Dubai International to make bid for Liverpool FC

[disco]

BBC sent him an email according to five live but he has so far not responded to it.

BBC asked him before the interview if he would answer any questions about it, he declined to do it.

That's two very decent attempts.

**** me, you're all so defeatist.

I'm sure a well organised, constructive, non-militant supporters group would get a response. If they didn't then something is seriously ****ed up.

[AFII]

**** me, you're all so defeatist.

I'm sure a well organised, constructive, non-militant supporters group would get a response. If they didn't then something is seriously ****ed up.

So BBC isn't neutral enough?

[AFII]

If you look at what Hicks did with Corinthians and what he now do with LFC, then so far he is following the exact same pattern.

[disco]

So BBC isn't neutral enough?

It's not about neutrality, it's about being obliged to respond.

At least Tom appears to get my point.

[Rowan]

BBC sent him an email according to five live but he has so far not responded to it.

BBC asked him before the interview if he would answer any questions about it, he declined to do it.

That's two very decent attempts.

I'm not defending Hick's but at the minute he is damned if he does and damed if he don't. The two senarios could have played out

1) Yes I have borrowed heavily against the club for my purchase in my most recent finance package. However we are also looking to develop some player capital and commence work on the stadium. - Fans response - You fat Yank cunt, you said you wouldn't do that. Get out of our club.

or

2) I have borrowed an amount against the club for the satdium and player capital only. - Fans response - You lying Yankie. We don't believe you as you are a pathalogical liar. Get out of our club!

Granted this position is of Hick's own making, due to his past tendency to bend the truth, however he is now in a position where whatever he says it will not be believed. Heres an example

Hicks - "We want Rafa to remain our manager for at least the next two years".

Us - "LIAR, burn him!!!!!"

or

Him "We will fund the Mascherano transfer"

Us- "LIAR, Burn him and eat his children!!!! You have no money you satanic Yankie areshole, you couldn't even afford Nigel Quashie, you madde Rafa sell Momo, I hate you, I hate you etc, etc"

The guy is just ****ed, for the time being at least, no matter what he does

[Alpha]

It's not about neutrality, it's about being obliged to respond.

At least Tom appears to get my point.

In light of recent events, aren't they obliged to tell us without having to be asked?

[dww]

So BBC isn't neutral enough?

I think that the BBC is slightly disassociated with the fanbase though. Hicks clearly thinks he can win people back if he can use neutral news sources to have what he wants people to hear distributed.

So far it would be easy for him to feel that the fans who have contacted him are against him no matter what and there is little point trying to alter their opinions in the short term. However in the long term he does require at least 'brand loyalty' for his plans to succeed.

If he though that some fans were giving him a fair chance and he could win them over he might reveal more - on the assumption that they were not looking for a story that will sell things (obviously the main aim of any journalist) or in the case of the BBC make their journalism look more incisive than commercial competitors [They need to get funded too at the end of the day].

Not saying it will work but allowing them a fair chance to either explain themselves or hoist themselves by their own petards would seem the most likely way to get any non-debatable information. Currently we rely on journalists who, much like posters on here, we know their pre-existing biases influence their thinking and have to make a saleable story.

[jrd7]

How can you say they 'won't provide any' when no-one's tried, or at least no-one's had a decent attempt (via a unified, constructive, supporter's group seeking answers - not making threats)

I think your final sentence speaks volumes - there's clearly no reasoning with you.

A journalist asked the direct question at the PC - No answer
BBC - told not to ask about the finance/debt.

The time I reasoned was when they arrived, that was when they had credit in the bank, but since then we've had documented lie after documented lie. He trips himself up more times than an extra in a charlie chaplin movie.

He knows how ****ed off people have been over the debt, and so to deal with our insecurities and fears he removes the topic from discussion. That worries the **** out of me, and is worryingly close to being run in the same way as dictators run their countries.

You won't like my answers, so I forbid you to ask the question. He may have difficulty over here though, for all we moan about press bias at times, they aren't wishy-washer ****ers that won't dig for stories, like the ****ing yank press.

That's as reasonable as I can be. I'm sorry if you see it through different eyes, because the fact everyone is still speculating, from the press to the fans means he hasn't cleared anything up but instead keeps the media writing about us, and me and you debating, when if I'm honest, I'd much rather be over on youporn having a wank over some fat hiairy turkish bird or other

They have to prove it to us, not the other way round.

Pacifism is always the wrong option, because one sadistic **** could take out a city in 1 night. Not on our watch, soldier. At ease gentlemen

[AFII]

Well, Hicks need all the good PR he can get so if everything was ok then he would say so.

It would also up the price of the club if it's taken care of in a good way.

[disco]

In light of recent events, aren't they obliged to tell us without having to be asked?

How can they when there's plainly no clear and consistent list of fans' concerns? 99% on here just say one of 'They're cunts, they're lying cunts, he's going to **** us over and turn us into Leeds'.

May be more info will be forthcoming. May be DIC will takeover and we'll have 12 months of happiness before we realise nothing's changed.

[Revo]

I think that the BBC is slightly disassociated with the fanbase though. Hicks clearly thinks he can win people back if he can use neutral news sources to have what he wants people to hear distributed.

So far it would be easy for him to feel that the fans who have contacted him are against him no matter what and there is little point trying to alter their opinions in the short term. However in the long term he does require at least 'brand loyalty' for his plans to succeed.

If he though that some fans were giving him a fair chance and he could win them over he might reveal more - on the assumption that they were not looking for a story that will sell things (obviously the main aim of any journalist) or in the case of the BBC make their journalism look more incisive than commercial competitors [They need to get funded too at the end of the day].

Not saying it will work but allowing them a fair chance to either explain themselves or hoist themselves by their own petards would seem the most likely way to get any non-debatable information. Currently we rely on journalists who, much like posters on here, we know their pre-existing biases influence their thinking and have to make a saleable story.

and what posters would that be

[Rowan]

Well, Hicks need all the good PR he can get so if everything was ok then he would say so.

It would also up the price on the club if it's taken care of in a good way.

Sorry mate, but thats pure piffle.

The club has a fixed value based on its combined assets and potential future earnings, based on long and short term projections. Up until we move in to the new stadium the clubs value will most likely remain static, although it may be boosted about a year beforehand.

The only thing that may raise is the value someone is willing to pay for the club, and this would be down to a willingness to make a business decision on the value of an assest and its potential future earnings. I personally think that there is noway DIC would have ever dreamed about paying the £500m that was first reported, because frankly it makes no sense financially. The Shiek would have had to have been on the crack pipe to consider it, unless it was an emotive takeover which is different and has no bearing on the actual value of the club.

[Revo]

Sorry mate, but thats pure piffle.

The club has a fixed value based on its combined assets and potential future earnings, based on long and short term projections. Up until we move in to the new stadium the clubs value will most likely remain static, although it may be boosted about a year beforehand.

The only thing that may raise is the value someone is willing to pay for the club, and this would be down to a willingness to make a business decision on the value of an assest and its potential future earnings. I personally think that there is noway DIC would have ever dreamed about paying the £500m that was first reported, because frankly it makes no sense financially. The Shiek would have had to have been on the crack pipe to consider it, unless it was an emotive takeover which is different and has no bearing on the actual value of the club.

[jrd7]

I think that the BBC is slightly disassociated with the fanbase though. Hicks clearly thinks he can win people back if he can use neutral news sources to have what he wants people to hear distributed.

So far it would be easy for him to feel that the fans who have contacted him are against him no matter what and there is little point trying to alter their opinions in the short term. However in the long term he does require at least 'brand loyalty' for his plans to succeed.

If he though that some fans were giving him a fair chance and he could win them over he might reveal more - on the assumption that they were not looking for a story that will sell things (obviously the main aim of any journalist) or in the case of the BBC make their journalism look more incisive than commercial competitors [They need to get funded too at the end of the day].

Not saying it will work but allowing them a fair chance to either explain themselves or hoist themselves by their own petards would seem the most likely way to get any non-debatable information. Currently we rely on journalists who, much like posters on here, we know their pre-existing biases influence their thinking and have to make a saleable story.

That's a ****ing leap of faith right there. The reason this ruthless club owner (not even us yet - read what he's done to dallas - and I don't mean he wrote really bad 80's scripts), won't tell us his plans for how he intends to make us great again, is becuase he's not sure all the fans will give poor victimised, Can't-be-arsed-to-pay-the-dallas-loan-so-they're-now-250million-indebt, the benefit of the doubt. These people are manipulators of the highest order, you have to be in America with all the lobbying that goes on.

Daft Cunts

[Darth Marty]

**** the pr machine, i know what I feel and im ****ing positive im right. The yank(s) (unsure about gillette to be honest) is/are lying ****ers from ****sville and deserve all of our continued barracking, ****s sake dont fall for spin, think about what we know.....Klinsmann anyone? £350 million worth of debt anyone? WITHOUT A ****ING STADIUM PAID FOR ANYONE?

**** them, lying, arrogant, deceitful cocksucking ****ers.