Bascombe has a pop at new owners?

[Phil Eel]

Something is obviously wrong. Bascombe takes his job very seriously, he's extremely careful with his choice of words, I'm speculating here of course, but he and the editor wouldn't have published this unless they felt it gave a reasonable description of some of the kind of drift that appears to be happening at the club. Things can change quickly in football so hopefully we'll see some movement next week

I am beginning to wonder though, if its only just beginning to dawn on the new owners what they've bought into.

Well, they bid once, were well outbid by DIC but came back with a much higher bid and rushed DD - it does make you wonder if they realised the financial commitments required for success in European / Premier League football

[Gazzla]

I think it's too early to make a judgement with the Americans, yes we haven't had the big money signing yet that many wanted and Rafas outburst is a concern but it is very early in the transfer window and the Spanish season still has a couple of weeks to run which is where I suspect we will be doing most of our shopping.

They have sorted out the new stadium which is a big plus and seem to be making all the right noises but until they fork out on transfers then doubts will remain.

[kopash]

Gees let's give them till at least end of July before judging their first summer of spending. Relax people.

[FatTony]

Its all well and good saying relax and give them a chance, but Hicks has owned the rangers for almost 10 years and, to be quite frank, they seem to be mediocre to say the least.

My concerns are not the result of a lack of transfer activity. Firstly, I did not have expect us to be buying the cream of world football, maybe one or two top players. I certainly did not expect to have purchased anyone of any significance within the first couple of weeks.

What does worry me is the information that is being presented to us regarding our new owners other sporting ventures. We were all so happy to finally have this club in the hands of a pair of buisness men that have promised us the world, but when you look at the fortunes of the texas rangers and the canadiens since the turn of the centuty, what you'll find are performances that will look all too familiar to Liverpool fans.

Texas Rangers
2000 4th
2001 4th
2002 4th
2003 4th
2004 3rd
2005 3rd
2006 3rd
Montreal Canadiens
2001-02 4th
2002-03 4th
2003-04 4th
2005-06 3rd
2006-07 4th

Reading a few fan forums and there seems to be a great deal of negativity amongst their supporters and a lot of it seems to be landing on the feet of Hicks in particular, much as these forums were (towards Moores) before their arrival.

I have concerns about this club. Moores and Parry were widely ridiculed with their business dealings or lack of, yet the majority seem to be happy that they made the right decision selling to H&G, but on what basis? I was extremely enthusiastic when I believed that we finally had owners with the finances to take us forward, but since that time I have only read negative opinions on our new owners from the fans and the american press.

I do not now believe that we will have the financial backing to take on the top two on the evidence of what I've read. It seems to me that both Hicks & Gillett are quite happy to be involved with teams that always end up there or there abouts.

I also now believe that Rafa will be gone at the end of next season when his fears become a reality.

[El Jefecito]

Its all well and good saying relax and give them a chance, but Hicks has owned the rangers for almost 10 years and, to be quite frank, they seem to be mediocre to say the least.

My concerns are not the result of a lack of transfer activity. Firstly, I did not have expect us to be buying the cream of world football, maybe one or two top players. I certainly did not expect to have purchased anyone of any significance within the first couple of weeks.

What does worry me is the information that is being presented to us regarding our new owners other sporting ventures. We were all so happy to finally have this club in the hands of a pair of buisness men that have promised us the world, but when you look at the fortunes of the texas rangers and the canadiens since the turn of the centuty, what you'll find are performances that will look all too familiar to Liverpool fans.

Texas Rangers
2000 4th
2001 4th
2002 4th
2003 4th
2004 3rd
2005 3rd
2006 3rd
Montreal Canadiens
2001-02 4th
2002-03 4th
2003-04 4th
2005-06 3rd
2006-07 4th

Reading a few fan forums and there seems to be a great deal of negativity amongst their supporters and a lot of it seems to be landing on the feet of Hicks in particular, much as these forums were (towards Moores) before their arrival.

I have concerns about this club. Moores and Parry were widely ridiculed with their business dealings or lack of, yet the majority seem to be happy that they made the right decision selling to H&G, but on what basis? I was extremely enthusiastic when I believed that we finally had owners with the finances to take us forward, but since that time I have only read negative opinions on our new owners from the fans and the american press.

I do not now believe that we will have the financial backing to take on the top two on the evidence of what I've read. It seems to me that both Hicks & Gillett are quite happy to be involved with teams that always end up there or there abouts.

I also now believe that Rafa will be gone at the end of next season when his fears become a reality.

So how does that stack up against Glazers US team? They've probably not done better and that hasn't stopped them giving Fergie 70M+ the last couple of seasons (during which time they've won the EPL).

Chill people, you'll give yourself heartattacks before the transfer window has even opened.

[tomasjj]

Maybe because he gets to see both sides of any story. Something we dont.

Sure. But he does have to come up with a story every day though...to sell the paper.

[DannyMan2006]

Sure. But he does have to come up with a story every day though...to sell the paper.

I don't live in Liverpool and so only see the echo online, but of what I have seen he has not come up with anything ground breaking since GH left. Everything he comes out with now is either available from other media sources or is his own opinion.

I'm sure his opinion is better than most if you were talking to him in the pub, but when it comes to selling papers he has to read into little details a bit more.

For example, when we all thought we had loads of cash he was talking about Mancini and Silva, then when we all feel depressed cos Man U bought a few players he comes out with the paupers line. I can guarantee you that just by looking at NewsNow I would be able to keep up with most of the gossip that Bascombe prints.

[El Jefecito]

I don't live in Liverpool and so only see the echo online, but of what I have seen he has not come up with anything ground breaking since GH left. Everything he comes out with now is either available from other media sources or is his own opinion.

I'm sure his opinion is better than most if you were talking to him in the pub, but when it comes to selling papers he has to read into little details a bit more.

For example, when we all thought we had loads of cash he was talking about Mancini and Silva, then when we all feel depressed cos Man U bought a few players he comes out with the paupers line. I can guarantee you that just by looking at NewsNow I would be able to keep up with most of the gossip that Bascombe prints.

True, if Bascombe had good contacts at the club he would have been able to call any of the following:

1. Leto
2. Voronin
3. Lucas

He called none of them. Proof of the pudding and all that.

[BrooklynRed]

What does worry me is the information that is being presented to us regarding our new owners other sporting ventures. We were all so happy to finally have this club in the hands of a pair of buisness men that have promised us the world, but when you look at the fortunes of the texas rangers and the canadiens since the turn of the centuty, what you'll find are performances that will look all too familiar to Liverpool fans.

Texas Rangers
2000 4th
2001 4th
2002 4th
2003 4th
2004 3rd
2005 3rd
2006 3rd
Montreal Canadiens
2001-02 4th
2002-03 4th
2003-04 4th
2005-06 3rd
2006-07 4th

Reading a few fan forums and there seems to be a great deal of negativity amongst their supporters and a lot of it seems to be landing on the feet of Hicks in particular, much as these forums were (towards Moores) before their arrival.

I have concerns about this club. Moores and Parry were widely ridiculed with their business dealings or lack of, yet the majority seem to be happy that they made the right decision selling to H&G, but on what basis? I was extremely enthusiastic when I believed that we finally had owners with the finances to take us forward, but since that time I have only read negative opinions on our new owners from the fans and the american press.

OK, as an American and a sports fan, these statistics are misleading due to the nature of profitability in American sports leagues, the way player acquisitions work, revenue sharing, stadium building, etc. These are apples to oranges comparisons. I have no vested interest in G&H as owners, but let's at least be fair.

Can anyone tell me the last team from Canada to win the Stanley Cup? It was the Montreal Canadiens in 1992. Why? Because players don't want to be paid in weak Canadian dollars and then have those dollars taxed at Canadian income tax rates. Add to that the complete mess that the NHL made for itself with the lock out two years ago, the loss of their TV contract on ESPN, etc; That sport is not an apples to apples comparison for the Premiership.

Baseball; There is no 4th place. There are 4 divisions in two leagues and the Rangers have stunk up the American League West for decades. Why? Because profitability and player salaries in baseball, and player acquisitions, are all based on revenue sharing, market size, free agency and pitching is the most important position in the game. Hicks bought the team from George W Bush (which is how he 'made him so much money') and then brought in a very expensive player (and MVP) Alex Rodriguez to fill his new stadium and try to get this relatively small market team to make some money. Again, comparing the Texas Rangers to Liverpool FC makes no sense to me; The structure of sport and profit in America just isn't the same.

Is there a learning curve for the new owners? I'm sure there is. But what it comes down to in EVERY SPORT is club level management working within the parameters of the sport's system to deliver a winning team to their community. So, while I am sure the new owners do not have an unlimited bank account, I am also sure that they will give us the tools to compete within the parameters of the system. That said, Rick Parry has to deliver; He has to be tough and work hard to get what he wants. I am reading all of the Rafa complaints as being directed solely at Parry, at his years of inadequate management of the club, and his inability to get Rafa's first choice deals done.

Finally, if G&H are so much like the Glazers, and Man U just dropped £50 million, then what's the big worry? I don't look at Malcom Glazer as some kind of great owner; I work just south of Tampa Bay for 5 months out of the year and the Buccaneers are not good; they won a Super Bowl 5 years ago, but have not played well since. That said, NFL teams are some of the most valuable franchises in sports; the market for the game in the USA is massive and if and when the Glazers sell Tampa Bay, they will probably receive 10x more money than they spent on the club.

anywho. Let's not judge until we have some real evidence...

But again, I will wait and see.

[StevieG08]

OK, as an American and a sports fan, these statistics are misleading due to the nature of profitability in American sports leagues, the way player acquisitions work, revenue sharing, stadium building, etc. These are apples to oranges comparisons. I have no vested interest in G&H as owners, but let's at least be fair.

Can anyone tell me the last team from Canada to win the Stanley Cup? It was the Montreal Canadiens in 1992. Why? Because players don't want to be paid in weak Canadian dollars and then have those dollars taxed at Canadian income tax rates. Add to that the complete mess that the NHL made for itself with the lock out two years ago, the loss of their TV contract on ESPN, etc; That sport is not an apples to apples comparison for the Premiership.

Baseball; There is no 4th place. There are 4 divisions in two leagues and the Rangers have stunk up the American League West for decades. Why? Because profitability and player salaries in baseball, and player acquisitions, are all based on revenue sharing, market size, free agency and pitching is the most important position in the game. Hicks bought the team from George W Bush (which is how he 'made him so much money') and then brought in a very expensive player (and MVP) Alex Rodriguez to fill his new stadium and try to get this relatively small market team to make some money. Again, comparing the Texas Rangers to Liverpool FC makes no sense to me; The structure of sport and profit in America just isn't the same.

Is there a learning curve for the new owners? I'm sure there is. But what it comes down to in EVERY SPORT is club level management working within the parameters of the sport's system to deliver a winning team to their community. So, while I am sure the new owners do not have an unlimited bank account, I am also sure that they will give us the tools to compete within the parameters of the system. That said, Rick Parry has to deliver; He has to be tough and work hard to get what he wants. I am reading all of the Rafa complaints as being directed solely at Parry, at his years of inadequate management of the club, and his inability to get Rafa's first choice deals done.

Finally, if G&H are so much like the Glazers, and Man U just dropped £50 million, then what's the big worry? I don't look at Malcom Glazer as some kind of great owner; I work just south of Tampa Bay for 5 months out of the year and the Buccaneers are not good; they won a Super Bowl 5 years ago, but have not played well since. That said, NFL teams are some of the most valuable franchises in sports; the market for the game in the USA is massive and if and when the Glazers sell Tampa Bay, they will probably receive 10x more money than they spent on the club.

anywho. Let's not judge until we have some real evidence...

But again, I will wait and see.

Thanks for taking the time to post that, seems a very good, well thought out argument.

[Rocket]

i agree, good post

[FatTony]

OK, as an American and a sports fan, these statistics are misleading due to the nature of profitability in American sports leagues, the way player acquisitions work, revenue sharing, stadium building, etc. These are apples to oranges comparisons. I have no vested interest in G&H as owners, but let's at least be fair.

Can anyone tell me the last team from Canada to win the Stanley Cup? It was the Montreal Canadiens in 1992. Why? Because players don't want to be paid in weak Canadian dollars and then have those dollars taxed at Canadian income tax rates. Add to that the complete mess that the NHL made for itself with the lock out two years ago, the loss of their TV contract on ESPN, etc; That sport is not an apples to apples comparison for the Premiership.

Baseball; There is no 4th place. There are 4 divisions in two leagues and the Rangers have stunk up the American League West for decades. Why? Because profitability and player salaries in baseball, and player acquisitions, are all based on revenue sharing, market size, free agency and pitching is the most important position in the game. Hicks bought the team from George W Bush (which is how he 'made him so much money') and then brought in a very expensive player (and MVP) Alex Rodriguez to fill his new stadium and try to get this relatively small market team to make some money. Again, comparing the Texas Rangers to Liverpool FC makes no sense to me; The structure of sport and profit in America just isn't the same.

Is there a learning curve for the new owners? I'm sure there is. But what it comes down to in EVERY SPORT is club level management working within the parameters of the sport's system to deliver a winning team to their community. So, while I am sure the new owners do not have an unlimited bank account, I am also sure that they will give us the tools to compete within the parameters of the system. That said, Rick Parry has to deliver; He has to be tough and work hard to get what he wants. I am reading all of the Rafa complaints as being directed solely at Parry, at his years of inadequate management of the club, and his inability to get Rafa's first choice deals done.

Finally, if G&H are so much like the Glazers, and Man U just dropped £50 million, then what's the big worry? I don't look at Malcom Glazer as some kind of great owner; I work just south of Tampa Bay for 5 months out of the year and the Buccaneers are not good; they won a Super Bowl 5 years ago, but have not played well since. That said, NFL teams are some of the most valuable franchises in sports; the market for the game in the USA is massive and if and when the Glazers sell Tampa Bay, they will probably receive 10x more money than they spent on the club.

anywho. Let's not judge until we have some real evidence...

But again, I will wait and see.

OK, good to hear from someone who might actually know a thing or two about baseball and ice hockey. Those tables were pulled off the net without any understanding.

I can understand the point you make about the canadiens and pay based on a weak candian dollar. I do not understand your reasoning on baseball. That sounds to me to all be a little to vague. Surely success would bring profitability (as in match attendances and merchandise sold)? If there is no 4th spot then where did the rangers finish in their respective leagues? I really don't know a thing about baseball, but there must be some sort of positional system to gauge success of sorts? What do the above positions show then if not league positions????

I also understand that Rodriguez was sold pretty quickly and that there have been numerous managerial changes meaning that the team has had no stability. Why was Rodriguez sold and how have they faired in the transfer market over the last couple of years compared to those teams that finish 1st, 2nd, and 3rd....I mean...is there a 1st, 2nd.....oh I give up. You know what I mean.

[Tom]

People who don't think that Bascombe has very good and highly developed links with the club are, not to put too fine a point on it, very wrong indeed.

[Kopite_Colin]

It's just a case of newcomers coming in...forming, storming, norming & performing and all that bollocks. We're still storming that's all....

[Morph]

People who don't think that Bascombe has very good and highly developed links with the club are, not to put too fine a point on it, very wrong indeed.

however it must be said as a journo he does tend to go a bit ott with certain things, was it after the Arsenal cup matches that he practically had a breakdown when writing his column telling us that we aren't nearly as good as we think we are etc, 5 months later Euro cup final - just making a point that he might be stretching the truth ever so slightly