Dubai International to make bid for Liverpool FC

[AFII]

I think some of the youngsters are calculated but some I think ..yeah a roll of the dice.

Of all the cash we have spent on central midfielders, we could have brought in a class winger like Joaquin or Simao..in my opinion at least.

You need many quality young players even if only a few of them will make the grade because they need to play and train against quality youngsters week in week out.

[AFII]

Rafa couldn't go for quality before quantity before this season because he needed the CL money or else he would have got almost nothing to spend and that would have meant a missed CL place and then even more difficult to get a CL place the following season and so on.

If he had signed one quality player instead of three squad players then we would have been ****ed if the star player got a long term injury.

He couldn't take that risk.

[carrsim]

yes rafa may have spent 73m gross etc etc

but by astute managment of houllers dross he won us around 35m for 2005 champions league win

and probably, with astute management of own dross() he probably made the club 25m for Athens

so lets say the group stage is the minimum we expect- around 25m in tv cash, gate etc-

add say 3m for our successful cup fun then he created 48m off his own bat which imo he is perfectly entitled to expect to spend.

73m-48m=25m

so in 4 years he's asked for 25m in "not generated by success cash" ie some from the biggest tv deal in history, our rubbish merchandise, cheap sposnorship deals and his own player sales.

all in all i don't think he has done that badly, considering that most of the "big" signings (ie 5m or more. 5 ****ing million. wenger spent that on a teenager for ****s sake. 5m is a squad player at man utd)

reina, agger, alonso, crouch, torres, masher, garcia have all been a success.
yossi has proven to be worth the money (or even better than that) and lucas and skrtl should be promising

we'll lose money on pennant, we lost on morientes,we made profit on bellamy and momo and some of the bargain signings and free transfers most have not worked out but generally i don't think rafa can be questioned o transfers.

when he's had 10m or more to spend- alonso, torres and masher he seems to get it right.

tactics and team selection on the other hand......

[akjs123]

with regards the youngsters..

not at all convinced on this one. How many have made it through? Its almost like he is just snapping up all the available kids hoping a couple come off.

Youngsters take time. They cannot be thrown in the far end just like that. How long did it take for Van Persie to become a regular for Arse? Clichy is the same. They paid a fortune for Walcott and how has he turned out yet. Fabregas was an exception and that was only because of injury to Vieira and other CMs.
Remember most of our youth buys are 16-18 years old. They will break into the first team in 2-3 years time.

[barnes10]

hindsight is a wonderful thing isnt it.

when rafa was signing the likes of bellamy, pennant and kuyt everyone was thinking 'not bad, good value for money but i wish we could compete with chelski/man u' so its hardly fair to now start slating the signings because they didnt turn into 5million pound world beaters.

in general rafa's losses have been minimal, and equate to his transfer profits. so given that he cannot just money-no-object cherry pick, the man deserves to be given some slack.

This season is rafa's equivalent to GH's 2002. Both men had pretty much finished overhauling a squad on a tight budget and were set to take 'the next step'. Where then GH brought in diouf, cheyrou and diao, rafa gets torres, babel, mascherano. now which set of signings looks better with or without hindsight and what's the difference? they are league above in terms of prices - approximately double - thats what.

But, it wouldnt surprise me to see that rafa's men would double their own transfer fees - torres @35mil, babel @20 and masher @15 (his 17mill included wages didnt it). This ignores agger (10-15mill), insua (2.5mill), arbeloa (6/7mil) and voronin (5 mill?). About 15 mill of profit there too isnt there.

The fact is both previous managers have been hampered by tight purse strings. Rafa, unlike GH, has been able to more than pay his way via profits on players and prize money and has improved our club both on the pitch and in the bank.

Best value for money managers counting success, outlay and time in job has to guve us a rank of Wenger, then Rafa, then Fergie and then Mourinho.

can't fault the man, only the job he has had to do with the finances available.

now his player selection and slowness to react during matches leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.

all in all tho, as Tomkins article says (shouldnt this have been a new thread), the man would be almost impossible to replace.

[rage]

hindsight is a wonderful thing isnt it.

when rafa was signing the likes of bellamy, pennant and kuyt everyone was thinking 'not bad, good value for money but i wish we could compete with chelski/man u' so its hardly fair to now start slating the signings because they didnt turn into 5million pound world beaters.

in general rafa's losses have been minimal, and equate to his transfer profits. so given that he cannot just money-no-object cherry pick, the man deserves to be given some slack.

This season is rafa's equivalent to GH's 2002. Both men had pretty much finished overhauling a squad on a tight budget and were set to take 'the next step'. Where then GH brought in diouf, cheyrou and diao, rafa gets torres, babel, mascherano. now which set of signings looks better with or without hindsight and what's the difference? they are league above in terms of prices - approximately double - thats what.

But, it wouldnt surprise me to see that rafa's men would double their own transfer fees - torres @35mil, babel @20 and masher @15 (his 17mill included wages didnt it). This ignores agger (10-15mill), insua (2.5mill), arbeloa (6/7mil) and voronin (5 mill?). About 15 mill of profit there too isnt there.

The fact is both previous managers have been hampered by tight purse strings. Rafa, unlike GH, has been able to more than pay his way via profits on players and prize money and has improved our club both on the pitch and in the bank.

Best value for money managers counting success, outlay and time in job has to guve us a rank of Wenger, then Rafa, then Fergie and then Mourinho.

can't fault the man, only the job he has had to do with the finances available.

now his player selection and slowness to react during matches leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.

all in all tho, as Tomkins article says (shouldnt this have been a new thread), the man would be almost impossible to replace.

sorry amigo some of us were not only thinking but saying openly i wish he'd rather spent the money on one quality player instead of 3 or 4 maybes

[Lecter]

Mark Lawrenson: Ownership change may be the only way now for Liverpool FC
Feb 5 2008

IT IS a year since the arrival of Tom Hicks and George Gillett promised to herald the beginning of a new era at Anfield.

The pair came out, as Americans tend to do, with all guns blazing but they certainly said the right things and showed they were aware of the history and traditions of Liverpool FC.

The supporters were left to trust that there were certain assurances in the detail and structure of the takeover deal that would safeguard the future of the club.

Expectations were high over the new stadium and transfer money for Rafael Benitez to build a team capable of challenging for the Premier League title – and the signing of Fernando Torres and a flying start to the league campaign boded well.

But the first cracks started to appear in public after the infamous Benitez Press conference – in which he repeated the mantra that he was concentrating on coaching – and his tracksuited appearance for the Newcastle game that weekend.

At the time it looked merely like the manager had thrown his toys out of the pram, but in hindsight perhaps he was being cuter than we realised in flushing out the behind the scenes problems.

The revelations that the Americans had lined up a potential new manager in Jurgen Klinsmann dealt a potentially fatal blow to the bond that existed between supporters and owners.

Further news that the stadium plans had been scaled back and that a re-financing of the club would see the debt serviced from the Anfield coffers only heightened fears among fans that this was not what they had been expecting when the Americans outlined their vision and hopes for the future.

Twelve months on from that first Press conference and the owners have been the subject to unprecedented protests from the fans and even a suggestion the supporters unite to buy the club themselves. Unworkable though the idea is, it does reflect the depth of feeling among supporters who want to do something to help their beloved club.

The two co-owners reportedly do not see eye to eye over the way things have been handled which leaves further uncertainty, with DIC preparing the ground for another attempt to take over.

In the meantime Liverpool is left in limbo with question marks hanging over the future involvement of just about all the main players – from the owners to the manager.

Supporters worry about the effect on the players as results have waned and it must be impossible for it not to affect Benitez in some way.

Picking his best side as often as possible and allowing players to develop the partnerships that are so important to team play offers the Spaniard a quick remedy.

But when it comes to the takeover, the situation is far less clear. The intricate details of any deal do not really come out at the time and fans were reassured by the fact that Hicks and Gillett had both been involved in building stadia in America and running sporting franchises so they would have a feel for what happens in the world of sport.

But supporters are still waiting for work to begin on the stadium despite suggestions it would be just 60 days after the Americans’ arrival – with the prospect that Everton’s new ground could be done and dusted first.

And the manager is left to spend what he raises in terms of buying players with no bulging transfer kitty to dip into. Benitez is trying to lift the team to the next standard – which they have patently not achieved yet – but that does not make him a bad manager overnight after the successes he has enjoyed.

Liverpool have never been the type of football club to talk about things before they have been signed and sealed, but now fans read stories about things that have yet to happen.

In some ways the club has been left playing catch-up. It has always been well run, but when they were winning things at home and abroad in the 1970s and 80s, perhaps that was the time to develop the club commercially by looking at new markets in places like the Far East and Asia. Instead Manchester United seem to have stolen a march in that area and, indeed, seem to be the role model for success in a number of key areas along with Arsenal.

In many ways the Klinnsman revelation has been the most damaging to the owners. They are already operating thousands of miles way from the club, and were actually talking to another manager while their own team was doing fine.

It was a situation that lacked class, a point picked up on by Sir Alex Ferguson when he spoke out in support of Benitez recently.

Added to the rest of the equation, it means the Americans have lost the majority of the fans – and there seems NO WAI they are going to get that trust back.

The only way forward now seems to be another change of ownership – but at the very heart of any new leadership must be that the best interests of Liverpool FC are of paramount importance.

Mark Lawrenson was talking to RICHARD WILLIAMSON

[Lecter]

Don't shoot the owners. The real mystery is, how was Liverpool valued so low?

Sometimes numbers don't quite add up. Less than a year ago, Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr. bought Liverpool for $432 million. Or, rather, that's what the club's valuation was.

In fact, some $87 million of that total was debt, which the pair agreed to take on. So in fact, they really shelled out $345 million.

Actually, come to think of it, they didn't really shell out any of it. They borrowed it from various banks, putting up some of their own assets as collateral.

Of course, they need to pay interest on that loan which, at market rates, looks to be close to $50 million a year. But it most likely won't be Hicks and Gillett paying the interest, but rather Liverpool FC itself or, possibly, Kop Holdings, the company they created to buy the club.

But I digress. This column isn't about the implications of two guys crossing the ocean to buy one of the most historic and successful clubs in the world for "no money down," like the people say in those crappy real estate infomercials you might stumble upon at 2 a.m.

In fact, I come to praise Gillett and Hicks, not to bury them. Because the fact of the matter is that, if they wanted to (and, in public at least, they say they don't), they could easily sell the club for between $600 million and $1 billion. Depending on which estimate you believe, that's how much Dubai International Capital -- the company which Hicks and Gillett outbid a year ago to gain control of the club -- is willing to pay for Liverpool FC.

Which, of course, means that each of them could sell and walk away with at least $100 million (and possibly much more than that) in profit.

"Buy low, sell high" is, of course, an age-old rule in business. Gillett and Hicks have figured it out perfectly. But when you (potentially) make so much money in so little time, there can be only one explanation: Someone -- either the guy who sold you the asset or the guy who bought the asset from you (or possibly both) -- got his numbers wrong. Spectacularly wrong.

And so the question here is, who needs to wear the financial dunce cap? Who completely misread how much Liverpool is really worth? Was it David Moores, who sold Hick and Gillett the club, valuing it at $345 million? Or is the folks from Dubai, who think it could be worth at least $600 million?

That's a difference of $255 million. And one thing which everyone can agree on is that the value of Liverpool FC did not increase by that amount in 11 months.

Just look at what happened since February 2007. Liverpool is currently seventh in the Premier League after finishing third last year. Most likely it will finish third or fourth, which is pretty much where it has finished most seasons for the past decade.

It did get to the Champions League final last season and, while that was a nice little money-spinner, it's not something you can bank on year after year. The club bought some players and sold others, ending up with a negative transfer balance, which was generally covered by the extra Champions League income.

As for the much-anticipated 70,000-seat stadium, it's still just a drawing right now, although Hicks says they spent a lot of money on architectural and engineering studies.

So, back to the question. Who got it wrong? Moores or Dubai International Capital? Or both?

Here's a little clue. When Liverpool was sold last February, it owned both Anfield and the Melwood training ground outright, two venues which, at a conservative estimate, must be worth around $100 million alone. It had a Premier League contract guaranteeing between $60 million and $100 million in TV money over the next three years. And it had a collection of players which, again speaking conservatively, had to be worth in excess of $200 million.

And then you can factor in estimated future income from the Champions League, FA Cup, Carling Cup, the club's merchandising operation and its sponsorship deals (we're talking, after all, of the second-biggest club in England in terms of number of fans).

So $345 million with no money down for all that? Sounds like quite a deal.

The Gillett and Hicks takeover of Liverpool FC has probably been bad for the game and for the club. But it's been a phenomenal bit of business for Gillett and Hicks themselves.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/gabriele_marcotti/01/31/liverpool.owners/index.html

[AFII]

The club bought some players and sold others, ending up with a negative transfer balance, which was generally covered by the extra Champions League income.

CNN got that wrong. They loaned that money.

[CAD]

And so the question here is, who needs to wear the financial dunce cap? Who completely misread how much Liverpool is really worth? Was it David Moores, who sold Hick and Gillett the club, valuing it at $345 million? Or is the folks from Dubai, who think it could be worth at least $600 million?

Is it even a question? Of course it's David Moores, who planned his exit about as well as his stewardship. Total **** of a businessman. But probably a very nice guy. I wish it had been the other way around tbh.

[Darkon]

Is it even a question? Of course it's David Moores, who planned his exit about as well as his stewardship. Total **** of a businessman. But probably a very nice guy. I wish it had been the other way around tbh.

And congrats, that is what we have now - a total asshole, but a quite the businessman aka Hicks

[CAD]

And congrats, that is what we have now - a total asshole, but a quite the businessman aka Hicks

But imagine what a good businessman could have done with LFC over the past 18 years! The time we need now to rebuild is based on the utter incompetence and lack of vision since D. Moores took over.

[Darkon]

But imagine what a good businessman could have done with LFC over the past 18 years! The time we need now to rebuild is based on the utter incompetence and lack of vision since D. Moores took over.

True, but having a shrewd businesman at the wheel is in itself not enough - can still ruin a club. We really need the combo of Moores and a hicks, a good businessman with passion for the club.

[Exiled_red]

True, but having a shrewd businesman at the wheel is in itself not enough - can still ruin a club. We really need the combo of Moores and a hicks, a good businessman with passion for the club.

[Lecter]

LFC ONE YEAR ONE: The stockbroker's view by Neil Blankstone


A LOT has transpired in the 12 months since Messrs Hicks & Gillett took over LFC.


Dubai International Capital (DIC) was in the driving seat in November 2006, having secured an agreement in principal with the majority shareholder David Moores to takeover the club.


Then, at the “11th hour” George Gillett finally found a business partner, Tom Hicks, enabling them to table the same offer as DIC.


David Moores felt morally obliged to consider not only the other shareholders but also the supporters and as a result requested of DIC 24 hours to consider matters.


DIC felt this had broken the agreement and walked away from David Moores (but not LFC!) leaving only the American offer on the table.


With the costs of the proposed new stadium development rising almost daily, a deal was quickly struck, the Americans taking full control by April 2007.


Initially, the deal was not structured in the same way as the Glazer takeover of Manchester United ie loading the club with debt.


It was recognised that a refinancing of the loans taken out to cover the initial transaction and the whole of the clubs financial base would be reorganised within a fairly short space of time.


A well-documented deal has been struck with banks Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia that appears to have been split in three parts:


£105m of debt directly onto Liverpool’s books


£185m by KOP Football Limited


£60m of personal guarantees by Hicks and Gillett.


All of this was negotiated at the height of turmoil in the world’s financial markets and whilst the exact terms of the deal are not known, one of the reasons it probably took until the last minute to complete the refinancing is the volatility in market rates.


It would also appear that David Moores and Rick Parry, who remain on the board of the Kop Holding Company, had concerns as to the placing of too much debt on the club’s balance sheet.


The banks appear to have insisted on total agreement at board level, hence the structure of the loans.


Is the debt serviceable? In the last 12 months two significant television deals have been completed.


Domestically, although Sky lost its exclusive rights the rights still exceeded the previous deal. Probably more importantly, the International rights to Premier League games saw the same price achieved as the last round of domestic rights.


That alone means an even greater audience will now be reached adding to the potential for increased marketing activity.


LFC has also launched its TV channel on the Setanta Sports network, whilst an overhaul of its website has seen the number of visitors increase materially.


The team is also expected to continue to challenge for the game’s top honours. Qualifying for the European Champions League is important (preferably reaching the last 16 as a minimum – anything beyond that being a substantial bonus), but missing out twice in a five-year period would not be a complete disaster (although two consecutive years would put a strain on cash flow).


All of this, however, means that even an annual interest bill reported at £30m per annum should be manageable.


There is also the matter of the new stadium. The merchandising of LFC through the new mediums needs to be undertaken alongside this.


An extra 20,000-25,000 people attending 18 league matches a season would generate additional £10.8m- £13.5m revenue per season.


Add Champions League matches to that and you can see the difference.


Meanwhile, the rumour mill continues in full swing that Liverpool may be subject to a further change in ownership.


As stated above DIC did not walk away from LFC and it would appear that Tom Hicks did offer them a 15% stake.


It his partnership with George Gillett that is most under scrutiny and as always it then comes down to valuation.


With the extra revenue and despite much work to be done with regard to the new stadium, as well as the increased debt, it is clear that LFC is worth more today than it was 12 months ago.