Financial situation, doom & gloom reports etc

[Tom]

At the risk of showing myself up further and agreeing with AFII, this is what I argued myself at the time - they should have undergone a much more extensive and thorough due diligence to get a full understanding of the business they were taking over

Is right. They really didn't have a deep idea (either culturally or financially) what the were getting into. From the number of about-turns that are going on it's plain as the nose on your face.

[peekay]

Gillett may be behind Rafa, but I am not at all convinced that Hicks is. Gillett seems very skilled at knowing what to say, and saying the right thing, which again makes me suspicious because you don't if he's saying it because he knows it's what we want to hear or because he actually means it.

Gillette seems to be a good owner. I researched some of Montreal Canadians boards and the overall opinion was : good owner, does not have much money, but has let the hockey people get on with their business. Only problem the hockey people have not exactly delivered.

But if you ask Americans about who are the top 10 owners in NFL , NHL neither hicks nor gillet would figure in them.

I'm believe that to or else it was a very bad managed takeover. I think Hicks for example only had two, three weeks before he decided to go in with Gillett and buy us.

I can't imagine that you can get all the answers you need in that short time about everything you need to know about football business.

They clearly didn't had any worked out business plan when they bought us. If they did have that then all the changes to our stadium design wouldn't happen because they would know before how much the different designs would cost.

Just one example, another is that they don't seem to have a clue how much football players costs, that is a thing you expect them to know when they bought us.

The whole takeover looks like it has been done by an amateur.

I need to check with the nurse if they gave me the correct medication as I think it is the 3rd time in an hour I am agreeing with you

[TartanTerror]

I live in east Texas, part of the Dallas "sports market". I was a big Dallas Stars fan (stopped after the strike).

Hicks has been a good owner with the Stars. He has let the hockey people do their thing, and the team is one of the better franchises in the NHL (in terms of competitiveness). I can tell you this based on the fact that I have followed the team since their arrival from Minnesota.

I am not a baseball fan, but many of my friends are. Most of these friends are Rangers fans, and they are not calling for Hicks head on a platter. There was a link to a website provided by one of our members here on Est., and I can assure you that the opinions expressed on that website (while interesting) are NOT indicative of the general opinion amongst Rangers fans. While their team is not very good, it is not felt to be secondary to Hicks being a meddling owner.

I do not personally know Hicks, and he could end up being a massive prick as far as all of us LFC supporters are concerned. But there has been some sensationalism on this board, with people spouting off like they know how they (G & H) are perceived in the US. And in some instances it is wrong. I would suggest withholding grading their ownership until we see what they actually accomplish. But their track record in North America is not one of pure ****e.

[CJ]

for me i have always had concerns.

As far as I am concerned they have NOT delivered anything yet. Net spend wasnt that high and the TV deals have improved and we had money from the Champs league.

The stadium hasnt been delivered yet. as far as i am aware building hasnt started.

They said they would not transfer debt to us. It increasingly looks like they are.

but having said all that.

what would moores have delivered by now if he was in charge?
and we dont really know what DIC would have delivered either, DIC is an investment company so needs to make returns.

We seem to gripe that they are doing things that would be done in business. The credit crunch has hit them hard and we do need to take that into account.

my concerns are that they have gone back on things they said. that creates mistrust, no matter what the good reason is for plans being altered.

When will we know if they are good owners? not really sure but we need to keep open minds but with a healthy amount of skepticism.

not sure this adds anything to the debate but those are my thoughts.

[Rocket]

what would moores have delivered by now if he was in charge?
and we dont really know what DIC would have delivered either, DIC is an investment company so needs to make returns.



not sure this adds anything to the debate but those are my thoughts.

good post

and agree about DIC, they have no experience of running a football club, clearly weren't huge fans, as were linked with villa soon after us.

we'll never know

[Dhav]

good post

and agree about DIC, they have no experience of running a football club, clearly weren't huge fans, as were linked with villa soon after us.

we'll never know

Well the face of DIC's bid Ansari or whatever his name clearly was a huge fan. He was in Istanbul and has been at Anfield since, even after the DIC deal fell through apparently.

At least DIC did conduct a very thorough due diligence and so would have probably been more aware of what they were buying than G&H were. And Sheikh Al Maktoum or whatever his name is has pedigree of sporting success with Godolphin.

[carlton]

So the sunday times reported it (the only people), bloomberg can't varify it as no one phoned them back IMMEDIATLY, the times couldn't contact G&H so it must be true.

They really think that RBS would take on the funding for a stadium which is supposed to be in place and also this debt as well, if numbers are to be believed RBS would be happy having £800m debt against a club that made approx. £30m last year. I do not see this being true.

Where do you get 800 million from? The article says 350 million and the stadium costs are allegeded to be around 300 million now. Thas well short of 800 million pounds

[Guest]

i agree

nobody will lend you money at a feasible rate without security

Debts ? They said we wouldn't have any debts !

[Steve101]

Oh dear, expect another wave of anti yank xenophobia, their not rich enough cowboy boot wearing scouse hating manc loving cunts. How ****ing dare they complete a business transaction?

They hate our club, they hate Rafa. We've sold our soul to the devil.

Great isnt it? EVERY ****ing sniff of something, whether sustantiated or not, produces a ridiculous reaction from those who almost seem to delight in it.

Sack parry, or foster, or someone, just sack someone to keep the mob happy!!

[cannotmakeit]

Which company does not have debt?

[sonsofthedesert]

Where do you get 800 million from? The article says 350 million and the stadium costs are allegeded to be around 300 million now. Thas well short of 800 million pounds

Up until this week the stadium costs were £500m, so it is about £800m for the costs they would have been working to. Also the papers have been reporting Wachovia and RBS are lending the £500m. So if we have borrowed £500mif you add £350m onto it you are looking at £850m.
How would you know the stadium costs are £300m now, we are all assumong a saving of £200m based on RS4's info, there are 2 competing designs that by the sounds of it are not finished yet so will nt be costed.

[Steve001]

All money has a cost

Guys, I am not a regular poster on here and so I don’t wish to upset any of the locals but like you all, I watched the press coverage when G&H took over and I also heard them say, it was Gillett I think, that they had not put any debt on the club to do the takeover. What he never said to my recollection was that they never would put any debt on the company so I don’t think they have broken a promise although I stand to be corrected. I also remember Steve Morgan saying he would finance the stadium build with debt.

And let’s just say these 2 Americans used £270m of their ‘own’ money (ie money they have in the bank) to buy the club from Moores and then let’s say that they also decide to use £300-£400m of their ‘own’ money to build a new stadium. What right have we or anyone got to expect that they do not get a return on that money just like a bank would if it was all debt. One of the fundamental differences between equity and debt is that debt tends to have a more precise & unforgiving repayment schedule but other than that, all money has a value and cost and expects a return no matter what the source.........
End of rant

[Guest]

Guys, I am not a regular poster on here and so I don’t wish to upset any of the locals but like you all, I watched the press coverage when G&H took over and I also heard them say, it was Gillett I think, that they had not put any debt on the club to do the takeover. What he never said to my recollection was that they never would put any debt on the company so I don’t think they have broken a promise although I stand to be corrected. I also remember Steve Morgan saying he would finance the stadium build with debt.

And let’s just say these 2 Americans used £270m of their ‘own’ money (ie money they have in the bank) to buy the club from Moores and then let’s say that they also decide to use £300-£400m of their ‘own’ money to build a new stadium. What right have we or anyone got to expect that they do not get a return on that money just like a bank would if it was all debt. One of the fundamental differences between equity and debt is that debt tends to have a more precise & unforgiving repayment schedule but other than that, all money has a value and cost and expects a return no matter what the source.........
End of rant

You're right but why did they say that 'no debts' would be taken then ?

[Steve001]

You're right but why did they say that 'no debts' would be taken then ?

To be honest, I can't remember that they did say that! I remember Gillet answered a question about fans concern with regard to similarities with the Man Utd takeover and he said they had NOT put debt on the club to do the deal but they never, to my recollection anyway, said that they never would.

[Guest]

To be honest, I can't remember that they did say that! I remember Gillet answered a question about fans concern with regard to similarities with the Man Utd takeover and he said they had NOT put debt on the club to do the deal but they never, to my recollection anyway, said that they never would.

Ok.

It's been documented that they're restructuring the deal they made when they bought the club, which was with no 'debt' taken into the club as you say. But why do it now then ? I'm not saying that they should be pilloried for doing that, but the rules seems to have changed now. Why put eye candy and then retract ?

Firstly, this doesn't exude professionalism. Because they're backing out of their initial promises. An investment of this size does require careful planning and I don't think that they couldn't see the credit crunch (or whatever economic crash) 6 months down the line.

Secondly, they shouldn't have come amidst a blaze of glory, wallowing in it like they did, branding dollars to TV cameras. It was a risk they took, or was it their hollywoodian roots ?

Having nothing against them, and hopefully they know what they're doing. But the signs doesn't seem to be good if you judge it by the altercation with Rafa.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but just for now.