Liverpool debt dispute forces Americans to consider sale

[Sir Bob]

Making money isn't potentially a bad thing. One thing that many fans felt with Moores was that the club wasn't run efficiently enough as a business. A better business should, in theory, mean more money coming in to the club that would help us compete in the transfer market and as such be better prepared to win trophies.

It's the way the owners plan to do it that's worrying. If we missed out on CL footy for one season we could potentially end up like Leeds with the amount of debt they plan to saddle the club with.

Money making isn't a bad thing and there's little doubt LFC's off the field revenue hasn't been exploited as well as it should have been.

Whilst LFC like any club has to be run as any business would, it essentially was operated by football criteria rather than business. By that I mean everything was done to make the club successful on the pitch. Decisions were taken to maximise the chances of success on the pitch. It was football 1st, business 2nd.

Now its the other way round. Every decision is made with the aim of making money rather than winning trophies. Often those 2 aims are one and the same, but often they aren't.

[kris90210]

Basically DIC is the investment arm for Sheik Mohammed. Whilst the man is an undoubted winner (anyone who follows horse racing will know all about him) I still believe they will essentially want LFC to make money.

If money was no object and it was all about glory why didn't they simply offer another £30 or £40m and blow G&H out of the water. Lets face it, it would hardly break the bank for them.

I remember when it looked like DIC would buy LFC, listening to Brough Scott, a well known and respected racing journalist. He has very close links to Sheik mohammed and set up the Racing Post paper with him. He said that whilst DIC would want LFC to be no.1, it would be have to be financially viable. There's no way he thought the Sheik would simply throw money at the problem.

Thats all fair enough - I dont think many of us would have a problem with that. Ive just watched the Gillett/Hicks press conference again and my problem with them is that they clearly stated that there would be no debt on the club - a lie. They stated that transfer policy would be player specific - again a lie (this whole Mascherano farce). Possibly most importantly they vowed to stay true to our traditions - Hicks' behavious of late has been nothing short of disgusting.

As far as making Liverpool profitable. Im no business man but how hard can it be?! We have hundreds of millions of fans world wide. Arsenal are making a profit and we have ten times the fans. Im sure I have a really nieve view on this but thats how I see it at the moment :S

[Redlife]

I don't know how much or specifically what to believe about these loans and the financial dealings of Hicks and Gillette, but for how they've treated Rafa - and thus the club too - they can leave now as far as I'm concerned.


Niggling away at and potentially replacing a great manager and commenting in the press all the time, it seems, is not just NOT how we do things at Liverpool; it's not how any sensible and honourable institution is run.


Hopefully they got a shock when they asked Klinsmann about Liverpool and winning the Premiership and he told them exactly what Rafa's been telling them all along: it'll take time AND money.


Unless they take on these loans themselves, offer Rafa a new extended deal and plenty of transfer funds, then they need to leave. That's how I feel about this sorry affair.

[Dhav]

I don't know how much or specifically what to believe about these loans and the financial dealings of Hicks and Gillette, but for how they've treated Rafa - and thus the club too - they can leave now as far as I'm concerned.


Niggling away at and potentially replacing a great manager and commenting in the press all the time, it seems, is not just NOT how we do things at Liverpool; it's not how any sensible and honourable institution is run.


Hopefully they got a shock when they asked Klinsmann about Liverpool and winning the Premiership and he told them exactly what Rafa's been telling them all along: it'll take time AND money.


Unless they take on these loans themselves, offer Rafa a new extended deal and plenty of transfer funds, then they need to leave. That's how I feel about this sorry affair.

They need to leave regardless. What they have done is a betrayal, the trust of the fans is gone. There's no coming back from this, from my perspective.

[Redlife]

They need to leave regardless. What they have done is a betrayal, the trust of the fans is gone. There's no coming back from this, from my perspective.

[kurtangle01]

They need to leave regardless. What they have done is a betrayal, the trust of the fans is gone. There's no coming back from this, from my perspective.

My feelings as well. I gave them the benifit of the doubt but, to be honest, I feel like a mug now for doing so.

They way they've treated Rafa, lied about the finances and shown a complete lack of respect for the club as a whole is the final straw.
They lied their way in to a position of trust and when you do that and get found out, as they have, then there's no coming back because people can't and wont believe a word they say now.

I'm going to bed and hopefully the coming days bring us the news we want. The owners must leave!

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

They need to leave regardless. What they have done is a betrayal, the trust of the fans is gone. There's no coming back from this, from my perspective.

But they don't need our trust, do they?

They'll still be able to take advantage of our loyalty.

If they think they can make money, they won't be going anywhere, and we can do **** all about it.

This is what happens when you sell the club to grapsing cunts who aren't fans.

[Bari]

I have seen the future, the future is DIC

Sameer Al Ansari opening and only statement after he purchases Liverpool FC

""When you walk through a storm
Hold your head up high
And don't be afraid of the dark

At the end of the storm
Is a golden sky
And the sweet silver song of a lark

Walk on through the wind
Walk on through the rain
Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown

Walk on, walk on
With hope in your heart
And you'll never walk alone
You'll never walk alone"

Kalka-lash

[Dhav]

But they don't need our trust, do they?

They'll still be able to take advantage of our loyalty.

If they think they can make money, they won't be going anywhere, and we can do **** all about it.

This is what happens when you sell the club to grapsing cunts who aren't fans.

You're right, they don't. But what they do need is our money. If they do stay on board, and do sack Rafa for non-footballing reasons, and do hire a muppet in the Klinsmann mould, then they'll not be getting a penny from me. No more replica kits, no more match tickets and going to Anfield. It's a big sacrifice to make from my perspective, it will break my heart not showing my support to my team. But I refuse to line their pockets, I refuse to allow them to exploit my love of my club so they can get richer.

I think if a few thousand like minded people did the same, and the ground was only 30,000 - 35,000 full every game, it would make a big difference, it would hit them in the pocket very hard. It might be detrimental to the team, but it's for the greater good. It would take a lot of sacrifice for that to happen though, and to be honest it probably wouldn't, you would still find people to take those seats and fill out the ground. Which is why I think our only hope of getting rid of these two lies solely with the banks, and them refusing to refinance their existing loan, or perhaps the board frustrating the deal by vetoing any loan which burdens the club with debt.

[bazza76]

Owners' dispute eclipses Liverpool's new deal

Owners' dispute eclipses Liverpool's new deal

By David Bond
Last Updated: 1:59am GMT 17/01/2008

Liverpool's American owners are edging closer to clinching a breakthrough refinancing deal with banks despite growing tensions between the club's joint chairmen Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

According to City sources, a £350 million deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland and American investment bank Wachovia could be announced early next week. It is understood lawyers for both sides are now working through the fine print of the funding package which, if confirmed, will come six weeks before an existing one-year loan used to finance the American takeover expires. Once concluded the Americans hope the deal will restore a sense of calm to Anfield after a period of extraordinary instability.
advertisement

But the Daily Telegraph has learned that there remains deep uncertainty about the relationship between Hicks and Gillett, the two US sports entrepreneurs who bought Liverpool in a £220 million deal last February. And even if the refinancing deal is confirmed, insiders are worried about how much longer the partnership will last.

Gillett is deeply unhappy with his joint owner following his explosive remarks in which he confirmed hat the pair had approached former Germany coach Jurgen Klinsmann about taking over from Rafa Benitez. Gillett has been seriously unsettled by the reaction.

He is understood to be all the more irritated as the Hicks gaffe came despite assurances from the Texan billionaire that he would stay silent until the club's future was more secure.

Gillett has also been reluctant to press ahead with the refinancing plans, fearing that the new structure will load too much debt on to the club's balance sheet. It is also known that Gillett, the less wealthy of the two men, has been struggling to meet the banks' demands to put up £75 million each of cash and personal guarantees.

At one stage the growing split threatened to plunge the club into a new takeover battle, just 12 months after the Americans squeezed out Dubai International Capital, the investment company of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

That remains a possibility, but any hopes DIC had of doing a deal with Gillett to buy out Hicks' 50 per cent holding appeared to be fading last night.

DIC are understood to be prepared to bide their time, believing that the relationship between Hicks and Gillett could be beyond repair and that the refinancing will only be a short-term measure.

Under the terms of the deal, around half of the £350 million of debt is to be placed on to Liverpool's books, partly to finance the start of work on the new £400 million stadium at Stanley Park and to refinance £20 million of loans for new players. The move is a reversal of the vow the Americans gave when they took control not to copy the approach taken by the Glazer family at Manchester United.

The rest is to be secured against Liverpool's parent company Kop Holdings. Having blocked attempts to load all the debt on to the club last year, former chairman David Moores, who remains a director, and chief executive Rick Parry, are uneasy about how the borrowing will be serviced, with interest payments of £30 million a year.

Questions unanswered

How sound is the Hicks/Gillett relationship?
The Jurgen Klinsmann gaffe has placed extra strain on a partnership already cracking over the £350m refinancing.

How much of the £350m debt will be placed on the club?
About half, with the rest on parent company Kop Football - with interest of £30m a year.

What happens if Gillett decides to pull out of the bank deal?
He could look to bring in Dubai International Capital and try to force out Hicks.

Will DIC give up on their plans to own Liverpool?
No. They will bide their time but a quick deal is unlikely if Hicks strengthens his grip.

What does the bank deal mean for Rafa Benitez
It looks like a question of when, not if, the Spaniard leaves.

[bigfooty]

If anything when the funding is announced there will be yet a further barrage of reports and hysteria in the media about how Liverpool have been plunged into debt with the stroke of a pen.

[Skillz]

I actually think G&H made promises to Rafa (and Parry, Moores) with regard to player spending. Rafa called them on it last summer, they managed to placate Rafa till this window with further promises. Once G&H realised they couldn't deliver they decided to approach Klinsmann before advising Rafa as they probably expected Rafa to walk.

Then they told him, probably had to come clean on some things re money for the future and Rafa sat back and decided he still wants the job (perhaps also suspected change in ownership?).

Just thinking out loud here but it would explain his big interview in the Echo re his wanting to stay when rumours surfaced again about Real Madrid.

Anyway whichever you look at Rafa comes out a legend. Personally think he has puts his job on the line in our interests eg fighting for transfer funds

[carlton]

If anything when the funding is announced there will be yet a further barrage of reports and hysteria in the media about how Liverpool have been plunged into debt with the stroke of a pen.

yep, no doubt. However it does make sense to put the loan for the stadium on the club for taxation purposes.

[Shanks65]

Times
Hicks gives Liverpool plenty to chew on

In urban slang - and a hilariously bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie - the phrase "coyote ugly" refers to the business of waking after a drunken evening next to a suitor so hideous that one would rather chew one's arm off than wake him or her, much as some coyotes will gnaw off their paw if it is caught in a trap.

Who knows how the Liverpool chief executive, Rick Parry, is feeling this week after reading the Rafael Benítez-undermining comments of the club's co-owner Tom Hicks but it must be hoped he is pondering at least some sort of self-administered bite for the blithe manner in which he allowed the club to become bedfellows with the Texan and his partner, George Gillett.

Urging the fans to take it on trust that these men were "the right people", Parry and his departing chairman, David Moores, permitted Dubai International Capital's bid for Liverpool to be gazumped last year and the club was bought by two American businessmen who had set up a private limited company called "Kop", one of whom gushed that the atmosphere at Anfield was "like nothing I've ever heard or felt".

Mmm. Gillett is married but you get the feeling that on any notional first date he would claim Sex and the City was his favourite TV show and that he was all about the post-coital cuddle and chat.

It seems somehow fitting that Hicks is a huge George Bush supporter. The US president has never judged that the fact most of his coterie were draft dodgers should preclude them from running wars, and his runaway success with this strategy remains an inspiration to us all - certainly to the two men who know nothing about football who are running Liverpool and who this week even gave us their version of that central tenet of the Bush Doctrine: the pre-emptive strike. Jürgen Klinsmann was sounded out for the manager's job just in case, or for safety's sake or because Hicks' and Gillett's intelligence suggested Rafa possessed weapons of mass destruction. I forget the precise excuse but it was totally convincing.

Then again Hicks did once compare the manner in which he purchased Liverpool to the manner in which he purchased Weetabix. It is often said of businessmen who buy into a product in which other people have an emotional rather than monetary investment that, for all they care, they might as well be selling soap powder or dog food. Hicks does actually own a dog food factory in Argentina. Whether he is more attached to this commodity or to another flesh-based investment such as Fernando Torres is hard to say.

The thing that seems increasingly surprising, really, is that anyone is surprised at the manner in which the deal has backfired. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but there are plenty willing to stick their necks out and risk some foresight on how the vogue for foreign prospectors snapping up clubs will pan out.

Plucking two recent Premier League annexations from the air, I would hazard that the Glazer family's association with Manchester United will not end happily (many, notably the red rebels behind FC United of Manchester, would contend the damage has already been done); and that the Amnesty-condemned former Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, will not ultimately prove the saintly saviour of Manchester City that those willing to turn a blind eye to his human rights record might currently fancy him to be. Similarly Liverpool supporters might be hasty in breathing a sigh of relief even if a magic wand was waved and their club ended up owned instead by the investment arm of the Dubai government.

There is a school of thought that says there have always been owners who were somewhat unlikable and that this new breed of Abramoviches and Thaksins are no more unlikable than your Doug Ellises or your Kenneth Bateses. But maybe it is time to be slightly less credulous when strangers turn up promising the moon on a stick.

If Rick Parry is not embarrassed at how trusting he was, the rest of us should be doubly wary of even offering that old standby - the "cautious welcome" - to the next set of speculators who set their sights on a piece of English football. In fact, perhaps we should concur that it will end in tears at some unspecified point and set about laying in supplies for the inevitable heartbreak.

Will we? Of course not. The ability to convince oneself that the unlikely is possible is arguably the quintessential element of the football fan's psyche and the heart sinks just wondering who will be the next person for whom some club's supporters will have to suspend their disbelief.

[Jimthered]

FRESH rumours were circulating last night that an Arab investment group is poised to swoop on Liverpool FC if the club’s American owners continue to experience difficulties in refinancing £350m of debt.

It is understood Dubai Inter- national Capital (DIC) are close to lodging an offer to buy out Tom Hicks and George Gillett, probably for about £500m.

If correct, it would be a remarkable turnaround for DIC, owned by Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed, who were bid rivals at the time Hicks and Gillett bought the club a year ago, and shows they have not given up hope of taking control at Anfield.

But the rumours – which could see Liverpool FC changing hands for the second time in a year – were strongly denied by sources at the club.

It is understood the US pair have been attempting to trans-fer the debt used to buy the club, for which they are per- sonally liable and which is due to be repaid at the end of February, on to the club itself but have encountered difficul- ties because of the current global credit squeeze.

If DIC is successful, it is claimed, the outfit led by Liverpool supporter Sameer Al Ansari would invest heavily in the new stadium at Stanley Park and the playing squad.

DIC were extremely close to buying Liverpool last February, only to lose when Hicks and Gillett joined forces.

The latter paid £174.1m for a 100% shareholding, also agreeing to take on the club’s then debt of £44.8m. The purchase, however, was funded solely with borrowed money. Hicks and Gillett’s loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland swelled to £350m as it was used to fund several high-profile summer transfers, development work and architect’s plans for the 60,000-seat stadium in Stanley Park.

Hicks and Gillett declined to comment last night.

A meeting in New York last week saw architects HKS and AFL present new competing stadium designs, seen as vital for the club to increase revenue to allow it to compete with Man Utd and Arsenal.

But an expected decision at the end of last week has been delayed for around two weeks.

Middle East sources say DIC remain keenly interested in buying Liverpool.

SPORT: P32 & POST MATCH

alanweston