Hicks - "I Have No Problem With Rafa"

[Fiddy]

I won't slate them as long as they don't pay for the players through loans. I can understand and backs them paying for the stadium that way but not players or the money they bought the club for.

The only thing that should be paid through loans against the club is the stadium.

G&H can actually start to spend some money themselves from their own pockets. They will get that money back when the stadium is finished.

They can start to take some personal risks instead of the club taking the full blow if something goes wrong.

I know that Chelsea owe Roman a lot of money but for some reason I think Roman can afford to loan money to himself.

Nothing can go wrong there. If something goes wrong then Roman will just write of the debt.

If something goes wrong with the loan G&H will take then we will be owned by the bank.

Chelsea will be owned by Roman if something goes wrong, just like they are now.

You're so naive it's unbelievable. You really do wish he'd bought us don't you? How do you think the Mancs pay for their players, do you think the Glazers took the money for Tevez etc out of their trailer parks?!

Chelski are a one off and dangerous for the transfer market because they can spend what they like without any thought for the bottom line because millions are just chump change to Roman. No other club is like that, least of all us (and to be honest I'm glad), get over it.

[Fiddy]

Thought his analysis was spot on IMO. I thought the same, said so after the match and so did plenty others.

What would be worrying is if he thought we played well, when we clearly didn't. That would show he knows **** all. Would you prefer that? Would you prefer he was like a Peter Risdale?

Looks like he just can't win with some people. Which says more about some of the fans than him.

Judge them on what they do, not what they say.

And if you haven't had time to judge them on what they DO, at least judge them on what they actually SAY rather than a load of hysterics whipped up by the tabloids

[AFII]

You're so naive it's unbelievable. You really do wish he'd bought us don't you? How do you think the Mancs pay for their players, do you think the Glazers took the money for Tevez etc out of their trailer parks?!

Chelski are a one off and dangerous for the transfer market because they can spend what they like without any thought for the bottom line because millions are just chump change to Roman. No other club is like that, least of all us (and to be honest I'm glad), get over it.

Man U will soon break the £100m profit/season mark. They can afford to buy players without taking anymore loans against the club.

[Fiddy]

Man U will soon break the £100m profit/season mark. They can afford to buy players without taking anymore loans against the club.

I think you'll find they might need to pay their existing ones off first

[Neil Young]

Very.

And those are actual QUOTES too for all the numpty brigade, who should pay more attention to them than things made up by Daily Star reporters. Still, as you can see we're still getting the usual anti-American stuff on this thread

It's not anti-Americanism. It's anti-venture capitalist. Maybe it would be a good idea not to oversimplify and misrepresent.

[G]

I agree. Hicks can have his opinion but he knows f*ck all about football and as co-chairman would be well-advised to keep his views private rather than risk undermining the manager in public. Of course, he couldn't intentionally be looking to blame the management team, could he?

As for Man United, they play counter-attack against us at Anfield, a point that never gets mentioned by the drooling, cliché-spouting pundits.

Like I said I thought he was spot on,regardless of why he said it though I agree he should keep it to himself.Football is a simple game,it don't take long to figure out that if you sit back and play tight your not very likely to score against the really good defences like theirs.The fact is they do play counter attack against us but then so do we,both home and away we never go at them like we do against Chelsea and Arsenal, that was illustrated in the games against those 2 this season.

[Fiddy]

It's not anti-Americanism. It's anti-venture capitalist. Maybe it would be a good idea not to oversimplify and misrepresent.

I think you're crediting some with too much intelligence there

[Skillz]

Man U will soon break the £100m profit/season mark. They can afford to buy players without taking anymore loans against the club.

You need to sit back and listen to others. Hopefully more informed than yourself. ManU were the richest club in the world with little or no debt and have been bought by some Yanks that have plunged the club into 800mill pounds of debt and added 5000 seats.

We are getting the same deal except we will get a new stadium and 25-30k new seats. This will leave us in about 600mill pound debt IMO. The problem is continuing to compete during the construction phase particlarly when other clubs have been strengthened.

Once we have a 70,000 capacity stadium we will be able to compete on a level footing.

[Neil Young]

I think you're crediting some with too much intelligence there

Possibly.

OK, so long as you're not accusing me of anti-Americanism.

[glynner]

It's not anti-Americanism. It's anti-venture capitalist. Maybe it would be a good idea not to oversimplify and misrepresent.

To be fair, words like "Yank c*nts" have been thrown around by a few posters.

[Neil Young]

Like I said I thought he was spot on,regardless of why he said it though I agree he should keep it to himself.Football is a simple game,it don't take long to figure out that if you sit back and play tight your not very likely to score against the really good defences like theirs.The fact is they do play counter attack against us but then so do we,both home and away we never go at them like we do against Chelsea and Arsenal, that was illustrated in the games against those 2 this season.

Sure, he may have been right - that's a matter of opinion - but to me the important points are that he's not really qualified to pronounce on it and, even if he were, his role within the club means he'd be better off not talking about it. I don't remember previous LFC chairmen analysing matches, at least not negatively.

Do Man United play counterattack football against us because they're lacking confidence or because their first task is not to lose and it's easier to score goals against top sides when they've lost the ball attacking and their players may be out of position?

[Neil Young]

To be fair, words like "Yank c*nts" have been thrown around by a few posters.

I was taking it personally (see above). My comments were hasty though and I withdraw them.

[captainfog]

I don't care where are owners are from as long as they run the club well and give rafa the support he needs to win the title.

For me the jury is out on whether they are doing that yet. We will see. I want them to because another change of ownership would be unnecessary upheaval and uncertainty.

My only worry about the debt is can G&H afford it, not LFC. LFC will never go bankrupt. It's too bigger brand, someone will always step in, however, we don't want to keep changing hands, as I said, it brings with it too much uncertainty on and off the pitch. Abram can afford that debt so if things go tits up things can be quickly sorted.

[G]

Sure, he may have been right - that's a matter of opinion - but to me the important points are that he's not really qualified to pronounce on it and, even if he were, his role within the club means he'd be better off not talking about it. I don't remember previous LFC chairmen analysing matches, at least not negatively.

Do Man United play counterattack football against us because they're lacking confidence or because their first task is not to lose and it's easier to score goals against top sides when they've lost the ball attacking and their players may be out of position?

Yes they do play that way for that reason but they don't do it against us at home.They played us of the park last season at OT,but got lucky the season before at old toilet.The thing is we seem happy trying not to concede a goal and hoping to nick one on the break rather than being proactive and trying to get one like we are when Chelsea or the Arse roll into town.It works fine against some teams but The Mancs are just as capable of nicking a goal as we are so the onus must be on us,as the home team to attack more.

[Skillz]

I was taking it personally (see above). My comments were hasty though and I withdraw them.

Hurts me too admit but he was right. Blunt, for sure but it does sum up our performance.