Hicks & Gillett split?

[dww]

think they got rid of rangers? but own slavia and a greek team?

They own about 10 teams (I think the Greek one is AEK), I didn't know they had sold Rangers (I sued them as an example as they are in the CL). I guess if they did sell Rangers it might prove AFIIs point.

[Dan]

They own about 10 teams (I think the Greek one is AEK), I didn't know they had sold Rangers (I sued them as an example as they are in the CL). I guess if they did sell Rangers it might prove AFIIs point.

Did you win?




Sorry mate, just had to

[dww]

Did you win?




Sorry mate, just had to

[The_weatherman]

Could Hicks not be part owner of the stadium but leave the club to Gillett, on paper at least?

[calvoboy]

I find it interesting that Bascombe led with a depressive story in the summer, confirmed by Dave Usher and others on TLW, saying we were skint. Hicks and Gillett had sold us all a pup and there would be no money for transfers after all. Rafa would probably leave, and the sky would come falling in.

Now he has a story, confirmed by Usher and others on TLW, saying that Hicks and Gillette are falling out, we are going to be saddled with a load of debt and skint, and that the sky will come falling in.

I've no doubt that they are both reliably reporting what they have heard from their sources within LFC, as they are not the type to bull**** based on past performance, but I wonder whether a) there are those within Anfield who are briefing against, and maybe even working against, the Americans? and b) whether Usher and Bascombe share the same source?

A conspiracy theory c) would question whether that source has links to another frustrated bidder for LFC in the summer who still has links to the club at a high level and would be still be interested in taking the club on? But I've got nothing to base that on so we'll stick to a) and b) for now!

[dww]

I just think that in all honesty the plan to refinance the stadium/club related debt was always going to involve a lot of hard decisions. The fact that we have joint owners means that we have to have frank discussions to get decisions made. It really wouldn't surprise me that much like the 'show down talks' which players have with managers that this is a deliberate misrepresentation of fairly tedious facts to create a story in the papers. Which was pretty much what I thought of all the ludicrous hyperbole that went around during the summer.

[Steve101]

According to the NOTW they have has an arguement about money and the amount of debt the new stadium will put on the club...

Normally i would just regard it as sunday paper bolloxs but now Bascombe is their and im not sure how much input he had on the article (he mite have written it-not sure tbh)

Maybe their is some truth in it? And maybe a link to why the Mascherano deal might be in abit of doubt?

Two good reasons for not believing a word of it Milky, NOTW (the S** on sunday, aviod it) and Bascombe, who always was a crap journo anyway. load of crap.

[Kilteragh]

I love the way we broke our transfer record with a true world class striker; signed all of our top players up to long term contracts; got permission for a stadium with a design that exceeded most people's expectations; and some still look for ways to make it negative; but find it easy to believe the **** spouted by News of the World.

You're so right.

[Kilteragh]

since they came the redesigned stadium was a positive. hope they can still pull it off without leaving us with arsenal size debts.

Aren't Arsenal the richest club in the world now or something?

[dww]

Aren't Arsenal the richest club in the world now or something?

They have the largest revenue of any club last year but I think it is unlikely we will be able to get quite the cash flow they do from their ground (due to location) and their debt is enormous (although obviously manageable given their cashflow). I think that it is wrong not to hope that our owners are looking for a sustainable level of debt vs increased income and for us that should probably mean a smaller debt or a more diverse set of income streams from the development.

[rage]

Why?!

It's not about spending the most money it's about getting the right players at the right price.

It's actually pleasing that our summer outlay was £15m net when you consider the quality we brought in. That means that the people who are in charge of negotiating deals are doing things the right way.

because we're still players short. Easily a centre-back, winger and possibly also another striker. We lost out on a number of players over the summer because we didn't or couldn't pay that bit extra. and if its really only 15 million net spend and it had taken place under the previous regime then a lot more people would question it imo.

I do think that we will buy at least a centre back and a winger in january to strengthen our squad in areas we failed over the summer .

Saying all that what is most worrying is that our new owners seem to have fallen out if any of this is true.

[bazza76]

They have the largest revenue of any club last year but I think it is unlikely we will be able to get quite the cash flow they do from their ground (due to location) and their debt is enormous (although obviously manageable given their cashflow). I think that it is wrong not to hope that our owners are looking for a sustainable level of debt vs increased income and for us that should probably mean a smaller debt or a more diverse set of income streams from the development.

Their stadium is the biggest money making stadium in football I think.
But, I don't see why we can't rival it if we manage to get a 76,000 seat stadium, I know mancs are currently not far off Arsenal in the revenu they pull in on a home game. Our new stadium wil be better equiped than hole Trafford, more executive boxes etc, I don't see why we could bring in as much money anyway if we got permission for a 76,000 seat stadium..

[irishgeo]

Aren't Arsenal the richest club in the world now or something?

Nope. They earn the most on matchday income but the scum are still the richest.

[dww]

Their stadium is the biggest money making stadium in football I think.
But, I don't see why we can't rival it if we manage to get a 76,000 seat stadium, I know mancs are currently not far off Arsenal in the revenu they pull in on a home game. Our new stadium wil be better equiped than hole Trafford, more executive boxes etc, I don't see why we could bring in as much money anyway if we got permission for a 76,000 seat stadium..

Purely because of location - a huge amount of the revenue generated by the Emirates comes from the corporate section and this is dependent on it being in London. This allows them to more than make up the money that United get from 16,000 extra seats. They also get away with charging more than either us or United for tickets for the same reason.

Our growth will have to be in two stages due to the planning permission.

Also being jammy *******s Arsenal somehow convinced the local council that they wouldn't have to pay for any upgrades to public transport to put up with match day crowds. This has resulted in the tube footing the £25m estimated bill to upgrade their service in the next few years. We will undoubtedly have to pay for all links to our new ground.

[Red Chilli]

It makes sense to refinance the debt onto the club, that way our interest payments will be lower due to the fact that we have a hell of a lot of colateral.
It's like PFI buildings.