How long left? Ownership battle drags on.
The battle for control of Liverpool Football Club seems to be gathering more momentum in the media than it is in reality, with no real sign yet of any change in position from any of those involved. To summarise, Hicks says he won’t sell and wants to buy; Gillett says he wants to sell but not to Hicks; Dubai say they are going to buy the club soon.
Last week saw Rafa speak of a positive meeting with Tom Hicks over transfers, and although the Spaniard did point out that co-owner George Gillett and CEO Rick Parry were aware of what was said, he made it clear they didn’t attend the talks. Further hints from Rafa suggested the transfer budget would be minimal, but despite that he spoke of being happy he could get the targets he wanted. Time will tell if he’s happy it can make a difference to a league challenge, or just happy that when the names are revealed, nobody will expect a league challenge.
Any chance of increasing that budget depends on the resolution of the ownership situation. Only a takeover leaving one party with a controlling interest would see the transfer budget boosted.
No change.
This is where the club still finds itself - in a position of no change. Although some aspects of the club’s operations can continue during this stand-off, it’s still not able to operate as it could under the control of one entity.
Tom Hicks insists he can find a way of taking control, either by raising the finance to buy George Gillett out himself, or more likely by getting investment to allow him to become majority shareholder with another - or more than one other - investor or investment company. He refuses to sanction any 50:50 ownership deal, and claims he can block any attempt by Gillett to sell his half to anyone else. It is believed that with Gillett still not having formally accepted an offer from Dubai, nothing has yet been tested anyway.
George Gillett has given various reasons for his stated refusal to sell to Hicks. He admitted himself in a Canadian radio interview that he had been previously willing to sell to Hicks, but this was no longer the case. He mentioned having given Hicks time to come up with the goods to buy him out, but having run out of time. He mentioned death threats warning him not to sell any part of his share to Hicks, or else face the consequences. He claimed having almost 2000 emails a day from supporters who didn’t want him to sell to Hicks. Most recently he said he wouldn’t sell to his partner, and that “we need to find a way forward that is properly funded and truly in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club.”
In broad terms DIC haven’t changed their stance either, which is basically that they won’t pay any more than the price they’ve offered, and that they feel sooner or later Gillett and Hicks will have to concede defeat. Very little of what is attributed as coming from DIC is ever from direct quotes, and some contradictions are heard from time to time. Whether this is down to a misunderstanding on the part of those being spoken to, or a case of DIC’s people telling each different person whatever it is they want to hear isn’t too clear. But with no direct quotes it’s unlikely they will ever explain it anyway.
One piece of information that has recently started to filter out of the Dubai camp sounded very much like a piece of information said purely to placate those listening to it.
DIC the investment company.
Even back when DIC were losing their first attempt to buy the club it was often pointed out that DIC are an investment company looking to make a profit. The fact that they were under the wing of the wealthy Dubai Government and that their CEO was a Liverpool fan was nice to hear, but not nice enough to accept them with open arms and no worries. Their website changed its description of their dealings to hide the phrase so often used to attack Tom Hicks, “leveraged buy-outs”, but still showed they’d bought Tussauds for £800m and sold 80% of it two years later for £1bn, a quick-and-easy £200m profit without actually selling their whole stake. They admitted themselves on their own website that it was a leveraged deal, the kind of deal Hicks and Gillett struck to buy LFC.
DIC has only existed as an entity since 2004, so its good track record in terms of making money is only based on a relatively short period of time. The infamous leaked “Project Oslo” document was alleged to have shown a DIC plan to sell up after seven years at Anfield, and it’s worth noting that they’ve not yet had seven years ownership of any of their investments so far.
There are then still unanswered questions, despite many theories, as to why they were prepared to let the club slip out of their hands in 2007 for around half what they will have to pay now. Also worries from some that their reliance on this perception that Tom Hicks is in a precarious financial position sees them fail to make an offer that Hicks would even consider changing his stance for. But with DIC being an investment company, there is a ceiling at which they would feel the investment is either too risky or just not profitable enough, so they wouldn’t raise their price much higher anyway.
The focus has been on how bad Tom Hicks is, but few have stopped to look at DIC’s potential pitfalls. That said, there are more voices starting to raise concerns, more people starting to ask questions.
It has to be remembered that finding fault with DIC, or to be more accurate potential faults, doesn’t make Tom Hicks any better or worse. If a Tom Hicks fault is also one that it turns out DIC have, then it doesn’t mean it’s suddenly not a fault. It’s just a fault both candidates have, and we should be more interested in what they might do to rectify it.
Managers.
One such fault is the approach to the hiring and firing of managers.
One day we’ll read an autobiography or two and find out exactly what went on in the lead-up to Jurgen Klinsmann being asked if he fancied Rafa’s job. It doesn’t matter how you interpret the events or how you apportion the blame, what matters is that any of those involved who do remain at the club know their own part in what happened, and they should recognise where they were at fault. If they remain at the club in the long term they need to ensure they don’t allow such a situation to develop again.
Over the weekend, timed impeccably just days ahead of a clash with Jose Mourinho’s former club Chelsea, came a story that Mourinho had been lined up by DIC to take over the manager’s job if DIC got control. A carefully-worded denial was swiftly issued, with “sources at DIC” denying that they had ever “offered the job to Mourinho, or met him to discuss it”.
Although the timing raises obvious suspicions that it’s an attempt to unsettle Rafa and his boys for Wednesday night, it isn’t the first time such claims have been heard. It remains about as strong a rumour as the Klinsmann approach was before German officials spoke about it and Tom Hicks admitted it; the rumour was little more than gossip until then. DIC obviously can’t offer Mourinho a job that isn’t theirs to offer, but could well have indicated at one stage that he was in line for it should they win their battle. And they can do this without meeting him - by phone or through his agent. The denial doesn’t cover that kind of approach, and with DIC still remaining pretty much unwilling to speak in public their intentions remain clouded in mystery.
And although a majority of fans are still supportive of DIC, this mystery is starting to have a negative impact on a small but growing number of supporters. It’s not a case of sharing points out between Hicks and DIC, taking a point from DIC doesn’t necessarily boost the points total of Tom Hicks. Added to the mystery is the clear evidence that DIC is still an investment company, still looking to make a profit, still not trying to buy the club just to make people happy. It does start to reduce the gap for some supporters, or more accurately, it moves DIC closer to the point where their presence becomes a serious worry. But they started from such a strong position that there is quite some way to go yet before worries are strong enough to protest against them.
Still, it does now seem to have been recognised by the powers-that-be at DIC that some fans are worried about how this deal would work.
First of all, let’s make it clear: DIC have been the entity looking to buy Liverpool FC since this latest saga began. It’s never been about the Sheikh of Dubai buying the club to put alongside his horseracing hobby. After all, much has been made of how Sameer Al-Ansari is a big Liverpool fan and how his presence would ensure Liverpool weren’t messed about again. Sameer is the CEO of DIC. All along these talks have been between DIC and the current owners. Amanda Staveley of PCP Capital Partners has been negotiating on behalf of DIC. The leaked email from Tom Hicks that appeared in the Telegraph last month was to Al-Ansari, in his role as DIC CEO, to his office at DIC’s HQ. And that’s where the meeting was held, between Hicks representatives and DIC representatives. It could of course just be a coincidence, but a Liverpool-supporting DIC executive was sacked just after that failed meeting. Al-Ansari has been rarely quoted on this issue, but he has been quoted.
DIC not to buy LFC?
But now it’s changed. The FT has reported what has been getting rumoured quietly for the last week or two. DIC aren’t buying LFC. It’s the Sheikh himself, or at least it’s coming out of his own money!
The report says that “Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, is playing an active role in negotiations over Liverpool Football Club.” It adds that this could see LFC “wholly owned and guaranteed … by a sovereign state.”
The FT says that although DIC have been the company the talks have “been channelled through”, their information is that this is no longer the case. As ever, there are no names mentioned in terms of the source of the information, but “people close to the situation say… Sheikh Mohammed has taken a close personal interest. He receives personal regular updates on developments by PCP Capital Partners”.
PCP are of course the partnership whose representative Amanda Staveley has been involved in talks on behalf of DIC with the club’s current owners. She met representatives of SoS last week, before attending the Chelsea game with Al-Ansari.
The FT report also speculates that “the club’s future may become clearer tomorrow night if the team fails to win the second leg of its Champions League semi-final at Chelsea.” This may of course be true, but based on last year’s figures a place in the final was worth an extra £3.2m, which is hardly the kind of money to be a deal-changer in a transaction worth anything from £400m to £500m. Even winning the competition would bring £5.5m, again not a significant figure in a deal of this size. That said, an article in the Express today speculates on why the end of Liverpool’s CL run could be significant.
The FT also make a claim about the Sheikh’s own support of LFC. The “boyhood Red” claims of a few months back are now changed to “Sheikh Mohammed is a Liverpool supporter dating back to the early 1980s.” The boyhood Red claim always seemed a touch unrealistic, given that he was 15 by the time Shanks won his first Division 1 title with the club in 1964. Shortly after this he did spend some time studying in the UK, but even this 1980s claim has been played down privately by “those close to the deal”.
But at least his son is a fan, says the FT article: “Hamdan bin Mohammed, his 25-year-old son, who in February was named crown prince, is a fanatical supporter.” There’s no easily-found evidence of Hamdan being a supporter of any team in particular, but his older brother is happier to show his colours. Sheikh Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum was pictured in a Manchester United shirt last month.
With 17 children it must be tough for their father to keep them all happy, so Rashid is less likely to get his dad to buy him a football team!
The FT goes on to say that LFC would now not be owned by DIC after all, and tying in with other information coming from the PCP camp it would be owned by “a vehicle of the Dubai government - partly via PCP”.
This of course, if true, does make some of the fears about Dubai ownership a little less pressing. There’s hardly been any doubt that the state of Dubai’s finances are in good condition, or that DIC wouldn’t have the amount of money to put in from their plans. The worry was their plans, as an investment company, would not have “fans with smiling faces and a full trophy room” even on the first page, let alone as a main priority. More needs to be explained by Dubai, or PCP, and not from behind the safety of anonymity, but for the first time, since even before the first DIC bid, there is a possibility of investment being made in the club without profit as the top priority.
Questions still need to be raised as to why this has only just become the case. Why were DIC the original interested party, and why has it only now been taken out of their hands? There are endless possible reasons for why, including the fact that by owning up to the funding coming in effect from the Sheik’s own wallet that the two current owners would be able to try and hold out for more. Instead of being fobbed of by a DIC business plan showing a return over seven years leading to an exit from the club, the owners would see that LFC were being bought without such restrictions in mind.
Step up the attack?
Some people are already asking why, if the Sheikh is personally involved and determined to become the owner of LFC for reasons other than profit, he’s not dipped a little deeper into his personal fortune with his bid. The most-commonly quoted figure of £400m suggests a profit of £25m each for Hicks and Gillett, which does not compare favourably with the amount of money to be made each year by LFC on fulfilling its potential commercially. Rather than let the club be dragged through a mess that all parties have helped ensure was played out embarrassingly and in public, a higher bid might just have tests Hicks’ resolve not to sell.
DIC, or Dubai, have believed for some time that Tom Hicks is about to run out of time in terms of not only getting the money to buy the rest of LFC, but also to keep his other sports interests afloat. Their strategy has certainly been based in part on that assumption.
Today’s Express carries a story that has been heard before. No, not a Diana story. Harry Harris: Bankers tell Hicks to sell talks of how US firm JP Morgan has “told Tom Hicks ‘time is up’ on his huge loans and are calling on the Texan to sell his 50 per cent stake in Liverpool.”
Another Hicks-on-the-brink story.
Harris writes that Morgans are “getting jittery at Hicks’ failure to raise the required capital to buy out co-owner George Gillett, who has agreed to sell his share of the club to Dubai International Capital.”
The story that his US loans are due to be called in has been doing the rounds for some time, although it’s not getting much coverage in the US for some reason. Harris it seems has also been speaking to Dubai’s people, saying “Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum (is) taking a personal interest in the end game of their proposed Anfield takeover.”
He also says he believes Hicks’ visits to Melwood and Anfield last week were “a facade - that Hicks is playing hardball, merely trying to hang on for a bigger offer before selling out.”
Again using figures that were bandied about a few weeks back, around the time of the Arsenal away leg in the Champions League, he writes: “He values the Hicks Sports Group… at £1billion, with the Premier League club making up 75 per cent of that figure.” And before anyone points out that he didn’t use JP Morgan to get his half of that £350m finance package in January, Harris says: “it is JP Morgan who bankroll the group.”
The reason for their worry, according to Harris, is “they see a buyer and worry it may fall through”.
And he says he’s getting the information from a “well-connected City source” who tells him that “Hicks is being so heavily squeezed by JP Morgan he may be forced to sell sooner rather than later.”
Then comes the explanation of why tomorrow night’s result matters: “They are sensitive to Liverpool’s bid to reach the Champions League final and will not pull the plug on Hicks’ loans until that campaign ends - tomorrow or after the final in Moscow on May 21.”
Hicks may well have issues with his US finances, it’s been rumoured often enough, but that last statement is difficult to believe. As was mentioned above, winning tomorrow night would only guarantee LFC an extra £3.2m, possibly £5.5m if they went on to win outright in Moscow. At most Tom Hicks gets an extra £2.75m if the Reds go all the way, or £1.6m if they are runners up.
Those Harris figures seem odd too. According to what he’s written, Tom Hicks’ half of LFC is worth 75% of £1bn. This of course would be £750m just for 50% of LFC, making the club worth a total of £1.5bn. Where does this figure come from? And why would a possible £1.6m make a significant difference?
It would be good if a source in the US financial arena could comment, but Harris says his man from the city had this explanation: “Hicks’ bankers are getting very nervous about his ability to finance his debt. They can see a buyer for his Liverpool shares, and as there is only one out there, they are worried it might fall through. They cannot allow that to happen. He owes the banks, and they want him to sell up. Hicks has had his chances to raise money, but in the current markets he has been unable to do that.”
If Hicks has agreements in place for finance, and is keeping to the agreements, for example making any regular payments, then it’s difficult to see how the banks would interfere. There might be a credit crunch going on, but the last thing they need to do is turn away somebody who is actually paying them money to help keep them afloat.
The “well placed source” admitted that he had been told Hicks’ existing finance had two years to run: “Hicks’ camp continue to suggest he doesn’t need to refinance until 2010, but that doesn’t add up with Hicks trying as hard as he has been for some time now to find other partners.” Yet it does add up with Hicks trying to get control of Liverpool FC, with the help of third parties.
The club currently has £60m sitting in wait to start work on the new stadium. This is part of the £105m finance that was put onto the club’s books in January. It’s widely believed that LFC would have no problems raising the remainder of the finance for the stadium, as and when required during the life of the construction project. Not according to the “well-placed source”, who claims: “If Hicks can hold out until 2010, then he hasn’t got the personal resources to either add anything to the transfer budget or raise more loans to build the stadium. That again applies even greater pressure to his personal financial situation.”
Another missed deadline.
Harris is hardly the most favourite of journalists for Liverpool fans, but there’s a danger that many fans will believe what he says on this story - because they just want it to be true. There’s no harm in wanting it to be true, to wish for an end to the mess, but it’s dangerous to take such stories at face value. Harris wrote in February that “Liverpool will be Arab-owned within a month” before going on to explain how he had written the story after he had “seen confidential financial analysis of Liverpool’s predicament, commissioned by DIC”. And that would be impartial analysis too no doubt.
Cynics will dismiss it, but back in the US Hicks has seen a link between winning things and selling tickets. Past quotes from Hicks have suggested he felt winning wasn’t important, fans would turn up no matter what, but the latest quotes suggest he realised this isn’t the case. His Dallas Stars hockey team are progressing well in the Stanley Cup playoffs, which is the big prize for those in the NHL. They currently lead 2-0 in a best of seven matches “Conference Semi Final”, and if they can win two of those next five games would be into the “Conference Finals”. That itself can lead to the “Stanley Cup Finals”. There’s still some way to go, but Hicks says the success so far is attracting supporters to commit themselves: “We’re getting our season-ticket base back, and that’s what it is all about. Dallas is a city that loves winners. Whether it’s the Stars or the Mavs or the Cowboys - and hopefully someday it’s going to be the Rangers again - there’s a lot more interest when they feel like you’re going to win.”
But who’s going to win the battle for control of Anfield? Are those in the running actually trying hard enough? Is Hicks trying hard but still having a run like Dirk Kuyt’s hard-working low-scoring mid-season spell? Are DIC just sitting back complacently thinking the game’s already won, risking an unexpected own goal just as it looked to be over?
It’s like listening to the last part of a match on the radio, with no clear idea of how long there is left to go in the match, trusting others to describe what’s happening and nobody telling you the score “if you’ve just got in”. Listening and listening for a clue to what the score might be, to how long is left, hoping the commentators going to use words like “Liverpool trying to extend their lead” rather than “Liverpool nearly getting themselves an undeserved point”.
Dubai have now brought their sub on, or their secret weapon, the player with a reputation in other games that says he’s got the potential of having what it takes to put this one beyond doubt. But potential on its own isn’t enough, neither is reputation, and if this Dubai star can’t put the ball in the net soon then the less-fancied guy for the other side might just sneak a winner. And if that less-fancied guy thinks he’s capable of sneaking a winner, he needs to start shouting for the ball.
Er, Jim, re. DIC to say (and highlight):
‘But at least his son is a fan, says the FT article: “Hamdan bin Mohammed, his 25-year-old son, who in February was named crown prince, is a fanatical supporter.” There’s no easily-found evidence of Hamdan being a supporter of any team in particular, but his older brother is happier to show his colours. Sheikh Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum was pictured in a Manchester United shirt last month.
…takes balance away from what was a detailed post!
My eldest brother’s a Notts Forrest supporter - and has been since he were a kid.
My younger brother supports liverpool, as i do, clearly. And I’d say we’re the most fervent football supporters my elder brother would disagree.
My dad doesn’t really watch football. But if he had to take one sons judgement over an another, he’d take mine! Maybe that’s what’s happening with DIC/the Sheikh.
Jim, concentrate on what I think you’re very good at - drawing together the previous facts. Leave the innuendo to others, I say.
Thanks for the read.
I can understand what you mean by DIC being an investment company looking to make a tidy profit in the future, but is’nt that what Hicks is trying to do? He knows full well that if Liverpool Football Club had a business model like Man Utd and Chelsea, headed by a CEO who knew what he/she was doing, the club could be worth much much more.
I think it’s fair to say that we don’t know what DIC’s intentions are but I think the fact they are willing to meet supporters groups before any takeover shows they have a better understanding of how to run a football club.
Every decision Hicks (and Gillette) has ever made whilst in charge has been purely for personal gain or to save face, e.g. wanting to sack Rafa at the earliest opportunity. I find it hard to believe that this would change should he gain full control.
Of course DIC are in it to gain financially aswell but I find it hard to believe they will make decisions based on pride should it have an adverse effect on the club. I’d like to think that the Hicks/Gillette debacle has opened their eyes somewhat but I guess we won’t know if when (if) they take over.
Although it may be insignificant in the scheme of things I also find it depressing Rafa will not have much to spend for a title challenge next season.
Jim - I understand your points on why this is only paper talk but even in paper talk there is no smoke without fire.
Jim - You also seem to be missing the other point where you try to justify one owner over another. It doesn’t matter who owns LFC the fans will be taking it up the backside anyway we always do. The only people who will benefit from this is whoever owns the club. The men in suits who have a licence to print money at the fans expense.
Right,
Jim Boardman i have doubts that you dont like muslims,your working for tom hicks or either your just racist.
every artilce you have wrote is anti-dic and ok-hicks!!! that picture with a sheikh and a “supposed player” was he??? that is not sheikh mo’s son.. he is just a random sheikh for kuwait!!
the way you write your article is to say that were ok with hicks, dic are going to do this, do that, your just against them!!! why??
you dont make sense and i hope the real reds are not taking in your kak.
who gives a crap whether its dic or sheikh mo who is investing. long as were not 4th in the league for anothe 5-10 years. they have plans for the team to be the best in the world and the richest! i have lived in dubai they have not said anything about people bad talking them, hicks said they not going to invest on players,whether they going to keep rafa (now they have as hicks pr was using that against dic) and many more talk but bu**shi* talk is cheap to them. they elegant and not cheap. they only talk if they have to!! your wrong!!
how much hicks paying you hey????
I reckon that if DIC took over the club then LFC would benefit from a battle of the oil barron’s ego’s. I do not think that the Sheikh would want to be out done by a ruskie oil barron who is only worth 11 Billion.
Jim - The Dubai royal family is split into various factions with the Sheikh who is looking to get his hands on LFC being worth about 30 billion, is that all the family or just that faction being worth 30 billion?
The 90 day exclusivity period that Hicks has to buyout Gillett is nearing expiry. At that point, Gillette will be free to sell his 50% share to DIC although likely that Hicks will contest this.
DIC with the support of the majority of the board will be able to sanction a rights issue for shareholders to subscribe to new shares and invest further into LFC. Hicks would effectively have to invest further sums or face his shareholding being diluted to a point that DIC have overall control. This explains Hicks urgency to replace Parry with a friendly director on the board who could veto such a rights issue.
HIcks biggest fear is that he would have to raise new money in a very difficult funding environment or sell other assets to maintain his shareholding in LFC.
All in all, May and June will be a very time for the lawyers! DIC will end up with majority control and Hicks will end up retaining a minority stake. DIC spelt out their long term intentions effectively sending a message to Hicks that he would be better off selling his stake to DIC rather than sit with an illiquid stake in LFC.
Jim, in the interest of balance you should do an article on the pros and cons of both owners.
Forget the PR and paper talk rubbish.
I would bet at the end of that exercise you would be fairly clear on what is best for the club.
You always shy away from the financial mess Hicks is in and how he has no money to bring the club forward.
By the way I agree with Midlands Red above. What’s the relevance of his older brother being a Man U fan?
I see the Man City fans honey moon with Frank Sinatra will be over, Sven is going at the end of the season. Its a load of shit he’s only had 12 months and not been giving time to build a team. Thats the problem with foreign owners they think that because they throw money at a club they automaticaly have a right to start winning the league and getting into the champion’s league.
A biased piece against DIC, yet again. It has been quite some time (3-4 days) since we did not have the enlightened comments of Jim on DIC. Was expecting it to be honest since I saw the news today!
Please anyone of the pro-Hicks people, can you just list the single most important advantage that Hicks has over DIC in being long term owner or our club. I did ask Jim this question last time but he very carefully dodged it. I guess that Jim wants to be stay neutral in this saga and would not want to come across as a Hicks apologist!!! Cynical, me…no!
“I can understand what you mean by DIC being an investment company looking to make a tidy profit in the future, but is’nt that what Hicks is trying to do?”
No, Gurdeep. He just wants to own a great sports club. He has owned the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars for over a decade, and those are both worth much more than what he paid for them. Yet he has not sold either one. Why? Because he likes owning sports teams.
@midlands-red: Thanks MR, I appreciate your thoughts.
As far as the Man U shirt on the other brother’s concerned, I found that a few weeks ago, and only went back to check it today really to make sure it wasn’t the same brother mentioned by the FT. If I was as biased as some have said of late I’d have made a big feature of it back then! In light of today’s story I thought it was worth pointing out, if anything just to stop it turning into a reason to “Vote DIC” in this big battle!
The point really is that it’s not all that relevant to mention this son’s fanatical support of LFC. And is it not putting a bit of balance into things to point out that at least one of the 17 kids the Sheikh has is a possible Man U fan? What is the most likely reason for the reporter being told of the Crown Prince’s support of LFC? Dubai’s people aren’t going to mention it because they were just having a general chat about the family.
I always felt it odd that there was no anecdotal evidence of the Sheikh’s lifetime support of LFC, and the stories of him being a boyhood Red never really fitted in with his age, with LFC’s success and with overseas coverage of games. I can accept he’d be wary of turning up at Anfield on a regular basis, but it’s struck me as odd for a while that there have never been stories from dinner guests from his racing engagements and so on.
We were only ever told about this “boyhood Red” Sheikh claim to persuade us to put more weight behind the DIC campaign, and that’s what the claim about the son seemed to be today.
It would actually have been a nicer touch to discuss friendly rivalries between the brothers over football. I’m sure there are.
As for your brother, did he start supporting them when they were good?
Jim, your underhand support of Hicks is becoming tiresome. This piece is just a snide attack on DIC.
Its funny how you do not spell out what Hicks has brought to Liverpool i.e. unprofessonal conduct which has set the club back years and might even result in us losing our manager come the end of the season - Raffa’s no fool he knows Hicks has been using him in his political games to try and win the fans over.
All the fans know that DIC want to buy the club in order to make a profit, but at least they have a track record of investing the right amonut of money to get the right result whilst they own the asset. What track record has Hicks got? Shall we mention Corinthians, with his empty promises to build a stadium and a title winning team - no let’s not Jim it would’nt fit in with your propaganda.
What has Hicks brought us? Rafa having to go cap in hand for mostly ‘potenial’ players, the sell before you buy policy of Hicks - Who can forget Rafa’s out burst after Athens, which was designed to flush out the yanks all talk and no action policy, only you it seems.
One good thing that will come about DIC taking over the club, is that we will not have to put up with that abhorrent Hicks trying to sing YNWA for a PR exercise.
“What track record has Hicks got? Shall we mention Corinthians, with his empty promises to build a stadium and a title winning team - no let’s not Jim it would’nt fit in with your propaganda.”
You mean like your not mentioning the Stars and the American Airlines Center?
Jim on the whole that was a well written article, Thank you .but I agree with Midlands-Red. What relevence that one of Sheikh Mo’s 16 kids supports manure ? There are only three brothers in my family, one is a Chelsea fan, does that effect or tarnish my rightto support Liverpool football Club or buy a share in Share LiverpoolFC ?
As someone else mentioned, you have a great ability to investigate and draw together vast pieces of information and put it together into a Balanced well written article.
As to DIC, until Al-Ansari or the Sheikh himself come out and catagoricaly state their intentions toward my beloved club, i will remain cautiously pragmatic
i understand the need for PR but the “DIC sources tell us” popping up once in a while , does’nt wash anymore, as you’ve pointed out yourself Jim they directly or indirectly have made some big claims.
Now they need to back it up with actions.
It would be a very interesting read should you take up Stephen’s challange. I myself would like to see what an comprehensive investigation of DIC would read like.
@Gurdeep: You seem to be making the same point I am. Namely that DIC are going to have to change policy to be the kind of owners that a lot of people think they could be.
And yes, DIC and Hicks can see just how much money-making potential is unrealised at Anfield.
There’s no obligation (or even expectation perhaps) on either to put success on the field ahead of profit.
Which is why the idea of an entity higher up the chain than DIC buying the club is obviously more attractive.
My only concern is why the change of tack? It could be positive, that Dubai have realised they’ll be the subject of serious protests if their original plans went into practice. It could negative, that Dubai realise they need to cover up those original plans even if they’re going to still use them.
The difference between DIC buying us and an equivalent of the Sheikh’s horseracing group buying us is pretty big, potentially. I hope they’re not misleading us.
Jim, I echo what other Liverpool fans on this site have asked. Can you please address the issue of what Hicks has brought and will bring to the club in the future. Are we blind or something because i can’t see anything.
Please address
1). £350m debt the club is servicing (not £105m)
List of minor investors?? Who are they?? or more importanty where are they??
2). Hicks’ record with Corinthians
3). Hicks’ record in the US with the Rangers and Stars.
4). Hicks’ relationship with the Banks and how any problems with this ie banks wanting money back and Liverpool FC doesn’t have any buyers (then what - player sales etc)
5) Stadium finance - how will this happen?
6). Hicks’ pending offer ‘that can’t be refused’ to Gillett. Where is it?
7). Hicks’ record of improving our commecial operations?
9) Sponsorship where are our extra sponsors - he’s had 15 months!
10) the transfer budget available to Rafa since he took over.
11) His attitude to Rafa since he took over
12) His pass the book attitude of its everybody elses fault yet he’s the co owner!!
Anyway - off the watch Utd get beaten.
But Jim I would appreciate a response.
@Anthony Fakir: “Jim - I understand your points on why this is only paper talk but even in paper talk there is no smoke without fire.”
Not always - as Liverpool fans know full well.
In this instance you could be right (I’m guessing you’re talking about the difficulties with the US banks). There are no doubt ways where the loans could be called in early, but it would reflect badly on the banks if they did.
Jim - You also seem to be missing the other point where you try to justify one owner over another. It doesn’t matter who owns LFC the fans will be taking it up the backside anyway we always do. The only people who will benefit from this is whoever owns the club. The men in suits who have a licence to print money at the fans expense.
It’s not a case of justifying one owner over the other. I keep saying that I genuinely don’t believe it’s our choice. We’ll get what we’re given, like it or not, in my view.
We need to be wary, we need to make sure the owners or potential owners know we’re wary, and that we’re watching them. Just as they’re negotiating with each other over price, they should be negotiating with us too.
We need to be ready to get whoever wins this battle to keep tweaking their plans until they are doing more of the things we want, we might find we never really stop negotiating.
@Andy-K: You should try reading the article again.
The latest score from Castle Greyskull: Manc U 1 - 0 Barca.
Sorry for being the bearer of bad news.
” Not always - as Liverpool fans know full well.
In this instance you could be right (I’m guessing you’re talking about the difficulties with the US banks). There are no doubt ways where the loans could be called in early, but it would reflect badly on the banks if they did. ”
Jim - Yes I know what your talking about, but that was one individual telling pork pies and the powers that be telling a shit load of lies to cover their own backsides. This is numerous sources making the same claims, so it would be impossible to imply that there is not more to this than just pork pies on the papers part. Also all these people who are making these claims seem to be well connected and knowledgeable peeps.
Jim - Not just that the USA is officialy in a recession. Bush has given 72 billion tax rebate to try and kick start the economy. The shit is really bad over there. Even the banks over here are onto the Bank of England because there is a liquidity problem, the banks has got no money!
Jim
i read your pieces on a regular basis, and it’s good that someone is doing some detailed analysis of the situation
But you don’t half go on.
Good journalism isn’t always about volume. You don’t need to regurgitate all the arguments, or copy/paste what’s been written in the newspapers - maybe just give us the relevant links
You lose readers because it’s page after page
Just my two penneth
cheers
@adam shiraz: I’ve been through this crap about being on Tom Hicks’ payroll before and I’m only mentioning it now so I can get onto the rest of your ludicrous claims.
I think you might want to look at yourself before dishing out allegations of racism.
Believe it or not people can be complete tossers irrespective of race or religion. And I’m not talking about Hicks, Gillett, DIC, the Sheikh or anyone else involved in this takeover situation.
You must struggle through life if you assume that people can only judge others after looking at their skin colour.
You’ve not even got a clue what my race is!
That picture was taken from an article which is linked to just before the picture. If you’d opened your other eye you might have noticed. http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/Sheikh_Rashid_endorses_a_book_on_Manchester_United_/27093.htm
Sheikh Rashid endorses a book on Manchester United
posted on 07/10/2007
Sheikh Rashid bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum signed here yesterday a documentary book on the history of Manchester United football club. The book will be an item at a charity auction, which will be held by the Dubai Sports Council (DSP) on Oct., 24th at Jumeirah Beach Hotel. The copy bears the photo of Vice-President and Prime Minister of UAE and Ruler of Dubai H.H. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum The event was attended by Ahmed Saad Al Sherif, Secretary General of the DSC and Brigadier Mohammed Ahmed Al Merri, Director of the Dubai Naturalisation and Residency Department (DNRD).Earlier the DSP announced to hold a major charity auction as per instructions of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Chairman of the Dubai Executive Council (DEC) in line with the “Dubai Cares” campaign launched by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid. (Emirates News Agency, WAM)
Where the hell does it mention Kuwait in there?
You’ve not read this article, and you do your cause (for Dubai to take over) more harm than good with accusations like you made.
There are people in this world suffering at the hands of racists but what you’ve done is pretty bad too.
” You must struggle through life if you assume that people can only judge others after looking at their skin colour. ”
adam shiraz - If you venture down to the Anfield area of Liverpool you will see a solitary figure religously cleaning anti Hick’s grafity of the walls. Then you can see what race the man known as ‘Jim B’ is. I think he is a pinkish colour, with bright yellow hair.
@Adam Tomkin: There is no 90 day period. I’m in no doubt at all about this now, I’ve had confirmation from far too many different people now to believe otherwise.
Gillett still hasn’t accepted an offer, and until he does the Tom Hicks veto can’t be tested. DIC are confident that they can successfully take him to court there and then if he tries to block it. No reasons have been specified.
The LFC board is irrelevant I’m afraid. It’s the management committee above this, consisting of two people, Hicks and Gillett, that makes the decisions. When they can agree. Most of what is said about the LFC board is wrong.
If DIC were able to force Hicks out purely by investing further sums of money into the club, then do you not think Tom Hicks would have exercised the exact same right by now to force Gillett out?
@Stephen: If I wanted to write such an article without using PR and paper talk I’d struggle to find much out at all. I was looking for something else earlier today and found an article on Hicks buying 40% of some medical-related company or other last summer. The official releases had no mention of what he paid. I didn’t bother digging any deeper but chances are the only way I’d find the amounts would be to find some paper talk somewhere detailing what they were told by “a source familiar with negotiations”!
Can you find me some actual, non-PR, non-paper-talk, evidence of the financial mess Hicks is in? I’m not saying he isn’t when I ask that, I’m just asking if you think you could find something.
If I did do anything, would I have to start from when DIC were formed and have that date as a cut-off point for both parties?
All in all it’s not a case of who’s best: it’s not a vote. One or other will take over.
Jim,
You’re a windbag of heroric proportions living in a fog. Gillett is going to sell to someone other than Hicks (guess who ?) and even before the credit crunch Hicks did not have the finances to even commence the stadium. There’s only other show in town…….take it fom there.
” You’re a windbag of heroric proportions living in a fog. Gillett is going to sell to someone other than Hicks (guess who ?) and even before the credit crunch Hicks did not have the finances to even commence the stadium. There’s only other show in town…….take it fom there. ”
Jofrad - I bloody hope he does it soon because the suspense is killing me. The tap is still dripping. ARGH, HELP, I’M GOING INSANE!
@ash: You should try reading things ash. Again, it’s not a case of who’s best.
If we were picking the candidates for an election or a job interview we’d be able to think of it that way, but we don’t get a vote or a choice.
It will be far better for the club if whoever does take over has listened to genuine concerns about issues that can actually be worked on. I’m not big-headed enough to assume that my views would make even a slight difference, but wouldn’t it be good if it was the showing of concern over DIC being an investment company that resulted in the Sheikh stepping in to make it something more flexible that bought the club?
SOMEONE MAKE IT STOP! I’M SORRY! I WONT DO IT AGAIN! I PROMISE!
Sorry Anthony it won’t stop just yet ……..and after its all over there’s the inquest. The only cure is to stay away from the site !
Jofrad - Its like a drug, it hurts but I just can’t stop. I need help or councelling. Or just one owner would do (preferably DIC the one’s with the deep pockets).
“The shit is really bad over there”
Yes, Anthony… I’m stocking up on canned food and bottled water for my secret bunker as we speak. The collapse will come any day now!
Dawg - I don’t think that the market is going to crash, but you are in a recesion.
” The collapse will come any day now! ”
Dawg - Are you being sarcastic or serious there?
Anthony,
I know me too ! I keep vowing to stay away but then somebody says something to the effect that Hicks is such a reasonable guy trying to best for the club and I can’t help myself !
Jofrad - I think we’re sadists.
Dawg - Have you heard over in the states about the man in Austria who kept his daughter locked up for 24 years and had 7 kids by her?
“Dawg - I don’t think that the market is going to crash, but you are in a recesion.”
That’s fine, Anthony. That’s a part of life. Markets go up, then correct, then go up, etc. Same thing that’s been happening in the US for decades.
And even in a weaker economy, many Americans are doing just fine or even very well, Anthony.
Life rolls on, amigo.
“Dawg - Have you heard over in the states about the man in Austria who kept his daughter locked up for 24 years and had 7 kids by her?”
Yes, Anthony. Sad story.
Dawg - There has been a huge era of growth since the second world war. There was a program on over here, right the people who caused the credit crunch are the one people who are not losing out because of the credit crunch, lost thier jobs maybe. These people got rewarded for taking risks, thats how they got their bonuses. The markets where saturated with cheap credit so they looked for other places to start dishing out credit to i.e. subprime loans and mortgages. They got bonuses for taking them risks made billions when the bubble burst they lost their jobs and walked away with the millions that they where paid for taking those risks. All the high end hotel rooms in the Indian ocean where fully booked during the credit crunch, Rolls Royce have a 3 - 4 year waiting list for a car. All this while the people who they took a gamble on lost everything.
Castle Greyskull Result: Manc U 1 - 0 Barca.
Sorry Boys.
@Stephen: Some of the questions I don’t know the answers to, and have never said I did. Hicks, Gillett or DIC, we only know what they want us to know, or what they can let us know about their opponents!
1). £350m debt the club is servicing (not £105m)
The club was servicing, off the top of my head, £298m from the day of the takeover. This newer, larger figure includes £60m for the new stadium. The interest rate is not £30m a year, it’s something like £25m, which is still sizeable. The shareholders, board, and anyone who read the offer documentation knew about the £298m of purchase debt that the owners had taken out when they sent the paperwork off to sell their shares. Some of them were helped with their decision because of the rights it gave them for tickets if they agreed by a certain deadline.
I’ve no idea whether LFC have paid a penny in interest on what’s been borrowed so far, either the £298m or the £350m. I’ve no idea what kind of schedule is in place. If you (or anyone else) knows of anywhere we could find this out then I’d like to see it.
It comes across as crying over spilt milk in many ways, it’s not nice to have all this debt but we can’t say we didn’t know. Parry, Moores and Morgan certainly knew.
2). Hicks’ record with Corinthians
I’ve not found time to look into this in any detail using references I could trust. The headline version of what happened doesn’t sound good, far from it, but given how much I’ve read in the past 6 months that was exaggerated when I did get time to check then I’d like to look into it more before going on about it.
3). Hicks’ record in the US with the Rangers and Stars.
What do you judge his record on? Money invested? Success? Improvement in relation to past performance? Views of all the fans or just the ones who shout loudest?
4). Hicks’ relationship with the Banks and how any problems with this ie banks wanting money back and Liverpool FC doesn’t have any buyers (then what - player sales etc)
What can we find out about this that isn’t tarnished by one side or the other? DIC will tell you banks lock the doors when they see him coming, Hicks will tell you they lock the doors when he’s already in because they want him to have their full attention.
Banks wanting money back? If you mean interest payments, it’s up to him to use any profits the club makes, and to back it up with his own money. If you believe him that would never be a problem, if you believe DIC he’s not got a bean to do that with. There’s no proof one way or the other. The one thing in his favour is that RBS lent him the money, even with the guy most people accept as being worse off financially as his partner. The two main criteria they had to lend him money was 1) that the club could meet any interest or other payments on it and 2) that they had security in place just in case they couldn’t. Selling players was never likely to be an option that was put forward at the time of trying to get the finance, suggesting they must have proof of the means to get the money in, and I’m sure RBS asked the question about what would happen if we didn’t qualify for the CL.
5) Stadium finance - how will this happen?
£60m is in place to get it moving. The club then goes to the bank for the rest as and when it needs it. It’s like a mortgage. There are lots of ways this can be done, interest can be deferred, or they can tie it in with a naming-rights deal. I’ve had people quite anti-DIC who’ve admitted to me that with that initial £60m in place the finance is relatively straightforward to get.
6). Hicks’ pending offer ‘that can’t be refused’ to Gillett. Where is it?
I don’t know about an offer that can’t be refused, but it needs to at least match the DIC offer if Hicks wants Gillett to consider it. I can give you more than one theory about where it is. 1) It’s already in front of DIC. 2) It’s ready, but Hicks is waiting for the right time before making the offer. 3) It’s not coming. Of those, only the first one has been mentioned as being the case by anyone I’d trust at all, but even then I’m not convinced given that I’ve not heard it from those who would gain most by saying it was true.
7). Hicks’ record of improving our commecial operations?
Ian Ayre was appointed as commercial director about six months ago, and he’s only recently got his staff in place. His first step, I believe, was looking at the current deals we’re tied into, and whether they could be backed out of or renegotiated. I’ve not heard any interviews with him other than a couple of sentences a couple of weeks ago so it’s never been made clear just what’s going on behind the scenes.
I can see the frustration at what seems to be a lack of action, but appointing our first ever commercial director is surely a step in the right direction. We’re tied in with Adidas who aren’t a bad company to be with, but our shirt sponsor needs changing to one that has money to spend based on its worldwide presence.
Same answer to question 6 really. I doubt names would be revealed in public until everything was signed.
9) Sponsorship where are our extra sponsors - he’s had 15 months!
See above.
10) the transfer budget available to Rafa since he took over.
Since he and Gillett took over we’ve had all kinds of claims about what we’ve had to spend and what we should have had to spend.
The issue has been above all else that Gillett said he’d “agreed a plan” with Rafa, and to this day I believe he insists Rafa got what he asked for. Yet we had these murmerings in the summer that Rafa felt he’d been shortchanged. To be honest I need to go back and read what was actually said, because a lot of Rafa’s frustrations were aimed at Rick Parry and his phone-off approach to life.
11) His attitude to Rafa since he took over
I maintain that if Rafa is now happy with his attitude that they’ve settled their differences rather than let old issues drag them down. Or Rafa’s putting a brave face on. He’s not done it yet, but I think a 12-month extension to Rafa’s contract is sufficient to show new faith in him. A lot of fans were calling for Rafa’s head in January/February. We keep hearing hints some players have fallen out with Rafa. I personally feel Rafa is the key person that must stay on regardless of who takes over.
If Hicks has learned from what happened last year and Rafa is happy with that then I don’t personally think it’s a major issue any more.
12) His pass the book attitude of its everybody elses fault yet he’s the co owner!!
I think we all know that Hicks, Gillett, Moores and Parry have played a part in the bad parts of the last year-and-a-bit. How many of them have admitted this?
You asked for my views, I don’t expect you to agree with them, and some things I can’t explain quite as I’d like to for reasons of confidentiality.
@Liam Smith: Thanks Liam - noted!
Jim, once again you seem to be ignoring my posts!!
On Hicks’ financial problems - evidence?
1) The man went cap in hand around the city a couple of weeks ago and came back with nothing,
2) He needs numerous investors to help purchase 1/2 a club - which he has been running around the US looking for.
3) He doesn’t have the finances to start a stadium.
4) He didn’t have the money to buy the club at the start?
5) He hasn’t provided the money to back Rafa.
6) He refuses to answer questions about finance.
I’ll keep it easy for - answer one question. Answer can only be yes or no.
Do you support they way Hicks has run the club?
Yes or No. Simple
Sorry was obviously posting at the same time as you !! My last question still stands though.
Jim,
I have not posted on your discussion area in a long time. I was really going to write some searching comments, but frankly, I don’t have time so I just argue with you in my head in the shower. I don’t agree with the reasoning that you laid out in your “switch” post TBH, but they are yours, so whatever. What is clear is that you are in essence the Hillary in this campaign. You are unable to support a positive vision of Hicks in charge, for the simple fact that there is too much already existing evidence to the contrary. You have a purely negative agenda at this point, and that agenda is to discredit Dubai, which is the great unknown hope, much like Obama is in the US to Democrats. You may be right, but I doubt it.
I think that you really need to put a positive agenda forward, not just attacking Dubai. The standards of English journalism are shockingly low (that’s why your site had attracted so many readers), so I can’t see much point in the press deconstruction you have been conducting lately, You the fuck knows who’s lying, when probably the large majority is either made-up or ridiculous conjecture.
How have the basic facts of the Hicks/Gillett woenership (I like that) changed? People can do what they like. My choice has been that neither of those loathsome fucks will get my money to pay for “my” club, so I am economically boycotting all their interests.
My guess is that you have been wooed by the Hicks camp and promised some sort of fan “voice” in the what has to be unlikely event that Hicks assumes full control. That’s not shameful, and I don’t begrudge you that if true.
I want to thank you for that earlier period of critical thinking and all the time and effort that you took in putting it out. To be honest, I’m not so impressed with the past few weeks, but I am sure that you are being honest to yourself, and probably you are a stubborn guy, and all the criticism that you are facing only increases your changed viewpoint. Take a breather, step back and look at the forest from the trees, and you just might get back to your old position. But if you don’t, I’ll probably still read your posts (TBH skipping bits) to see if you have a case. And negative attacks on a future hypothetical probably don’t do it for most analytically minded people.
also, i don’t think you should continue to big-up your access to confidential information. if you can’t make it public, then it should be more-or-less left out. after all, you continue to make the point that we should not take peoples’ words on what’s going on, and i don’t take your’s, what i do is look at your arguments in relation to the facts that you present. and i’m sure that most of your readers are the same.
I can’t wait for this all to just end.
I honestly do not know who I want to takeover anymore. I know I don’t want Hicks to takeover, definitely, but if people actually listened to what Jim is saying instead of lambasting him all the time they might learn something, which brings me to my next point…
The unintelligent deal in absolutes. There are no absolutely right or absolutely wrong potential owners vying for our club. All Jim has written has attempted to bring some balance and objectivity to the table. Because everyone (including myself) is pro-dic, anti-hicks, it seems like Jim must be the opposite, but if you actually read what he writes it’s not “Hicks Propaganda” at all.
People are deluded and for the record, fucking idiots, if they are prepared to make the same mistake that was made with Hicks and Gillett. But the attitude that eminates repeatedly from certain bloggers is eluding to doing just that.
Hicks has made a complete mess and he’s not fit to own our club imo, but if people aren’t prepared to even accept that there’s a possiblity that DIC are potentially worse, thats right worse, owners than H&G then they have no right to comment on here in the future if DIC takeover and it goes pear shaped.
Instead of a simple minded knee jerke reaction to any DIC criticism, have a think back to how you felt after the Amercians 1st press conference. And then think how you feel now…
btw Adam Shiraz - Pot calling the kettle black, literally. You’re a disgrace.
Rant over.
Jim thanks for your reply. I think you need to step back a bit and have a good look at Liverpool FC. You are blinded by Hicks and DIC’s PR. So much so that you can’t the wood from the trees. This is about the future of our club - the fact that i could put that list together off the top of my head says that the club is in shit and its Hicks/Gilletts club - not Parry or Moores.
1) Whats this £298m rubbish. Simple fact Debt = £350m
2) He owns our club and you can’t be bothered to look into Corithians. Why what are you afraid to find??
Corinihians 2000 World Club Champions
Corinthians 2008 Serie B in Brazil
3) Record is based on improving the club - isn’t that what we are looking for someone with a proven track record in improving clubs?
4) If banks come looking for money then they will force us to sell assets. Its what they do. They bought us not Hicks.
5) Banks are not lending and we need at least £290m. At every day we delay it becomes more. At this stage £350m is a very conservative figure - cost over runs are completely normal in these type of projects.
6) Hicks claimed this on his Sky PR piece
7) Again 15 months and no results and a commercial manager who is interview shy. If I took 15 months to do nothing in my job except hire someone after 9 months who also has done nothing i’d doubt I still have my job or my hired help.
9) Again are you happy that after 15 months we don’t ever have a potential backer of out new stadium!! This could easily be set up prior to work on it. I know in ireland we’ve had naming rights on new stadiums agreed well before any construction. It gives the company a couple of years of free advertising while we build the ‘Coca Cola’ stadium.
10) I’m not asking about claims I asking about facts. What - £20M?? (Mascherano’s deal was over the course of his contract). I’m glad moores sold so that we have less than our champions league revenue to spend on transfers - nice.
11) Rafa knows he is being used but has the good grace to put the club first.
12) He is Parrys boss and he blames him for Klinsmann meeting Hicks in his own home!!! Some boss.
Wake up Jim - Hicks is a cancer.
Yank parasites out.
@Stephen: Jim, once again you seem to be ignoring my posts!!
On Hicks’ financial problems - evidence?
Let’s try then….
1) The man went cap in hand around the city a couple of weeks ago and came back with nothing, Evidence? I’m not saying it’s false, but what is your evidence exactly?
2) He needs numerous investors to help purchase 1/2 a club - which he has been running around the US looking for. A theory I heard was that he was capable of getting a loan for the lot, but didn’t want to. That’s not come from his camp by the way. He was looking at different options, working out what was best for him / the club - again that’s not come from his camp. But it’s as possible and backed by as much evidence as the other theories. Or have you got some evidence?
3) He doesn’t have the finances to start a stadium.
There’s evidence he and Gillett have £60m to start the work. There’s no evidence one way or the other to say the club can’t get the rest. Unless you have some?
4) He didn’t have the money to buy the club at the start?
He bought the club with a loan. He told the club he was buying the club with a loan. He didn’t hear an objection. He didn’t get told he had to part-fund it any other way. Your issue is with the old board and shareholders. You or I have no way of knowing if he could have funded it another way.
5) He hasn’t provided the money to back Rafa.
It’s “they” rather than “he” and the only person I’ve heard say much about it is GG, who maintains Rafa got what he asked for.
6) He refuses to answer questions about finance.
He refused on one Five Live interview AFAIK. Has anyone else said he’s refused to answer questions on it? I understand your point, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s hiding something sinister, more likely he’s avoiding giving anyone a chance to interfere.
I’ll keep it easy for - answer one question. Answer can only be yes or no.
Do you support they way Hicks has run the club?
Yes or No. Simple
Hicks hasn’t run the club. Hicks and Gillett with the help/hindrance of Parry have run the club. That’s been an awful time. I feel it would be run better by Hicks alone than by the current trio - whether that would be good enough or not we won’t know unless it happens.
I’m not his spokesman - why not try and contact him and ask him these questions yourself?
Jim thanks for the reply.
I guess my question is
Do you support the way the club has been run under Hicks’ co-ownership?
Yes or No.
Don’t forget every fan on this site has Liverpool’s well being at heart.
Stephen,
I think the whole notion of Hicks not backing Rafa is absolutely preposterous ! How much money did the current ownership spend last summer? How much money had LFC spent on transfers before the Americans took over? I think that is called “investing in the club”. Also, stadiums are financed in a specific way - you securitize your naming rights etc… You don’t fund the stadium out of pocket! DIC would not fund the stadium out of pocket! No investor ever has! You are not being rational. Hicks / Gillett already have $120mm for the stadium TO DATE! I find it difficult to read your posts because they are so negative and baised. Where is YOUR evidence to everything you have said above? You asked this of Jim but where do you get this from?
Let’s go through them:
1) The man went cap in hand around the city a couple of weeks ago and came back with nothing,
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE WAS SUCCESSFUL OR NOT ETC?
2) He needs numerous investors to help purchase 1/2 a club - which he has been running around the US looking for.
HICKS HAS ALREADY PUBLICALLY STATED THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTNER WITH ANOTHER INVESTOR TO BUY OUT GG SO LONG AS THAT PERSON WOULD BE WILLING TO BE A MINORITY INVESTOR (IE 49%) - HE ONLY SAID THAT HE IS NOT WILLING TO “RULE BY COMMITTEE” LIKE THEY HAVE CURRENTLY… YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO EQUAL PARTNERS IN ANY DEAL. SOMETHING HAS TO OVERRULE SO THE PARTNERSHIP CAN ACT.
3) He doesn’t have the finances to start a stadium.
AS I MENTIONED ABOVE, HE HAS $120MM FOR THE STADIUM IN ESCROW - STADIUMS ARE FINANCED LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME! YOU SELL NAMING RIGHTS / SPONSORSHIPS / USE LEVERAGE AND FUND WHAT YOU HAVE TO IN EQUITY. IT IS JUST HOW STADIUMS GET BUILT. DIC WOULD DO IT THE SAME WAY. ALSO, HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY GG AND HICKS HAVE SPENT WORKING WITH ARCHETECTS FOR THE NEW STADIUM SO LFC WOULDN’T PLAY IN THE “PARRYBOWL?”
4) He didn’t have the money to buy the club at the start?
OK THAT MAKES SENSE - HOW DID HE BUY IT THEN? MAGIC? THE GUY OWNS TWO OTHER SPORTS FRANCHISES AND HAS FOR A DECADE… HE ALSO HAS HAD A PRETTY SUCCESSFUL LIFE AS AN INVESTOR. THIS JUST MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. HOW DO YOU THINK HICKS AND GG BOUGHT THE TEAM IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE THE MONEY? THAT JUST DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE.
5) He hasn’t provided the money to back Rafa.
WHAT DO YOU CALL LAST SUMMER? HOW CAN YOU DENY THAT HICKS AND GG DIDN’T SUPPORT RAFA LAST SUMMER? THEY SPENT MORE THAN MOORES EVER DID! I THINK THEY SPENT MORE THAN $100MM IN ONE SUMMER! SINCE THEN THEY HAVE SIGNED MASCHERANO AND SKRTL - THAT IS A LOT OF $$$ TO INVEST!
6) He refuses to answer questions about finance.
WHEN DID HE GET ASKED ABOUT HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION? DIRECTLY? ALSO, MOST PEOPLE DON’T LIKE TO DISCLOSE THEIR FINANCIALS. HICKS HAS MAINTAINED THAT HE HAS THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY FOR LIVERPOOL SO I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE GETTING THIS.
Stephen, most everything you post is just irresponsible and just plain fiction. Unless I have you pegged wrong and you can back up some of this stuff. You asked Jim for evidence - I ask you!
@Cory: Thanks for your views - I’ve had no promises about being a fan’s voice (it’s not like I exactly am a voice of much more than me!), and if I was bothered about that kind of thing I’d probably go along with DIC like everybody else, for an easier life. It’s 50-50 to me who’ll win this battle, by the time you take into account everything being said on and off the record. But people have to stop assuming this is all about taking sides.
I’ve not followed the US elections to be honest so I’d best be careful not to read too much into what you’re saying, but I think I get the idea.
The “press deconstruction” is generally reaction to something. This FT story confirmed some things I was told recently, and gave me the opportunity finally to discuss it. The Harry Harris one kind of goes along with other stuff I’d heard, but is overplayed very heavily. Both stories were taken unconditionally as gospel by a lot of supporters and I found it worrying. The FT one could hardly have come from a better source for that side of the story, but it is only that side of the story.
I’m tired of showing what I see to be plus points about Hicks, or pointing out where negativity aimed at him actually refers to an act of Gillett’s, because I get nothing but angry replies.
For example - “I think Tom Hicks alone is better than GG alone or GG+TH.” It’s a view, it doesn’t say if Tom Hicks is good enough, or where he is next to DIC. But people find that information themselves somehow!
I see you mentioned you’d skip some bits of articles - the one above points out that DIC are possibly no better in terms of intentions than Hicks. Money in (from wherever) - wait five years doing the minimum - money back out with profit. The evidence of that is based on it being the kind of investment both parties do. In fact I’m not sure Hicks does still do that kind of investing these days, I’d need to check. But on top of that we know nothing. DIC don’t have sports teams to compare us to. Hicks has two and it’s a mattter of differing opinions how he’s treated them. A lot of people will not read that as concerns about DIC, but as support of Hicks.
After that I pointed out that DIC may be an investment co, but if the Sheikh is going to do this then this is potentially far better, and far more in keeping with what we’d like. DIC are not much better than Hicks, but “Dubai the Royal Family’s Hobby Funds” are.
This is the bit nobody spotted.
@Cory: I understand what you’re saying about confidential information, I try not to mention it all, but sometimes it’s hard not to. I’d probably be best not getting drawn into questions like Steven’s, because I can’t fully answer them as I’d like for those reasons.
@Martin: Thanks Martin.
schvilic - Yeah but we would benefit from a battle between the egos of two oil barrons. The Sheikh is not going to be out done by a Ruskie oil barron who is only worth 11 billion. The sheikh is a man of honor, he buys and sells Abromovic before dinner. He will show the infidel Abromovic who is the boy about town. Chavski scum, paupers to the sheikh, all hail the sheikh and his 30 billion for the betterment of LFC.
haha - nice anthony
Schivilic, I agree with a quite a lot of what you just wrote but the money for transfers thing…
They spent 20 million net - a figure that Liverpool would’ve expected to spend using the clubs money alone, actually more than that considering our euro cup run, Skrtyl was purchased using the proceeds from the Sissoko deal, and Mascherano’s deal is in fact not that expensive as the 18 million fee includes something like 4 years worthof wages.
They have really underspent during their time in the club.
Martin - You also don’t pay all the fee in one go, the transfere fee is paid over the course of the contract in installments.
i thought all the club’s money was used to pay interest? hmmmm
So he has probably not done as much as he could have.
@Stephen: I’m not going to go through all those, it’s just an argument that’s not worth having. Your first answer dismisses what I said out of hand, without any suggestion you considered what I said! It’s no wonder, a lot of people do the same, but it’s hardly encouraging to me to spend loads of time trying to answer. I know your view of Hicks, you share it with a lot of others, and you wouldn’t change your mind if he saved your life.
You need to lose some of that anger!
Jim - Do you not think that the Sheikh’d ego will be a good thing for LFC? Can you see the Sheikh having Abromovic steal his thunder. I think it can only be a good thing for Liverpool, think he will throw money at the club.
Shivilic: “i thought all the club’s money was used to pay interest? hmmmm”
Care to elaborate Shivilic?!
Do you think £20 million net is a commendable figure? Or are we going to get another wistfully brilliant one-liner?
Off topic briefly!
Could there be a greater incentive to beat Chelsea
tomorrow?
UNITED in the final!
Not a better incentive in the world. Only we LFC the true red army can stop the Mancs from doing the double in our ‘RED’square. Their landmarks are even named after us.
Edward, was having this conversation earlier with a fellow red and I agree it needs to be seen as an opportunity rather than a hindrance.
If someone gave you a pen and paper and asked you to write your perfect euro cup victory it would probably include beating arseanl, chelsea, and united in the final.
Probably 4-0 down to united at half time only for torres to score a second half hat trick and gerrard a brace in injury time…
Just a slight intervention to the debate this evening…
1. Some of the posts/comments this evening & recently are downright rude and unwarranted.
2. I previously criticised Jim for the lack of balance and still stand by this to an extent. However for those desperate to read anti-hick posts please refer to the archives around November-February. Read as a whole, I think there is overall balance if you are the skim-reading sort.
Must say Martin @10.36 - great post! with you on this one mate!
P.S. Has anyone noticed the un-canny resemblance of Mr. Hicks to a character out of The League of Gentleman…I wonder if he has any long lost siblings in Royston Vasey?