CL Result: Reds 1 Chelsea 1
For 94 minutes at Anfield tonight Liverpool controlled and at times dominated a match that Chelsea just seemed unable and unlikely to ever get back into. The indicated four minutes of time added on had already passed, the seconds were ticking on and Chelsea had a throw in. Then John Arne Riise had a moment he’ll never forget. But for all the wrong reasons.
Riise headed the ball into his own net from about two feet off the ground. He’ll never be able to explain why he did it.
Hopefully it’ll be the comedy clip on the end-of-season DVD, a gaffe forgiven after the second leg result made it irrelevant. But first Liverpool have to lift their heads and put the disappointment away. They deserved to win this game, they made life difficult for Chelsea, and if they play the same way at Stamford Bridge they’ll be in Moscow in a month’s time. The timing of the goal devastated Liverpool’s players and fans.
Liverpool had led 1-0 from just before half-time, when Dirk Kuyt’s perseverance saw him hit the back of the net, the ball passing under the body of the Chelsea man-of-the-match, goalkeeper Petr Cech, on its way in.
Cech had to work hard to keep Chelsea in it, making saves from the likes of Gerrard and Torres. Reina had barely touched the ball all night.
The goal Chelsea have is an away goal, meaning Liverpool have to score or they’ll go out. Torres was battered tonight by John Terry, who got away with more than would normally be expected in a European tie.
Joe Cole spurned a chance for Chelsea in the first half and Didier Drogba had a penalty appeal turned down. Liverpool had an appeal turned down in the second half after the ball hit Ballack’s arm in the area. Ryan Babel shot from well outside the area and was unlucky to see it turn wide at the last second.
Riise had only come on after Fabio Aurelio had been stretchered off with what seemed to be groin injury around the hour mark. Knowing he had a Chelsea player right behind him as the cross came in following the throw-in, the ball took an awkward bounce, Riise decided heading was better than hitting with his right foot and Chelsea had got a undeserved goal and a draw from nothing for the second time this season at Anfield. Why Riise chose to head it over Reina from such a low height rather than heading it wide only he knows.
Liverpool can come back from this. One Liverpool goal in West London and Riise’s error is forgotten. Two and Chelsea have a real fight on their hands.
Liverpool: 25 Reina, 17 Arbeloa, 23 Carragher, 37 Skrtel, 12 Aurelio (6 Riise, 61), 18 Kuyt, 14 Alonso, 20 Mascherano, 19 Babel (11 Benayoun, 75), 8 Gerrard, 9 Torres
Unused subs: 30 Itandje, 4 Hyypia, 11 Benayoun, 15 Crouch, 16 Pennant, 21 Lucas
Goals: Kuyt 43
Chelsea: 1 Cech, 20 Ferreira, 6 Carvalho, 26 Terry, 3 A Cole, 8 Lampard, 4 Makelele, 13 Ballack (39 Anelka, 86), 10 J Cole (21 Kalou, 63), 11 Drogba, 15 Malouda
Unused subs: 40 Hilario, 7 Shevchenko, 12 Obi, 33 Alex, 35 Belletti
Booked: Terry 90
Goals: Riise (og) 90
UEFA Stats: (Liverpool – Chelsea)
Shots on: 7 – 3
Shots off: 4 – 4
Corners: 6 – 5
Fouls: 20 – 16
Booked: 0 – 1
Possession: 55% – 45%
BBC Stats: (Liverpool – Chelsea)
Shots on: 11 – 7
Shots off: 2 – 0
Corners: 6 – 5
Fouls: 20 -17
Possession: 53% – 47%
Referee: Konrad Plautz (Austria)
Attendance: 42,180
169 Responses to “CL Result: Reds 1 Chelsea 1”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
Additional comments powered by BackType
I really think we can win at Stamford Bridge, if Chelsea sit back to defend, i think we’ll get the breakthrough, games at Arsenal and Milan should give us confidence.
No comment on Mr Hicks YNWA effort haha.
Also, i don’t think we should be too harsh on Riise, it was shambolic defending, but worse things have happened at sea.
Bad bad mistake by Riise. The more i watch it the worse it gets, what the hell was he thinking!!
Torres wont play that badly again in London.
On bright side, the Chief was outstanding as was Jamie, and if Babel could do what he did best for 90 minutes insted of 10 we got a chance.
A crunch game against United on Saturday and Terry set to miss the final if he’s booked on Wednesday kinda evens things out for me. We just gotta go for it.
I really do think we can do it. They’ve played us three times this season. In the League Cup they didn’t follow the usual pattern of playing a younger team, and they beat us. But in the league they’ve been fairly lucky really. Certainly in the home game they were.
We should start with Torres at the weekend too, maybe let him have 50 minutes, because he didn’t seem to benefit from the rest tonight, maybe he’s better if he doesn’t get a break!
“The more i watch it the worse it gets, what the hell was he thinking!!”
He got stuck in between moves. His first thought was to move to head the ball, but he misjudged it and it was coming in lower than he first thought. In the middle of his move he realized this and hesitated and was left too high to get under the ball and too committed to get out of the way or kick it. Just a horrible misread.
“Torres wont play that badly again in London.”
That’s what I was thinking.
texas
Should have been row z mate. Everytime.
So Texas Dawg now has a sympathetic fan’s insight into socc, er football. I didn’t realise it was “the final play”. Always thought it was extra/added/injury time (enough to choose from pal, sorry buddy).
Reminds me of someone saying in a crappy interview ” the field” only just remembering to correct himself hastily to “the pitch”. Who could that have been? Maybe the same person who hasn’t got a clue about the words to “his” club’s anthem….
Liverpool will be underdogs for the game in Chavski. We are at our best when we are underdogs. We have climbed bigger mountains than this one, Chavski are due for a beating at home.
Why didn’t he just kick it. The man has no right foot – its actually disgraceful for a professional footballer.
Ref was crap all night.
We can still do it though. Definitely makes for a better second leg. We will have to come out and attack them now. Chelsea are not playing well and are very beatable.
If they go one nil up it changes nothing but they will sit back and give us a chance to nick one. If we go one nil up they we have to chase the game and we could hit them on the break.
YNWA
He needed to clear it with his weaker right foot, got caught in two minds and ended up trying to head it.
Nevermind still the second half to go. We’re drawing not losing! we can go there and snatch it. This time around will be even more satisfying than the previous 2.There will be 40,000 crying cockneys as the reds go on to moscow
“texas
Should have been row z mate. Everytime.”
Of course.
“So Texas Dawg now has a sympathetic fan’s insight into socc, er football. I didn’t realise it was “the final play”. Always thought it was extra/added/injury time (enough to choose from pal, sorry buddy).
Reminds me of someone saying in a crappy interview ” the field” only just remembering to correct himself hastily to “the pitch”. Who could that have been? Maybe the same person who hasn’t got a clue about the words to “his” club’s anthem….”
I’m American, not British. I use American terms. Not a big deal. And anyway, there’s really nothing more lame than American soccer fans (especially announcers) pretending to be British. Really weak, imho.
Disappointed as all of you are. Unlike most of you my Scouser friends I had to be content to watch the game from a Brussels Irish pub, but I can tell you that the ten reds in the pub were more buoyant at the end (after a couple of minutes’ disappointment) than the whole bunch of them Mancs and Chelski fans (somehow the Manure fans side with Chelski once every year, it’s when we play Fulham Road in the Champions League!). Still confident, Fernando was below par, the Riise header was horrendous, and even Stevie could have done better, but in Stamford Bridge the sky is the limit. Rafa will have to be a bit adventurous, though, and this is my only misgiving. Still, in Rafa and our wonderful team I trust. Moscow, here we come!
Couldn’t believe it when it happened but if you saw the Chelsea players reaction at the end of the game you could have swore they won! We will be definite underdogs going there but WE WILL do it. Rafa is a far better manager than grant and he will have the measure of him. Early goal at chelski and Chelsea will have to come at us, leaving us to play the counter. Lets hope we can get all the boys playing to the best of their ability.Chelsea are a bunch of overpaid brats and there is no unity.
COME ON REDMEN!
JFT96
Yeah gutted, especially after the team played so well. I feel sorry for Riise, he must feel like he’s let everyone down. Struggling for form all season and now this in our biggest game to date.
For the first 15 minutes of the second half I thought we were going to win 3-0. Ironic the own-goal should fall to Riise, because I thought the team really missed Aurelio once he went off injured. Shows how much he has improved in a red shirt.
Anyway of course we must be optomistic and of course we can win the tie. It goes without saying we need to score. When was the last time Chelsea were beaten at home? Maybe its for the best because this way the team will know they will have to throw the kitchen sink at them from the off. Should be a hell of a match.
Anyway, back to the debate.
I don’t believe DIC will get sole control of LFC anytime soon, not unless they literally make Tom Hicks an offer he can’t refuse.
With the events of yesterday evening I think Tom Hicks has confirmed that he is both a very shrewd businessman and also very tough, even if he is a PR disaster. I’m forming the opinion that those who have business dealings with him underestimate him at their peril. Now I’m not arguing that Tom Hicks is the best owner for our club by any stretch but I am arguing that I think its him who we’d better get used to.
Put on a neutral hat for a moment and take a look.
Tom Hicks has a 50:50 agreement with George Gillett which contains what appears to be a quite innocent clause along the lines of if one partner wants to sell then the other partner has got to approve the sale. After all, anybody would want to be comfortable with who they might have to work with wouldn’t they? Especially with the level of investment being so high. But this little clause means that Hicks is basically guaranteed to run the club on his own terms if Gillett ever wants to sell. This is because the implication of that clause is that whoever is buying has to negotiate a deal with both Gillett AND Hicks. And if Hicks’ terms are that he wants the controlling share, then that’s that.
And he wasn’t scared off from Anfield, by DIC, or by the press, or anyone else. As somebody said, the most likely explanation for DIC and Hicks being at the game is because Gillett is hoping they can come up with some agreement. Hicks certainly isn’t going to be intimidated, I think that much is clear. As I said, it seems the only way DIC are going to get sole ownership of LFC is by literally making Hicks an offer he can’t refuse. Otherwise the only way they will get any stake at all is on Hicks’ terms.
And if DIC aren’t prepared to meet Hicks’ terms or make that irresistable offer, the only other outcome is that eventually Hicks gets the lot. Because sooner or later Gillett is going to have to sell to whoever he can.
And what’s really amazing is that the situation is exactly as Tom Hicks said it was all along. We just haven’t believed it.
“Anyway, back to the debate.”
LOL. I like your style, Hop.
“Hicks certainly isn’t going to be intimidated, I think that much is clear. As I said, it seems the only way DIC are going to get sole ownership of LFC is by literally making Hicks an offer he can’t refuse. Otherwise the only way they will get any stake at all is on Hicks’ terms.”
I really don’t think they can do that, Hop. No one here wants to believe it, but he really does just want to own the club, and win, for the thrill and sport of it.
“And what’s really amazing is that the situation is exactly as Tom Hicks said it was all along. We just haven’t believed it.”
Its not really Riises goal that gets to me the most, he was put in a very awkward position, a ball flashed across the box bouncing awkwardly. He didnt deal with it well but my problem is more with Arbeloa mainly and Mascherano to a lesser degree. They let Kalou whip the ball in the first place. Both were marshalling Kalou but Arbeloa in particular failed to deal with him, Masch was backing him up. If that had been Carragher out there ball and man wouldve ended up behind for a corner.
I was worried how open Liverpool let the game to develop. It was more crucial for us not to concede than to get a second.
Either hypia or finnan must come back for next weeks game at the Bridge.
I’m really disappointed like all others by the result. I’m so sorry for Riise becasue he was substituted and boom he scored an own goal right at the end of the game. I think Rafa should let the players sit back a bit in the second half. Reds should fight to the end and we can still do it. We should paly an attacking game the whole time instead of sitting back and let them control the game.
I hope Pennent will play next week.
Have to agree with whoever said Riise’s inability to kick with his right foot is a bit of a disgrace. When your less favoured foot is so awful it makes you try to head the ball in situations like that……………. its time to acknowledge you have a problem.
In 1981 I do believe that Ray Kennedy scored an own goal at Anfield when we played Munich. Liverpool went on to win the European Cup that season.
This situation is not an ideal situation to be in but it is not as bad as it appears to be for many reasons. Chavski last night looked like they where lacking in any creativity, they kept trying to play the long ball up to Drogba, Carra had him in his back pocket all night. Liverpool only have to score one goal then we are in the driving seat again, so chavski may think they have got the advantage just like we did last night. If we score one goal it will look like a very different game to Chavski. Chavski have got to play the Mancs over the weekend so that will take it out of them. Chavski do not look no were near as good under Grant as they did a couple of years ago. Chavski are not the team they once where. Liverpool thrive of being the underdogs. The last two time we played Chavski we were underdogs, against Barca, Inter and AC Millan we were underdogs. It is not as bad as it seems. Liverpool should have scored more goals last night than we should, that is probably the one thing that Liverpool should be upset about. But on reflection of last night we should be confident that we can go down to Chavski and get a good result.
As dawg has stated in previous posts………….he knows nothing about “soccer”.
Being the eternal optimist, I am sort of glad (!!) that they got a goal as it means we have to approach the 2nd leg in a different manner than I thought Rafa would if it was 1-0. Unlike Arsenal, I don’t think Rafa thought that the Chavs were capable of scoring a goal. Still a gut wrenching feeling…It feels like we lost. Oh well, at least it will keep the southern-biased papers/media happy for a few days.
This game has got penalties written all over it. now we just need one of Chelsea players to accidentially kick Petr Cech in the face in the next few days.
Has anyone else noticed how Rafa is looking very calm and confident these days?
Liverpool boss Rafael Benitez confirmed he had held brief discussions with co-owner Tom Hicks at the club’s Melwood training complex ahead of the game, with the objective of setting up a meeting between the manager, Hicks and fellow owner George Gillett.
Benitez said: “I had a short discussion with Tom Hicks, and the idea now is to set up a meeting involving both owners so we can discuss the future. I believe that is possible and can be arranged.”
http://www.itv-football.co.uk/story/0,19239,6145_3461842,00.html
Will Benitez tell Gillett that it’s time for him to finally give up this game?
” raju // Apr 23, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Has anyone else noticed how Rafa is looking very calm and confident these days? ”
This is probably because Rafa is now the one person at Anfield who’s job is safe. Nobody knows who is going to be there in a few months.
” Will Benitez tell Gillett that it’s time for him to finally give up this game? ”
Dawg – Benitez is not the person who is playing the games here. It’s Gillette, Hicks and DIC, Rafa if anything getting used as a pawn in the whole debarkle. Reina has come out and said if Rafa goes then he will go. How many others do you think would follow Rafa if he left?
Anthony….
Re: Benitez…I echo your point re playing games.
I suppose if he goes, expect the queue to increase to include Reina, Torres, Macherano, Alonso, Kuyt and Gerrard (not because he likes Benitez, but purely as he would not want to wait around for a new manager to rebuild team). It would be dark days.
“Dawg – Benitez is not the person who is playing the games here.”
I’m not claiming he is. I think he wants to stay at Liverpool but wants to be clear who his bosses will be. Well, one boss wants to stay, and one boss wants to leave.
Raju – I think all of them with the exception of kuyt. He would possibly get sold by any new manager, but I think though that Kuyt would be there the longest if Rafa left.
“I think all of them with the exception of kuyt. ”
Exactly, Anthony/Raju. And when they sit down with Gillett, I imagine Rafa will politely suggest just this possibility if the ownership situation isn’t cleared up. Will Gillett just leave the club he clearly wants out of… just to spite the owner behind Rafa… or will he continue with this charade? I think he’ll fold and leave Hicks/Rafa to move forward.
Correction: continue the charade in order to spite Hicks… I should say.
” I’m not claiming he is. I think he wants to stay at Liverpool but wants to be clear who his bosses will be. Well, one boss wants to stay, and one boss wants to leave. ”
Dawg – Miss read your post sorry, thought you said ‘will Rafa stop playing games’.
I think that Rafa will distance himself from it, the only thing that Rafa will be talking about is summer transferes. The problem will be come summer that if no one knows who is going to be owner then no one is going to be willing to put their hands in their pocket, then Rafa will get pissed of with the mess then will leave for Real Madrid or somthing like that.
Dawg – Its alright Rafa saying end the games but does Hicks have the money to end that games. Personaly I do not believe that he has.
“Dawg – Its alright Rafa saying end the games but does Hicks have the money to end that games. Personaly I do not believe that he has.”
He does. Hicks has offered Gillett as much as DIC has. At this point Gillett is just holding out until the season is over and trying a few last attempts to persuade Hicks to let him sell to DIC in order to protect his friends at the club. That’s not going to happen though, and when the season is over and a truly threatening point arrives, such as the imminent departure of Rafa and some players, Gillett will turn to Parry and tell him he tried his best but that he has to now sell.
Jim / Dawg – Do you two honestly believe that Hicks and Gillette have fell out. My reasons for asking you two is that you two like correcting all the nonsense that is written about him, or do you believe that it is a line that the fans are being fed through the press to hide an alternative motive that exists between the two yanks?
Dawg – No he hasn’t, he has said that very shortly he is going to make an offer but he has not actually done that so far.
Our Reds will take it to them at Stamford Bridge. We never make it easy for ourselves, and this is just another example…
As one poster put it yesterday DIC werent there to look like chumps making a last desperate attempt to persuade Hicks to sell.
I genuinely see the reason that DIC were there last night as a sign that it is only a matter of time before they own 50% of LFC.
The letter to fire Parry, the fireside chat and the scarf raising YNWA signing actions of Tom Hicks to me wreak of desparation.
Dawg – If DIC are sucessful in buying 50% of LFC do you believe Hicks would stick to his guns and refuse to sell up? Surely this situation would effect Hick’s ability to get the further finance necessary for a stadium or further loans to pay off the current debt. There is no doubt DIC could service the debt incurred from buying Gilette out but should they refuse to agree to any more re-financing where would that leave Hicks?
“Dawg – No he hasn’t”
That you know of, Anthony.
Anthony,
<>
Really? Can you point me to the source of that information? I cannot imagine ANY Liverpool player saying such a thing. They would get hauled in front of the manager and given a real dressing down.
“Jim / Dawg – Do you two honestly believe that Hicks and Gillette have fell out.”
I know they have.
“As one poster put it yesterday DIC werent there to look like chumps making a last desperate attempt to persuade Hicks to sell.”
I don’t think they were there to look like chumps either. They were there to see a CL semi-final at Anfield and attempt to persuade Hicks to reconsider his stance. A reasonable move, imho.
“The letter to fire Parry, the fireside chat and the scarf raising YNWA signing actions of Tom Hicks to me wreak of desparation.”
Not desperation. Just positioning combined with some silly PR.
“Dawg – If DIC are sucessful in buying 50% of LFC do you believe Hicks would stick to his guns and refuse to sell up? Surely this situation would effect Hick’s ability to get the further finance necessary for a stadium or further loans to pay off the current debt. There is no doubt DIC could service the debt incurred from buying Gilette out but should they refuse to agree to any more re-financing where would that leave Hicks?”
I don’t think he would stay and co-own with DIC. I think he would just sell to them along with Gillett. But DIC won’t be getting 50% in the first place since Hicks isn’t interested in selling, and Hicks does in fact have the ability to veto Gillett’s sale.
Anthony,
My pasting of your quote didn’t show. It should have said …
Reina has come out and said if Rafa goes then he will go.
Ray,
http://www.goal.com/en-india/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=669788
Juan – DIC if they get Gillettes 50% share then what they will do is finance their half of the stadium then Hicks will have to come up with the other half of the money. DIC will then either stump up the money themselves or go to the bank, either way they are alot better off than Hicks. If DIC go to the bank they will find it easier to get finance than Hicks will, they will also get a more favorable deal than Hicks. DIC could also put the money up themselves, if they done that Hicks would have to go and get a loan of a bank to pay for his half. If Hicks couldn’t find the money to buy out Gillette then he would find it difficult to get money to fund a stadium. DIC would then be able to stump up the cash that Hicks couldn’t find and will then be able to reduce the amount of shares Hicks has in the club. As long as DIC got on the board with a 50% stake in LFC then DIC would have more control than would Hicks. The reason for this is DIC are a much more attractive propostion to the banks than Hicks is, they will always get a more favorable deal off the banks than Hicks would. Should DIC get 50% then they would be able to force Hicks hand and force him out of the club. DIC could be alot more unreasonable than Hicks could, they could make his life alot more difficult than he could make theirs.
None of that matters though, Anthony, because the only way DIC will get 50% is if Hicks has agreed to let that happen… which will mean he is leaving Liverpool as well. But he has no plans to leave Liverpool any time soon.
Ray –
http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=89339
Dawg – Hicks needs the money first to be able to veto the sale between Gillette DIC.
“Dawg – Hicks needs the money first to be able to veto the sale between Gillette DIC.”
Says who?
Dawg,
What is Hicks No1 priority when all is said and done…
Making money or Making Liverpool FC a great club?
The two you will argue are not mutually exclusive, but if there came a point where he was in a position to decide between making money and Liverpool going into meltdown and losing or breaking even and Liverpool not going into whatever situation was going to cause the meltdown, what do you think he would do? honestly.
Dawg – The 90 day clock is ticking down. Hicks does not have an unlimited amout of time to find the money.
“Dawg – The 90 day clock is ticking down. Hicks does not have an unlimited amout of time to find the money.”
There is no 90-day clock.
Dawg – Yes there is. 90 days from when DIC made an offer for Gillettes shares. Hicks has 90 days from that date to match the offer that Gillette was made by DIC, if he can’t match the offer within that time period then Gillette can do what he pleases with his shares and hicks is powerless to stop him.
“The two you will argue are not mutually exclusive, but if there came a point where he was in a position to decide between making money and Liverpool going into meltdown and losing or breaking even and Liverpool not going into whatever situation was going to cause the meltdown, what do you think he would do? honestly.”
It’s hard to answer that question, Martin, because it really all depends on the circumstances and the extent of the potential damage to the club. He obviously doesn’t want to lose money as none of us do, but he also strongly wants to own Liverpool and see the club succeed.
“Dawg – Yes there is. 90 days from when DIC made an offer for Gillettes shares. Hicks has 90 days from that date to match the offer that Gillette was made by DIC, if he can’t match the offer within that time period then Gillette can do what he pleases with his shares and hicks is powerless to stop him.”
How do you know this?
Dawg – It is common knowledge that the right for a co-owner to buy their partners shares has a limted time frame. The agreement was written into the contract that that Hicks and Gillette created when they both bought into Liverpool FC. Big Wigs from the city of London have commented in the broadsheets about such agreements. They said that they are written in order to enable one partner to have first refusal on their partners shares so that their partner cannot go and sell them without first offering them to their partner. It does not give the other partner an indefinate time period to come up with the money. I am not an expert on law but the people who commented on these kind of agreements where proffesionals form the City i.e. London Financial District. They said that Hicks will be able to stop Gillette selling to DIC within that period and Gillette would not be able to refuse to sell to Hicks. The courts in this senario would also back Hicks. But there is only a limited time period in which Hicks can veto any sale. After the time period has passed Hicks would be powerless to stop him and the courts would favour Gillette.
“It is common knowledge that the right for a co-owner to buy their partners shares has a limted time frame.”
It is?
“The agreement was written into the contract that that Hicks and Gillette created when they both bought into Liverpool FC.”
Do you have a link you can give me that verifies this?
I believe you have gone along with rumors in the press about this 90-day rule, Anthony. But I promise you that it doesn’t exist. You’ll see I am correct on this on May 27th, or shortly thereafter I guess.
Dawg,
How do you know otherwise ?? Unless of course you just KNOW and are just not at liberty to say. (Eureka thats it !)
Its going to take a lot more than your denials that G & H have tied themselves into a permanent deal wherebye each cannot sell to anyone at any price without first offering the shares to the other at the same price. And that if that price cannot be matched the sale can be vetoed at the whim of the other, It just does not make business sense.
There’s a lot going on behind the scenes, DIC would not have just turned up in the director’s box to watch the match and upset dear ole Tom, there’s more to it than that ( I know !)
Dawg – These claims where not made by tabloid newspapers, they where made by experts speaking in the likes of the Times and the Independant. They where not rumours. These kinds of agreements are always written into partnerships they are not uncommon. The people who commented on the current situation where not rumour starters, they where people who are experts on such deals i.e. laywers, and they where interviewed by the newspapers to enlighten us people who are not custom to such agreements. The articles appeared in the newspaper way back when all this nonsense started so there are no longer any links that I can give you. The professionals where very reputable and where speaking about how the courts would interperet the situation. They where speaking as a matter of fact. These deals are common place.
“Dawg,
How do you know otherwise ??”
Because I know people more familiar with the arrangement than either you, I, or the press members that first reported that rumor, Jofrad.
You believe the press rumor, and I believe people privy to the deal. (And Gillett has never confirmed any such deadline has he?)
I really hope the deadline is true but, unfortunately, I have to agree with Dawg on this one. (now theres a sentence i never thought i would say).
It still could be, but the lack of firm confirmation seems to suggest otherwise.
Dawg – We have adverts on TV over here warning little kids about people who pretend to be kids when they are in fact dirty old men. Dawg talk is cheap pal, we can all say that we know all kinds of people but it doesn’t mean nothing.
They where not press rumours they where experts who deal with business men all day every and are privy to such deals. Gillette does not need to confirm any such deal because its just like comfirming that the sun will come up tommorow. Its common sense.
“Dawg – These claims where not made by tabloid newspapers, they where made by experts speaking in the likes of the Times and the Independant.”
I’ve read the same reports you have, Anthony. I just know them to be false speculation. If you go back and read the reports, most of them included language such as “sources say”, and “it is thought that”, etc. It may have been experts doing the speculating, but it was still just speculation that was later falsely assumed as fact.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3768457.ece
Just looking at some of the comments above, some interesting theories coming out.
Gillett and Hicks have fallen out, no doubt there. But I wonder how much DIC have stirred it up between them? If you think of some of what they’ve fed to the press, I wonder what they’ve fed to Hicks and what they’ve fed to Gillett? Doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture Staveley playing them off against each other.
The idea of Benítez having a hand in a resolution is important too. It’s good of Reina to come out like he did, given the hints the other day that a number of players would leave if Hicks left. I personally would trust Rafa’s judgement pretty strongly in this, and I think if any players don’t – as has been implied – then they’re probably not right for the club anyway.
This season will resolve itself despite what’s happening off-field now. The performance last night shows that, and I hope I don’t hear another comment about “timing”. But next season is different.
Forget this so-called 90-day-deadline, which I’ve never believed to have been in place, the deadline is the opening of the transfer window, every day after that is a day wasted.
I don’t think we can predict which players would stay or go under a new manager. As it is with Rafa, it all depends on budgets, on how much the desired players cost, on how much players who can be sacrificed might bring in, on what he thinks the squad is lacking. Kuyt was a regular for Holland before his barren spell, the job he’s doing now is different to before, I’m sure he’s not held in as low regard by other coaches as he is by some fans.
Dawg’s point about Hicks having already offered Gillett the same as DIC is certainly not something to be ignored out of hand. If/When Hicks gets the money he’ll go to Gillett with his offer. No matter what you say about him, he’s not going to be flashing the cash on the telly first.
I still think there’s a chance that DIC’s poker face is hiding a certain amount of panic. But their presence could have been for a number of reasons. I genuinely think that the issues that have been in the way of a resolution have been 1) Hicks getting the money or accepting he can’t, 2) Gillett accepting an offer. No idea if the first one’s happened yet, but I still don’t think the second one has. Another theory – GG invites DIC, Hicks panics and ups his offer, GG sits back and watches until they run out of better offers, takes his money, leaves. Or GG invites DIC, wants to show them what they could have won, a la Bullseye.
I go along with Dawg here on the 90-day story. It hadn’t started when Gillett chatted on Canadian radio.
Dawg isn’t the first person I’ve heard who is so sure there is no May 27 deadline. And I’m not talking about Dawg’s most likely source.
If there was a 90-day limit, it wouldn’t go on DIC making an offer, it would go on Gillett accepting it.
The idea there has to be a limited time frame is untrue. But as others on here have said, no lawyer in their right mind would recommend their client to sign an agreement without one. They can put whatever they like into the agreement, as long as they both agree to it on day one. If they wanted to say all disputes would be settled by arm-wrestling then there’s nothing to stop them. It’s unlikely there won’t be a time limit, but not impossible, and 90 days is just a figure that started being thrown about in speculation ages ago – it could be anything. If their agreement follows normal convention then you’re right, Hicks can’t stop Gillett selling to DIC when the time goes past.
Anthony, the experts you read stuff from were explaining what normally happens. Not what has to happen. As Jofrad says, it doesn’t make business sense not to have protection built in. But it doesn’t mean an oversight didn’t happen.
Is it also possible the agreement was drafted in the US, using US lawyers, where such a provision is taken for granted in law anyway?
Dawg, you mention May 27th.
Does that mean that DIC definitely did make an offer to Gillett three months prior to that date then?
I would also like to ask you – Does Tom Hicks know you’re posting on this site, and if so, does he give his approval? (maybe you have to ask yourself this question, eh?!)
Dawg – Hicks has never denied that such a timeline exists, he only said that he can veto any sale.
Who started saying there was a deadline?
The same people in this passage from the Mirror?
Hicks seemed unperturbed by last night’s increasingly bizarre events, even after he had to deny a story put out by the DIC PR machine suggesting he had earlier visited manager Rafa Benitez at the training ground, only to be turned away. He had visited the training ground, he said, but spoke cordially to the Spaniard.
Rafa later confirmed he’d spoken to Hicks.
I know for a fact that some reporters we would normally trust are trusting this kind of information far more than they should because it fits in with their own heartfelt feelings about what’s best for the club.
Hearts are ruling heads.
Jim:
“The idea of Benítez having a hand in a resolution is important too. It’s good of Reina to come out like he did, given the hints the other day that a number of players would leave if Hicks left.”
Jim, do you mean “if he left” or “if benitez left”!? I can’t imagine Stevie G leaving the club if Hicks packed his bags!
” Is it also possible the agreement was drafted in the US, using US lawyers, where such a provision is taken for granted in law anyway? ”
Jim – Does this mean that they will have had such an agreement as a matter or routine. Also as LFC is in the UK American courts will powerless its for the UK courts and UK law to interpret.
Anthony,
Thanks for the link. I think you’re interpreting that rather differently to what he actually said. But if any player is at LFC because he respects the manager more than the club then we’d be better off without them anyway.
“I would also like to ask you – Does Tom Hicks know you’re posting on this site”
Yes he does, Martin, since I first alerted Tom Jr. to my posts.
“and if so, does he give his approval? (maybe you have to ask yourself this question, eh?!)”
I don’t know, but I don’t see why he wouldn’t… well, other than the parts where I’ve said that his fireplace interview looked a little silly.
(He’s a Texas Longhorn fan though so I’ll blame it on that since I hate his Texas Longhorns.) 
“Dawg – Hicks has never denied that such a timeline exists, he only said that he can veto any sale.”
Anthony, if Hicks had to take the time to correct every false rumor in the press he wouldn’t have time to do anything else. He doesn’t need to disprove someone else’s false allegation. He knows that time and events will do that for anyone in doubt about the matter.
There we are folks Dawg knows because he talks to people who know. Therefore everything he says must be true.
As they say in Liverpool:- ” I’ll tell you what” with friends like you who needs enemies.
Oops. I forgot this question of yours, Martin:
“Does that mean that DIC definitely did make an offer to Gillett three months prior to that date then?”
I don’t know if it means that, but I know they have made offers.
Back to football briefly!
I was very impressed by that formation around the box for our goal last night. We looked menacing!
lots of quality and options.
Dawg – Well why then did he feel an overwhelming desire to come out and point out to us that he could veto any sale. If Hicks doesn’t have to bother to put right all this nonsense and Hicks will be the sole owner of LFC then why does he bother to keep telling us that DIC aren’t even at the table. Surly this man is so sure then why doesn’t he just show up one day and snap his fingers without saying a word then as quickly as they arrived DIC, Staveley and Gillette would be gone without a trace, some sort of divine intervention if you like. And we will all be struck dum.
“There we are folks Dawg knows because he talks to people who know. Therefore everything he says must be true.”
Time will show us who is correct here, Jofrad.
“Dawg – Well why then did he feel an overwhelming desire to come out and point out to us that he could veto any sale. If Hicks doesn’t have to bother to put right all this nonsense and Hicks will be the sole owner of LFC then why does he bother to keep telling us that DIC aren’t even at the table.”
I think those statements just came in the course of general interviews where DIC questions were raised, Anthony. I don’t think any interviewer has asked him about any 90-day deadline.
Martin – I meant if Hicks stayed! Yossi’s just about the only player I could imagine leaving off his own back because Hicks left.
Anthony – it was nothing more than a theory on how such an important clause might have been left out. I’m not as sure as Dawg about whether a 90-day clause actually exists, just that such a deadline isn’t currently ticking down.
As for where LFC is based, LFC is based in the UK but LFC isn’t for sale. Above LFC are a chain of holding companies that own each other, including one based “off shore” and possibly one based in the US (I’ve not checked on this, going from memory). It’s at this “holding company level” where the sale will actually take place.
Ray: I get your point about Pepe and the idea he’d put Rafa before the club. I think if Rafa and LFC parted for the wrong reasons he’d be within his rights to leave. If Rafa and LFC parted for the right reasons (poor results for example) then he’d be wrong to leave.
Dawg – I don’t remember anyone asking him about him about being able to veto the sale. He just got on his high horse and pointed out to us all none believers that he was all powerfull and he could veto any sale.
Jim – Yes, but should it go to court, because the club is based in the UK then it would ultimatly be the UK courts and law that would have final say on who wins and who loses.
Just looked it up, the first mention of “Veto” seems to be after DIC and his people met in Dubai:
“Accordingly, I have decided to exercise my right under the Kop Football (Holdings) Limited partnership agreement to veto any sale of any portion of Kop and the club to DIC.”
That was on March 10th (well, the article I looked it up on was).
It can be read as meaning any future attempts to sell to DIC would be vetoed, as opposed to a veto having kicked off already.
And as for why he told us, if you read the DIC statements prior to that Dubai meeting, ( DIC: We will get 100% ) then it sounds just like a reply in a similar tone really.
“Dawg – I don’t remember anyone asking him about him about being able to veto the sale. He just got on his high horse and pointed out to us all none believers that he was all powerfull and he could veto any sale.”
OK then, Anthony. I think it went a little differently than that, but either way, there’s no 90-day deadline and you’ll see that in time.
By the way, Anthony… here is a thread from another message board describing my trip to the Liverpool/Aston Villa PL opener back in August:
igottarant.com/showthread.php?t=45481
So maybe I am just some fake who happened to get tickets in the Liverpool section for that game and then post about it on an American college football message board… or maybe not.
They’ll be searching your posts on there now Dawg, finding out dirt on you that you’d long since forgotten about.
Dawg – You have put a photo of Villa park on another message board. Means nothing, evidence not admissable in court. Sorry. Sure you are a nice bloke though, not implying anything else.
That’s OK, Jim.
I’ve never expected anyone here to think much of me anyway. I just enjoy the discussion.
Dawg – All the people around you are wearing Villa tops. Why you not sitting in the directors box, or in the away stand. We hadn’t fell out with Hicks and Gillette then, you would have been safe?
Dawg/Jim – Anyway do you believe that the courts in this country would give Hicks an unlimited time frame to be able to buy out Gillette. If a timeline has not been written into a contract but the contract also does not state that there is an unlimited timeline then its just as good as having a timeline in contract. The courts will not give Hicks unlimited time to buy out Gillette they will give him a reasonable amount of time i.e. 90 days for example. It would be a grey area if neither was witten into a contract.
“Dawg – You have put a photo of Villa park on another message board. Means nothing, evidence not admissable in court. Sorry. Sure you are a nice bloke though, not implying anything else.”
Fair enough, Anthony.
That was a great game though.
Dawg – If I remember the game against Villa correctly it was bloody boring.
It was up until the final few minutes, Anthony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z74EcfbMgxo
So here we have a situation wherebye neither partner can do anything with his shares without the permission of the other. (So what happens if one partner dies, does his son have to get permission from the remaining owner to inherit the shares ??)
In the meantime the management of the club is paralysed because no decision can by reached as to the future direction of the club because the 2 owners cannot even speak to each other.
But really behind the scenes Tom Hicks is playing a canny game and George Gillett will be forced to sell his shares to Uncle Tom who will then own a club free from debt with a new stadium on the way.
Mr Dawg your taking the piss.
“But really behind the scenes Tom Hicks is playing a canny game and George Gillett will be forced to sell his shares to Uncle Tom who will then own a club free from debt with a new stadium on the way.”
Would you approve of that were it to happen?
Dawg – Only if he was to introduce cheerleaders to the club for the half time interval.
Barcelona is just dominating MU right now. They will score several goals if this keeps up.
Dawg – Man U missed a pen in the opening minutes I have just heard on the radio.
Interesting, Anthony. I did not know that. I tuned in at the 10′ mark and we’re now near 30′ and the ball has been in Barcelona’s possession for 95% of that time.
Anthony – if there isn’t a time limit in the agreement, and it goes to court, I honestly don’t know what the court would do.
Usually these things are based on precedent, i.e. similar cases that have happened before. So if this has happened before then DIC’s lawyers and Hicks’ lawyers will know the most likely outcome of court action. But sometimes precedent isn’t even all that clear. Sometimes two slightly different cases had two slightly different outcomes and it’s up to each side basically to prove which previous case most closely matches this one.
I might be wrong here, but I vaguely remember something about laws relating to contracts following the basic premise that a contract must be somehow be even for both parties.
So if both parties know they can’t sell without prior agreement from their partner then there’s probably nothing the court could do to help GG out.
I’m no lawyer though, and only a lawyer specialising in these areas could give us a decent answer.
If it’s an open-and-shut case then no doubt GG can take Hicks to court without worrying. Likewise if it’s open and shut the other way round Hicks can let GG take him to court without worrying. If it’s more complex than that I suppose it’s down to GG and TH deciding how bad a court case is compared to “giving in” to the other.
Jofrad: I fully agree with what you’re saying about how crazy such an agreement sounds.
Are you trying to say the whole mess isn’t crazy?
Dawg: “Yes he does, Martin, since I first alerted Tom Jr. to my posts”
So would it be fair to say that you are a friend of Tom Jr. More than a firend of Hicks Snr?
Jim – The courts would see it as possesion is nine tenths of the law. Protocol 1 Article 1 of the human rights act the Protection of property, would give Gillette the right to sell his goods, Hicks would be powerless to stop Gillette eventually selling his shares after a reasonable amount of time. The human rights act would point out to Hicks that Hicks does not own Gillettes shares so Gillette can exercise his human rights in accordance with Protocol 1 Article 1 the protection of property, and that would mean he can do with his shares exactly what you can do with your car and their will be nothing the state can do to stop him. What I mean is the state will be powerless and will not be able to help hicks.
So would it be fair to say that you are a friend of Tom Jr. More than a firend of Hicks Snr?”
Correct. Tommy and I have been friends since we were kids in Dallas.
And by the way, I don’t speak for either of course. I just post what I think, which they may or may not agree with.
Dawgs no fake he is what he is,a complete prick with nothing better to do than try to wind us up. Claiming to have knowledge which strangely enough has already been in the media. He claims Hicks wants to do this and that and that he has had success but can’t seem to back these claims up eg Corinthians, or 1 stanley cup. No doubt just some spotty teenager.
67′. 72-28% favor in time of possession for Barcelona. Still 0-0.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=239745&cc=5901&league=UEFA.CHAMPIONS
I don’t think a “human” owns either half of the club.
(I just know what comments are coming now).
But what I mean is that Gillett has a company and Hicks has a company and their companies own their halves of “Kop”.
We’ll see, as Dawg says, eventually.
Fred,
I’m not trying to wind you or anyone up. I’ve simply responded to your points with an argument to the contrary. And regarding the Stars/Rangers, I respond from the perspective of a devoted fan of both teams (from a time before Hicks owned either). And I don’t think my viewpoint on either is very far from that of the mainstream opinion of the fans of both teams. I’ve admitted Hicks mistakes but explained why it would be irrational to have expected much better with both teams.
Chelsea are rubbish –
Rosenborg, Valentia and Fenerbache have all scored against them in the Champions League. They’ve conceded 17 goals at Stamford Bridge this season. If Villa, Leicester and Birmingham can rack them up so can we….
Birmingham 2, Rosenborg 1, Leicester 3, Everton 1, Villa 4, Newcastle 1, Everton 1, Huddersfield 1, Derby 1, Arsenal 1, Wigan 1
We’ve scored 34 goals away from home this year. There’s no way that we won’t score up there next week…..
Mancs look pretty poor too….
Dawg – looked up some of your comments on igottarant…
Dallas dawg to Texas Dawg: “Did you ask TH if he’ll fly over to watch the game with y’all to support daddy’s team?
So you are a friend of TH jnr, are you not? Or someone closer? Does Hicks have any other sons?
Dawg: “Hicks will keep him on (rafa) no matter what at this point just to show the fans he wasn’t planning on firing him as many have claimed. He’ll wait for them to strongly call for that firing (should they choose to do so) for awhile first.”
So he isnt backing him for the right reasons then? And he’ll wait for ‘a while’ first for the fans opposition before firing him anyway?!
sorry, you’ve already responded to my 1st question!
Dawg “I’ve never expected anyone here to think much of me anyway”
Its a good thing !!
Jim – Shares in the eyes of the law are property. Protocol 1 Article 1: Protection of Property is very wide meaning. It can include shares. The article says that the government or a public authority cannot restrict what you do with your property, unless there is a law that allows them to do this and there is a good reason for it.
Basically what this means that under this countrys law and the European Convention on Human Rights there is not a court in Europe that will be able to dictate to Gillette and tell him what he can and can’t do with his half of the club.
” But what I mean is that Gillett has a company and Hicks has a company and their companies own their halves of “Kop”. ”
The way to look at this is if LFC was being used to launder money for instance then wouldn’t Gillette and hicks be held accoutable for the crime that was taking place. If what you where implying that no human owns LFC then I could go to the police and hand the club in as lost property, in a few months time if no-one came forward to say it was theirs then technically the club would become my property.
” Gillett remains determined to sell his 50 per cent stake to DIC in the belief that, despite Hicks’s fierce objections, it will be able to buy at the end of May, at the expiry of a 90-day exclusivity period offering Hicks first option on his partner’s shares. Hicks, who has also caused consternation by demanding the resignation of Parry, maintains that no such clause exists in the share document and that DIC – which sent Sameer al-Ansari, its chief executive, and Amanda Staveley, the chief negotiator, to Anfield on Tuesday – will not get a single share in the club. ”
You see Hicks has said now that the 90 day period does not exist, but it doesn’t also say that he has got an unlimited period in which to come up with the money.
For the full article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3803622.ece
“So he isnt backing him for the right reasons then? And he’ll wait for ‘a while’ first for the fans opposition before firing him anyway?!”
Come on now, Martin. You’re trying too hard to read something nefarious into that.
All I was saying there was that even if Liverpool finished 5th or worse and dropped out of this year’s CL early (since that was the “what if” question I was answering), Hicks would still be behind Rafa… if only because the fans almost certainly still would be. I was simply saying that Hicks is listening to the fans on the question of the team’s manager right now.
Tom Hicks has confirmed that no exclusivity period exists, but it still does not mean that it is written into any contract that he has an unlimited period to come up with the money to buy out Gillette.
Here is an extract from the Times:
” Those words hinted at a breakthrough of sorts, but there are no other signs that a peace summit is in prospect. Gillett remains determined to sell his 50 per cent stake to DIC in the belief that, despite Hicks’s fierce objections, it will be able to buy at the end of May, at the expiry of a 90-day exclusivity period offering Hicks first option on his partner’s shares. Hicks, who has also caused consternation by demanding the resignation of Parry, maintains that no such clause exists in the share document and that DIC – which sent Sameer al-Ansari, its chief executive, and Amanda Staveley, the chief negotiator, to Anfield on Tuesday – will not get a single share in the club.
Here’s the link to the full story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3803622.ece
Why can I not post? Is anyone else having any problems?
Hicks has said in this interview that no 90 day period exists, but it doesn’t mean that there is also an agreement that he has an unlimited period to buy out Gillette.
Those words hinted at a breakthrough of sorts, but there are no other signs that a peace summit is in prospect. Gillett remains determined to sell his 50 per cent stake to DIC in the belief that, despite Hicks’s fierce objections, it will be able to buy at the end of May, at the expiry of a 90-day exclusivity period offering Hicks first option on his partner’s shares. Hicks, who has also caused consternation by demanding the resignation of Parry, maintains that no such clause exists in the share document and that DIC – which sent Sameer al-Ansari, its chief executive, and Amanda Staveley, the chief negotiator, to Anfield on Tuesday – will not get a single share in the club.
Here is a link to the full story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3803622.ece
Hicks has said that there is no 90 day notice for him to buy out Gillette, it doesn’t also mean that there is an agreement that Gillette must wait until Hicks can come up with the money.
Those words hinted at a breakthrough of sorts, but there are no other signs that a peace summit is in prospect. Gillett remains determined to sell his 50 per cent stake to DIC in the belief that, despite Hicks’s fierce objections, it will be able to buy at the end of May, at the expiry of a 90-day exclusivity period offering Hicks first option on his partner’s shares. Hicks, who has also caused consternation by demanding the resignation of Parry, maintains that no such clause exists in the share document and that DIC – which sent Sameer al-Ansari, its chief executive, and Amanda Staveley, the chief negotiator, to Anfield on Tuesday – will not get a single share in the club.
Jim – Even if it is Gillettes and Hicks company’s that own Liverpool FC, and they own LFC indirectly as directors of their respective companies the companys act will still say that they are accountable for LFC. The buck stops with them in the eyes of the law.
Good evening everyone.
Back to normal – we are not talking about football anymore!
Just need to clear somethings here.
1. There is no company registered by the name of Kop Holdings or such variation in England & Wales. This is a misnomer for all you battering away at English law principles. Most likely that the company is registered under Delaware law (mainly for tax reasons).
2. The parties can and normally do decide which law/jursidiction applies. Therefore unless anyone (including you Dawg) have seen the Agreement, you really don’t know which law to apply.
3. On the basis that it is English law, Companies Act only applies to registered companies. See point 1. The holding company is not registered here. Therefore, assume it is partnership law, if either party wanted to bring a greviance to an English Court. Court can order either party to buy the other out, valuation normally pro-rata as to contribution or order a dissolution of the partnership (which would trigger a free for all).
4. Dawg et al – on principle I must disagree with you as not putting a time limit on accepting/refusing/completing an offer for purchase/sale of shares. I have previously said that the type of lawyers involved would be high end given the financial amounts involved and I trust my legal brethern and sisters to advise accordingly on such restrictive clauses.
Anyway, the irony of a 0-0 between ManU v Barca when all the experts (so-called) expected fireworks.
Leanne, did you go to the match yesterday?
Raju – If there was no timeline put down as to how long Hicks has got to buy out Gillette, and there is nothing written down that Hicks has got an unlimited amount of time to buy out Gillette then surly Gillette could sell right this very second.
Own goal in 94th minute due to Drogba cheating, diving and staying on the deck after brushes from the opposition.
The man is a cheat.
Then to run to his fans and grabbing the badge on his shirt in shear delight.
Disgraceful.
Thanks Raju.
What point I am making is that Hicks must have the money to buy Gillette out in the first place. If he hasn’t got the money to buy out Gillette then Hicks does not have any rights to make Gillette wait until he has the money. Gillette will eventually be able to sell his stake in the club without Hicks being able to stop him.
[b]Ray: I get your point about Pepe and the idea he’d put Rafa before the club. I think if Rafa and LFC parted for the wrong reasons he’d be within his rights to leave. If Rafa and LFC parted for the right reasons (poor results for example) then he’d be wrong to leave.[/b]
Don’t players have to honour their contracts? I get the feeling looking at Reina he really likes it at Liverpool so I’m surprised to hear about his attitude assuming he’s been qoted correctly.
I don’t see Rafa walking. In fact don’t you think he’s looked more relaxed in the last week than for a very long time? I think if DIC end up as owners they’ll not upset the apple cart for a minimum of one season and they’ll give him money to strengthen the squad plus lose some deadwood.
If LFC then finishes in the top two they might well keep him. They know sacking a manager means a squad upheaval and more time lost.
This article was written by Jason Burt who like the Dawg knows people who know what’s really going on.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/hicks-sings-from-his-own-hymn-sheet-as-dic-waits-in-wings-813903.html
But who do we believe Mr Burt or the Dawg ??
Anthony,
Unfortunately it is not so straight forward as that for a multitude of reasons.
You would expect to allow either party reasonable time to buy the other out. At best, Hicks or Gillett would have an extended period of time to buy out as opposed to a third party outsider seeking to buy into a business. It is typical in closed partnerships for restrictions to be placed to protect the remaining partner(s) particularly in family companies who want to control the composition/demography of ownership.
In my view, it would be inconceivable for status quo to remain if one party is not happy. The legal remedies available generally differ from country to country but there are generally underlying principles which underpin the local law. For example, a member/shareholder can bring an action for unfair prejudicial conduct against another member or director under English law (perhaps the closest applicable to the present case of LFC). I suppose that there would similar remedies available in other jurisdictions.
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that if there is split in the present situation, there will not be split ownership after this. I would take it as a given that both Hicks as well as Gillett have or should have learnt a painful lesson in joint ventures. If Gillett leaves then Hicks will sell up as well if he can’t buy out.
That is my view. Like many, I have been trying to make sense of the extraordinary events in the last few months. This appears to be most plausible explanation I am satisfactorily able to advocate. I may be totally wrong of course.
If Jason Burt knows people who really know what’s going on he doesn’t use their information in his report…
Jaju – That was the point that I was making. People seem to believe that if there is no exclusivity period then Hicks must have an unlimited amout of time to buy out Gillette. But people must also be aware that there very probably is also no agreement that stipulates that Hicks has an indefinate amount of time to buy out Gillette. So therefore the fact remains that if neither exists apart from whatever exists prior with regards to what happens in such an event. If Hicks can’t find the money to buy out Gillette then Gillette can sell to whoever he wants. In order for Hicks to be able to stop Gillette he must be able to purchase Gillettes shares, and if he can’t do that then the law will state that he has no right telling Gillette what he can and what he can’t do with his shares.
“But who do we believe Mr Burt or the Dawg ??”
Sounds to me, Jofrad, like Burt is just making the same old speculation about Hicks not having money for an offer simply because one hasn’t been reported yet. Doesn’t sound like he has any inside source there… meanwhile, you know my sources.
raju,
does this information contradict your findings or is it some other entity?
Kop, a private limited company incorporated in England and Wales, was formed on 18 December 2006, exclusively for the purpose of making the Offer. The company number is 6032198. Since its incorporation, Kop has not traded.
The current directors of Kop are George Gillett Jnr., Foster Gillett, Thomas O. Hicks and Thomas O. Hicks Jnr.
Never been called “Jaju”….must add it to my list to Roger, Ragu etc .etc etc.
“The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that if there is split in the present situation, there will not be split ownership after this. I would take it as a given that both Hicks as well as Gillett have or should have learnt a painful lesson in joint ventures. If Gillett leaves then Hicks will sell up as well if he can’t buy out.
That is my view. Like many, I have been trying to make sense of the extraordinary events in the last few months. This appears to be most plausible explanation I am satisfactorily able to advocate. I may be totally wrong of course.”
You are correct, raju.
I suspect timing of offers is irrelevant. 90 days is irrelevant. Hicks having to match the offer might even be irrelevant. If the clause is just a veto then that’s that. Hicks has Gillett by the balls.
On that basis the contract *is* even. Its just that Hicks has zero intention of selling. If it was the other way around, and if Gillett was smart enough, then Gillett would have Hicks by the balls.
Any wonder that Hicks couldn’t wait to sign last year once he saw the opportunity that was LFC? On those terms? With a partner who was short of cash? Its this business savvy that’s probably why Hicks is a dollar billionnaire.
If it went to court, which I doubt it will, my guess is that it would be on the basis of Hicks being unreasonable in not allowing Gillett to sell his shares. And my guess would be that the only outcome of that would be that Gillett would have to sell the shares to Hicks (assuming Hicks could buy them).
Co-owner Tom Hicks met Benitez before the game and again yesterday and said: “I visited the manager at the training ground and we had a great meeting.
“The talks were really positive. He is happy and wants to talk about where he is taking the club in the future.”
Jaju – DIC have always claimed that Hick’s right to veto any sale between themselves and Gillette is based on very weakly binding legal terms, which supports what I have said in my posts this evening. The law will eventually tell Gillette that he can do whatever he wants with his shares.
Edward
how strange! My search did not bring this up. however, this may not be the company that effectively owns the assets inc. LFC particularly given the tax effectiveness of other off-shore legal systems. Can always do a full search and find out if it has legal charges/debentures secured. To be honest, I don’t see what this would achieve apart from further academic speculation.
I would stand by my original points though.
You continue to have it spot on, Hop.
And I too very much doubt Gillett will throw this into the courts. I think even Rick Parry will give Gillett his consent to fold if it comes to that point.
Anthony,
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry my name is Raju…it is simple enough.
Besides that, unfortunately, your view is slightly flawed. This matter will not go to court. time is money and court system is slow. therefore this will not happen.
Hop, speculate all you like…generally the reality of the situation is not like this.
I have used this analogy before but you cannot keep people married against their wish.
Hop – If Hicks can’t find the money to buy out Gillette then it will make no difference whether there was a veto or not. Protocol 1 Article 1: The protection of property will state that should Gillette choose to sell to DIC then Hicks will be powerless to stop him, because the courts cannot intervene on his behalf. Possession is nine tenths of the law, Hicks will have no right to tell Gillette what he can and can’t do with his shares.
Raju – Sorry, didn’t realise what I was typing. Sorry.
Jaju – I know it will not go to court, because the courts woould be powerless to stop Hicks from selling to Gillette. Where is it flawed, point it out to me?
Raju – Sorry done it again, whoops was not intentional.
There were claims from some sources that Benítez had told Hicks that he was unwilling to discuss anything of significance unless Gillett, the Texan’s estranged co-owner, and Rick Parry, the chief executive, were in attendance. But Hicks said: “I am surprised if anyone else is saying different. We plan to all get together and discuss the future and Rafa is happy with that.”
Anthony,
I will come back to you tomorrow or in 10 hours time.
The starting point is that the protection is afforded to individuals or legal persons against state interference. The greviance here by Gillett or Hicks would be a matter private law and therefore it would not fall on the court to use or interpret the Protocol you refer to. Company matters are governed by Companies Act 2006 etc. and the European court recognises that the individual state members are best placed to deal with private law matters so long as they are in general harmony with the rest of Europe.
Of course, this is all on the basis that the proper asset holding company is actually that which Edward kindly pointed out. I am not convinced that it is.
OK speak tommorow. Make it about 8.00pm GMT is that alright.
Ragu – Lol!
Great points and Knowledge though Raju.
Dawg: “Hicks will keep him on (rafa) no matter what at this point just to show the fans he wasn’t planning on firing him as many have claimed. He’ll wait for them to strongly call for that firing (should they choose to do so) for awhile first.”
ME:“So he isnt backing him for the right reasons then? And he’ll wait for ‘a while’ first for the fans opposition before firing him anyway?!”
DAWG: Come on now, Martin. You’re trying too hard to read something nefarious into that.
I dont think it was as innocent a statement as you’re making out Dawg, but i’m willing to concede that its not condemning either. I dont think Hicks would be stupid enough to fire him now anyway. Not now he realises how much he is backed by the fans and how he is as close as can be guaranteed to earn additional revenues via the champions league, right?
Raju – The state will only be able to help Hicks if there is a law that say’s that he has a right to stop hicks from selling and that there is no law saying that Gillette cannot sell to DIC.
Shares in the eyes of the law are property. Protocol 1 Article 1: Protection of Property is very wide meaning. It can include shares. The article says that the government or a public authority cannot restrict what you do with your property, unless there is a law that allows them to do this and there is a good reason for it.
If Hicks can’t get thje money to buy out Gillette then I can’t see how he’s going to be able to stop him from selling.
Someone earlier speculated (probably accurately) that Dawg is some spotty kid who likes shooting off his mouth…………………but the one thing you can safely assume from his comments about the legal situation is that he’s no lawyer !!!
Maybe we’re not quite there yet but it seems to me we’re starting to agree on substance of the veto and that offers and 90 days etc are irrelevant. Its also unlikely to go to court because all parties probably accept there’s no real reason to do so. All that really seems to be in dispute now is whether Hicks can afford to buy Gillett’s shares.
I don’t know whether he can or can’t but right now I believe the amount he’d have to come up with would be a hell of a lot less than some people think. I’d be interested to get some further insights from others. But in my ignorance my guess is that Hicks just needs to come up with the 25M/50M/75M or whatever it is that would represent Gillett’s profit after 15 months. Would he need to come up with any more?
Yes, he would need to come up with enough to match or better DIC’s offer to Gillett which is a lot more than any of those figures you’ve quoted………………………………… and almost certainly a lot more than he can afford.
raju: thanks so much for providing some legal framework around all our speculation…and I promise to never refer to you as the name of a pasta sauce.
re: the match last night…gutted – need I say more? (except that John Terry is surely one of the dirtiest players in English football and Drogba falls down if you breathe on him…neither of which is new news)
re: Hop’s query about how much money Hicks would need to come up with to buy out Gillett…
No doubt I’m oversimplifying this, but wouldn’t it be a similar scenario as two people signing a mortgage to buy a house? It turns out that the marriage breaks down and partner B wants to sell their half of the house to a third party and get out of any monetary obligations to carrying the mortgage with partner A.
Wouldn’t that then void the original agreements with the bank that gave the mortgage as the original two names on the contract were no longer the valid mortgagees? And so to buy out partner B and thus free them from the contract with the bank, wouldn’t partner A have to come up with half the cost of all outstanding loans plus whatever profit the third party was offering for partner B’s share?
To translate, then: wouldn’t Hicks have to come up with half of £350million (or whatever the real figure is on the loans) plus whatever profit on his shares DIC is offering to extract Gillett from legal obligations to repayment of the loan? Otherwise, if the severance of the partnership doesn’t activate dissolultion of the loan agreement and Hicks is permitted to carry the entire weight on the loan on his own (thus only offering Gillett £50million in profit), then Hicks would have to double the value of the collateral he is currently offering on his share of the debt.
Thank you Julie. What you say makes sense, and that’s what I thought at first.
Obviously there are various details to be sorted out such as how outstanding debts are secured etc, but if its possible to simplify it, here’s my logic for why I think the actual number might be a lot less.
Club is owned by holding company which for the sake of argument is owned 50:50 by Hicks and Gillett. There may be other holding companies in the chain but I don’t think it really matters for my purposes.
Say the club is worth Cx and has debt Cy. Its net worth is therefore Cx-Cy.
Now say the holding company has no other assets except the club. Therefore the holding company is worth Cx-Cy. Now say that the holding company has debt Hy. Its net worth is therefore Cx-Cy-Hy.
Now we get to Hicks and Gillett. They have a 50:50 share in the holding company, therefore each share is worth (Cx-Cy-Hy)/2. And so if Hicks was to take Gillett’s share off him, he would have to pay him that amount, ie (Cx-Cy-Hy)/2. (No doubt its way more complicated than that, but when we get down to the nuts and bolts, isn’t it true to say that that’s what Gillett’s share is worth?)
So now plug in some figures. Let’s say that as a result of their offer DIC have valued the club as worth as much as 500M, ie Cx = 500M. Now I can’t remember exactly what the debt on the club is versus the holding company, and right now I can’t be bothered looking it up. But let’s say in round numbers its 100M or thereabouts. So in my little analysis Cy = 100M.
Now total debt including what’s on the holding company I think is around 350M, which leaves Hy = 250M. So the Gillett share is worth (500M – 100M – 250M)/2, assuming DIC have offered 500M for the club. And that means that Hicks would have to pay Gillett (500M – 100M – 250M)/2 = 75M for his share.
Now I probably really am showing I don’t know what I’m talking about!
To build on your mortgage analogy further Julie, if two people had a mortgage on a house for 350,000 and had it valued at 500,000, if one person then bought the other out wouldn’t it cost them 75,000 and not 250,000? If they sold the house they would clear the debt first leaving them with 150,000 which split each way would be 75,000 each. In both scenarios one person would leave the house with 75,000 in their pocket.
In the case of the mortgage, unless you’re mortgaged to the hilt, the loan is secured on the property. Even if you’re mortgaged to the hilt, the loan is still very largely covered by the property. So even if Hicks does have to come up with more security, I personally doubt it would need to be anywhere near 250M worth.
Hop: using your model, and assuming that the club debt (Cy) would not have to be discharged despite a change in ownership, there would still remain the holding company debt (Hy) which (I think) for Hicks to carry on his own (as a result of buying out Gillett) he would have to double the value of the assets he is currently using as collateral.
So while Gillett may walk away with £75m profit in his pocket, Hicks would also have to pay off half Gillett’s portion of the holiding company debt (in your model, half of £250m), which works out to a total cost to Hicks of £200m…or, pay £75m to Gillett and prove to the banks that he and/or the club can carry the total sum of Cy and Hy, £350m in debt.
“To build on your mortgage analogy further Julie, if two people had a mortgage on a house for 350,000 and had it valued at 500,000, if one person then bought the other out wouldn’t it cost them 75,000 and not 250,000? If they sold the house they would clear the debt first leaving them with 150,000 which split each way would be 75,000 each. In both scenarios one person would leave the house with 75,000 in their pocket.”
I get what you’re saying here, Hop, but from what I understand it’s a combination of two different scenarios. If DIC offered 500,000 for a house with a 350,000 mortgage on it, and both current owners agreed to this deal, then the bank would get their 350,000 back and each owner would walk away with 75,000 in their pocket, exactly as you say.
But (and this is only what I think, not what I know for fact) it’s a different situation when one co-owner buys out the other as the mortgage would need to be renegotiated to absolve the departing co-owner of any financial responsibility. To match the profit that would have been afforded to each partner in the scenario above, the remaining partner would be obliged to give the departing partner 75,000 but it would also cost him money to pay the departing partner’s share of the mortgage, assuming the bank wasn’t willing to let him carry the entire debt himself despite what the book value of the house/club represented.
No doubt I could have given a more authoritative analysis of this had I stuck with my pursuit of a degree in accountancy and not abandoned it for Victorian literature instead.
This article was written by Jason Burt who like the Dawg knows people who know what’s really going on.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/hicks-sings-from-his-own-hymn-sheet-as-dic-waits-in-wings-813903.html
But who do we believe Mr Burt or the Dawg ??
Where do you get it from that Dawg knows whats really going on? He has revealed nothing the same way the article quoted has revealed nothing. Its interesting to note that Dawg says Hicks couldn’t be expected to lift the other teams he has brought up higher so they could win more honours………..didn’t stop Abramovich or Jack Walker of blackburn, once again highlighting Dawgs very selective memory.
The unescapable fact is Hicks has not got the money and cannot find the money to buy GG out. The world of finance is in crisis. No one will touch Hicks and thats a proven fact added to which is GG’s insistance that he will not sell even 1% of his stake. No one will stop DIC its all just a matter of time.
Lastly “Dawg knows people who know whats going on”………….. yeah and Elvis is still alive, and shergars in the field next to my house being fed by Lord Lucan
A pedant writes….
Good morning everyone.
Sorry for leaving the debate mid-stream last night but I was seriously falling asleep whilst typing (not through tedium i might add). Therefore I felt compelled to re-read my comments just to make sure they were lucid. I am pleasantly surprised that I can be coherent when about to fall asleep (note to self: changing working hours at office!)
Hop:
Your formulae is correct to an extent until you reach the poin of `Hy’ as this implies additional debt on top the net worth of the club. If the holding company’s only asset is LFC, then by definition the level of debt cannot exceed to include any other outside indebtedness as there would be no non-lfc security to secure against it.
Hop/Julie: your mortgage analogy:
This is also ok to an extent but where you are swapping borrowers mid-term in a loan then the consent of the lender is a condition-precedent. Therefore the lender must be agreeable to the party leaving and the substituted party. I suppose if it translated to the present scenario then I personally do not think that the underwriters would have a problem with swapping Gillett for DIC.
The other way would be of course a re-finance where the wholse existing debt is paid off through a new loan agreement with the new revised borrowers and lender. In this case the consent of the old lender is not required as they would be repaid in full.
Anthony,
Please do not take this the wrong way but I feel you are missing the point on the use of the Protocol. I do not wish to sound condescending but kindly re-read my comment at 12.08am. It only applies, in my view, to state interference and not between private individuals.
If I have read your point correctly, then you are inferring that there is a law/statute which a statutory body is using which is contrary or interfere with peaceful enjoyment of private property. This is not the case here, as the state – i.e. Secretary of State responsible for trade, has not intervened in the problems at LFC. If it did and acted in a manner contrary to the Protocol then yes your points are valid, to an extent.
One other point is that in such cases you have to identify who the victim is. Is it the Company? is it an individual shareholder or group or both? I would advise against rushing to say that Hicks/Gillett are the victims because, this again may be flawed thinking.
I am not an expert on company/european law and therefore will happily stand corrected if I am wrong but this is my take on the situation.
I must get out more.
Fred,
Ever heard of irony ?
Raju – In order for the courts to intervene on Hick’s behalf then there must be a law already in existance that Hicks can use. The Protocol is part of the Europen Convention of Human rights, and will afford Gillette the individual protection from the UK Government and Courts. There has to be a law in place already which stipulates that Gillette cannot sell and then the courts could intervene. Unless their is a law which allows Hicks to challenge Gillettes decision in the courts the courts are powerless to stop Gillette because Hicks would basically have no legal right or claims to Gillettes shares or to tell Gillette what to do with his shares. Gillette is afforded that protection by law. I am not saying that Hicks does not have a grace period where he will be able to challenge Gillettes decision, but eventually their will come a point where it would be unlawfull for the state to intervene on Hick’s behalf on the grounds that Hicks has no legal claim to Gillettes shares and as such he would not be able to bring such a case against Gillette, so therefore the courts would not be able to intervene as it would be unlawfull and a breach of Gillettes human rights in accordance with the European Convention Of Human Rights.
Nice one Anthony…….just what I’ve been saying all along !
But just wait till the Dawg wakes up this morning – Courts; human rights; the law; phooey !
Anthony,
Again, I really do not wish to sound patronising or elitist but I get the feeling we are talking on different wavelengths here.
We will have to agree to disagree with your use/interpretation of the protocol/ECHR/courts.
Perhaps you are inadvertently referring to the principle of proprietory estoppel rather than protocol as your arguments fit the former rather than the latter.
One other thing…courts are a historically a forum to resolve legal disputes. It does not actively intervene/interfere. the courts do have inherent jurisdiction in certain matters but this is seldom used in these sorts of cases cf. children act cases.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/04/24/kop-in-moving-tribute-to-liam-harker-100252-20813554/
Puts it all in perspective.
Raju what I am poitning out is that if Hicks does not have written into the agreement that he has an unlimited amount of time to buy out Gillette thenhe will have no grounds to stop Gillette from selling his shares. The courts may get involved but fundamnetally the courts will rule in favour of Gillette becasause the courts will have no power of Gillette to tell Gillette what he can do with his shares. The only way the courts could stop Gillette is if Hicks and Gillette both entered into an agreement whereby niether could sell without the others permission and it was written into a contract that no time frame was included. Othewise like DIC have said Hicks claims to have power of veto over Gillette selling his shares are based on very weak legally binding terms. If Hicks does not have the money to buy out Gillette then the age old saying will come into force ownership is nine tenths of the law. Hicks would have no legal right to stop Gillette from selling his shares to DIC unless a contract existed between both Hicks and Gillette which stated that one partner had an absolute final say over what the other does in such circumstances.
So it all comes down to: does Hicks have the means to buy Gillett out? And the lower the number Hicks has to come up with the more likely it is he will be successful.
Anthony,
if that is the point you wanted to make, then yes, it would not possible to deny a party’s right to deal with their property. In this instance, any interference to do so would be contrary to the underlying legal principles I spoke of yesterday.
Perhaps it may have been lost in translation but I don’t think anyone doubts that shares are contrued as property.
However, my reservations were (and continue) on how you were using various legal terms/rules as they do not always support the message you are trying to convey.
Hop – Basically if Hicks can get the money to buy out Gillette within a certain not an unlimited amout of time then Gillette will very probably not be able to sell to Hicks. If Hicks caan’t get the money then Gillette will be able to do what he wants with his shares unless there is a prior agreement between the two.
Raju – What I’m trying to say that Protocol 1 Article 1: states that the courts will not be able to dictate to Gillette what he can do with his shares as Hicks will have no legal claims to challenge Hicks. The courts can only tell Gillette what to do with his shares if either there is a law in place that Gillette must abide by, and I do not believe that any law exists which Hicks could use against Gillette. Or Hicks and Gillette have a prior agreement between themselves theat Gillette would be in breach of should he decide to sell. From what I can gather the selling of shares is not for the law to interpret it is for the partys involved in the deal to arrange between themselves. Both partys would have entered into an agreement when they both purchased LFC.
“Its interesting to note that Dawg says Hicks couldn’t be expected to lift the other teams he has brought up higher so they could win more honours………..didn’t stop Abramovich or Jack Walker of blackburn, once again highlighting Dawgs very selective memory.”
You are comparing apples and oranges here, Fred. There are many, many different factors involved when comparing the Texas Rangers, Dallas Stars, Chelsea, Blackburn, etc. (And the Stars have been a much, much better club under Hicks than they were for their 3 decades prior to Hicks.)
And many similarities all sports clubs and under Hicks won virtually sweet fa.
Anthony,
Just to conclude our earlier discussion. we appear to be going round in circles.
I am not able to add anything more to what I have already said.