-out arguments, rather than rants, and that’s all you seem to do these days to be honest.
Away from the hypocrisy and the anger, some people have put points forward to me this week that put more weight towards the Hicks-out/DIC-in movement, but posts like yours tend to undo most of that for me. Maybe your tactics work with others, but I genuinely think you’re doing as much damage to your cause as it’s possible to do. It becomes noise.
In fact I’ve probably just wasted another hour of my life I won’t get back on someone not really worth it. Let me know when you’ve got the links above, I and if there was anything of note in the rest of your rant let me know and I’ll maybe have another look at it.
One thing I will say, is if people are so sure he’ll be gone by the end of May, why are they getting so worked up? If people are so sure he can’t get the money then why not shut up, enjoy the football and leave Hicks’ comments to one side. If he’s an egotistical attention seeker as some claim, then you’ve all played into his hands haven’t you? Or are people worried the talk about problems with the banks is actually nonsense?
I think responding to anfielder probably wasn’t the best idea – because it was nothing more than a rebuttal of his angry points, which are all of course in favour of Parry and Gillett, and against Hicks.
I saw the Hicks “interview” if I’m allowed to call it that yesterday first thing, and didn’t actually get to see many of the later segments that aired. I had a hell of a busy day yesterday and putting that article out was done in a short time I had free in the morning. I even failed to actually “publish” it rather than “save” it. So it appeared about two hours later than planned.
I had odd spells in the day where I could see what was being said, but rarely more than ten minutes. After midnight last night I started to try and put the quotes together from Parry’s and Gillett’s responses, but never got it finished. Nearly 24 hours later and I don’t really see the point. To summarise it, I fail to see what right either of them have to complain about the timing of the “interview”. Parry’s was best probably, apart from the dig about the timing he pretty much deflected the questions. Was it post-midnight confusion or did Gillett’s statement seem to include a dig at the financing package currently in place? Today’s not been much better time-wise, I’ve not had time to listen to what Rafa said today, only to read about it briefly. Even that’s been given headlines that don’t match the quotes, but maybe more was said that wasn’t in the stories I read.
But it’s about time everybody shut up anyway. Hicks, Gillett, Parry, Moores, DIC. About time they stopped going to the papers and TV. Whether it’s openly or as “a source close to” it’s time to stop.
In the next couple of hours tomorrow’s papers will start to appear online, and 24 hours later we’ll start to see the Sunday papers with their take on events this week. But I think all those involved in the chaos have had their chances to speak now. I’m sure they’d love to say more, but the chance has passed. Shut up!
The end-of-May deadline now assumed to be fact despite there never having been any official confirmation (if I’ve missed anything that really seems to confirm it’s true please let me know) will be here soon.
So we might as well wait and see what happens.
Blimey Jim. Look, in this mess it is difficult to establish all irrefutable facts, no-one denies that. (Apart from facts like Tom Hicks promising things and failing to deliver them but anyway… Yes, and some facts that stack up against Parry and Gillett too).
But we are grown ups with life experiences which teach us to spot when people are disingenuous pr!cks (rhymes with…..). Credit us with some intelligence.
You’re right SJ – it’s hard to work out what the facts are. It’s amazing how quickly gossip becomes fact too.
But let’s hope that’s the end of the leaks and statements and interviews and soundbites until they’ve done whatever it is they’re going to do.
Agreed. Totally.
I watched Rafa on his press briefing this afternoon and either he’s a damn good actor or things have been patched up. He was laughing and joking with the press which made a nice change from the behaviour of others in the club this week.
He clearly wants to stay managing his team and hopefully will be given funds to strengthen it in the summer. I’m sure Gerrard would love to have Gareth Barry join the club.
It looks like things will come to a head at the end of May when Hic ks either has to find money or consider the alternative.
If I hear nothing else from board members until then I’l be happy.
Just wanted to check I’d not missed something.
Anfielder’s shout that Klinsmann had been met by Hicks twice, one with Parry and Gillett there and once without either Parry or Gillett there didn’t sound right. But it crossed my mind someone else had posted the same thing on here.
This was the original story on Klinsmann from January:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/01/14/tom-hicks-jurgen-klinsmann-only-an-insurance-100252-20347645/
The meeting took place at Hicks’ second home in southern California in late November during America’s Thanksgiving vacation…
…
Hicks told the ECHO: “In November, when it appeared we were in danger of not advancing in the Champions League, weren’t playing well in our Premier League matches, and Rafa and we were having communication issues over the January transfer window, George and I met with Jurgen Klinsmann to learn as much as we could about English and European football.
“He is a very impressive man. We attempted to negotiate an option, as an insurance policy, to have him become our manager in the event Rafa decided to leave our club for Real Madrid or other clubs that were rumoured in the UK press, or in case our communication spiralled out of control for some reason.”
The story from this week about the Klinsmann meetings:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/04/14/jurgen-klinsmann-liverpool-fc-officials-met-him-twice-100252-20761246/
THE ECHO today learned that Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks held two meetings with Jurgen Klinsmann with a view to the German replacing Rafael Benitez as manager.
The first meeting was held in New York at which he was joined by co-owner George Gillett, chief executive Rick Parry and other members of the Liverpool board.
The second was held at Hicks’ holiday home in California during Thanksgiving weekend when Parry was not present.
So unless there’s another claim I’ve missed, does that confirm that Gillett was at both meetings, but Parry only at the first?
Indeed Jim, see the point you’re making. Maybe the Echo worded it in that way to make it seem to the skim reader, or unintelligent follower (not naming names!), that Hicks was the only one at the 2nd meeting. Thats actually quite a clever bit of wording if deliberately done that way!
Jim, you said briefly before that you didn’t get much chance to see the Hicks interview, or only briefly, but honestly what did you think of it??
Someone earlier said that it “MADE. ME. CRINGE.”. I personally couldn’t agree more. Whatever you believe of Hicks and his motives i don’t think i’ve ever seen a more transparent bit of propaganda! I mean sitting in a chair with a big (new) Liverpool mug and a couple of Grandchildren (probably played by actors), had me laughing, not incensed, but literally in stitches! Absolutely astonishing.
I’d also like you to explain, if you can, your response to Anfielder about Gillett and the death threats business. Anfielder made the point that he may be taking the stance of not selling to Hicks because he realises the level of opposition against selling to Hicks, or something to that effect. You said “I dont believe a word of it”. Fair enough, but why? If he doesn’t think he’s going to be assassinated, and isn’t doing it because he sees the opposition, then why is he taking this stance, or at least leading us to believe that he doesn’t want to sell to Hicks? This isn’t a rhetorical question either, in case the immense number of them directed at you recently has rendered you unable to tell the difference! lol.
Jim, whether or not people agree with everything you say, you deserve to be praised for the efforts you go to for this site. Your articles and your posts are generally well thought out and well presented, even if they don’t match the opinions of everyone. (Or maybe it scares some people half to death that you might actually be spot on with much of your analysis).
Jim… I would also like to know what you made of Hicks’ interview. You are an intelligent man, and you say you’ve seen it.
Did you not see the ridiculous setting, the use of obvious props (that mug – dear God), the deflective criticism. I have said before and I’m saying it again. If he has backing and is confident….why set that up? Why? I do not believe it was just to answer his critics – not for one second. He is worried.
Martin, your question on why won’t Gillett sell to Hicks is an interesting one, and I’d like to hear other peoples’ opinions on it too. I don’t think its anything to do with death threats, and I don’t think its anything to do with what’s best for the club.
The worst thing for the club right now is 50:50 ownership and it must never be allowed to happen again. Gillett holding out to sell to DIC doesn’t solve anything, and potentially makes the situation even worse, unless Hicks will also sell to DIC. The best thing Gillett can do, IMHO, for the good of the club, is sell to Hicks if a reasonable offer is forthcoming (assuming that Gillett wants to sell but Hicks won’t). Then at least ownership will be in one set of hands. Whether Hicks is the best sole owner of the club I don’t know, but I think Hicks 100% is better than Hicks 50% with A. N. Other.
So Gillett must think that Hicks hasn’t offered enough (ie he’s negotiating), or Hicks actually hasn’t made an offer yet. Or maybe Gillett really can ignore any veto and sell to DIC in May for more than Hicks can offer him. If that’s his best offer you can’t blame him, but I really don’t think its in the best interests of the club unless Hicks sells too.
The other question I have, is what does Parry think he has to gain by staying? He’s clearly not popular with the majority of fans, doesn’t seem to be with Rafa, and one of the owners has publicly asked him to stand down. Again, I don’t see how his staying is in the club’s best interests. Is it as simple as him getting a big fat payout or something? I’m probably being dumb but I haven’t joined those dots yet.
I am wondering and hoping. Is Hicks creating all this fuss, either to bully his way into full control and if that fails, is he setting the ground were he can walk away stating he cannot work with these people, they are getting in the way of his big plans for LFC??????
THE LATTER, I HOPE.
I only come back on this site – a site which Hicks is obviously paying Jim to maintain – to say Anfielder you are a legend and absolutely wasted here. Jim Boardman’s response to you was bordering on disgraceful. Anfielder, John Steele, Julie, juan and many more Liverpool fans keep up the good work we are absolutey winning this arguement by miles. I’m am so proud that real livepool supporters are not being taken in by the PR game Hicks is playing. We have reduced Jim to personal attacks. He hasn’t made a coherent arguement that can be backed up with facts in weeks and that encourages me as to how weak Hicks has become. Bye Bye Yanks _ Long live Benitez. It’s so encouraging to see decency and honour win through. Jim I hope when this episode in Liverpool’s history is over you are ashamed of yourself.
Hop: My two pence/cents’ worth about why I maintain that Gillett will hold firm and not sell to Hicks. I honestly don’t think there’s just one reason, but an amalgamation of influences here…
Part of it is that he was the one who sussed out the Liverpool buy to begin with – he was the impetus – and I suspect it wounds his pride to be the one to walk away, regardless of how long it prolongs the limbo. Gillett 1, Liverpool 0
Part of it is he wants to appear to be the good guy (he is genuinely appreciated in Montreal where hockey is also more important than life and death) and do right by the supporters (death threats aside). He comes across as more humble and approachable (maybe this is an act, but it works) and seems to have a concern for his reputation amongst Liverpool fans. Gillett 1, Liverpool 1
Part of it is that given the leverage he has right now with DIC, their offer to him would be more attractive than what Hicks would/could offer and he will make more money from them. DIC have shown their hand – they want the club – and their first foot in the door will only come from Gillett (my guess is that it wlll be the banks that force out Hicks when he is unable to renew the loans). Gillett 2, Liverpool 1
Finally, part of it is that he obviously hates Hicks and won’t want to see him succeed. There is so much blatant animosity between the two – both are adept at spin, both are practised prevaricators – but out of sheer vindictiveness, I think he will refuse to let Hicks come out of this as the conqueror. Gillett 2, Liverpool 2. FT
Please permit me a single interjection on the Klinsmann meetings as it is on this very point that my integrity was rubbished.
“THE ECHO today learned that Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks held two meetings with Jurgen Klinsmann with a view to the German replacing Rafael Benitez as manager.
“The first meeting was held in New York at which he was joined by co-owner George Gillett, chief executive Rick Parry and other members of the Liverpool board.
The second was held at Hicks’ holiday home in California during Thanksgiving weekend when Parry was not present.”
So unless there’s another claim I’ve missed, does that confirm that Gillett was at both meetings, but Parry only at the first?”
The wording definitely does not confirm that Gillett was at the second meeting. To assume that is also to assume that of the participants at the first meeting only Parry was missing at the second? The Echo wording is somewhat clumsy but is most certainly not confirmation that Gillett was present. I raised a point about what I regarded as the crux of the Klinsmann business, who offered him Rafa’s job? and referred to the Echo article only as an indication that the answer lay in that second tete a tete.
Martin: Whatever you want to call it, a publicity stunt, a PR event, (a long list of expletive-filled other descriptions) or an interview it was designed to get Hicks’ points across.
The mug looked embarrassing. Even if he always gets a fresh mug out every time we play and he’s at home to watch it, this time it would have been better to go and find a plain mug from somewhere. The fireplace might have been Sky’s idea, I know if you watch any LFC.tv interviews in people’s homes they all seem to have pink lighting in the background. TV crews like to set their backgrounds up. (Hicks may have used the same shot before of course, and asked them to use it again).
I don’t think the kids were grandkids. Tom Jnr is the oldest, and without kids as far as I know. The next two along are recently-engaged, Alex and Mack, one of whom proposed at Anfield if you recall. After that I don’t have a clue about ages, but it’s more feasible they are his own kids rather than grandkids. But more likely they are nephews/nieces – or actors even. If he had used actors, can you imagine the outrage? One might have been Texas_Dawg…
I know that if GG had been looking to buy TH out he’d almost certainly have considered a similar idea. He did something close to it the last time he spoke before disappearing, in print rather than on TV. You’ll remember the article where a journalist friend spent time with him at Melwood and so on, GG calling Carra over like a performing seal to show the reporter what Scousers talked like.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see DIC do something similar if they became 50-50 owners with Hicks, although the reaction to this one might put them off. Al-Ansari casually showing off his LFC cufflinks and taking a call “from the Sheikh”, supposedly concerned about the fitness of one star name or other.
What’s important is we listen to what’s said. He’s said things we can hold him to now. Even the use of words like “We intend” our “it’s our goal” won’t get him off the hook. If something doesn’t happen that he “intended” to happen, it’s got to be explained why it didn’t come off. Better to say “I intend” than promise something that has a chance of failing, but we want transparency in the future I think.
Re Gillett: It just doesn’t seem to add up. If (IF) I’m right and he’s not scared of the death threats, then we’re supposed to accept he’s willing to risk losing out altogether based on what 2000 emails a day were supposed to have said? Even though those email were down to a handful by the time of his interview? I don’t know if he will sell to Hicks. If he got two equal offers, from DIC and Hicks, and there were no legal restrictions in place, he’d take DIC’s offer. If there are legal restrictions in place that mean he’d have to take Hicks to court to overturn them I can’t see him risking a costly battle. If Hicks offers him more and DIC refuse to match it I can’t see him taking DIC’s offer. I think any decision against Hicks is based on his feelings towards Hicks, nothing else.
There is nothing to suggest he actually cares deeply enough for the club to actually risk missing out on a major profit. DIC recently walked away from an opportunity to buy into an F1 team after spending some time looking into it and looking very likely to buy (I’ve not checked to see if they changed their minds again). Gillett must surely know in his own mind that there’s a risk of them walking away from LFC if this move goes beyond the timeframe they planned, or if it gets any messier.
Gillett care for the club? I don’t doubt he’s got some feelings for it, but I believe he doesn’t like Rafa, doesn’t trust him, and he’s only siding with Parry really because it suits his needs at the present time.
The thing about the pre-emption agreement is confusing. First of all, most of the information surrounding that has been provided by, well I’ll let you guess. This thing about an end of May deadline has come from there. Presumably the only way that could have kicked in is through a firm and binding offer having been made, possibly with some conditions on it, but nevertheless an offer that Tom Hicks needs to match. If he does, I can’t see a way that Gillett could turn it down yet still sell to DIC.
I’m just puzzled as to why he suddenly decided in March to announce he wouldn’t sell to Hicks, when he admits he was willing to before. All the animosity must have been there before, well before.
One thing I’ve been doing is looking up old articles trying to find various bits and pieces, but I’ve been trying to find what has actually been said about the debt. We keep hearing that Hicks “promised” there would be no debt on the club. If anyone can find the quotes, or even a story from back then that indicates he’d said something of that nature to the reporter without being quoted could they post it here? All I can find is this, in various places:
‘We have purchased the club with no debt on the club so, in that regard, it is different [to the Glazers]. We believe in the future of the club, the future of the league, the new TV contracts are outstanding and we are proud to be a part of it.
‘If you look at the Premier League today, it is a strong revenue-generating body for the leading teams. I believe it has the chance to be a growing industry over time and we need all the revenues we can possibly find to compete with Manchester and Chelsea.’
Not a promise there would be no debt on the club. Just a statement that they bought the club with no debt on the club. And as you can see here, it was actually said by Gillett. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=407155&cc=5739
I left the next paragraph in just to make the point that they saw the need to improve revenues as important back then (6th Feb 2007 is the date on the article.)
Hop: You might be right in that it does scare some people, but I could be completely wrong in what I try and work out. I’ll be honest and say that in recent weeks I’ve found it harder to write anything because I’m not 100% clear in my own mind what the situation is. Far from it. I’m sitting on a fence and sometimes the stuff thrown at me is close to making me fall off into the opposite side from those throwing things.But for all those throwing heavy objects, some brown and malodorous objects included, others with the same basic view are able to in effect have me close to falling off the fence onto their side, by persuading me in a more considered way. Sometimes if you can take five minutes to think about why you have a certain view, try and explain even to yourself logically why you have that view, look things up too to help you find the ‘evidence’ you’re basing things on, you can be surprised at how your opinion wasn’t as close to the truth as you thought it was. But if you spend the first four-and-half of that five minutes defending yourself you don’t have time to really think about why your view might be so wrong.
Anfielder means well, I’m sure, but the aggressive style he uses (and he’s not the only one, ehre and elsewhere) doesn’t make me stop and think at all. It just makes me want to ignore everything he says, even to the point where elements I had doubts over I start finding myself giving the benefit of the doubt to go against what he says. The approach he has works with people already on the same side as him, but I personally don’t think it would win over any doubters. As I’ve said before, anfielder could almost be a PR plant for Hicks. (And I don’t for one minute think he is, before someone decides to try and twist that!)
Of course my angry responses to him probably have a similar effect on those who have been in the DIC camp but are now beginning to wonder, in that they push those people firmly back to the DIC camp. I don’t to push or pull anyone anywhere, even for my own sake I just want to put the questions and the doubts out there and see if we can be fully armed with the truth rather than the many biased versions of it, from all sides.
SJ: I hope I’ve answered your question above. I can understand why Hicks would want to do it, he wanted to defend himself, and if – for one moment – we accept he could buy the club next week and become sole or majority owner, he’s got to start trying to put his own points of view across. I think looking at the reaction it backfired. But I also think it’s a useful reference for us all if he does take over. We’ve got something to pull him up over.
As for the idea he’s worried, I just don’t see how he’d do this if he was worried. I think he was doing it in preparation for taking over. I can’t work out what he would achieve from this if he genuinely thought he wasn’t going to get the cash or secondary investors. He’s done his pitch to them, and I don’t doubt at all that some have come up with deals with him. Whether the deals are good enough for what he wants is probably the issue. Let’s face it, if he went to the city and said he wanted to borrow an extra £200m at 25% interest he’d face a stamped. If he asked for that at 5% he’d be laughed out of town. Somewhere in between is a figure he can get, it’s a case of whether it’s good enough really, and if he thinks he can negotiate it to a better deal.
The problem is that all the negative talk of Hicks’ financial situation has come from his enemies. And his enemies have pretty much always been his enemies. Gillett’s financial situation was leaked by people who were his enemies but now have him as an ally, I would say, and that makes the stories about him, although unproven, carry more weight in my eyes.
If Hicks was so close to being in a mess financially I think he’d have tried harder to negotiate with DIC. In fact I think he’d have taken his share down to 25% or less in return for some profit now, and profit to come. He could have negotiated himself various perks to stay here, even if it was just autonomy on the stadium or whatever.
But really that’s just a view.
Hop: “…I think Hicks 100% is better than Hicks 50% with A. N. Other.” That’s one view I find it hard to disagree with at the moment, although there are some points some make to suggest it might not be better.
If Hicks is better off financially than everyone claims then of course him being 100% owner is better than they fear. But we don’t know, for sure, if he is better off than they say.
If he’s as badly off as they say he won’t be here soon anyway, because all these loans are being called in and he’s being pushed to sell his half of LFC to avoid defaulting on them. I think that’s at best exaggerated, at worst a blatant lie. He’d have gone by now, he’d have at least been negotiating with DIC far more.
But if – and to me it’s still a very big IF – DIC are the better option for the club by a long chalk, then 50-50 Hicks-DIC can only be good in one way. That it allows DIC to force Hicks out by using their financial muscle. But even that isn’t universally accepted as being possible. We just don’t know. And if the way the holding company is set up means that DIC can’t block Hicks from refinancing in summer ’09, the 50-50 limbo could carry on indefinitely just in new names. Hicks can lay money off from one place or other to cover the interest, if DIC refuse to allow it to be paid as a dividend. We keep hearing scary figures, £30m, and although it’s not much better there’s been information other than from the Hicks camp that £25m is nearer the truth. And Hicks has to find half of that, £12.5m. If he wanted to play hardball I believe personally he could find that.
This has been one of my main worries about DIC for some time. Their strategy seems to be based on an assumption that Hicks is as desperate as Gillett for the money.
To be fair to Parry, I don’t think he would do too badly in financial terms if he did as Hicks said and resigned. Unless they’ve told him some lies I can’t see DIC keeping him on either. I think financially he’ll probably be as well off either way. Whether he thinks that or not is another matter, he might think he can engineer a long stay at the club if DIC come in. If he genuinely thinks that Hicks is so bad an option that he’s prepared to help prolong this turmoil then he has some explaining to do.
He could help end it all now by persuading Gillett to speak to Hicks, and he could also stop allegedly dealing with DIC. He could have made this mess less messy, if he’d accepted Hicks was not as bad as he’s being made out to be. If one day he comes out himself and explains what it was that changed in a year-and-a-bit with Hicks then we might see his reasons. I’m not getting caught up in this too much, but we’re “only” £52m more in debt than at takeover, and Parry knew about the debt and must have checked how it would be serviced a year ago. Yes, some of it’s now on the club, but consensus has been for some time that this was down to Gillett’s poor financial state.
Parry knows if Hicks is capable of taking the debt back off the club. If he is, to even just put it back to the way it was before but with the extra £52m, Parry has some explaining to do for this stance he has.
What worries me is that it’s actually got personal. Would Parry put the club secondary to the chance to get one over on Hicks?
Whether it’s the right thing to do or not, Parry needs to get word out as to why he’s concerned now when the current situation is so close to the takeover situation.
Kenneth: I know what you’re saying Kenneth, but I don’t think he’s engineering an exit strategy myself.
Stephen: I’m not being paid by Hicks or anyone else attached to or wanting to be attached to the ownership of the club to maintain this site. If you’ve any examples backup up with facts as to why that might be the case then please let’s hear them. And personal attacks tend to be in defence of personal attacks. Is wishing a heart attack on someone “decency”? Unfortunately much of my time in recent weeks has been spent defending myself. And that’s something I need to try and avoid.
Out of interest Stephen, if Hicks announced next week that he was now in control of the club, Gillett announced he’d stepped aside as it was clear Hicks was determined to hang on and it was doing the club no good, DIC said they’d now ended their interest in the club for good, and so on – what would you do?
Also, if DIC come in and admit that they put quite a lot of debt indirectly onto the club themselves, were only willing to fund the original “Parry Bowl”, were only going to invest in the squad using loans until commercial revenues picked up and wanted to put Rafa on review until Christmas, what would you do?
How much do you know, based on fact, about DIC’s intentions?
We’ve all been lied to at some point by different players in this game, and what’s dangerous is this assumption that not only is everything Hicks says a lie, but that everything the rest say is true.
How ashamed would you be if you found out that you’d allowed DIC in under false pretences?
If you’re 100% certain that you’re right, if you keep going back and checking that your views are based on if not facts at least some good circumstantial evidence then that’s fine.
None of the options are perfect. Not even ShareLiverpool if they suddenly got momentum and raised the money and persuaded the owners to sell to them.
Truth is, we don’t know the truth. None of us. Tom Hicks doesn’t know what DIC are really planning to do, how far they’ll really go. DIC don’t know what Tom Hicks is planning, how far he’ll go to keep them at bay.
I feel it’s turned into a bit of a fantasy that DIC are doing this out of some kind of love for the club, or just out of the chance to be attached to a prestigious entity. Just because their PR people keep saying so doesn’t mean it’s true. Their walking away a year ago for half the price is a worry too.
Without shouting, without getting personal or making accusations, what can you tell me to refute what I’ve just said? I’m prepared to listen and for people to provide ways of clearing up my doubts, or changing my opinion. Not by being shouted at or bullied by an angry mob though.
Doesn’t even have to be a direct response to any of the points, just a carefully-thought-out summary of why Hicks is so bad, and why DIC are so perfect. If you don’t think it’s that extreme, say so.
I just don’t think that many people have stopped to think about why they have their current views.
Julie: I respect what you’re saying about GG’s initial interest in the club. I think it would have something of a factor in any decision not to sell to Hicks, but not a key factor. The humble side is not something I’m too sure about in reality, but I do think he’s got an image of being humble to maintain. I actually felt this was one of the funnier moments of his Canadian radio interview when he criticised Hicks for words along the lines of personal image being more important.
I don’t know 100% if DIC would offer him more money. I can see arguments for and against that idea. Unless I’m mistaken, if this veto idea is how most people see it, he can’t accept any DIC offer without offering it to Hicks too. If Hicks can’t match it then it’s irrelevant really, because Hicks can’t block it.
The thing about the banks could be true, but it’s dangerous to dismiss out of hand the idea that he’s not as financially insecure as his adversaries want us to believe
The sad thing about their hatred of each other is that even if they both quit LFC they’ll still run into each other at various NHL get-togethers. So it’s wise that they actually try to if not repair all the damage at least build some bridges with each other. I wonder how much of their hate has come from the pressures of others interfering? This is just a thought, nothing more, but if they had any sense of self-respect (cue laughter I expect) then they would try and talk to each other now before letting this go on as it is. I doubt they’ve even spoken to each other since January, although I’ve no way of knowing for sure.
Of course if they do talk, part of the negotiations would be on ensuring they both looked good (in their eyes) after agreeing a deal with each other. Hicks would do the same if he negotiated with DIC. If Hicks wants to persuade Gillett to sell he needs to accept the idea of letting GG look better than Hicks thinks he is!
John,
I understand where you could misunderstand the situation with regards what the Echo said about the second meeting.
It doesn’t confirm Gillett was at the second meeting, but nobody has ever thought he wasn’t. At least I didn’t think they had.
I don’t think Tony Barrett would deliberately write it to mislead, I think he just assumed we all knew that the second meeting was the one originally admitted to, with G an H both present.
The article wasn’t about Gillett’s presence at the meetings, it was aimed at explaining, or even defending, Parry’s role in the meetings.
But how many people are basing their current view of Hicks on a number of inaccuracies like this?
I’ve written a long reply above to the comments from overnight, I hope that some people can find time to find some of the evidence I’ve asked for.
If getting rid of Hicks is the right thing to do, I’d feel happier about it personally if it was done without a witch-hunt approach.
In fact the same point applies to Rick Parry. I have my own views that if we look at his past record there are grounds for concern. But if one partner has serious concerns over a key member of the club’s hierarchy, I see the need for it to be discussed by the board. So it’s time they called a board meeting. It gives Hicks a chance to explain his thoughts on Parry, and it gives the others a chance to explain theirs. Then the management committee can take a vote on it. They might want to stick a few other items on the agenda too.
At least then the views go on record, even if not public record, and if anyone is acting untoward there is evidence of it. And that works all ways of course.
What baffles me is thae slating of Jim. How come others can have biased opinion towards the ownership especially the feeling towards Hicks ( which I whole heartedly share) but Jim is held up like some kind of demi god with an influence on the outcome of the ownership of LFC and his every word is slated.
Amazing how many of you say your not going to read the site or respond to his comments yet you return like a bad smell. You have a choice.
Just like to add how much I appreciate Julie’s comments, always on the ball and often make me smile
Keep them up!!
Jim, as usual theres a gulf a mile wide between what you’re saying and reality. You claim to be all laid back and “inclined not to respond” to my post because theres really no need ……………………..and then launch into another one of your longwinded, repetitive, attempts to rationalize the bias in your writing as being the product of openmindedness.
As usual your defence basically consists of dismissing anyone who dares to tell you a few home truths about your writing as some mindless, angry ranter who doesn’t have an open mind to your point of view. This really sounds rich coming from someone whose mind is no more open that mine. The difference is that at least I’m honest about having already reached some conclusions re Hicks. I am against him and I’m advocating against him. You, on the other hand are still trying to come across to everyone as Mr Objective who can be relied on to report factual information with balance and objectivity………… when the truth is you’re no more than an advocate for one side in this dispute. The only difference between you and Texas Dawg is that you’re more subtle and slightly better at disguising your advocacy as the reporting of information but this only makes what you’re doing that much more insidious. Lets cut the crap…………….your bias is not the product of having an open mind, its the product of you being an advocate for one side and wanting to push that side’s case as far as it can possibly be pushed. Whether you believe its the right side or not is a wholly different question. You refer for example to having heard a wide spectrum of views on Rafa. This is truly remarkable coming from someone who has relentlessly pushed only one view to the exclusion of all others.
You unwittingly hit the nail on the head when you said “I write what I believe.” But this hardly makes you unique. Even the most deluded tyrants in history have generally had the self-righteous conviction of their own vanity. The point is that since you clearly believe that Hicks is right theres no hope of getting any valid points from you which might run contrary to Hicks.
You claim to decry the hypocrisy of those who argue against you but you yourself are the ultimate hypocrit…………… resorting to personal attacks on posters any time you please and far more quickly and readily than anyone else on this site. No wonder so many people have either left or stopped posting in disgust. But unlike you I won’t go crying like a baby about your personal attacks because I know they are a sign of your desperation and failure to convince people to support Hicks.
You seem to be labouring under the illusion that I’m out to win you over but I’m not and never was. You’re just taking yourself far too seriously mate because this is really not about you. My posts are merely attempting to bring a counter balance to your bias so that readers out there also get to hear the other side of the issues you talk about as well.
Your reply post raises a huge number of points and questions I would love to respond to but, unlike you, I don’t do this for a living and simply do not have the time to address them all right now in the way I would like. However, you asked if I really believed the people I referred to actually intended to kill Gillett. Once again you have a gift for missing the point and asking the wrong question entirely when it suits your purpose. Of course they didn’t intend to kill Gillett but I believe they did make threats of some kind to him. If so, then Gillett is not making this all up as you would have us believe. The very point I was making is that just because you claim not to believe Gillett this doesn’t give you the right to distort the fair meaning of what he was trying to convey. This is just another example of your pre-conceived beliefs/opinions as to who’s right and wrong overriding your conflicting duty to fairly report information.
Trying to curtsey to Fred, but repeatedly falling flat on my face from the weight of my big head.
Just a brief return from my self-imposed exhile from posting on this blog.
First, I would like to point out Jim that you also previously made a few post (can’t remember dates etc) about Mid to end of May being crucial to the ownership.
Secondly, being a lawyer myself, I would find it professionally negligent not to insert a time-limit on exercising an option/first refusal in a share agreement as it would otherwise render the value of the ownership as nominal. Similarly, it would be close to business suicide to agree to sell one share which would render ownership of the remaining worthless in terms of decision making.
Thirdly, Jim whilst I will not subject you to personal abuse, I must say that your rebuttals at those who question your views are not what I have come to expect from you. If you do not agree or others do not agree with you, then you must do better in attempting to convey your points. Calling others to proof whilst not doing so personally smacks of hypocrisy.
Fourthly, you have not (from what I have read) made a single denuniciation of Hick’s timing of the latest interview/one man party political broadcast). It was crass stupidity to record it close to the anniversary of a tragic event which continues to give all liverpool fans such discomfort. To add to injury to insult, it was done through Sky (prop. R Murdoch). If he wanted to reach out to fans, why not doing it through LFC tv?
Fifthly, you continue to profess misgivings of Gillett/Parry/DIC but do not appear to afford the same scrutiny to Hicks or his cronies. Hence the continued protest at the lack of balance.
Finally, there is undoubtedly a PR war going on but PR is all about timing or lack of it (if you want to attract the wrong type). It may win you awards at PR ceremonies but it will not win fans over and this is something that Hicks (and the other factions,albeit to a lesser degree) continues to disregard (The others are no saints and I am not in the Gillett/Parry/DIC camp before you pigeon hole me in any of these.
Jim, may I suggest achange of tact (or, reverting to your old type) if you want to be at the forefront of helping shape this debate as well as those in the future.
First of all I want to echo raju’s points – I am not in the Parry Gillett camp. I want all board members to leave. That is my position.
I feel like I am wasting my time with Jim but I will post anyway in the hope that Liverpool FC fans reading are not drawn in by Jim’s agenda to believe and condone Hicks’ PR and lies.
Q
Out of interest Stephen, if Hicks announced next week that he was now in control of the club, Gillett announced he’d stepped aside as it was clear Hicks was determined to hang on and it was doing the club no good, DIC said they’d now ended their interest in the club for good, and so on – what would you do?
A
I will always support the team on the pitch – I will support Liverpool FC long after Hicks’ cashes in and gets his 30 pieces of silver on the back of honest decent fans giving over their hard earned money to him. I will no longer attend Anfield (I live in Ireland so I only get over 2 times a year). Not a huge sacrifice I grant you but its all I can do. I will not buy one shred of merchandise.
Q
Also, if DIC come in and admit that they put quite a lot of debt indirectly onto the club themselves, were only willing to fund the original “Parry Bowl”,
A
What has the Parry Bowl got to do with anything?? I didn’t realise that was a DIC plan!!! Where did DIC ever say they would build a stadium based on 5 year old designs that were scrapped years ago!!
Q
(DIC) were only going to invest in the squad using loans until commercial revenues picked up and wanted to put Rafa on review until Christmas, what would you do?
A
If that this is the route they go down then I will resist that as per Hicks’. DIC havene’t done that but Hicks already has. Rafa was going to get the sack if we were knocked out of the Champions League. My first option is always Share Liverpool.
Q
How much do you know, based on fact, about DIC’s intentions?
A
All I can do is look at previous investments they made. DIC have always been concerned with making whatever investment they are involved in the absolute best. As the horse racing industry (which the revolutionalised). They have pride in their country and pride in what they do.
Hicks’ past is entirely different. He uses taxpayers money to make himself rich. He redirects university funds into his own businesses, he LBO’s good companies – sweats the assets makes good people redundant and sells it on, he gets bank loans to buy into football clubs promises money for transfers, promises stadiums and causes turmoil at board level (corinthians, liverpool), he gets loans to buys into american sports clubs and then leaves them stagnate while he sweats as much money as he can from honest fans.
Q
We’ve all been lied to at some point by different players in this game, and what’s dangerous is this assumption that not only is everything Hicks says a lie, but that everything the rest say is true.
A
Thats why they all must GO!!! They are all liars!!!
Q
How ashamed would you be if you found out that you’d allowed DIC in under false pretences?
A
Of course I wouldn’t be happy. I want Share Liverpool not DIC. Read my answer above if the only choice on the table was DIC or Hicks I would make an informed decision and have to in all honestly plump for DIC.
(Nice to hear the fans at fulham singing get out of our club while I write this)
Q
If you’re 100% certain that you’re right, if you keep going back and checking that your views are based on if not facts at least some good circumstantial evidence then that’s fine.
A
So Hicks hasn’t done all of the above?? Or DIC??
Q
None of the options are perfect?? Not even ShareLiverpool if they suddenly got momentum and raised the money and persuaded the owners to sell to them.
A
Share Liverpool would be a dream compared to this shambles. No greedy business men to suck our club dry all money raised ploughed back into the club – we would be unstoppable.
Q
Truth is, we don’t know the truth. None of us. Tom Hicks doesn’t know what DIC are really planning to do, how far they’ll really go. DIC don’t know what Tom Hicks is planning, how far he’ll go to keep them at bay.
I feel it’s turned into a bit of a fantasy that DIC are doing this out of some kind of love for the club, or just out of the chance to be attached to a prestigious entity. Just because their PR people keep saying so doesn’t mean it’s true. Their walking away a year ago for half the price is a worry too.
A
DIC are unknown but they cannot be any worse than Hicks. See above.
Q
Without shouting, without getting personal or making accusations, what can you tell me to refute what I’ve just said? I’m prepared to listen and for people to provide ways of clearing up my doubts, or changing my opinion. Not by being shouted at or bullied by an angry mob though.
A
See above
Q
Doesn’t even have to be a direct response to any of the points, just a carefully-thought-out summary of why Hicks is so bad, and why DIC are so perfect. If you don’t think it’s that extreme, say so.
A
Again I never said DIC are perfect but for once the saying of ‘Better the devil you know’ doesn’t fit!!
Hope this clarifies and that liverpool fans reading take these points on board before deciding that we stick with Hicks reign (of 15 months) of terror and infighting
Schizophrenic?
First of all, I think I’d be wise to stop biting when Anfielder posts.
So, Anfielder – thanks for posting, it’s still interesting to read what you say. Outside of the personal attacks and accusations, and when reading a little more of what you say when you’re not so (in my view) over the top, there’s stuff there that I’d like to find time to look into more. I’ll keep reading your posts, if you keep posting them, but it’s best for all that I hold back from replying, certainly point-by-point anyway.
Raju – thanks for breaking your exile, I don’t particularly want to turn anyone away but I’m not running the site purely to be popular. If it ends up just being me on here arguing with Texas_Dawg* that his comments are way too pro-Hicks to be believed then so be it. I know what I’m writing is against what the majority of other sites are saying. Anyway…
When you mention I said May was crucial, I can’t remember at this moment why I said that, without going back and looking it up. So if there was more to it than this then apologies. If DIC haven’t got this May deadline in place then the only other reason I feel May would be important is quite simply because it’s the end of the season. Rafa was complaining the day after Athens at the lack of progress and the slowness and so on for transfers, so I’d say that as a bare minimum we need to have a resolution to this mess by the same time this year. We don’t even know if the new ownership will keep Rafa on. Hicks says he will, and I don’t doubt that to be honest. DIC I don’t think have said anything official, but I believe they’ve been saying through the PR people that Rafa will be kept on for at least the time being, not sure if that’s been reported yet. Of course on top of that we don’t know for sure if Rafa would still want to stay, although really I can’t see him choosing to leave. But even if Rafa is definitely staying, he can’t plan anything properly. If he wins, Hicks will give him a budget, Rafa probably knows what that is already. Probably the same with DIC, although that’s probably had to be communicated in more of a cloak-and-dagger way. If Hicks is 50-50 owner with Gillett still then I think there’s still a budget in place (whatever’s left over from that £45m), so he can still plan, but it’s down to Parry, Hicks and Gillett to agree. Gulp! In fact it’s much the same if it becomes 50-50 Hicks and DIC. We need to have an owner with majority control by the end of the season, in my view.
I agree with what you say about it being negligent not to put any kind of time limit into such an agreement. From what I can remember reading into this a while ago there are no real rules on what can and can’t go into an agreement like this, but common sense tells us how likely certain things are to be. Some agreements of this nature actually allow other shareholders to match say 75% of an offer in order to buy fellow shareholders out, or only allow other family members to buy shares. I don’t doubt there’s a time limit, but what I do doubt is what exactly would constitute an offer and thus kick-off the time-limit? Has it got to be an offer that they are bound by? If so, have they seen the books? I still find it odd that if an offer was made on Feb 27th as I think was stated in one paper this week, in March Gillett was not going any further than saying Hicks had “threatened” to veto any offer. It implied no offer had yet been made for Hicks to veto.
Re the point on personal abuse. I’ve said above it’s best to ignore most of it. I intend to try to do so. I wonder how many of those dishing it out would do so on other sites and still be able to post the next day? But maybe that’s why other sites tend to ban those who personally abuse the site owners or editors, because it just starts to look messy.
Proof. It’s an age-old problem! Duncan Oldham of Koptalk abused it and made everyone very dubious about internet claims. It’s easy to say you’ve got a contact or you’ve been told something by some unnamed person. When questioned you just say you can’t reveal your source. But it’s actually also true when you really have got any kind of contact, whether it’s ongoing contact or a one-off. Nobody has to believe me about who I may or may not have spoken to. As someone said, I’ve no credibility left now anyway! But I’m not going to speak out on here about who said what, unless I’ve heard the same claim has now been made public in some way elsewhere, or I’ve been told I can say it.
Some of the personal abuse has been justified by the poster with a “fact” that they would probably find wasn’t if they spent ten minutes checking. Sometimes that “fact” has come two sentences after calling me biased for something that didn’t have a full reference list alongside it laying out detailed proof!
But some of the times I’ve asked for proof it’s literally been a case of me asking that people try and show me what it is they are basing their opinions on. I was looking for something earlier and found evidence of who said what at takeover conflicting with a lot of what everybody, en masse, has assumed for a while. And then I re-read other reports and noticed how we’ve probably all come to the wrong conclusions, with reports from people we usually trust worded as carefully as any statement from the spin doctors.
If we spent more time looking for the actual reports we remember from months ago we might find we’ve been assuming something incorrectly all along.
From the fourth point, I actually feel that a lot of what has been said about the interview has amounted to hysteria. The timing one annoys me the most, especially when someone like Gillett complains about an interview being just before a vital match. His Canadian radio interview was broadcast late Thursday night UK time, with the vital Everton match coming on the Sunday. Hicks’ interview was early Thursday morning UK time, with the vital CL match coming on the following Tuesday. Although I understand the complaints about how close it was to the anniversary, again I think it was broadcast sufficiently long enough after the anniversary. I take it those who complained about it had not written a word on a website anywhere about the ownership mess between the anniversary and this broadcast? I know that people chatting on the net about the situation is a good few steps below a big broadcast on Sky by a club’s co-owner, but again, can anyone say hand on heart that they’d been putting the ownership situation out of their mind even on Wednesday because of the proximity to Tuesday?
I’d not thought about the use of Sky TV. In fact it’s an argument I really can’t be bothered to go into now in terms of the Murdoch point. I take it everyone who’s complained about the use of Sky has also been ignoring everything on the story that’s come via the Times or the News of the World? It’s an argument that’s been to the point where I don’t think there’s much left to discuss. Everyone has their own view on where to draw the line, which they are entitled to, but it is only The Sun that’s actually boycotted officially. If anyone does want to discuss this then by all means we can, but I doubt we’d achieve anything from doing so.
Sky actually get paid for LFC.tv anyway, on digital satellite, because there’s a charge for being listed in the EPG. LFC make money from Sky, Sky’s money has bought us players even if the owners haven’t!
As for him not using LFC.tv well I can think of a couple of reasons. It’s not as widely available to people as SSN is. SSN is available free of charge on Freeview, and is seen in pretty much any pub with a TV during the day. If everybody who said they were going to boycott LFC.tv has actually done this then a lot of Reds wouldn’t have been able to see it. He could have used Setanta, they have a sports news channel, but the boycott of LFC.tv through Sky would also include Setanta. And does anyone watch Setanta’s news channel?
One other point on using LFC.tv is I’ve no idea who actually calls the shots there. Could Hicks have broadcast his interview without getting permission from Gillett first? I don’t know what the editorial policy is on the channel, but I’m guessing there might be problems.
LFC.tv has been a disappointment in a lot of ways actually. They should be broadcasting the weekly press conferences live for example, with a full repeat later in the evening. And maybe if we do end up with one owner, one day, a regular interview with him wouldn’t go amiss. In fact I’m sure we could all list faults with LFC.tv but that’s not fair. There’s some very good programming on there at times, I particularly enjoyed some of the phone-ins when Brian Reade was a guest, and the Hillsborough documentary was worthy of a slot on network TV.
I actually think that it would work better as a way of winning fans over if he comes to the UK and allows himself to be interviewed by a number of LFC-related reporters, but to be honest I don’t think he’d get a fair “trial”, do you?
Re the misgivings of Parry/Gillett/DIC but not Hicks. Unfortunately a lot of people assume an attack on Gillett is against the rules now, although some say it’s ok but we should wait until Hicks has sold up in case it messes up the campaign against Hicks. Same with Parry. You can’t ask a question about Parry any more. And certainly in terms of responding to comments I’m spending most of my time explaining in more and more detail why Hicks hasn’t done a) b) or c) after all when you look it up, and how GG has some nerve accusing Hicks of d) when he’s just as bad himself, and why I think it’s ok to mention this, and – well on and on we go.
I’ve hardly written any articles recently, because I’ve really been struggling to work out what to think. But in between I find I’m responding to comments a lot. As I’ve said, I’m going to ignore the personal insults from now on by and large.
I’d like it, personally, if people gave more thought as to why they don’t like Hicks. In fact I’d like it if people wrote out a list under this that is backed up where possible. For example, “He promised not to put debt on the club.” Where? I can’t find this quote anywhere. But that’s not that it doesn’t exist, it might, I just can’t find it. “He said the stadium would start work in 60 days.” Did he? I think it was actually Gillett who said it, and we’d have the “Parry Bowl” on the way if it had. Now I know that’s better than no stadium at all, but I don’t know anyone who has said they’d prefer the “Parry Bowl”. There are still problems to overcome with it all, some we’ve yet to hear about I’m sure, but again it’s an example of how he’s being tried for the crime he didn’t actually commit.
If you imagine for a moment you are Tom Hicks and you are hated the way he is, but a lot of the time it’s for things someone else did, how do you think you’d react? It would either strengthen your resolve to fight for control of the club, or it would make you determined to screw everyone over who continues to throw abuse at you based on falsehoods. I honestly can’t see the merits in attacking anyone using stuff that isn’t true.
I feel sorry for Rick Parry in a lot of ways, and he deserves credit for his statement today which seems to go against the position we all assume he’s taken. But he needs to explain why he’s acting as he is in what’s seems to be him helping Gillett to sell to DIC but not to Hicks. That doesn’t mean he isn’t right, but most of what we’ve heard about Hicks seems to have come via DIC. I don’t trust them. Certainly not the ones dealing with the press. Anyone who does trust them is leaving themselves open to some shocks.
Which brings us to PR. They all need to dump their PR agencies and start engaging us directly really. In fact GG doesn’t have a PR agency as far as I know, and Hicks hadn’t been using one as much until fairly recently. But it’s not all about using agencies for the PR.
Thanks for the advice though, it’s good when someone’s willing to take the time to criticise constructively. And again, thanks for breaking the exile!
* Did someone mention at some point on here somewhere that “Modus Operandi” was from Texas? He isn’t.
Fred, although it does appear like I’m schizophrenic I’m actually responding to Jim’s questions to me in an earlier post. I look forward to his response.
Firstly can I say I (for one at least) am glad Raju, John Steele and Stephen seem to be still around and willing to participate in our little forum. Things seem to have become a little heated lately but robust exchanges of views are what make this site so compelling so lets not all be too sensitive when the debates get going. Jim, maybe its just me but part of the problem seems to arise from you wearing two different hats at the same time. I realize you hold some pretty strong pro-Hicks views on the current dispute (which is fine) but is there not a danger of those views rendering you unable to objectively report news on that dispute ?? Just a thought.
Stephen you make what seem to me some pretty fair points about Share LFC but I honestly think some of the criticism and speculation on this site about how bad DIC are is over the top. Okay they seem to have leaked a few stories about the negotiations with Hicks etc. and naturally they will want to make themselves look good in the media but do people really believe DIC are as bad as Hicks ??? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of scrutinizing any prospective owners but just because some of the papers have sources within DIC doesn’t mean every bad bit of publicity Hicks gets can be pinned on DIC. Most of it seems to arise from his own behaviour and the debt problems but how are these the fault of DIC ?? Maybe having had someone like Hicks for 15 months has made us so paranoid that we’re attributing his character to other prospective owners and not giving them a fair shake. Mr Al Ansari has always seemed to me a pretty fair bloke who really loves the Club and has the financial resources to do a lot of good things. That seems like a pretty good starting point to me for any prospective owner.
Guys what do you make of the Daily Express report?
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/41832
Stephen: Thanks for the reply, I’m replying on the fly as I go along rather than reading the whole thing first.
I will always support the team on the pitch – I will support Liverpool FC long after Hicks’ cashes in and gets his 30 pieces of silver on the back of honest decent fans giving over their hard earned money to him. I will no longer attend Anfield (I live in Ireland so I only get over 2 times a year). Not a huge sacrifice I grant you but its all I can do. I will not buy one shred of merchandise.
Fair enough, and I’ve no reason to doubt you or fault you in that. The reason for asking really comes from fears that all the talk of how bad things will be under Hicks has a danger of become a self-fulfilling prophecy thanks to never-ending protests that in a large part may not be based on any actual facts. I just wondered how far people would go if Hicks did win this battle.
What has the Parry Bowl got to do with anything?? I didn’t realise that was a DIC plan!!! Where did DIC ever say they would build a stadium based on 5 year old designs that were scrapped years ago!!
Sorry, if I’ve made that sound like something else. I never said they’d said what they’d do about the stadium. In fact that’s one of the problems. They’ve said nothing at all.
Hicks is being criticised because Gillett said work would start in 60 days on the Parry Bowl, but it didn’t. Work on that could actually kick off tomorrow, seeing as it has planning permission and is far cheaper.
Obviously we’ve then got the complete embarrassment over the July version being scrapped, after we’d all got excited about it and I’ve still not heard a decent explanation for that. It also has planning permission, but is too expensive.
Now we’re near to the point where a decision is made on planning permission for the latest version. If it’s granted then I think work can start late August / early September, but there are no guarantees that planning permission will be given. It’s estimated to take 3 years to build, so it’s already tight to get it open in time for 2011-2012.
But nobody’s asked DIC what they intend to do. Not that they’d tell us, but all the DIC fans (and I know you’re not one) seem to assume they’ll be building us something even better than the plans on the table now. Well if that’s the case then planning permission has to be sought again. And that makes 2011-2012 pretty impossible.
Are we going to get protests against DIC if they dumb back down to the Parry Bowl, or delay the stadium by another season? Everyone (nearly) assumes that they’ll be a breath of fresh air and would do nothing but good. But nobody knows what they’ll do. Nobody has a clue.
A lot of people don’t seem to realise this, but a lot of people seem to realise it and say it’s ok, let’s get them in and then ask them!
If that this is the route they go down then I will resist that as per Hicks’. DIC havene’t done that but Hicks already has. Rafa was going to get the sack if we were knocked out of the Champions League. My first option is always Share Liverpool.
ShareLiverpool is a good option, if it can raise the money, but it’s not without some concerns (imagine the situation when it’s time to vote for the next president for example). The days of finding a near-perfect solution have long gone.
The point I was making is again just this unknown quantity about DIC that always seems to be countered with “Ooh they’d not do that, oh no, they’re fine people, image is important to them…” (And the importance of their self image being a selling point for our acceptance of them often strikes me as odd too.)
All I can do is look at previous investments they made. DIC have always been concerned with making whatever investment they are involved in the absolute best. As the horse racing industry (which the revolutionalised). They have pride in their country and pride in what they do.
Hicks’ past is entirely different. He uses taxpayers money to make himself rich. He redirects university funds into his own businesses, he LBO’s good companies – sweats the assets makes good people redundant and sells it on, he gets bank loans to buy into football clubs promises money for transfers, promises stadiums and causes turmoil at board level (corinthians, liverpool), he gets loans to buys into american sports clubs and then leaves them stagnate while he sweats as much money as he can from honest fans.
The first point is a good one, in terms of how highly-regarded the horse-racing side of things is. If similar passion went into LFC we’d not be able to ask for better really. But from what I can gather, Godolphin has nothing to do with DIC. Godolphin is a passion of the Sheikh’s, some describe it as his hobby. DIC is the investment company from Dubai, designed to put money into things and get more money back out at the other end.
When DIC’s PR people put it about that The Sheikh was a Liverpool fan they said they’d checked it out before revealing it. So if that’s true, and he shows the same passion, well there’s only good times ahead.
Or are there? There’s no evidence whatsoever to say it’s true, but at least al-Ansari’s a Red. But he’s still just an employee, and we can’t rely on that as anything more than a bonus point.
And what about stories like these – http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3752832.ece?
As for the fuss over LBO’s, is there anyone reading who can explain this?
http://web.archive.org/web/20070105081522/http://www.dubaiic.com/directprivate.htm (from DIC website Jan 2007)
“Direct Private Equity Investments
Dubai International Capital selectively leads or co-leads Mid/Large Cap private equity transactions.
With a preference for Leveraged Buy Outs in Europe and North America , DIC focuses on opportunities where it can add value to the deal, and subsequently, the business. DIC has a particular interest in working as co-lead with or buying from top tier private equity managers.
Our first such investment was Tussauds Group, which we acquired in a £800 million secondary LBO in May 2005. This was followed in May 2006 by the £700 million acquisition from Royal Bank Private Equity of Doncasters, a leading manufacturer of precision engineered components for applications in a range of industries including aerospace, industrial gas turbines, automotive turbochargers and medical technologies. The most recent transaction was the £675m secondary buyout of Travelodge, the UK’s fastest growing hotel chain which closed in September 2006.”
And the current version:
http://www.dubaiic.com/en/private-equity/private-equity-overview.html
”Dubai International Capital
Private Equity
Dubai International Capital Private Equity is focused on secondary buy-outs and acquisitions of market leading companies in Europe and North America with a proven strategy and a robust management team.
Some of this division’s major investments include:
* The acquisition of Tussauds Group for £800 million, a leading operator of visitor attraction and theme parks, which was later merged with Blackstone’s Merlin Entertainments Group in 2007. Dubai International Capital retains a 20 percent shareholding in the combined Tussauds-Merlin Group
* The acquisition of Doncasters for £700 million and the follow-on acquisition of FastenTech for US$492 million to create a leading player in global precision engineering for the industrial gas turbine, aerospace, specialist automotive and other industries
* The £675 million secondary buyout of Travelodge, a leading budget hotel chain
* The €850m acquisition of Mauser, a world leader in industrial packaging
Any reason why “LBO” and “Leveraged Buy Out” has gone out of their own description of this branch of their operation?
With regards their purchase of Tussauds, it looks like they sold 80% of it in March last year, turning the £800m into £1028m + retaining a 20% share. That’s a profit of £228m! Plus they’ve kept hold of a fifth of the company. http://www.merlinentertainments.biz/en/press/tussaudsscombination.aspx. They only owned it for two years!
Now you can read that in a number of ways, ranging from a sure sign that they like to buy big names and sell them on shortly afterwards for a huge profit, or that they make big names more successful.
I see the list of stuff you’ve put against Hicks, and although I’m not disputing it I’m not taking at face value. I need to go back and check the details of all those things you mention. (Unless someone’s willing to throw some links up!).
Thats why they all must GO!!! They are all liars!!!
Trouble is, I’d include DIC in that, which leaves nobody.
Of course I wouldn’t be happy. I want Share Liverpool not DIC. Read my answer above if the only choice on the table was DIC or Hicks I would make an informed decision and have to in all honestly plump for DIC.
(Nice to hear the fans at fulham singing get out of our club while I write this)
As long as it really is an informed decision then that’s understandable. The point I’ve been trying to make for some time is that I don’t think many people have been making informed decisions, but decisions based on emotionally-charged spin. And that includes the negative reaction to the spin from Hicks. When he spins, it’s picked apart. When DIC spin, it’s either accepted or people let it pass.
Q. If you’re 100% certain that you’re right, if you keep going back and checking that your views are based on if not facts at least some good circumstantial evidence then that’s fine.
A. So Hicks hasn’t done all of the above?? Or DIC??
Have you checked?!
Share Liverpool would be a dream compared to this shambles. No greedy business men to suck our club dry all money raised ploughed back into the club – we would be unstoppable.
On the whole it’s the best option, I’m sure it is, but not everyone likes it.
DIC are unknown but they cannot be any worse than Hicks. See above.
I used to think that. They can’t be any worse than Hicks-and-Gillett together, especially as it stands now, but they can still be pretty bad.
Again I never said DIC are perfect but for once the saying of ‘Better the devil you know’ doesn’t fit!! Hope this clarifies and that liverpool fans reading take these points on board before deciding that we stick with Hicks reign (of 15 months) of terror and infighting
Thanks for taking so much time, it’s good that someone’s willing to do this.
I still maintain that I don’t think it’s going to be down to us who takes over. His PR “disaster” on Thursday was no more damaging to the club than the 11th hour protests that are likely to start taking place now. Neither are particularly damaging, but neither are actually likely to do the club any good.
He’ll either get the money, or he’ll go.
If he gets the money, I think we’re better off working with him, after giving him clear instructions on what we will and won’t stand for.
If he doesn’t get the money, we need give the same instructions to DIC or anyone else here to make money out of us.
Meanwhile, whoever takes over, Rogan Taylor et al should be approaching potential owners now with a view to getting a possible partial shareholding in the club. It can’t be done now, in good time, but it’s a drive that should still be started now, not next year.
One day, who knows, maybe it will grow enough to buy the club, or at least get control.
There may be problems, there may be issues and obstacles, but I think it’s important to start getting a foot in the door now.
Thanks again Stephen.
Thanks Leanne, I appreciate the thoughts (that sounds crapper than it’s meant to, sorry. I do appreciate the thoughts!)
Edward: The Express story. My views:
1) Harry Harris.
2) It’s not really new “news”
3) Harry Harris
4) It’s a different amount (£60m) but still shows GG as rather greedy. Acting for the good of the club? If this was true it would give him a profit in one year £20m short of what Moores got for years at the club. And he probably couldn’t actually afford his half of the club in the first place when he first came along.
5) Harry Harris.
6) If Hicks is guilty of all the charges against him then I suppose it’s considered fair play to play dirty against him, but it’s hardly the sign of an honourable organisation if they really are trying to bully him out of the club he rightfully owns (half of, with loans, before anyone points it out!).
7)Harry Harris.
8 )Further reading: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35432/Yanks-so-much-Liverpool-to-be-Arab-owned
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/24123/Jose-casts-a-huge-shadow-over-Rafa
9) Harry Harris.
10) “Gillett has secretly agreed to sell his half stake” Secretly?
11) Harry Harris.
On a serious note this bit:
Expect knee-jerk denials but the Express has been told by reliable contacts of the ‘deal’ that will soon kick in – and that the ‘English’ section of the Liverpool board, led by chief executive Rick Parry and former chairman David Moores, will approve the new takeover strategy.
Needs looking at.
The “board” have less say than is often claimed. The decisions are made by a “management committee” that sits above the board. There are two members on the management committee, who are both American.
Also LFC are not, technically, up for sale.
It’s the “Kop” company or companies that are up for sale. Each of H & G own 50% of the holding company, which owns LFC in full.
Parry and Moores have no say whatsoever in the sale of the shares in the parent company.
As for “reliable contacts” – David Bick?
Just going through some of the stuff I’ve started but not finished this past week and found this quote from Rafa, about having a day off for his birthday:
“It may be a day off but the phone is always on.”
Was it a dig at Parry?
Sorry, maybe reading too much into it…
Cheers Jim,
you’re dead right though, what constitutes personal opinion based on a bias toward one camp or the other should be separated from what is actually on the record.
Jim, thanks for your reply – this is starting to become a good debate!
Tom Hicks raiding university funds
http://www.utwatch.org/utimco/hicks.html
Tom Hicks is a Dallas billionaire and investment banker who began raiding the University’s public funds after the University refused to invest in his dental company in the early 90’s. Hicks first appeared on the public scene when he donated $17,500 to Ann Richards, Texas governor at the time. He was subsequently appointed to the Board of Regents by Governor Richards in 1994.
After Ann Richards was defeated in 1994 by George W. Bush, Hicks shifted his heavy donations to Bush. Hicks gave $146,000 to Bush in both of his gubernatorial campaigns. In return for the gratitude, Bush approved legislation to form UTIMCO in 1995. Hicks had used a full-court press strategy, spending between $50,000 to $110,0001 in lobbying and using with the powerful lobbying team Vinson and Elkins, who represents several Texas business interests, to achieve this dream.
Conveniently for both men, Bush appointed Hicks as the first chair to UTIMCO, which began the tradition of tit-for-tat management and good-ol’ boy favoritism that has defined the relationship between UTIMCO and Texas politics since. In 1998, Hicks would make Bush a multi-millionaire by purchasing the Texas Rangers. In addition, Hicks’ company, Hicks, Muse, Tate, & Furst, Inc., is now Bush’s number 4 career patron. The company is still donating to the GOP; Rick Perry has received $283,481 from Hicks Muse, with another $176,500 coming from Charles Tate [Hicks, Muse, Tate, & Furst, Inc.]. Hicks’s brother Steven has also thrown in $138,516.
For several years, UTIMCO acted in secrecy under the protection of the Texas Attorney General, which facilitated the process of questionable investments in return for political favors. UTIMCO invested some $525 million in assets run by Hicks associates and other major GOP donors. After the Houston Chronicle exposed such insider dealings in a 1999 article, Tom Hicks resigned from the board.
Is this some one we want running us??
Leveraged buyouts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hicks,_Muse,_Tate_&_Furst
HIcks Muse Capital is a private equity firm in the United States that specializes in leveraged buyouts. The firm was previously known as Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst. The firm was founded in 1989 by Tom Hicks and John Muse as Hicks, Muse & Co. and was changed in 1994 to reflect the roles of Charles Tate and Jack Furst.
History
The son of a Texas radio station owner, Tom Hicks became interested in leveraged buyouts as a member of First National Bank’s venture capital group. Hicks and Robert Haas formed Hicks & Haas in 1984; the next year that firm bought Hicks Communications, a radio outfit run by Hicks’ brother Steven. (This would be the first of many media companies bought or created by the buyout firm, often with Steven Hicks’ involvement.)
Hicks & Haas’ biggest coup was its mid-1980s buy of several soft drink makers, including Dr Pepper and 7 Up. The firm took Dr Pepper/7 Up public just 18 months after merging the two companies. In all, Hicks & Haas turned $88 million of investor funding into $1.3 billion. The pair split up in 1989; Hicks wanted to raise a large pool to invest, but Haas preferred to work deal by deal.
Hicks raised $250 million in 1989 and teamed with former Prudential Securities banker John Muse. Early investments included Life Partners Group (life insurance, 1990; sold 1996). In 1991 Morgan Stanley’s Charles Tate and First Boston’s Jack Furst became partners.
As part of its buy-and-build strategy, Hicks Muse bought DuPont’s connector systems unit in 1993, renamed it Berg Electronics, added six more companies to it, and doubled its earnings before selling it in 1998. Not every move was a star in the Hicks Muse crown. Less-than-successful purchases included bankrupt brewer G. Heileman Brewing Company of La Crosse, Wisconsin, bought in 1994 and sold two years later for an almost $100 million loss.
The buyout firm’s Chancellor Media radio company went public in 1996. That year Hicks Muse gained entry into Latin America with its purchases of cash-starved Mexican companies, including Seguros Commercial America, one of the country’s largest insurers. That year also brought International Home Foods (Jiffy Pop, Chef Boyardee) into the Hicks Muse fold.
In 1997 Chancellor and Evergreen Media merged to form Chancellor Media (renamed AMFM in 1999). The next year Hicks Muse continued buying US and Latin American media companies, as well as a few oddities (a UK software maker, a Danish seed company, and US direct-seller Home Interiors & Gifts]). Hicks Muse and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts merged their cinema operations to form the US’s largest theater chain. The company that year also moved into the depressed energy field (Triton Energy) and formed a $1.5 billion European fund.
Buys in 1999 included UK food group Hillsdown Holdings, one-third of Mexican flour maker Grupo Minsa, and (just in time for millennial celebrations) popular champagne brands Mumm and Perrier-Jouët (it quadrupled its investment when it sold the champagne houses in late 2000). Lured by low stock prices on real estate investment trusts (REITs), the company agreed to buy Walden (formerly Walden Residential Properties) that year.
Hicks Muse, along with UK-based Apax Partners, bought BT’s yellow pages firm Yell for roughly $3.5 billion, making it the largest non-corporate LBO in European history. Yell bought US directories publisher McLeodUSA for about $600 million, and floated in 2003.
Hicks Muse spotted a tasty deal and bought Nestlé’s Ambient Food Business in 2002, which added well-known UK brands Crosse & Blackwell, Branston Pickle, Chivers (marmalade), Sun-Pat (peanut butter), Gale’s (honey), Sarson’s (vinegar) and Rowntree’s (jelly) to the Premier Foods stable. Cereal maker Weetabix Limited and Unilever’s cast-offs Ambrosia (creamed rice and puddings) and Brown & Polson, rounded out Premier Foods’ portfolio in 2003.
Acquisitions in 2004 included Kerns Oil & Gas (renamed Blackbrush Energy — natural gas production), Persona (Canadian cable television company), Regency Gas Services (gas processing and distribution), and Centennial Puerto Rico Cable TV (Puerto Rican cable television company). It also agreed to buy a majority stake in trendy luxury shoemaker Jimmy Choo. Disposals during the year included the company’s remaining stake in Yell and its stake in Premier Foods. Thomas Hicks retired at the end of 2004; co-founder John Muse replaced him at the helm of the firm.
The company’s European arm, Lion Capital LLP has been on a roll of late and split from the company in January of 2005.
Corinthians
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2491724.cms
Meanwhile, the free flow of capital has resulted in foreigners investing in football clubs, often with disastrous consequences, such as when the American buyout firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst bought Corinthians, Sao Paulo’s leading club.
Corinthians won the World Cup championships in 2000, but the club’s performance subsequently slumped and a political row ensued as fans began to protest about everything from player trades to changes in the colour of jerseys. Hicks, Muse exited three years later, following a row with its local partner.
And we all know about the Rangers record in American baseball – attendances down stagnation etc.
Hope this post isn’t too long but I don’t think it shows Hicks in a good light.
As Shankly said – “The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. Thats how I see football, that’s how I see life”
I don’t think we’ll ever hear anything even close to that from Hicks!!!!
Jim,
First of all, thank you for your response to my earlier post. Just a few points I wanted to make following on from what you said.
I think it is a bit of an insult if you think that most of the fans who post on here are doing so in the hope to convince you to say popular things or make it a popular site (in the sense of a monopoly on opinion/view).
I do confess that I want this site to be popular and in deed given the high quality posting of people like Julie, John Steele et al, it is a popular site for those who do not merely join a particular bandwagon. In an earlier post someone mentioned the family-like feel this site has. I still share that sentiment notwithstanding my reservations.
Re: end of May, my query was about resolution of ownership by this period. There is too much being fed to the media for it to just be considered as PR. I believe that some credit is due to journalists (who i would on the whole to check what they are being told, particularly if they have had their hands burnt once or twice).
You managed to drag DIC’s name into this point on the issue of whether Rafa will be kept on. I did not ask about that. Furthermore, you have said that you do not doubt Hicks will keep him on. You have missed the point and started talking about the virtues or lack of the various LFC suitors.
Re: share sale….do you seriously believe that either Hicks or Gillett would allow a clause or set of clauses which would allow the other to undercut a rival offer by any amount, let alone 25% (particularly given your clear dislike of Gillett?)
In that interview, Gillett also said that Hicks had been given the opportunity but had not yet been able to cross the line (or words to that effect).
I would also say that being able to veto a sale by a fellow shareholder is not the same as matching a rival offer. Conversely, I do believe that the 49%-51% proposal came about as a negiotated compromise to overcome any waiting time (3 months as is popularly reported). If it was 50-50% then the issue of veto would not have arisen as Hicks would then have to match or better the offer. In this instance, I agree Gillett would not have been able to refuse regardless of death threats without incurring contractual penalties (unless of course a rival bidder was prepared to compensate this). I personally would not advise on a party being able to veto a deal after a option period had lapsed (exceptional circumstances aside).
re: PR and timing. I do not agree with your view Jim and I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. You posted a most eloquent blog on the Hillsborough disaster on that day. The news that Hicks was doing or had done an interview was in the domain the days before the anniversary and the anticipation (for want of a better phrase) did cloud the period when it should not have done. You keep going back to the Gillett interview and its unhelpful timing. Yes it was badly timed, but I really hope you are not comparing the eve of a Semi-final CL tie (gillett) to the Hillsborough disaster anniversary (Hicks). Both are wrong but one, in my view is inexecusable). I hear what you say that there was some 48 odd hour delay in airing the interview (or whatever anyone else may wish to call it) but the fact that we knew it was on the way definitely enraged me).
Re: Sky vs. LFC tv. I used LFC tv as an example and still think it would have been the preferred domain if wanted to reach the fans. I don’t know whether it would have been possible – probably not. If Hicks wanted to be taken seriously and be asked more searching questions why not invite someone from BBC or ITV? Instead he opted for dolly questions.
With regards to my reservations to Sky, I stand by them. There have been countless occasions when they have given a less than impartial take on Liverpool matters. When you have fans petitioning the channel to swap one of their commentators, something must be clearly wrong. Regards to the income etc., this is missing the point. Using your analogy, do you lose the right to fairness purely because an entity is you direct/indirect paymaster? No, I did not think so myself.
With regards to the perceived impartiality on matters HICKs/PARRY/DIC, my particular fustration with you recent posts have been along the times of “but a is just as bad b c and d” when in any many cases, fans have asked why you take a particular view on say Hicks. You do seem to quickly move on to criticising others. Have you, per chance, noticed this? That’s my view – right or wrong.
In response to imagining if I was in Hick’s shoes to understand why he is being accused of things being said or done by others? Jim, first of all, from someone as streetwise as he appears to be, I would not try to treat fans as mugs!! Before you say it, my sentiments would be the same if it was Gillett or DIC or Parry or Moores or anyone else for that matter. Clearly, all or most of these have at some point insulted the intelligence of fans. This irritates me more than anything else.
What a very selective and loaded list. (You could do that with any human being.)
“And we all know about the Rangers record in American baseball – attendances down stagnation etc.”
LOL. That is how the Rangers have ALWAYS been. Success with the Rangers would take an act of God. The lack of success with that team isn’t really something any rational or knowledgeable person would seriously hold against someone.
re: PR and timing……
You keep going back to the Gillett interview and its unhelpful timing. Yes it was badly timed, but I really hope you are not comparing the eve of a Semi-final CL tie (gillett) to the Hillsborough disaster anniversary (Hicks).
Sorry it should have read Q-final CL tie.
There is an article in the Times which suggests that Rafa is actually in the strongest position as all or most of the potential suitors need to be on-side with him if they want the popular fan vote.
Leanne – forgot to mention but i whole heartedly agree with your thoughts.
Jim – are you seriously trying to group LFC in the same category as Tussauds?
John – please do make the occasional posts – whatever others say, your input is missed.
I promised a brief return to this forum and therefore bid everyone all the best.
YNWA.
dawg are you back for more punishment?
“Prior to Glazer ownership, the Buccaneers were perennial losers, maligned by others as the Yuccaneers and other derogatory names. The hiring of qualified football coaches and office staff quickly turned around the franchise and in a short few years the team was a playoff contender. In the 1999 season the team, then coached by Tony Dungy, was defeated in the NFC championship game by the heavily favored St. Louis Rams by a score of 11-6 in a game in which the Bucs and their defensive-minded scheme nearly pulled a major upset. In the 2002 season, the first season with new coach Jon Gruden, the Buccaneers defeated the Oakland Raiders for their first Super Bowl victory. Gruden had coached the Raiders the previous season.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Glazer
After Hicks answered next to nothing new on Sky News here are Chris Bascombe’s questions that Hicks chooses not to answer:
http://blogs.notw.co.uk/sport/2008/04/hicks-questions.html
Texas Dawg, are you saying Hicks does not have the ability to grow the Texas Rangers??
If he can’t grow the Rangers what chance has he of growing Liverpool?? Because there are plently of owners who have taken a non performing ‘franchise’ and made them great. Hicks doesn’t have the ability which you have confirmed in numberous posts. Thanks for highlighting that to us.
I point you to the most under performing franchise in American history and what happened when it was taken over by people with ability – The New England Patriots.
Great link midlands!
You know, the prospect of Hicks ownership in the long term is terrifying if the number of horror stories revealed about his past is anything to go by, never mind his involvement in the debacle over the last 15 months. I think this prospect understandably concerns almost all Liverpool fans.
There’s a lot of speculation at the moment that Gillett will sell his 50% to DIC in the next few weeks. Is everyone forgetting the Hicks – DIC negotiation a few months ago? That would have left Hicks with a 51% majority and if I remember rightly it was Hicks who called the negotiations off. Now the favoured view is that Gillett will sell 50% to DIC soon. If that’s the case, why did DIC enter negotiations for only 49%? Furthermore, if Hicks is under so much threat, why did he call those negotiations off? It makes no sense to me. I wonder if this latest round of conjecture is simply a pipe-dream on the part of those who cannot accept the fact that Hicks may get sole control of the club, whether we like it or not.
What’s happened to Bascombe?
We know he’s got an editor to please and we know he’s being paid to write the type of stories that fit in with the front pages of the paper but can he not concentrate on getting Hicks out without doing this to Rafa and the players?
Sounds like Rafa is going with Hicks now because there is no other choice if he wants a job and he was in with Hicks when he started attacking Parry.
Sound like the players aren’t with and so some of them are going to leave.
Sounds like we have to choose rafa and hicks or lose rafa but keep players.
Rob Beesley could have written that by Bascombe and with us getting ready to play chelsea in two days how can it help us? Beesley must be dancing a jig because a supposed Liverpool fan has done his dirty work for him.
He even says about bad timing in there himself then puts this out. He’s sounding bitter.
Hop, I think Raju’s post from 11.48pm above addresses the very question you ask about the relevance of the 49%-51% negotiations back in February 2008.
Leanne, Raju – I absolutely don’t buy that explanation, but if DIC are best for our club, I hope you’re right.
Tom Hicks chat was more offensive than charming
Apr 19 2008 by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo
THOSE who studied GCSE history may be aware of President Frankli n D Roosevelt’s fireside chats.
A staple in American homes from 1933-45, Roosevelt would conduct radio interviews in a homely setting to give the impression that although he was a politician he was also a human being and a family man who could be trusted to do right thing by the public even during the most testing of times.
On Thursday, Tom Hicks tried to reawaken the spirit of FDR when he did his very own fireside chat for the benefit of Liverpool’s long suffering fans.
It needs only a glance at the myriad of Reds related forums and websites to discover that Hicks’ efforts failed – and miserably at that.
From the stage managed props – including an LFC cup which was so untouched it looked like it had been delivered from the club shop that very day – to the Liverpool gear that Hicks donned in every shot, the whole set up could not have been more forced had Hicks had the cast of Carousel singing You’ll Never Walk Alone in the background.
There was even a pot shot at Everton from the star of the show just to make sure no-one was left in any doubt that the gallery was being played to with all the gusto of a politician wanting to prove he really is a nice family man after all, just days after being caught in a compromising position on Hampstead Heath.
“My family loves Liverpool,” said Hicks, in front of a couple of teenagers who tried but failed not to look incredibly bored as they watched daddy’s UK franchise beating Rovers of Blackburn on a TV so big it made the Anfield pitch look lifesize.
If this was a charm offensive then it seems hardly anyone was charmed but almost everyone was offended.
Trying too hard is never going to be an impressive sight and whoever was the brains behind this misguided operation missed the mark by quite some distance.
And it no doubt left DIC – whom Hicks derided as “masters of spin” – rubbing their hands in glee at the biggest own goal since Djimi Traore’s muddled dancing feet knocked Liverpool out of the FA Cup.
If Hicks really wants to win the Liverpool fans over he could start by acting like someone who has the best interests of the club at heart because that is something which has been conspicuous only by its absence ever since he took ownership of the club alongside George Gillett.
Pledges which he made on his opening day in control have not been kept and the Texan has washed more dirty linen in public than anyone in his position should ever do.
That is why the majority of Liverpool’s fans are still of the opinion that it is Hicks and not Rick Parry who is the biggest problem at the club, even though many of them feel that time should be called on the chief executive’s time at the club also.
And seeing as Hicks is so taken by the influence of FDR, maybe he should consider one of the wartime president’s most telling quotes.
“Confidence,” he opined, “thrives on honesty, on honour, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.”
There is precious little confidence in Hicks at Anfield at the moment. The time has come for him to ask himself why – not blame others.