No melodrama: we've lost our club

[Rashid]

Yes but DIC runs the likes of Travelodge. It is a profit making vehicle. The development of Dubai is obviously something different. The reports that I have seen when this have come out have been mixed as to the effects of the credit crunch and wider economic conditions on Dubai but I think a low return, high risk investment like LFC is not looking overly appealing to them at this time.

I'm not saying I'm anti them I just don't necessarily think they will be some sort of cure all.

It's no longer DIC - it's Sheikh Makhtoum who is interested now.

[Darth Marty]

Just how interested is he then Rashid?

Do you actually know more than say me? Or is it all speculative guesswork?

[red g]

note to self: check the date of the original post, before reading 10 pages ****ting bricks and realising i posted in the original thread !!

[Rashid]

Just how interested is he then Rashid?

Do you actually know more than say me? Or is it all speculative guesswork?

I was open the last time I gave info - I got it from Bascombe and a fella called David Bond. Hicks didn't play ball last time it doesn't mean they were wrong.

This time I hear that DIC might move on and allow Sheikh Mohammed to own the club without the restrictions an "investment" company has with it.

Again, the current knobs have to want to sell first without demanding £100m each.

[Darth Marty]

ok, to be fair id like to hear whatever news you have as long as its not all made up bollocks, ultimately even if it doesnt pan out its still good to be kept up to date.
Cheers.

[coop]

Sheikh Makhtoum has always been interested in buying Liverpool its not a sudden thing.

Rashid is right in that its not likely to be DIC although they may well still be involved in any potential bids for the club but under the umberella of Dubai Holding.

Again Rashid is right in that under the ownership of DIC we would have certain financial restrictions but under guise of Sheikh Makhtoum they would be no such problems.

I have not heard anything concrete but there are pretty strong rumours regards what Olly Kay said in the Times regards Sheikh Makhtoum been the head of a consortium preparing another assault in the next few weeks.

Why the Sheikh would need to bring a consortium i dont know but if they do come in and make a bid i cant see how they can be any worse.

[Dhav]

bump

Tom

[Ferrrrnando]

Some people have been shown up as short sighted idiots. Rocket should be too embarrassed to call himself a Liverpool fan.

[calvoboy]

I understand that, the point that I was trying to make was that with all the negative press towards the Yanks and all the insider info saying that they were not what they claimed, people disregarded all of this and refused to believe there were problems as they could not see the exact truth.

My point is that as an outsider we will never get this, even after they have gone. We shall only ever get half truths from both camps. If you can't make a decision based on these then so be it. But as I said, all usually pro LFC sources suggested that all was not well, and yet people blindly ignored all this and took the word of some joker who had never posted anything other than pro Hicks bull ****.

That's fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

Anyone who thinks that Gillett and Hicks are great owners, or in any way good news for the club, are sticking their heads in the sand. On the other hand, there are those of us that agree the current owners are bad news, but are wary of jumping into bed with someone who may be equally as bad. The enemy of your enemy is not always necessarily your friend, and for all their faults Gillett and Hicks do have some redeeming qualities as owners. They have backed the manager in the transfer market more than Moores was able to, and have made some strides on the commercial front.

I always had doubts that a pure investment company such as DIC would be any better. I'm more encouraged that the Sheik himself might want to take over, and I look forward to seeing more details of his takeover bid if the rumours are true. I'm fed up of this destabilising **** though. If we can sort things out off the field we should make a serious assault on the league this year. If he's going to make a bid then let's hope that the collapse of the stadium project is the trigger and that a bid happens sooner rather than later.

[the rev leeroy brown]

That's fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

Anyone who thinks that Gillett and Hicks are great owners, or in any way good news for the club, are sticking their heads in the sand. On the other hand, there are those of us that agree the current owners are bad news, but are wary of jumping into bed with someone who may be equally as bad. The enemy of your enemy is not always necessarily your friend, and for all their faults Gillett and Hicks do have some redeeming qualities as owners. They have backed the manager in the transfer market more than Moores was able to, and have made some strides on the commercial front.

kind of contradicting yourself there mate. they are not great owners but in some ways they HAVE been good news for the club. if we were still stuck with moores we'd have no masher, babel or torres.

[calvoboy]

kind of contradicting yourself there mate. they are not great owners but in some ways they HAVE been good news for the club. if we were still stuck with moores we'd have no masher, babel or torres.

Not at all.

Are they good for the club as a whole? No.

Do they have some redeeming features? Yes.

No contradiction, on balance I'd prefer someone else to be owning our club but I can appreciate that some things have improved while others have hugely worsened under their tenure. They are not the devil incarnate as some make them out to be, but neither are they our saviours.

Nothing is ever black and white, there are always shades of grey.

[Johnny]

God,that thread was viciously streamlined by the MODS.I seem to remember having more than two posts in it.



I`m still not sure why Tom bumped it.He got slaughtered in it.

[Guest]

I`m still not sure why Tom bumped it.He got slaughtered in it.

Maybe it was wrong to slaughter him that's why he bumped it, as a reminder ? You were one of them who laid into him if I remember.

[Ferrrrnando]

God,that thread was viciously streamlined by the MODS.I seem to remember having more than two posts in it.



I`m still not sure why Tom bumped it.He got slaughtered in it.

Because he was right?

[rage]

indeed tom was right. whatever happened to the idiot who wrote all them pro yank p.r posts?

the problem is that this crap leads to protests etc and is a distraction on the pitch. unfortunately i can't see this being resolved discreatly as once would have been the way.