Gillett and Hicks disagreements?

[bigfooty]

I would relax a bit.

We got to the CL final - cash
There is a new TV deal - cash
We finished 3rd - cash
We sell some drivel - cash
GT cough up some change - cash

There's a new stadium to pay for, these big new contracts too. And Interest payments to George & Tom.

It's worth remembering that Moores had to fork out cash from his own pocket so we could buy Kuyt - this coming off a season when we were reigning Champions League winners, had a decent run to the Last 16 of the competition, won the FA Cup and finished 3rd in thew League.

I'm starting to get the impression we'll spend around 35M gross (+ whatever we have spent so far) or, to put it another way, 3 x 10-15M players. That's still waaaaaay more than any other LFC manager has spent in the past, but having had our sights set higher I feel most LFC fans will be disappointed if we shop in that market rather than going for a Tevez, Eto'o or Villa.

[marcus50bucks]

what are you going on about?

you don't know anything about the deal, or anything about finance, so before you start sounding more stupid than you normally do, go back to the transfer section and post some lovely links to tribal football and the news of the world.

[Monkeywool]

Anything that says "Benitez's beef" in an article deserves to be ignored really.

[lfc_michael]

Tom I would disagree mate when they bought the club they must've shown Moores evidence of being able to fund the team, the stadium and the buy out otherwise it would've been pointless to sell and I don't think he would've given it away so easily considering he had DIC in the wings as well.

I agree with this statement. Moores and Parry spent a number of years pursuing various options; there was Morgan's interest (though that appeared to be unwelcome), there was the flirtation with the Thais, there were the visits with Kraft...then the charade with DIC, before they finally settled on Gillett and Hicks.

If Moores had simply been eager to offload the Club, then they wouldn't have spent so much time looking for a buyer. It's clear, from the circumstantial evidence, that they were seeking assurances that the traditions would be respected and that the necessary funds would be in place for us to progress on the pitch (player purchases and contracts) as well as off it (the new stadium).

Anyone who believed that they'd be American Abramovichs was always deluding themselves, because they've bought into the Club as a business asset. Vast funds were never going to be made available, but Moores would not have sold out if they could offer little better than the status quo of selling deadwood and relying on TV revenue. Both of those factors will obviously be relevant, but there must also be additional investment there. Gillett and Hicks will realise as well as anyone that they won't fill a stadium of 61,000+, and sell shirts in the Far East, if we're struggling to scrape into 4th place, and that would obviously impact on their potential to profit from the investment. They're not stupid.

I for one won't start panicking just yet. Bascombe's article was slightly worrying, if we really are interested in Forlan, but he's probably just playing down expectations.

[Angry Dan]

The problem at the minute is one I see all the time at work and is that of expectation managment.

At the minute we can not be sure wether this has been handled well or poorley. If you build up a false sense of optimism by saying one thing (in this instance we will be competing at the top end of the transfer market) and fail to deliver it is far more damaging than to be realistic from the start.

We have also got to look at the way we take what they say. If they deliver 2 top class wingers and a couple of prospects then they will be able to say they did what they said they would. I can not remember them coming out and saying they would spend £25 MILLION + on one player.

Only time will tell.

[redblood]

Tom I would disagree mate when they bought the club they must've shown Moores evidence of being able to fund the team, the stadium and the buy out otherwise it would've been pointless to sell and I don't think he would've given it away so easily considering he had DIC in the wings as well.
They must be able to stump up at least 25 mill, the rest will come from sales and CL and EPL money which has been major this year.

I agree with this statement. Moores and Parry spent a number of years pursuing various options; there was Morgan's interest (though that appeared to be unwelcome), there was the flirtation with the Thais, there were the visits with Kraft...then the charade with DIC, before they finally settled on Gillett and Hicks.

If Moores had simply been eager to offload the Club, then they wouldn't have spent so much time looking for a buyer. It's clear, from the circumstantial evidence, that they were seeking assurances that the traditions would be respected and that the necessary funds would be in place for us to progress on the pitch (player purchases and contracts) as well as off it (the new stadium).

Anyone who believed that they'd be American Abramovichs was always deluding themselves, because they've bought into the Club as a business asset. Vast funds were never going to be made available, but Moores would not have sold out if they could offer little better than the status quo of selling deadwood and relying on TV revenue. Both of those factors will obviously be relevant, but there must also be additional investment there. Gillett and Hicks will realise as well as anyone that they won't fill a stadium of 61,000+, and sell shirts in the Far East, if we're struggling to scrape into 4th place, and that would obviously impact on their potential to profit from the investment. They're not stupid.

I for one won't start panicking just yet. Bascombe's article was slightly worrying, if we really are interested in Forlan, but he's probably just playing down expectations.

To me the only worrying factor could be that Bascombe has been negative and even some what sensationalist in the extreme, it seems like he's really out to put doubts in peoples minds.

A thought about that occurs that maybe - he doth protesteth to much.

I think things are rosier than is being made out it's not the first or 2nd time this has been done by the club.
As I've stated above there are to many things that don't add up for all this hysteria to be well founded.

[AFII]

I agree with this statement. Moores and Parry spent a number of years pursuing various options; there was Morgan's interest (though that appeared to be unwelcome), there was the flirtation with the Thais, there were the visits with Kraft...then the charade with DIC, before they finally settled on Gillett and Hicks.

If Moores had simply been eager to offload the Club, then they wouldn't have spent so much time looking for a buyer. It's clear, from the circumstantial evidence, that they were seeking assurances that the traditions would be respected and that the necessary funds would be in place for us to progress on the pitch (player purchases and contracts) as well as off it (the new stadium).

Anyone who believed that they'd be American Abramovichs was always deluding themselves, because they've bought into the Club as a business asset. Vast funds were never going to be made available, but Moores would not have sold out if they could offer little better than the status quo of selling deadwood and relying on TV revenue. Both of those factors will obviously be relevant, but there must also be additional investment there. Gillett and Hicks will realise as well as anyone that they won't fill a stadium of 61,000+, and sell shirts in the Far East, if we're struggling to scrape into 4th place, and that would obviously impact on their potential to profit from the investment. They're not stupid.

I for one won't start panicking just yet. Bascombe's article was slightly worrying, if we really are interested in Forlan, but he's probably just playing down expectations.

Just to point out that Moores had agreed a deal with Morgan to sell his 51% to him. What do that tell you about Moores motives?

For me it's says that Moores was desperate at that time to sell out. Moores doesn't exactly love Morgan and for Moores to sell out to him tells a lot IMO.

Morgan isn't that much richer than Moores so he wouldn't have been any better long term for the club than Moores. Surely Moores knew that when he accepted the bid. He said himself that a reason to why he sold out to G&H was that they are richer than him.

That points to me that he sold the club for the money and not because he cared long term about the club at the time he accepted Morgans bid. He just wanted to get out IMO.

Who knows if he did that again when he sold to G&H. He had a deadline to meet about the stadium. It has been discussed that it only took G&H a few days to do due dilligence but you could also look at it the other way. Moores and Parry only had a few days to look at the offer from G&H. Is that enough? Remember the stadium deadline, Moores had to do a quick decision. Who knows if he missed anything.

Parry also changed his mind from being a big supporter of the DIC bid and suddenly change his tune completly. DIC had not changed their bid, it was the same bid that Parry supported big time and suddenly the bid from G&H was so much better. Why?

DIC had promised to build the stadium and give Rafa a lot of money, at least if you believe what Bascombe and the rest of the press said at that time. The same thing promised by G&H. The only difference is the price of the shares.

DIC 4k/share and G&H 5k/share.

Moores had a responsibility to look at the other share holders when he sold his shares. You are talking about a big difference between the offers. If it had been maybe £100-£200 difference between the bids then you could say that it's not a big difference but a £1k difference for every share is a very big difference.

We are talking about the difference between £250m for the club or £200m. That is a big difference.

[lfc_michael]

Just to point out that Moores had agreed a deal with Morgan to sell his 51% to him. What do that tell you about Moores motives?

I wasn't aware that he ever accepted a bid from Morgan. I know Morgan had seen the books and he made several negative implications about our level of debt, but I didn't think there was a deal on the cards.

[The Glove]

Just to point out that Moores had agreed a deal with Morgan to sell his 51% to him. What do that tell you about Moores motives?

For me it's says that Moores was desperate at that time to sell out. Moores doesn't exactly love Morgan and for Moores to sell out to him tells a lot IMO.


It tells me that at the time, only Morgan offered to buy us and since people like you wanted anyone but Moores in charge he was willing to swallow his pride and sell up.

Morgan isn't that much richer than Moores so he wouldn't have been any better long term for the club than Moores. Surely Moores knew that when he accepted the bid. He said himself that a reason to why he sold out to G&H was that they are richer than him.

Moores felt he had taken us as far as he could, he knew it, we knew it. Who would you rather he sold to? Morgan when he was the only bidder or hold out and attract the investment needed? Of course he is going to sell the club he loves to someone who has more money than him. It means they have more to spend on the team. Are you really so thick you cant see that?

That points to me that he sold the club for the money and not because he cared long term about the club at the time he accepted Morgans bid. He just wanted to get out IMO.

Moores doesnt want out. If it was up to him he would still be there. He sold up because he knows he cant compete anymore. He put the club before himself.


Who knows if he did that again when he sold to G&H. He had a deadline to meet about the stadium. It has been discussed that it only took G&H a few days to do due dilligence but you could also look at it the other way. Moores and Parry only had a few days to look at the offer from G&H. Is that enough? Remember the stadium deadline, Moores had to do a quick decision. Who knows if he missed anything.

Parry also changed his mind from being a big supporter of the DIC bid and suddenly change his tune completly. DIC had not changed their bid, it was the same bid that Parry supported big time and suddenly the bid from G&H was so much better. Why?


Because DIC tried to bully them into selling there and then once a rival bid was tabled. It was take it or leave it time and Parry and Moores did not want to be rushed or pushed. That resulted in DIC getting a gob on and getting off. Kinda shows thier colours eh?

DIC had promised to build the stadium and give Rafa a lot of money, at least if you believe what Bascombe and the rest of the press said at that time. The same thing promised by G&H. The only difference is the price of the shares.

DIC 4k/share and G&H 5k/share.

So? If I offered you £10 for something yet someone offered you £15 who are you going to sell to?

Moores had a responsibility to look at the other share holders when he sold his shares. You are talking about a big difference between the offers. If it had been maybe £100-£200 difference between the bids then you could say that it's not a big difference but a £1k difference for every share is a very big difference.

We are talking about the difference between £250m for the club or £200m. That is a big difference.

So ok, Moores made a few bob, what about the people who had 1 or 2 shares? Would they be happy having to sell thier shares for a grand less? **** no

You really are a nobhead sometimes, why not try and think about things before spouting ****

[AFII]

So ok, Moores made a few bob, what about the people who had 1 or 2 shares? Would they be happy having to sell thier shares for a grand less? **** no

So you agree with me then because if you read the whole article and not take it down in pieces like a cheap journo then you will discover that my point is that Moores had a responsibility against the share holders to sell to someone who offered that much more than the other bid on the table. I have said that all the time. In a situation like that with that big difference between the bids then Moores can't look what is best for the club long time.

You really are thick sometimes

[Rocket]

So you agree with me then because if you read the whole article and not take it down in pieces like a cheap journo then you will discover that my point is that Moores had a responsibility against the share holders to sell to someone who offered that much more than the other bid on the table. I have said that all the time. In a situation like that with that big difference between the bids then Moores can't look what is best for the club long time.

You really are thick sometimes

um, thats not strictly true

9 times out of 10, they are likely to accept the higher of the bids,

but unlike you, parry and moores will have actually discussed the new owners future plans, after they take over the club.

maybe the Americans projections and sales pitch was alot better than DIC?

i don't know, and you certainly don't know.

[AFII]

um, thats not strictly true

9 times out of 10, they are likely to accept the higher of the bids,

but unlike you, parry and moores will have actually discussed the new owners future plans, after they take over the club.

maybe the Americans projections and sales pitch was alot better than DIC?

i don't know, and you certainly don't know.

That's fair enough for me

[El Jefecito]

Just to point out that Moores had agreed a deal with Morgan to sell his 51% to him. What do that tell you about Moores motives?

For me it's says that Moores was desperate at that time to sell out. Moores doesn't exactly love Morgan and for Moores to sell out to him tells a lot IMO.

Morgan isn't that much richer than Moores so he wouldn't have been any better long term for the club than Moores. Surely Moores knew that when he accepted the bid. He said himself that a reason to why he sold out to G&H was that they are richer than him.

That points to me that he sold the club for the money and not because he cared long term about the club at the time he accepted Morgans bid. He just wanted to get out IMO.

Who knows if he did that again when he sold to G&H. He had a deadline to meet about the stadium. It has been discussed that it only took G&H a few days to do due dilligence but you could also look at it the other way. Moores and Parry only had a few days to look at the offer from G&H. Is that enough? Remember the stadium deadline, Moores had to do a quick decision. Who knows if he missed anything.

Parry also changed his mind from being a big supporter of the DIC bid and suddenly change his tune completly. DIC had not changed their bid, it was the same bid that Parry supported big time and suddenly the bid from G&H was so much better. Why?

DIC had promised to build the stadium and give Rafa a lot of money, at least if you believe what Bascombe and the rest of the press said at that time. The same thing promised by G&H. The only difference is the price of the shares.

DIC 4k/share and G&H 5k/share.

Moores had a responsibility to look at the other share holders when he sold his shares. You are talking about a big difference between the offers. If it had been maybe £100-£200 difference between the bids then you could say that it's not a big difference but a £1k difference for every share is a very big difference.

We are talking about the difference between £250m for the club or £200m. That is a big difference.

I swear you just make this sh!t up.

[AFII]

I swear you just make this sh!t up.

If you owned 51% of a company and you had two bids on the table.

The first bid...£250m
The second bid....£200m

Which one would you sell to?

You have a responsibility to the other share holders to accept the £250m bid. They won't care about what is best for the company long term because they will sell up and not be involved anymore.

Even if you love your company very much then you would probably accept the £250m bid. I would do that because the difference between the two bids is to big to ignore.

[Rocket]

If you owned 51% of a company and you had two bids on the table.

The first bid...£250m
The second bid....£200m

Which one would you sell to?

not strictly true actually. i don't think liverpool was a club invested in by people who wanted large returns in terms of share price rises and dividends paid. Alot invested just to have a share in their club, and to enjoy the ticket based advantages.

those people, probably wouldn't have cared all that much, they'd rather it had gone to the better buyer.