“Sick” Gillett invites DIC to distract.
George Gillett, high-and-mighty in his condemnation of Tom Hicks last week, has shown how hypocrisy works Colorado-style. It was Thursday evening in the UK when Gillett came forward with his views on the Hicks interviews that had aired throughout the day on Sky Sports News.
“Here we are, a few days away from a vital Champions League semi-final match and Tom has once again created turmoil with his public comments. Tom should stop.”
It was already a hypocritical statement to make by the owners of the Gillett-Evernham NASCAR outfit. Gillett had created turmoil of his own the month before when he came out of lengthy hiding to tell the world he could no longer work with Tom Hicks, that he’d received 2000 emails a day from fans telling him how much they hated Tom Hicks, and that he’d had death threats warning him not to sell to Tom Hicks. He’d done it just two-and-half days before a vital league match that Liverpool had to win to make sure Champions League qualification for next season was in their own hands. So he was a fine one to talk.
But tonight the news has come out that, if true, will trump any of his previous actions.
According to the Press Association, the Canadiens’ owner has invited the leveraged-buy-out investment arm of Dubai Holdings, Dubai International Capital, to Anfield tomorrow night. Better known as DIC, they failed to exercise an exclusive right to buy the club in January last year for a little over £200m including debt, reportedly on principle, but are now trying to spend over twice that amount, with reports ranging from £400m-£550m as the price they will pay.
Tom Hicks was criticised for not coming to Anfield for the second leg Champions League quarter final against Arsenal, and although his son Tom Jnr was there on his behalf the Texan was attacked by many for the perception he’d put his Rangers baseball team first. Yet George Gillett’s presence was seen as somehow a positive.
When reports over the weekend filtered out saying Hicks would attend tomorrow night’s clash with Chelsea, there was more criticism of Hicks, because his presence would be disruptive. If he doesn’t attend he doesn’t care, if he does attend he doesn’t care. It’s hypocritical and distracts from the real issues fans have with his ownership, not all of which are of his doing.
The PA report says Gillett “has invited senior officials from Dubai International Capital to be his guests at Anfield on Tuesday for the Champions League semi-final showdown with Chelsea.”
For the second time in recent months, Gillett has pulled a sicky:”Although Gillett himself will not be able to attend the match because of illness, his party - including son Foster, a fellow director - will be there in force to welcome DIC’s representatives.”
The report was by Paul Walker, one-time alleged striker-off of Peter Crouch goals, who wrote: “It is a remarkable move by Gillett…” Remarkable is an understatement.
Walker wrote: “It is believed that DIC’s chief negotiator Amanda Staveley will be among Gillett’s party, along with Liverpool fan and DIC chief executive Samir Al-Ansari.”
Staveley has been talking to Gillett for some time, with reports in March claiming Rick Parry had also attended meetings in her office, but she seems to jump the gone somewhat. Prior to a meeting between representatives of Hicks and DIC in Dubai, she said: “All parties have now reached agreement, Tom Hicks knows that in the long run we will be 100 per cent owners of the club but we are prepared to play a waiting game.” But all parties quite clearly had not reached agreement. So why say they had?
Walker’s report also said: “”Hicks could also be there, although significantly his spokesmen in the UK have been unable to confirm the Dallas billionaire’s movements. Hicks had made it clear at the weekend that he intended to be at Anfield for the first leg of the Champions League semi-final - but there are now doubts that he would want to be in the same director’s box as DIC.” Whose doubts? Whoever tipped PA off over this perhaps? In fact it could be argued that Gillett has so far been the one avoiding certain people in the directors’ box.
Walker also repeated the latest rumour doing the rounds via the hands of DIC: “The problem over Hicks’ alleged veto of any Gillett sale is likely to be challenged in court before the summer.” Why would Gillett be prepared to see LFC’s name dragged through the mud so publicly. What is it that is really stopping him from selling to Hicks?
If this stunt of inviting al-Ansari and Staveley to the match is true then Gillett has made it clear his first concern is getting that profit from DIC, his second concern is getting one over on his enemy Tom Hicks. Any possibility that he cares about LFC is growing slimmer by the second. Yet some fans will still buy that as his reason for a refusal to sell to Hicks.
Bearing in mind that a large amount of the significant criticism of Hicks can also be levelled at Gillett, and in many cases should be levelled at Gillett instead of Hicks, it’s difficult to see exactly why Gillett can say his decision not to sell to Hicks is somehow out of love for the club.
DIC continue to be blindly accepted by many fans purely on the basis that somehow they can’t be worse than Hicks. Some fans actually believe DIC will definitely buy the club without using loans or other debt. DIC changed the wording on their website last year to hide the use of the words “leveraged buy outs” (LBO) when describing how they make their investments. They bought Tussauds for £800m in 2005, selling 80% of it for a £200m profit just two years later.
Has Gillett got the guts to come out in the open and explain exactly why he won’t sell to Hicks? And will that tell us why it is acceptable to invite such trouble to the ground on such an important night?
Although Tom Hicks was criticised for not being at that Arsenal match, many fans were hoping he would change his mind and not attend tomorrow night just to ensure Rafa’s men could play without distraction. But Hicks is hardly likely to miss the game now, and the most important match of the season so far will become a side-show.
Hicks has been criticised for attacking Parry on issues most fans agree with. The timing of the letter was attacked for being just after a big Champions League win. Hicks was criticised for his Sky interview, with it broadcast five days before this Champions League match.
All those who condemned him for his timing should also now condemn DIC and Gillett for theirs. Especially if, despite the players so far showing brilliant drive not to be distracted, Liverpool lose the game.
Jim, you’re really trying to drum home this LBO stuff around DIC - it seems to pop up in all your articles lately.
I point you to quote from Tom Hicks -“You don’t even have to win a championship every year to draw the fans. You just have to show you’re really trying. This business has to do with fan affinity and brand devotion. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with winning.” To now say he wants this club top of the pile. Or for a man who said: “When I was in the leverage buy-out business we bought Weetabix and we leveraged it up to make our return. You could say that anyone who was eating Weetabix was paying for our purchase of Weetabix. It was just business. It is the same for Liverpool.”
Any comment??
Best news I’ve heard in months. Jim, you must be getting as desperate as Tom Hicks !
No offense, Jim, but you’ve lost all credibility on this issue since your ‘ashes to ashes’ moment.
Quite sad really as I used to enjoy your pieces but they’re as agenda driven now as something you would read in a tabloid.
Jim, why do you always have to compare the actions of Hicks and Gillett to try and make out that Hicks isn’t as bad as Gillett. If Hicks is only 1% of the problem and Gillett 99% it doesn’t matter - they both need to go.
I think that’s the point you are missing - they both caused the problems we have today. Nobody thinks Gillett is the good guy here his only redeeming feature is the fact that he wants out because he knows they are both not capable of turning this club around.
By the way DIC regularly attend our games and were going anyway.
midlands red - forgive me for using your comment from another article but I think its no harm that we have it as the first comment!! Lest others forget what we are dealing with!
jim you talking rubish you know DIC you came here see dubai how this people the devolope the country anything start for exzmple EMERATE AIRLINE come how dubai before 3year and now its paradise liverpool if DIC it will the best club in world this people they have money and they spend
The two Americans must go, but my gut feeling is that, if GG had the financial clout to continue his involvement in the club, he would not be half so harmful as the Texan. GG certainly had a feel for the tradition of the club when he first got involved. He just bit off more than he could chew. Engineering a strategy to sell his own share and make sure that Hicks is ousted is the best thing that could happen to LFC.
Hey dude,
You have changed your tune so much lately. Have you received a call from hicks, coz he has a habit of calling website owners. I used to enjoy your articles but now, to be honest I just skip most of it, goes to show.
Jim,
I don’t supposed it’s occured to you that George Gillett’s invitation to DIC may be in some way connected to Hicks’ PR exercise in front of a psuedo log fire last week followed his crass insensitive assertion that he’ll be at Anfield on Tuesday.
Stephen,
Yes but DIC in the Director’s Box ?
This must be the bit about moving chess pieces that Gillett mentioned in the Canadian Radio interview.
But Jim is dead right, although a little over the top (”sick?”), in that it does, if it’s true, highlight the utter hypocrisy of Gillett when he talks about focusing on football.
Actually it is a bit sick!
Oh, Jim, I guess I should be more understanding of the skewed perspective your hate-on for Gillett lends to your articles, considering my hatred of Hicks colours my perceptions in the opposite direction.
That being said, comparing DIC’s possible presence in the directors’ box tomorrow night to Hicks being there is lining up the proverbial apples and oranges against each other. DIC’s attendance (at the instigation of Gillett) will not incite and disrupt fans’ attention away from the match in the same way as Hicks will. A significant majority of Liverpool supporters loathe Hicks, and for him to attend the semi-final match at Anfield is a blatant disruption that will further incite protest during a crucial match when all focus should be towards the team on the pitch. The presence of DIC, in contrast, is benign in terms of the fans’ response – there will be no protest directed towards them, no outpouring of anger, no banners decrying their shameful behaviour towards the club. Maybe you argue there should be, but that’s a discussion for another page.
However questionable Gillett’s personal motives in doing this (and I’ll acknowledge that he’s a coward for sending in DIC and not joining them), the result may have a positive effect if it ends up keeping Hicks away. (For the record, I did not condemn Hicks for not attending the home match versus Arsenal – it’s always better that he stays far, far away from Anfield.) Of course if Hicks does show up, I suppose we can always look forward to an entertaining half-time show in the directors’ box when all concerned indulge in a staring-down contest. My money’s on Hicks blinking first.
Jim, I read your article with a smile on my face and thought you would have been doing the same.
There’s a point to what you wrote - e.g. a distraction for the players (to a degree) - but Gillett and Hicks are two peas in a pod and we want them both out of the club.
I could imagine you drafting this article in jest and to provoke a response. You sure you’re not Texas_Dawg in disguise?!?!!
Stephen, we’re trying to keep our club safe and ready for the future challenges ahead so take what you like - afterall they weren’t my words they came directly from Hicks!
For me this is about Chelsea missing Essien.
Anything that distracts from 100% focus on our mission is b*llshit.
Jofrad - agreed. But I was just pointing out that DIC were coming anyway so the extra disruption is hardly huge. It is up to Gillett to invite who he wants but I don’t believe its DIC’s fault that their seats have been upgraded!!
I think Julie hits the nail on the head.
Again, until Jim realises most people’s position here - Gillett and Hicks must go. Both of them - together.
Stephen
Jim, you’re really trying to drum home this LBO stuff around DIC - it seems to pop up in all your articles lately.
I spotted the change on their website late last week and considered it to be fairly significant when that very phrase or concept is one very significant reason to fear Hicks for many. It links into the oft-quoted Weetabix stuff.
I point you to quote from Tom Hicks -“You don’t even have to win a championship every year to draw the fans. You just have to show you’re really trying. This business has to do with fan affinity and brand devotion. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with winning.” To now say he wants this club top of the pile. Or for a man who said: “When I was in the leverage buy-out business we bought Weetabix and we leveraged it up to make our return. You could say that anyone who was eating Weetabix was paying for our purchase of Weetabix. It was just business. It is the same for Liverpool.”
I commented on the first quote earlier, on another post.
With regards the second one, it sounds awful, but it’s rarely ever quoted in full:
“When I was in the leverage buy-out business we bought Weetabix and we leveraged it up to make our return. You could say that anyone who was eating Weetabix was paying for our purchase of Weetabix. It was just business. It is the same for Liverpool; revenues come in from whatever source and go out to whatever source and, if there is money left over, it is profit,”
It’s only a little bit that’s missing, but it does change the tone of what was said.
Also, ask DIC if they disagree with what he said.
Jofrad
Best news I’ve heard in months. Jim, you must be getting as desperate as Tom Hicks !
I think the way fans are willing to accept DIC without question is the desperation. I’m not alone in thinking that either.
Stephen
Jim, why do you always have to compare the actions of Hicks and Gillett to try and make out that Hicks isn’t as bad as Gillett. If Hicks is only 1% of the problem and Gillett 99% it doesn’t matter - they both need to go.
I think that’s the point you are missing - they both caused the problems we have today. Nobody thinks Gillett is the good guy here his only redeeming feature is the fact that he wants out because he knows they are both not capable of turning this club around.
By the way DIC regularly attend our games and were going anyway.
We have problems, but what problems do we actually have? The real problems? The ones that mean DIC are an option without any questions and Hicks isn’t an option at all? The reason I compare Hicks and Gillett is because although any problems we have now are down to the Hicks-Gillett partnership, some of them might not have happened had we had, for want of a better way of putting it, two Hicks’s. I’m not saying we’ve got no problems, I’m saying most people never actually stop to think what they are, or think about where the information in that respect may have come from.
Gillett wants out because he knows he hasn’t the financial means to do anything with this club. And he also knows that thanks to his 12 months here, he can get some financial means nice and easily to spend elsewhere. Whilst acting on his grudge to Hicks. And a lot of people do think Gillett is the good guy.
Who told you DIC regularly attend our games and were going anyway? And was that DIC as in David Bick the PR man, or DIC as in al-Ansari and Staveley? And sitting anonymously in the stands is quite different to sitting in the director’s box as a pre-announced guest of one of the owners, as you know full well.
Pierre (Belgium)
The two Americans must go, but my gut feeling is that, if GG had the financial clout to continue his involvement in the club, he would not be half so harmful as the Texan. GG certainly had a feel for the tradition of the club when he first got involved. He just bit off more than he could chew. Engineering a strategy to sell his own share and make sure that Hicks is ousted is the best thing that could happen to LFC.
An alternative way of looking at it - GG had just spent more time looking into the history of the club before takeover in order to support his aim of buying into what he knew was an easy target for a very quick and easy buck. GG knew he was struggling to a certain extent from the off but thought he could be in and out quickly enough without anyone realising. Then came the credit crunch. Possible?
I genuinely do not feel GG has even the slightest concern for the club.
Jim, (hicks there with u)
You are defo on hicks payroll!! what does it matter if dic come?? they’ve been here many games.. + for amanda and coolio ansari to be seated in the directors box!! whats it going to change.
gillett has realised that he cant forward liverpool so the best his doing is selling to some1 who can..
guys u have to realise that there are many hicks puppets out there on all these websites - pls dont get sucked in!!!!!!!!!! u joker.. jim
So what if Gillett wants to invite a few of DIC’s reps i mean whast wrong with that. I read on a few LFC forums that Hicks entourage created a mess when sone of his associates got drunk and didnt even watch the game so thats fine by you.
Having read your articles recently i have noticed your trend in supportive of Hicks, why dont you read his past dealings when he bought the Brazilian Club, Corinthians.
Also if i may add if Hicks had the money to buy Gillett out why hasnt he even made an offer, DIC has publicly made an offer to Gillette so why not Hicks, he has been whoring himself in the US AND UK for financial backing and minority investors which hasnt happened due to the curent credit crunch and i doubt he will get any.
Also the PR attempt of his interview on Skysports was that for real comon on we are not that daft to believe that drinking coffee from his Liverpool Mug, his grandsons watching the early kick off, rubbing thier eyes whuch might lead to them been just woken up and have them wear the Liverpool tops, absolute BS and why would he just offer RAFA a 1 year contract why not 5 year extension.
Hicks is a lair and how would he clear the 350m debt off the club pay 300m for the new stadium and lets say 200m for Gilletts 50% stake gosh he needs 500m pounds which he hasnt got. He has lied on countless occasions and we want him out as majority of the fans.
If you are in his camp so be it cause you are deluded and thick as he is.
Jim, I agree with your sentiments 100%. It’s actually quite worrying that the view of so many others is so different. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Oh I really hope the scales fall from my eyes soon!
Great post Julie.
I’ve never been so convinced that Hicks is wrong for our club. I do understand Jim weighing up this ‘principle’ war though that is the undercurrent to the takeover battle, and i personally feel an affinty for it because i am quite principalistic.
I think the point that needs to be made though is that, unfortunately, in this war for control the type of politics being employed are neccessary and inevitable for any party wishing to end up as victors. Failing to engage this aspect is to give your opposition the upper hand. It’s sad, because it means that really all we hear is bullshit, and we’re reduced to trying to decipher whats right and wrong, well intentioned and not so well intentioned, and as Jim has quite clearly showed us both sides are culpable.
Not that anyone here really needs telling, but if the lies and spin have taught us anything, its to believe what you see, and relate back what you have seen to what was implied. This is fundamentally why Hicks and Gillett have failed, and why they don’t deserve any more chances.
The problem is, what of DIC? Yes Jim, they can’t be any worse and that is the argument for them being instated. A lack of factual knowledge of their intentions, yes. But they really can’t be any worse, can they? And if they can’t be any worse, they could be better. At the very least their deep pockets seem to provide the sort of security that Hicks lacks, given that that security appears dependant on the club itself anyway.
It makes me sick knowing that part of the money I spend is being used just to fund the purchase of the club, and the right to own itself, just to make a certain rich texan that little bit richer! Part of supporting a club is giving money to that club, be it through merchandise, tickets, or internet subscriptions, and that money should benefit the club in ways like the transfer market, NOT to pay off a loan that relates purely to the existence of the club itself.
Anyway, come on boys lets thrash those Chelsea boys and wipe that smirk off Beasley’s face!
“His armband said he was a red, Torres, Torres,
“You’ll never walk alone he said, Torres, Torres,
“We bought the lad from sunny spain, give him the ball and he scores again, Fer-nan-do Tor-res, Liverpool’s number 9!
Jofrad
Jim,
I don’t supposed it’s occured to you that George Gillett’s invitation to DIC may be in some way connected to Hicks’ PR exercise in front of a psuedo log fire last week followed his crass insensitive assertion that he’ll be at Anfield on Tuesday.
If that’s the case, what does it say about Gillett? He called Hicks for his timing ahead of such an important game, trying to convey in some way that he cares about the club and feels Hicks acted inappropriately and could hurt our CL hopes. Then he does this. People are loving little George because they think he loves us! He loves that stuff he waves around when he makes up names like “Snoogy Doogy”.
I can’t comment on the “crass insensitive assertion” because I’ve not actually seen it. I saw papers claim he would be here, but no “crass insensitive assertion” from him. That said, I saw a never-ending stream of criticism that he wasn’t much of an owner for missing the last CL game. Some would see that as a way of demanding he attends the next match! You can’t have it both ways.
In reality the truth of the matter is the original criticism of him not attending the Arsenal game is what was wrong. But that criticism opens up his right to attend tomorrow.
Edward
This must be the bit about moving chess pieces that Gillett mentioned in the Canadian Radio interview.
But Jim is dead right, although a little over the top (”sick?”), in that it does, if it’s true, highlight the utter hypocrisy of Gillett when he talks about focusing on football.
Actually it is a bit sick!
Sorry – the “sick” refers to how he’s ill again at a vital time as well as being a little play on the other meanings of the word…
Julie (Toronto)
Oh, Jim, I guess I should be more understanding of the skewed perspective your hate-on for Gillett lends to your articles, considering my hatred of Hicks colours my perceptions in the opposite direction.
That being said, comparing DIC’s possible presence in the directors’ box tomorrow night to Hicks being there is lining up the proverbial apples and oranges against each other. DIC’s attendance (at the instigation of Gillett) will not incite and disrupt fans’ attention away from the match in the same way as Hicks will. A significant majority of Liverpool supporters loathe Hicks, and for him to attend the semi-final match at Anfield is a blatant disruption that will further incite protest during a crucial match when all focus should be towards the team on the pitch. The presence of DIC, in contrast, is benign in terms of the fans’ response – there will be no protest directed towards them, no outpouring of anger, no banners decrying their shameful behaviour towards the club. Maybe you argue there should be, but that’s a discussion for another page.
However questionable Gillett’s personal motives in doing this (and I’ll acknowledge that he’s a coward for sending in DIC and not joining them), the result may have a positive effect if it ends up keeping Hicks away. (For the record, I did not condemn Hicks for not attending the home match versus Arsenal – it’s always better that he stays far, far away from Anfield.) Of course if Hicks does show up, I suppose we can always look forward to an entertaining half-time show in the directors’ box when all concerned indulge in a staring-down contest. My money’s on Hicks blinking first.
If / when DIC attend tomorrow night it’s not just about sitting in the stands with smug faces. They’ll be able to meet the players beforehand, probably with Moores and Parry showing them round and introducing them, at the same time as Hicks and Foster are there. If there’s an ounce, even half an ounce, of truth that Rafa and some players do not see eye-to-eye on this ownership issue, it all works towards an uncomfortable situation.
And two wrongs don’t make a right. I’ve not actually seen any quotes from Hicks saying he’ll be there on Tuesday. The first mention I think I saw of it was in an NOTW article that was hitting Hicks hard. Was it seen anywhere else before that by anyone? I wonder, did Hicks see the general response then decide against coming over? His spokespeople in London didn’t seem to have a clue where he was, suggesting he wasn’t over here yet. Then he hears this story and so decides that it would be wrong to be absent if DIC were present. Let’s put it this way – if he is over, he’ll not be persuaded to sit it out and leave Tom Jnr to go instead.
midlands-red
Jim, I read your article with a smile on my face and thought you would have been doing the same.
There’s a point to what you wrote - e.g. a distraction for the players (to a degree) - but Gillett and Hicks are two peas in a pod and we want them both out of the club.
I could imagine you drafting this article in jest and to provoke a response. You sure you’re not Texas_Dawg in disguise?!?!!
I still have this deep mistrust as to what the true motives are of Gillett and Parry. Certainly in the case of the former it’s not for the sake of the club. And for both, the evidence against Hicks when weighed against what was known (especially by Gillett) a year ago isn’t enough for this level of determination to see him gone.
Maybe there’s some dark secret we don’t know about. Whatever it is, it doesn’t make sense.
One point everyone seems to agree on whenever Hicks does anything in public is that he shouldn’t, it’s not the Liverpool way and all the rest of it. If Hicks was going to come tomorrow it should have been a discreet visit, if that’s possible, or for the best no visit at all.
Gillett should have taken the same approach. Instead he invites DIC. Who, if they cared enough about the club and not the profits, would have politely declined. We keep seeing ways where we can cross-reference DIC v Hicks and in doing so maybe reduce another fault of Hicks because the only other option has that same fault. Cross insensitivity off the list.
DIC have proven themselves to be by far the biggest bullies on this scene these days, and it’s another sign I’m not keen on about them. They come across as even more cold and inhuman than any impression any of us had of Hicks in November.
Some good points Martin, the only one I’ll pick up on for now is the “can’t be worse” one. Every time we see something like this I do start to wonder. Plus, the alternative to DIC isn’t Hicks-and-Gillett, it’s Hicks alone. And even Hicks alone is better than this stand-off, and better than the wonderful idea DIC are alleged to have of buying half then using questionable and bullying tactics to force Hicks to sell his half.
I hope we don’t hear any other songs during the actual action than the likes of the Torres one.
Hicks alone is better than the current stand off, thats true, and would be better than DIC and Hicks. It seems that whatever way we turn, we will not find ourselves in the position we wanted from new owners. Oh dear.
Anyway, i’m putting this issue to one side for 48 hrs. Tonight is going to be huge!
Are you lucky enough to be attending JIm, or anyone else for that matter out of interest?
Jim in a way you have to step back and wonder why most fans are willing to take a chance and accept DIC with open arms?
Its not necessarily because the fans think DIC cant be any worse, thats just losing sight of the true facts that the first year under Hicks and Gilette has actually been that bad.
I think the complete emphasis here should be on how collectively Hicks and Gilette have failed the club so miserably.
We could poke holes in both Americans intentions over and over again and we would probably never be in agreement but the one thing we can agree on is that this uncertainty has to end.
It really doesnt matter which of the two you choose to bare the brunt of your critical analysis because I think its pretty clear to most Liverpool fans that overall through the course of the year neither men have had a positive effect on the club the manager the fans and most importantly the team. Whether it be radio interviews or fireside chats neither men seem to grasp the fact that more often than not no news is good news especially when it comes to board room grievences.
It seems you are trying to justify which of the two has done the least amount of damage. Surely as fans of a great instituion such as this we shouldnt be made to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Jim,
I mis-read that (kind of funny actually!) but I was in agreement with your core idea and I was suprised by the reaction of some posters.
I’m 100% anti-Hicks (you’ve yet to convince me!) but I feel that alot of points have been made over and over to a point where I just don’t read the anti-Hicks diatribes anymore. They’re beginning to sound like the dawg!
Anti-Hicks posters should have moved on and be scrutinising DIC.
No doubt we’ll all be focussing our energies in the next 24 hours on what’s going to happen on the pitch, but as it’s in my nature (not that I’m proud of this) to try and always have the last word (not that I’m always successful, either), a few thoughts in reply before I rewatch the QF match versus Arsenal to rev up the frenzy…
Jim: if, as you say, Moores and Parry take the DIC reps to the dressing room before the match (an occurance that seems mind-boggling, no matter who it was), the team won’t give a rat’s backside about who they’re glad handing – they’re professionals, and the last thing they’re going to care about at that point is who is taking whose side in the boardroom.
Also, does it take a direct quote from Hicks to annouce he’ll be attending a match? Pretty much every news source reporting on the build-up to Tuesday night has indicated he’ll be there. If he changes his mind, all the better, then he can save face by saying he had never intended to attend to begin with.
I stand by my original point that his presence alone has more potential to disrupt the occasion than guests in the directors box. I agree with your comment that two wrongs don’t make a right and if Gillett has extended this invitation as a political countermove to last week’s fireside chat, then he deserves our scorn. But, in weighing up the consequences of who will sit in the directors’ box, DIC will have nowhere near the impact to distract that Hicks will. Would you be as incensed if Gillett had invited instead other potential suitors?
Martin: how I LOVE that Torres song. I caught myself quietly singing it in the grocery store this morning (yes, I am that crazy lady who mutters to herself in the vegetable aisle). Sadly, I can’t carry a tune to save my life, but all sense of decorum goes out the window when lending voice to the cheers for Liverpool’s Number Nine.
WARNING: The following comment has offended some people.
(I’ve edited this on request, to censor some of the words, I was torn between deleting it altogether or leaving it as is, but I think the middle ground is to just tone some of the words down with the use of *s. I’ve always tried to allow all views to be heard (even if I shout them back down afterwards) and I’ll try to carry this on in future too. At the same time, it doesn’t hurt to try and tone the language down, even if it’s just for the sake of those reading from work. Jim. )
Jim
Deleted. Does nobody any good. If anyone wants to see it email me using the contact form and I’ll forward it on.
Well played the shaving foam magnet!
The Hickster is being run out of town.
The little guy does sometimes win the day.
Reckon I’ll raise a glass of sasparilla here in triumph.
“Let’s put it this way – if he is over, he’ll not be persuaded to sit it out and leave Tom Jnr to go instead.”
Jim,
As of last week when I had to cancel my trip to the game, Hicks Sr. was supposed to be in attendance. I haven’t spoken with anyone in the family since then, but I know Tommy will be there. One possible conflict was a Game 7 of the NHL playoffs for the Dallas Stars, but that chance was eliminated when the Stars won on Sunday to advance to the next round.
All this discussion of which owners are there and when has gotten pretty silly though. Both Gillett and Hicks own other teams whose fans could also complain if they weren’t there. I’m sure they’d both like to be at every game for all their teams, but that’s not possible, of course. This really is a non-issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/04/22/sfnhic122.xml
One less sinister possibility to consider with this Gillett/DIC move:
Gillett might just be trying to put Hicks/DIC together again in the hope they might get along at the game, leaving Hicks more open to allowing a Gillett stake sale to DIC.
I doubt it will work, but this could just be a last ditch effort by Gillett to keep open the possibility of selling to DIC.
“I doubt it will work, but this could just be a last ditch effort by Gillett to keep open the possibility of selling to DIC.”
I think that’s the most plausible explanation. As we know Gillett wants to sell, DIC want to buy, Hicks won’t let the sale go through.
Very good point Jim. I am also surprised by the responses you got. To reiterate what I have said before here. I don’t think any businessman cares about the feelings of the fans, the Liverpool Way etc etc.. So nothing they do really surprises me. Enough of this nonsense. Lets just focus on the game.
A great piece by Martin Samuel in The Times. Both he and Tony Evans seem to be unbiased in their treatment of all things Liverpool:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article3792653.ece
Is this a shift in position by Mr. Hicks!?
“”Texas_Dawg // Apr 22, 2008 at 3:49 am
One less sinister possibility to consider with this Gillett/DIC move:
Gillett might just be trying to put Hicks/DIC together again in the hope they might get along at the game, leaving Hicks more open to allowing a Gillett stake sale to DIC.
I doubt it will work, but this could just be a last ditch effort by Gillett to keep open the possibility of selling to DIC.”
Maybe reality’s beginning to hit home.
PS I hear RBS are having to raise £12bn from its shareholders re. credit crunch, their exposure etc…but I’m sure Hicks will buck the trend, right?!
SJ Fallon,
Your post is an absolute disgrace with the foul language you use.
Jim, please remove this totally offensive post or as a minimum remove the totally unacceptable words.
Ray - you aren’t the only one to get in touch this morning about the SJ Fallon post. It had gone into the moderation queue and I was unsure whether to let it display or to delete it.
I’m not really that bothered myself, it shows the original poster up more than it hurts me, but I know it’s offensive to some.
So, I’ve edited the swear words out and put a warning above it, but if people still don’t feel that’s enough then let me know.
You’d probably read much the same on many other sites, but if you’ve got to be careful about which sites you visit at work then maybe this compromise will work.
This way you can see what he said without any conspiracy theories starting over what was really said. If anyone does want to see the original let me know, but I’ve not edited other than adding the warning and some *s.
I’ve not read the Martin Samuel article above, and before I do, before I even have an inkling of which side of the fence he’s chosen to sit on (because surely the fence itself couldn’t be sat on by the un-waif-like reporter without fear of damage) I just want to say: Beware! Whether he’s with you or against you, it’s still Martin Samuel!
Texas Dawg has got a very good point there, it puts DIC and Hicks in a position where if they’re just a few words away from a compromise it could be significant. I don’t think they are so close to compromise though.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/battle-for-anfield-casts-shadow-over-quest-for-champions-league-813372.html
Luverly stuff. Does anyonelse think that Thomas O is being out-manoeuvered ?? ‘Cos I do.
Jim,
If DIC do aquire the club I suppose you’ll spend the rest of your life sniping away at them from the sidelines on this site and saying “I told you so” when they make any mistakes. (Unfair, unfair !)
Jofrad - had a very quick read of the indie article, this bit stands out - “It has already agreed a deal with Gillett, who is prepared to accept less than Hicks to make sure the club’s future is secure”. Well if we work on the premise that Hicks doesn’t actually want to sell, never has actually wanted to sell in fact, then isn’t that obvious! Unless Gillett is making a very nominal profit on his 12 months then I’d not be going out there buying the ‘thank you’ card just yet.
But people fall for this. It’s amazing how they do. GG wants to secure the club’s future so he’s taking a lower offer! I’ll believe it when I see it. As far as I know Hicks hasn’t ever actually given a price.
DIC have said since Christmas that they don’t think Hicks has the money and is desperately needing to sell. Hicks has said all along that he can get the money, and doesn’t need to sell.
I think the predictions of Hicks having to go cap in hand to fund his overall empire have so far been proven to be nonsense, and using that as proof he’s got to sell has been a red herring.
It’s raised false hopes for those who thought a solution was literally around the corner.
I’ve still not quite worked out why DIC and Gillett would need to force the issue if they’re so sure Hicks will have to go, either through loans being called in in the US, or this May 27th deadline passing.
What difference does it make now? He’s going to be gone in a month isn’t he? Why cause all this extra trouble if it really is just a case of waiting for the time to pass?
If DIC are as worried about their reputation as we are always told by those trying to show us why the won’t just treat this as an investment, why are they allowing themselves to be seen in this way in the press? Forget the emotions of the supporters, how does it look to the CEO of that big company who’s wondering whether or not to accept that golf invite from al-Ansari? It doesn’t make sense that they are so sure Hicks will be gone in a month, yet they are willing to do this.
I just went back to the article and saw this, that if Hicks decided to ‘cry off’ that “it would confirm that DIC is set to buy the club.”
Again, people actually fall for this. Hopefully our more intelligent supporters can actually think a little before raising their hopes from this kind of remark.
If Hicks really was about to sell neither DIC nor Hicks would be in Liverpool. They’d be in Texas, London or Dubai, negotiating the finer points and putting the deal in place.
It’s just another theory shoehorned in to fit with an idea or a hope of what might happen.
Here’s another one. I just made it up. The reason DIC and Gillett are getting so flustered? GG has until the end of April to find the means to pay an instalment on some other finance he has. If it passes that date then GG has a penalty charge coming his way, if he can persuade the bank (or whoever) to give him more time. If he gets the money from DIC now, he can avoid the penalty charge. If it goes past the end of April, he needs more money from DIC.
It’s only a theory, but it’s as possible as any other we’re hearing.
Good or bad, is it TH hanging on for now, waiting until GG is at his most desperate to sell? Did he have this planned all along, with GG only getting wind around the time he did the radio show?
As for spending the rest of my life “sniping away” at DIC no, I won’t. I might say “I told you so”, as I’m sure many will to me should Tom Hicks win this. But I’ll criticise either, whoever wins, if they need criticising. And I’ll support either, whoever wins, if they need it, or warrant it.
I think if DIC win they’ll get a honeymoon period. Eventually we’ll hit a poor run of form, or miss out on a name we thought we’d get, and someone will blame them for it in some way. They have to make a decision on Rafa’s future too. How long will they give him to win the league, how long will fans give him? There’ll be conflicts of opinion.
If Rafa feels he’s underperforming and tries to turn it round to DIC, will he convince anyone? Will DIC sack him, threaten to, let him get away with it?
What will be important, with DIC or Hicks or anyone else - is that we don’t take anyone’s word for it at face value. If Rafa is covering up his own inadequacies by blaming Staveley for not sanctioning a deal we need to be sure it’s Rafa, not Staveley, in the wrong.
We can’t take things at face value any more, like we did a year ago, and like so many of us are now.
Jim,
Whilst you’ve replaced some characters with a * I still feel it’s unacceptable for certain words to be used in a public forum. The C word added nothing to his rant and is highly offensive in any civilised society. If you want people to visit your site then I think you have to take a stronger line and insist people do not use such ofensive words. I have no isue with “bloody” but that guy was just out of order.
And I’m reading this from home but there could be filters in place at work sites that draw attention to the words and have consequences for the unfortunate reader.
I’d feel happier if you withdrew it and it might make people think before they post.
Oh Jim,
The reason why Gillett is prepared to accept less than Hicks for his share of the club is because if you remember Hicks valued the club at £1billion in the winter. This prompted DIC to declare that Hicks was living in “Fantasyland” (which incidentally he is).
I’ll repeat what I’ve said in the past - IN MY OPINION Gillette is a reasonable man who realises he’s made a mistake and wants to rectify the situation in the best long term interests of the club whilst obviously safeguarding his own interests.
It is a testament to the desire that DIC have to own the club that not only are they are still interested after the shabby way they were treated by M&P but also they are prepared to pay a lot more than they had to 18 months ago for the privilege.
Again as I’ve said previously I think they have a strong feeling for Liverpool FC.
Well done Gillett!!! First time i’ve said that. DIC hang on in there. Hicks needs to go. It might be ’sick’ Gillett inviting DIC BUT i’d much rather they hang around than the lying tw@t Hicks! This is a great sign. It shows that the small one of the two wont sell to Hicks which is what all Liverpool fans want. Liverpool Football Club solely owned by the Texan is an unbearable thought. If Hicks fails to get his hands on the other 50% lets pray to God he throws his toys out of the pram and F$CKS OFF HOME!
THEY DONT CARE ABOUT RAFA
THEY DONT CARE ABOUT FANS
LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB
IS IN THE WRONG HANDS
I always used to come to this site as a source of impartial info and as a site that focussed on what is best for Liverpool; just a reader, never a contributor; until now. It is clear that Jim no longer focuses on what is best for LFC, and is just using the site to voice his opinion (hopefully it still is his and not the might dollar’s). No logical argument seems to be occurring and the Reds, Rafa and their all important matches seem to be low in the list of priorities. This is my first and last post as I will not be coming back to the site.
Jim - This whole situation absoluty stinks. If Hicks had the money to buy out Gillette then it would be common knowledge between Gillette, DIC, Moores and Parry. Would Gillette allow DIC to go to the game and lead all the fans on to believe that DIC where about to purchase the club (which is what this action is making us believe). Would DIC want to sit in Anfield just to look stupid at some point in the future when Hicks buys 100% of the club. Would Hicks have DIC sitting in Anfield with Gillette playing some silly games with the prees at his expense without comming out in the press and saying that Gillette has finally lost the plot. The fact that DIC are going the game tonight is absolute fact that the game has been won by DIC. I understand why you always try to look at it from the other point of view. Correct me if I’m wrong but its because you don’t want to look stupid and to have put yourself in a corner if Hicks does eventually win, and also because alot of our opinion of Hicks is based on unsubstantiated rumours about Hicks, and being the reasonable person that you have shown that you are with all of these posts you also believe in article 6 of the human rights act: Right to a fair trail. But I cannot personnally see how given are DIC going the game tonight that DIC are not going to be sole custodians of our club very soon. I still stand by my claims though that given DIC’s redevellopment of Dubai LFC have nothing to worry about.
I have defended this site and Jim’s comments in the past but there is no doubt about it there is a shift in the articles of late. A shift in the direction of Hicks which is a shame, I won’t list the various biased articles but I welcome other peoples posts who have been pointing them out. Thankfully we have some intelligent posters on this sie who see the bias and have opened my eyes. I thankyou.
Ray - I’ve removed the content of the comment, no point upsetting people any more than they are already!
Jofrad - “The reason why Gillett is prepared to accept less than Hicks for his share of the club is because if you remember Hicks valued the club at £1billion in the winter.” And GG sat to one side whispering “too high, too high” did he? Plus where did this actual £1bn figure come from? We know they spoke, but we don’t even know who initiated the talks, let alone how much was asked for. I could be wrong, I’ve had a quick look to see if I can find the actual first time this £1bn was mentioned, but I’ve not been able to so far.
Both owners were interested. Even if the £1bn was in fact £500m but somebody got their dollars and pounds mixed up (I seem to recall that being suggested at the time) it was for both owners. It was 10-15%? So, DIC put in £50m-£75m and T & G get that help one of them needed with his difficulties in putting the security down.
Ownership issues apart, if you were in charge of transfers and Abramovich asked how much we wanted for Torres, what would your answer be? Would you keep saying “He’s not for sale”? Would you pluck a “fantasy” figure out of the air? What if Abramovich stamped his feet like a spoiled brat and said it wasn’t fair, he wanted ‘Nando? Still resisting?
That is what is happening with DIC and Hicks. DIC want to buy into the club, and so far they’ve not made any offer that has turned Hicks’ head.
If this was a transfer move they’d be fined for ‘tapping up’!
You’re not the only one who thinks that of George Gillett, but I hope you’re basing it on something more than half-remembered press stories and the special Gillett win-em-over face!
“It is a testament to the desire that DIC have to own the club that not only are they are still interested after the shabby way they were treated by M&P but also they are prepared to pay a lot more than they had to 18 months ago for the privilege. Maybe, there’s a possibility that this is the case. Maybe the perception I’ve built up of them is because of how they’ve gone about doing this and isn’t fair on them.
It’s just a pity that they aren’t as confident as they say they are.
I used to look forward to reading this site every day, finding out the latest goings on within our great club.But lately i dread to see whats on it.I,m sorry jim but you can’t defend either of these two idiots,they are the cancer within our once proud club.Both of them have to go along with the other two pricks that got us into this mess.Hicks cant be allowed to stay in any shape or form,no matter how many pieces of silver he pays out to keep people onside.
Jim,
You’re living in a parrallel universe. Gillett didn’t have to whisper too high to DIC because he knew Hicks’ valuation of the club was a fantasy and DIC wouldn’t pay it.
Isn’t obvious that Gillett and DIC have done deal and are just waiting for the “first refusal” option to expire. For god’s sake Jim get real.
Thanks for deleting that post Jim. On the subject of Hicks et al I don’t agree with your stance but it’s your site and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I don’t think for a minute the off-field antics will have any effect on the players once the ref blows his whistle tonight. And I hope the TV cameras hone in on the director’s box when (if) Liverpool score tonight. Watching their reactions might give all of us a clue as to their real feelings towards the club.
“I’ll repeat what I’ve said in the past - IN MY OPINION Gillette is a reasonable man who realises he’s made a mistake and wants to rectify the situation in the best long term interests of the club whilst obviously safeguarding his own interests.”
Hilarious.
The guy wants to sell out of the club but out of pride and protection of his friends’ jobs he doesn’t want to sell to Hicks. It’s really nothing more than that.
Anthony,
I’m not bothered in the slightest if I “look stupid” after this is over. Really I’m not.
It would bother me if friendships suffered because of it, but most people who know me know why I’m taking this stance, even if they don’t fully agree with me.
I’m not even saying that Hicks is the only choice. I’m saying that, on certain conditions, Hicks is a choice. I’m also saying that the same conditions pretty much apply to DIC
But probably 95% of internet-using supporters won’t stop for one second and think about this.
DIC going to tonight’s game is as much a part of their propaganda as the alleged meeting between SoS and Amanda Staveley last night. It’s still only alleged as far as I’ve seen, but if it happened, was it minuted? At the last SoS meeting they promised that any meetings with owners or potential owners would not be done in a clandestine way and would be fully minuted. I look forward to reading them.
You know why I look forward to reading them? Because it would finally be a chance to see if what DIC’s propaganda machine has ‘promised’ is what they are saying when asked directly by (hopefully) concerned supporters. And you know what, it could end all my worries about DIC on the spot, or at least ease them.
Funny you mention the human rights act. One other point that concerns me about the general DIC love-in is the way the Dubai human rights record is never even mentioned. At best from the brief reading I’ve done on it they’ve got a record they can’t be proud of, but are taking some steps now to improve it. Dubai, according to some, was built by slaves. In a country that still censors the internet, from what I can see, maybe there’s a lot more we don’t know about. They’re hardly another China, but hardly the great guys they’re always painted to be. And I know, the US has a lot to be ashamed of, but despite the claims Hicks has no direct contact with Bush and has nothing to do with questionable government acts. Sheikh Mohammed is the government! Maybe it isn’t mentioned because it’s not actually a problem anyway, maybe it’s not mentioned because it makes people uncomfortable.
You asked if Gillett would allow DIC to go to the game and lead all the fans on. Yes. Course he would. Do you still think he’s that cuddly guy who tried hard but got out of his depth?
I really don’t think DIC’s appearance tonight means they’ve won. More’s the pity, because then it would all be over.
That’s what I want above all else. One single entity in control. DIC, Hicks, whoever.
Then we can start coming to terms with what we’ve got, rather than trying to makes sense of endless bull about something we’ve not got.
Fred - Thanks.
( Ownership issues apart, if you were in charge of transfers and Abramovich asked how much we wanted for Torres? What would your answer be? Would you keep saying ”he’s not for sale”? Would you pluck a ”fantasy” figure out of air? What if Abramovich stamped his feet like a spoiled brat and said it wasn’t fair, he wanted ‘Nando? Still resisting? )
What if Torres hated you to the guts and said he’d never want to play for you again? Still resist? What if your partner would be happy to let ‘Nando go for the good of his career and get applauded for allowing that to happen? What if you would also get a huge profit for allowing him to move? Still resist?
Tom Hicks got his PR firm to confirm Liverpool Football Club will be paying the interest on the loan he took out to make himself richer.
We were looking for investors with the financial capabilities to increase our transfer budget from the off, a long-term plan that would see us ultimately become self-sufficient, but in the early stages would see us working from that initial injection of capital.
Unfortunately the two people who bought our club were financially incapable of doing that. They had to borrow heavily to buy the shares from the previous holder, and despite their boasts of clearing Liverpool’s debt, which was around £45m before their involvement, all they’d done was shuffled it into a different place. They borrowed nearly £300m when they took the club over, and that’s now increased to £350m.
The owners, Hicks and Gillett, technically don’t own Liverpool FC. They own the holding company, which in turn owns Liverpool FC. The £245m debt the holding company now has is secured on the owners and their assets, but that security would only be required if the holding company was incapable of making the payments on the loan.
That’s £30m in all that the club has to find each year the debt is at this level. And let’s face it, the debt’s not going to decrease in any short space of time.
So faced with a shortfall in the holding company’s requirements, the owners would seek to use the club’s assets to pay that interest. They may consider selling a stake in the club to another investor, although if the club’s in such a precarious financial position most investors would steer clear for the sort of price the owners would be asking. There’s very little else that can be sold - except players.
And this is where the club starts to decline further and further. Even if we qualify for the Champions League, we’re already using up £30m of our annual income on interest payments to cover the owners’ own investment. That’s before we start borrowing the £300m+ required for the new stadium. We’ll simply be unable to afford high-quality player purchases by the time we’ve paid off that year’s debt interest. The teams above and below us will have the funds to buy, and their squads will improve accordingly. Ours will at best stagnate, until the year comes where we do drop out of the Champions League places.
And if we are out of the Champions League places, we lose a potential £25m. The holding company finds that after we’ve paid our wage bill, paid instalments on past transfers and spent what we need to spend for the day-to-day running of the club, we can’t pay them their interest. And to the holding company there’s only one way to achieve that. Goodbye Fernando Torres, goodbye Pepe Reina, Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano, Steven Gerrard - it doesn’t matter, who. Just as long as that interest payment is made.
And now, not only have we failed to get our squad up to the standards of our rivals, not only have we failed to at least keep the gap between us and our rivals the same, not only have we failed to at least keep our own squad as strong as it was, we’ve actually had to weaken our squad.
Under these owners the club is in a mess, the future of the club is on a tightrope.
We’re gambling on Champions League qualification, and even then on relative success in the Champions League. Without it, we are in serious danger of following the same path Leeds followed. And don’t for one moment think “it can’t happen to us”, because it can.
And the chances are that Hicks and Gillett will have ridden off into the sunset long before it gets to the Leeds stage - they’ll transfer the debt onto the club’s assets, pay off their own loans and disappear. Their gamble is weighted in such a way that if they win, they get rich, but if they lose, they just don’t get any richer. They don’t lose. The only losers are Liverpool Football Club and its supporters.
Dubai International Capital are said to still be in negotiations with Hicks and Gillett to get the club out of their hands. Even though the finance deal went through, it doesn’t mean DIC won’t buy. And there’s no saying that DIC will still please Liverpool supporters all the time. But it’s almost impossible that they could be any worse.
Nice summary I would suggest!! What do you think Jim - they are your words before you’re conversion despite the fact that nothing has changed.
Gillett couldn’t work with Rafa so he goes behind his back and talks to Jurgen Klinsmann. Klinsmann is unproven but he might have worked. I disagreed with that because I like Rafa.
Gillett couldn’t work with Hicks so he goes behind his back and talks to DIC. DIC are unproven but they might work. I agree with that because I don’t like Hicks.
Confusing isn’t it?
Jim - Hicks may be a viable option, but so also must then Gillette and Hicks, and so must also Share Liverpool, and so must also David Moores. But the point is who is going to be best for the club in the long run. I personally believe that DIC will be the best owners by a country mile. I do not believe that Gillette is a lovely fluffy bundle of joy, but DIC are not stupid they would not go to the match without knowing that they are very close to clinching the deal. This scenario looks like the deal is being closed and us the fans are getting let in on it but by bit. The next thing will be DIC making statements about what they will do when they own the club, then DIC will buy out Gillette and then their will be a flurry of activity between Hick and DIC then DIC will own the Club outright.
Spot on Anthony.
Deputy Dawg, Gillett won’t sell to Hicks because its not in the best long term interests of the club. It may be viewed as hilarious in Texas but it happens to be true. Gillett will sell to DIC the deal is done.
Thanks Steven - thought it sounded familiar! Ok, let’s have a go at picking it apart…
Tom Hicks got his PR firm to confirm Liverpool Football Club will be paying the interest on the loan he took out to make himself richer.
Nothing has changed there. We should have seen that from the off. DIC will also be taking out loans to make DIC richer. Any last minute bidder coming in now would too. This was all obvious from the very beginning, most people were just too blind to see.
We were looking for investors with the financial capabilities to increase our transfer budget from the off, a long-term plan that would see us ultimately become self-sufficient, but in the early stages would see us working from that initial injection of capital.
That’s what I thought we’d gone for. That’s what I thought Parry and Moores thought we’d gone for - after all, they’d got access to all the figures and expensive advisors to help them to ensure that was the case hadn’t they? But it seems that “capital” can actually include “borrowed money”. To this day I still can’t see why we needed “investors” to do this. More ammo for those moaning at me - but it’s not Hicks’ fault that we, our board and our shareholders didn’t spot this then. It was never hidden.
Unfortunately the two people who bought our club were financially incapable of doing that. They had to borrow heavily to buy the shares from the previous holder, and despite their boasts of clearing Liverpool’s debt, which was around £45m before their involvement, all they’d done was shuffled it into a different place. They borrowed nearly £300m when they took the club over, and that’s now increased to £350m.
It’s true. That’s all they’d done. Moved the debt and made it bigger. As they said they would. Whether it’s a nice thing to do or not, it’s not something that was actually hidden, certainly not from financial people. So why are we crying about it now really? I’d actually not realised at the time of writing this just what had and hadn’t been promised. I trusted others whose word I thought was true. Turns out they’d not checked either. Stupid of me. And stupid of others who still cling on to what others tell them without actually going to check.
The owners, Hicks and Gillett, technically don’t own Liverpool FC. They own the holding company, which in turn owns Liverpool FC. The £245m debt the holding company now has is secured on the owners and their assets, but that security would only be required if the holding company was incapable of making the payments on the loan.
True. nothing to add or take away from that.
That’s £30m in all that the club has to find each year the debt is at this level. And let’s face it, the debt’s not going to decrease in any short space of time.
Where did I get that £30m figure from? The wrong place, clearly. It’s higher than the true figure. Even somebody who had an interest in telling me it was £30m rather than any less evaded the question when I asked if that was the true figure. Piecing together other bits of information I’d say it’s no more than £25m. Which is still a lot money.
So faced with a shortfall in the holding company’s requirements, the owners would seek to use the club’s assets to pay that interest. They may consider selling a stake in the club to another investor, although if the club’s in such a precarious financial position most investors would steer clear for the sort of price the owners would be asking. There’s very little else that can be sold - except players.
Still pretty much true, as it would be for DIC of course if their “holding company” didn’t get the dividends it needed to pay off whatever their debt costs were. Either owner would first look to inject further funds from elsewhere though. This period from now until the stadium’s extra income comes in is a transitional one, and both owners have contingencies in place should it not quite go to plan on the field. (Cynics will now laugh, of course.)
And this is where the club starts to decline further and further. Even if we qualify for the Champions League, we’re already using up £30m of our annual income on interest payments to cover the owners’ own investment. That’s before we start borrowing the £300m+ required for the new stadium. We’ll simply be unable to afford high-quality player purchases by the time we’ve paid off that year’s debt interest. The teams above and below us will have the funds to buy, and their squads will improve accordingly. Ours will at best stagnate, until the year comes where we do drop out of the Champions League places.
New stadium - red herring. The costs of that will be tied into the stadium itself, naming rights will cover the costs eventually, and DIC will fund the stadium in the same way. I didn’t know this at the time.
It’s not £30m, but c£25m is still a lot, so where will the money come from? And remember, DIC are also going to be borrowing some of their purchase price if their plans under “Project Oslo” remain the same now.
I’m unsure how he can find money to function when the margins seem so tight - unless the margins aren’t actually so tight. A lot of the club’s costs in 2007 went on the takeover, plus a lot of money, rigthly or wrongly, went on stadium plans. TV money will be going up, and commercial ideas will be able to get moving. Is that enough to make a difference? I’ve no idea.
But would Hicks really stick around if the margins were that tight? Doesn’t stand up really.
And if we are out of the Champions League places, we lose a potential £25m. The holding company finds that after we’ve paid our wage bill, paid instalments on past transfers and spent what we need to spend for the day-to-day running of the club, we can’t pay them their interest. And to the holding company there’s only one way to achieve that. Goodbye Fernando Torres, goodbye Pepe Reina, Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano, Steven Gerrard - it doesn’t matter, who. Just as long as that interest payment is made.
GG couldn’t have found other ways to fund the interest. Can TH if there’s a bad season? Again, we have to ask if he’d be so stupid as to go for such a high-risk strategy where CL qualification means we do a Leeds. At some point between today and 14 months ago he must have looked at what happened to Leeds.
And now, not only have we failed to get our squad up to the standards of our rivals, not only have we failed to at least keep the gap between us and our rivals the same, not only have we failed to at least keep our own squad as strong as it was, we’ve actually had to weaken our squad.
I think I can only have been referring to weakening it when compared to MUFC and CFC and so on.
Is it possible Hicks now knows how the transfer system works? Has that been factored into his plans? You’d hope so on both counts.
Under these owners the club is in a mess, the future of the club is on a tightrope.
We’re gambling on Champions League qualification, and even then on relative success in the Champions League. Without it, we are in serious danger of following the same path Leeds followed. And don’t for one moment think “it can’t happen to us”, because it can.
If it was down to GG and his pitiful financial state then I’d be as worried as I was then. Given the never-ending prophecies of Hicks’ impending financial doom have so far all proved false I’m starting to think he is in a position to fund any shortfall until the club is meeting its revenue targets.
Because when it meets its revenue targets, £25m will not be a worry like it is now.
And the chances are that Hicks and Gillett will have ridden off into the sunset long before it gets to the Leeds stage - they’ll transfer the debt onto the club’s assets, pay off their own loans and disappear. Their gamble is weighted in such a way that if they win, they get rich, but if they lose, they just don’t get any richer. They don’t lose. The only losers are Liverpool Football Club and its supporters.
GIllett’s horse is tied up ready to go already. But someone pointed out after that article that they might not be able to transfer the debt over quite so easily. The club might not even have enough assets. What is LFC actually worth today in real terms? The valuation Gillett and co want from DIC reflects the real terms + potential.
If Hicks has the ability to see us through any bad years between now and the new stadium - I said IF - then there is far less to worry about than I thought. And seeing as most of my fears about Hicks’ financial state were based on scaremongering put out by his “enemy” then I don’t think we can say it’s impossible he can do it.
Dubai International Capital are said to still be in negotiations with Hicks and Gillett to get the club out of their hands. Even though the finance deal went through, it doesn’t mean DIC won’t buy. And there’s no saying that DIC will still please Liverpool supporters all the time. But it’s almost impossible that they could be any worse.
They certainly can’t be any worse than two owners who don’t agree, one of whom has no way of increasing his investment at all, and in fact needs to get out because he can’t even afford what he’s got.
50-50 Hicks-DIC is probably better than 50-50 Hicks-Gillett, but barely.
This was clearly from just after the refinancing deal went through, the height of the scaremongering, when I know I was hearing some frightening information, not just from the papers either.
Most of the scaremongering I’ve since found to be either made-up, against Gillett rather than Hicks, or exaggerated.
The “ashes to ashes” moment made me stop believing all that stuff and to actually go and check it.
Frankly, it just is getting embarrassing now as an LFC supporter to read the deluded comments of a one-time legendary poster as Jim Boardman in the ownership saga of our club. Hopefully this will be sorted out soon and we will all get to some level of rationality!! There is no worst and sad thing than true LFC fans bickering about the havoc created by others and each trying to leverage their considerate opinions.
To pierre (belgium),
I never intended to insult Jim by any means using foul language; ‘Dung’ as you refer to it. I was comparing Jim to ‘Dunk’, who owns another ‘not-so-free’ website “Koptalk”. There is a whole section on this website about how evil that site is by prying gullible fans into paying decent money to join (see ‘Kptalk exposed”). For me, it is no different to stealing money from fans than being paid to write biased drivel (in my opinion and I believe the majority of LFC fans) in favor of probably the most reviled character in the history of our club.
I once tremendously enjoyed visiting this website as it always stated that it is 100% unofficial and independent. Discussions and posts were at one time truly 100% unofficial and independent. A lot of fans will be put off by the comments coming from here nowadays!!!
Anthony – if we knew the truth about each option, the full truth without any bull or propaganda, we could see how viable each one was. We could maybe put them in order of preference. Maybe rule one or two out or at least show how bad it would be under each one.
I’ve never said that DIC won’t be “best”. I’ve asked how we know. And I’ve asked if Hicks really isn’t an option.
We can’t have what’s best. We can have what we’re given, like it or not. If that’s still the best then we’re lucky.
We can all dream, and maybe that’s what’s happening when people assume DIC will be this wonderful saviour of the club, George Gillett getting an award for his hand in the rescue, Rick Parry and David Moores a pardon for turning round their earlier errors!
DIC want 100%. Hicks is standing in their way. Firstly he’s standing in their way of getting 50%, then he’ll stand in their way of getting the rest. Claims of planned dirty tricks after they have 50% might be true, but there were claims two months ago that the veto would be challenged there and then. Now it’s being turned into the veto will be challenged if Hicks doesn’t honour it at the end of its time limit. Those goalposts keep moving. And who’s to say Hicks doesn’t have dirty tricks of his own?
There still remains a doubt that DIC would enter into this deal as 50-50 partners. No matter what they might say.
Jofrad. Why do you honestly think Gillett would put the “best long term interests of the club” first? According to the latest claims, the amount being offered for the whole club is £400m, of which £350m is for the debt. So it’s £25m each for Gillett and Hicks, if it’s sold. £25m?
LFC are making something like £50m - £75m a year less - that’s per year than the other top sides in Europe. Potentially they’ve got more than enough leeway to make far more than £35m a year profit every year more than now.
And DIC expect Hicks to take £25m as a one-off now and be happy?
Fantasyland? Who?
And it’s not just that, the gap between us and those above us, that can be closed and so bring us more money in. TV money’s going up too, so we’ve a hell of a lot of potential to make far more money than we do now. £25m, for years of that?
If Hicks is as money-oriented as people make out it’s no wonder he’s holding back from such a small amount compared to what he sees the club’s value as being.
Gillett must be gutted to be missing out on this money, but he knows he stands to lose quite a bit if he doesn’t walk now. His choice seems to be to stay and try and make a go of it with Hicks, or to sell and take that £25m profit. I wonder, assuming that figure is true, if he’d take £30m from Hicks or would he knock it back? If DIC are offering him a percentage of future turnover, what’s to stop Hicks doing the same? Everybody pretty much agrees that Gillett can’t afford to buy Hicks out, let alone persuade him.
DIC must be gutted too. They could have been onto this for at least £200m less last year had they not dithered during exclusivity, then walked when realising others were being spoken to. And if they now see they can make a fortune but still be liked, it’s too late for them to assume that’s enough. If Hicks finds the money – and with those potential figures ahead of the club it’s not that hard to see investors considering it – then Hicks can stop DIC buying.
Hicks must be chuckling away to himself if he knows he has got the money. If he’s not then he must be gutted too.
DIC know that if Tom Hicks has got the full means behind him to buy GG’s half that there is little they can do.
Ash,
you’ve hit the nail on the head concerning the anger that any fan of the club should be feeling about the way we’ve been f**ked around and relegated to the position of cheerleaders in a corporate power game between a bunch of suits.
We better get answers.
“Deputy Dawg, Gillett won’t sell to Hicks because its not in the best long term interests of the club. It may be viewed as hilarious in Texas but it happens to be true. Gillett will sell to DIC the deal is done.”
Duly noted, Jofrad. Let’s see which of us proves to be correct.
Deputy Dawg,
Well well well I agree with you !
Now lets concentrate on beating Chelsea.
Yeah, we can resume this after the game!
Read what I said Jim,
IN MY OPINION Gillette is a reasonable man who realises he’s made a mistake and wants to rectify the situation in the best long term interests of the club WHILST OBVIOUSLY SAFEGUARDING HIS OWN INTERESTS. And just for the record I think Gillett is embarassed by the mess his co wonership has caused in particular his role in introducing Hicks to the club.
Now as the Dawg says “Let’s see which of us proves to be correct.”
just one question Jim
How much did Hicks pay you to write this piece of shit, and the two or three before it.
Just shows everybody has their price.
I am so disgusted with you Jim and I hope you are with yourself after one of the biggest sell outs in Internet history
Ash, maybe I’ve misunderstood you but some things to get clear….
You’re entitled to your opinion as much as we all are.
“There is no worst and sad thing than true LFC fans bickering about the havoc created by others and each trying to leverage their considerate opinions.”
That’s true. I’ve seen a hell of a lot of damage already, especially to friendships. I find it shocking that people can’t see that in the many different views out there one theme is common. We all care for the club. To hate each other because we have a different opinion is wrong.
If DIC get in, and Parry gets kept on in some capacity, what then? There’ll be battles between those who say he should have gone, and those who say he deserves a second chance, and more wars.
The hate is breaking our club. Not DIC. Not Hicks. Not Gillett. Not Parry. Not Moores. Hate.
Hate is driving some to embellish their reasons for wanting a certain outcome.
Hate is driving some to make obscene accusations against fellow supporters.
Hate could even see us in trouble with UEFA if any of it goes further than the singing-and-banners style of protests.
It’s easy now to just jump on the anti-Hicks pro-DIC bandwagon, but that’s only part of the issue isn’t it? How long until our own fans are fighting each other with fists?
We’re relying on too many lies and far too much hate to form our opinions and we are going to suffer for it.
I was comparing Jim to ‘Dunk’, who owns another ‘not-so-free’ website “Koptalk”. There is a whole section on this website about how evil that site is by prying gullible fans into paying decent money to join (see ‘Kptalk exposed”). For me, it is no different to stealing money from fans than being paid to write biased drivel (in my opinion and I believe the majority of LFC fans) in favor of probably the most reviled character in the history of our club.
1. There is no “whole section” on this website about him, but there’s a link to the “Koptalk Exposed” site you mention. Perhaps that’s what you meant to say, but it sounds like you’re saying it’s part of this site.
2. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but I am not being paid to write a certain way! I am not getting a cheque with a little wink asking me to be positive or negative to one or other in this mess. I’m writing what I think. It’s probably knocked the hits down considerably for this site since I have recently spent more time replying to comments than writing something that will hit News Now or Google News. But don’t let that stop you throwing out accusations like that, after all I’m sure everything you do in life is scrutinised under a microscope.
To then compare me to someone who spent years making a living out of The Sun, out of fake share schemes, censoring anyone who pointed out his insider people had contradicted themselves, by all accounts collecting money in the name of a disabled member of his own family without actually ever intending to give it to her - well, if that’s how you see it then there’s little point me talking to you.
You must lead an odd life if you compare anyone you disagree with to the most hated figures you can think of.
What paper do you read?
I once tremendously enjoyed visiting this website as it always stated that it is 100% unofficial and independent. Discussions and posts were at one time truly 100% unofficial and independent. A lot of fans will be put off by the comments coming from here nowadays!!!
Which kind of cancels out your idea that somehow what I’m writing is making more money for me than if I followed the herd. Doesn’t it?
The “unofficial” means I won’t be repeating what the official website says, unless I agree with the official website. That might be a sarcy comment about Riise’s shooting or a serious question about ticket prices. I love the club, but I’m not the club. The “independent” means this site is not part of some wider network. Other sites are - for example sites under the “footy mad” banner. I don’t have a site sponsor for example, telling me that they’ll pay me x amount of money in return for the avoidance of certain issues.
If it wasn’t “unofficial” I’d be ig