If you could go back in time and choose again...

[peekay]

i was in favour of Steve Morgan's bid. I don't know much about any of the groups who were alleged to be want to take over but I know Morgan was the only LFC fan. Sure he would have wanted to make some dosh but primarily he wanted to run the club he loved.

DIC, Kraft, H&G all wanted to make cash. No of them give two monkeys about LFC, they would take over any club were cash could be made. They have 1 aim, making money. Sure they want success on the pitch, but only because that will make them more cash, not because they love LFC.

If Morgan was in power would Rafa be struggling to find out how much he has to spend until mid Dec. Would morgan be sitting 6000 miles away, turning up for the odd match here & there. Would he have reduced Rafa to a puppet, virtually begging to keep his job.
Not a chance.

We've sold our soul to the devil and got we deserved, two yanks who neither know or care about LFC. 2 yanks who are more concerned with making cash than winning trophies. 2 yanks who care more about slapping down the best manager we;ve had since King Kenny than the future of our club. We're just another club now, the soul has gone and it will never ever return.

I would have preferred Kraft over Morgan mate. I live in the USA and seeing what they have achieved over the last 10-15 years in phenomenal. Of course, they are in for the money. But they have gone about earning ( the key word here) the money the correct. They are visionaries in terms of handling sports franchises. They know how to deal with fans, they know how to deal with coaches. They are winners and ooze class at every level. Even now when there are reports claiming that Hicks might sell up to another billionaire, I am hoping it is Kraft.

[Nicey]

I would have preferred Kraft over Morgan mate. I live in the USA and seeing what they have achieved over the last 10-15 years in phenomenal. Of course, they are in for the money. But they have gone about earning ( the key word here) the money the correct. They are visionaries in terms of handling sports franchises. They know how to deal with fans, they know how to deal with coaches. They are winners and ooze class at every level. Even now when there are reports claiming that Hicks might sell up to another billionaire, I am hoping it is Kraft.

Kraft was always my No1 Choice

[Chrono]

I don't think Red Chilli is being an arse at all, what in a literal sense are G & H supposed to do right now? I mean we faine interest in players all the time so talking to them now regardless of knowing where you stand in the window would seem normal practice. Supposidly we lie about how little we have when it comes to transfers so perhaps this is being fed out on purpose, we don't know. In fact, all we have is Rafa commenting on a few transfers, everything else is hearsay.

[Woobus]

Did we not try to sign Mancini and Heinze before the transfer window but neither deal happened? We spent 20 million and I am sure Voronins signing on fee wasn't cheap, if we had of got one of those players it would be over 30 million.
I dont think Rafa has came out and stated that the yanks wont be giving him money just they dont know how the system works and unless they let him move for players quickly other teams will get them. For me this is all they have done wrong along with that stupid press statement they released.

[Neil Young]

Perhaps George W got his mate to ruin our beloved club because of the threads in the library...... apologies

It's the only logical explanation.

[DaveC]

Behind their backs? You do know that there is a legal process to follow when you are subject to a takeover in this country, don't you?

It was Moores duty as chairman to talk to the Americans.
DIC stalled on the deal, Moores talked to other interested parties, DIC pulled out.
Not the actions of a company who's "dream" it was to own LFC.

Ignore him, he's a known internet ****-wit.

G&H aren't WoRld ClAsS enough for him.

[Dhav]

Behind their backs? You do know that there is a legal process to follow when you are subject to a takeover in this country, don't you?

It was Moores duty as chairman to talk to the Americans.
DIC stalled on the deal, Moores talked to other interested parties, DIC pulled out.
Not the actions of a company who's "dream" it was to own LFC.

You're a bit rash there yourself, judging DIC as not sufficiently desirous of owning the club. We're not privy to what happened behind the scenes - LFC suggesting that DIC were bullying Moores and setting arbitrary deadlines, DIC accusing LFC of being duplicitous and not keeping them in the loop. Either way, DIC must have known that LFC were obliged under the takeover code to consider the Gillett/Hicks bid and grant them access to the books and allow them to undertake due diligence - this cannot therefore be the sole reason why DIC pulled out IMO. I imagine it was a communication breakdown or a cultural barrier (another Parry **** up?) and I dont believe DIC would have gone through all that expense of taking the deal so far if they didn't want to see it through. Perhaps this is what Rashid means with the "behind their backs" comment - ie may be the club weren't completely straight with DIC and were either misleading them or not completely honest with them. After all, you have to remember throughout the club were saying what a great deal the DIC one would be for the club, ie making it clear DIC were their preferred bidders.

Perhaps after due diligence DIC made a lower bid than was previously mooted, then Hicks/Gillett came in and gazumped them. I wasn't sure at the time if the Gillett/Hicks deal was the best one for the club, I'm still not. I worried that the club only accepted the American bid because it was the only one left on the table and because of better financial terms even if it was not necessarily in the best interests of the club. I still wonder if that is the case.

Either way I dont doubt DIC's commitment to buying the club at the time.

[AFII]

You're a bit rash there yourself, judging DIC as not sufficiently desirous of owning the club. We're not privy to what happened behind the scenes - LFC suggesting that DIC were bullying Moores and setting arbitrary deadlines, DIC accusing LFC of being duplicitous and not keeping them in the loop. Either way, DIC must have known that LFC were obliged under the takeover code to consider the Gillett/Hicks bid and grant them access to the books and allow them to undertake due diligence - this cannot therefore be the sole reason why DIC pulled out IMO. I imagine it was a communication breakdown or a cultural barrier (another Parry **** up?) and I dont believe DIC would have gone through all that expense of taking the deal so far if they didn't want to see it through. Perhaps this is what Rashid means with the "behind their backs" comment - ie may be the club weren't completely straight with DIC and were either misleading them or not completely honest with them. After all, you have to remember throughout the club were saying what a great deal the DIC one would be for the club, ie making it clear DIC were their preferred bidders.

Perhaps after due diligence DIC made a lower bid than was previously mooted, then Hicks/Gillett came in and gazumped them. I wasn't sure at the time if the Gillett/Hicks deal was the best one for the club, I'm still not. I worried that the club only accepted the American bid because it was the only one left on the table and because of better financial terms even if it was not necessarily in the best interests of the club. I still wonder if that is the case.

Either way I dont doubt DIC's commitment to buying the club at the time.

Parry allegedly missed out to inform DIC about a board meeting about the G&H deal. Parry had promised to keep DIC informed if the board would discuss any rival bid.

Another communication miss by Parry if the above is correct.

[Lecter]

"There were rumours that the Sheikh pulled the plug on the deal, well he didn't, it was me. It broke my heart to do it as we were about to buy my dream but Liverpool kept us waiting for so long. "

Thats not entirely correct but still a good insight into what happened

Whatever you think of Gillett & Hicks they played a blinder on that deal

They gazumped DIC at just the right time, and Moores had to be seen to at least be considering their bid according to his obligations to fellow shareholders set out in SE / Takeover panel rules

When Moores advised this, DIC set a ridiculous time limit on this and when Moores said it wouldnt be possible they took their ball home

In reality there wasnt any choice

[Lecter]

They pulled out because Moores agreed to sell one minute then started speaking to Gillett behind their backs.

Thats rubbish Rashid

If you knew a shread of information about takeovers and their rules you would know that Moores was obligated according to SE & Takeover Rule to review the higher bid from Gillett & Hicks

When DIC were informed of this they asked for a decision within 12 hours, Moores said it wouldnt be possible and they ran a mile

[Guest]

DIC, being managed by a lifelong LFC supporter could have been the ideal deal. And Sheikh al Makhtoum has a proven track record when it comes to horse racing.

[Lecter]

Really, got any examples, ANY AT ALL?

"We have purchased the club with no debt on the club,"

[Tee]

DIC, being managed by a lifelong LFC supporter could have been the ideal deal. And Sheikh al Makhtoum has a proven track record when it comes to horse racing.

Interestingly there have been other opportunities for DIC to invest in the EPL, eg Newcastle, Birmingham, Spurs and Man City.

Could it be that they are still keeping an eye on Liverpool? Maybe now would not be a good time for another lengthy takeover process, if G&H were willing to sell, but I would not rule out DIC investing some time in the future.

[Lecter]

Why should they react to media speculation? Aren't we supposed to be above that at this club?

They reacted to the media reports about Hicks selling his shares

[Dhav]

Parry allegedly missed out to inform DIC about a board meeting about the G&H deal. Parry had promised to keep DIC informed if the board would discuss any rival bid.

Another communication miss by Parry if the above is correct.

I wouldn't be surprised - if it's a Liverpool ****-up at board level, you can pretty much guarantee Parry is at the centre of it.

Thats not entirely correct but still a good insight into what happened

Whatever you think of Gillett & Hicks they played a blinder on that deal

They gazumped DIC at just the right time, and Moores had to be seen to at least be considering their bid according to his obligations to fellow shareholders set out in SE / Takeover panel rules

When Moores advised this, DIC set a ridiculous time limit on this and when Moores said it wouldnt be possible they took their ball home

In reality there wasnt any choice

Assuming the above is correct, the bit in bold was and still is my biggest concern, and I said so at the time. Did we accept the American bid for all the wrong reasons: namely because it was higher than the DIC bid, and more crucially, because it was the only bid on the table?