By Gordon Farquhar
Fresh doubt have been cast over Liverpool over the uncertainty of George Gillett's and Tom Hicks's futures as co-owners of the famous club.
The American duo are attempting to secure a £350m loan to repay previous loans and begin work on a new stadium, while Dubai International Capital - the investment arm of the Dubai Government - are ready to make an offer to buy the club outright.
So what exactly is going on off-the-pitch at Anfield?
What does refinancing mean?
Refinancing's a bit like remortgaging, or consolidating loans.
It is a chance to get rid of some more punitive debts with high interest rates in the short-term for lower repayments over a longer period.
It helps viable businesses facing cash flow problems, for instance like a successful football club needing to build a new stadium!
Why is the club being refinanced?
Hicks and Gillett need to spread the risk.
They have got a stadium to build and need money at a time when the global "credit crunch" is making borrowing expensive - and in some cases, impossible.
It's quite normal for businesses to do this - the Glazers did it with Manchester United. It is down to the judgement of the directors as to how they want to run their finances.
Do Hicks andGillett want to sell? If so, at what price?
It is very difficult to give a straightforward answer to that. The Americans are businessmen, who are ultimately looking for a return on their investment.
When they take that return might be influenced by any number of things. Hicks is adamant that talk of selling is out of order, he has not been negotiating on a deal and is committed to the club.
On the face of it, that is unequivocal. But we know there have been talks at some level.
Some might view this as just playing "hard to get".
There are offers that cannot be refused, but at the moment it seems Hicks and Gillett are giving the impression they are not desperate to sell, and DIC do not want to overpay.
If those positions shift, then things will probably happen quite quickly.
Who controls the club? Do Hicks and Gillett or the bankers who lent the money?
Again, it is a bit like the mortgage on your house.
You own a bit, the banks own a bit and if you cannot make the repayments, then the banks hold the security of your property up their sleeves.
Normally, a bank would not get involved in the day-to-day running of a business, unless they stopped getting the monthly payments.
As long as Hicks and Gillett keep making them, they will keep calling the shots.
What financial state are Liverpool in?
They are a successful club, benefiting from unprecedented payments from the Premier League's TV deal with strong match-day revenue streams.
owever, Liverpool are not as strong as Manchester United, Arsenal, who have bigger stadiums or Chelsea, who are bankrolled by owner Roman Abramovich.
And now the club is loaded with debt associated with the purchase by Hicks and Gillett.
Moving to the new home in Stanley Park is a crucial part of their future business growth plans. It is all about risk.
They could stay put, take the TV money and try and make the most of 40,000 bums on seats each week.
Moving is a longer term investment, much as Wembley is for the Football AssociationA - lots of cash upfront, but in the end, it gives you a better return.
The question is, how long are Hicks and Gillett prepared to wait for payday?
Is this usual business practice for Hicks and Gillett?
They have made their money through a number of different business models, among them by getting into business with debts, restructuring and reorganising, making them profitable then selling them on.
The sports franchises they have invested in have been longer-term interests. Hicks bought the Dallas Stars Ice hockey team in 1995 and the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1998.
Gillett bought the NHL side the Montreal Canadiens in 2000 and there are no signs of them being offloaded. But they are risk takers and risk calculators.
What's the outlook for the team with this uncertainty going on?
It's a bit of a cliche to suggest the players and manager get distracted by this sort of thing.
It is not a given. Some, like Jamie Carragher, are clearly upset at what is been going on, but that doesn't mean he is playing worse or better as a result.
A lot of players probably do not give two hoots.
Fans are upset because their feelings for the club and its history transcend the short term issues of profit, loss and ownership.
That said, Manchester United had a dip in form during the Glazer takeover wrangling. Perhaps that was a co-incidence, but maybe not.
On balance, you would say that stable ownership with a hands-off approach to team affairs from the owners - take Randy Learner at Villa for example - probably makes for the best climate.
What are the implications for Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez?
If Gillett and Hicks stay, their differences of opinion over transfers and the Jurgen Klinnsman gaffe would make you question Benitez's long-term position.
If DIC take over, then it would not be unusual for the new owners to change the management around.
If they come in promising a transfer war chest for the summer, they might want someone different to spend it for them.
But Liverpool might have won the Champions League by then!
Fresh doubt have been cast over Liverpool over the uncertainty of George Gillett's and Tom Hicks's futures as co-owners of the famous club.
The American duo are attempting to secure a £350m loan to repay previous loans and begin work on a new stadium, while Dubai International Capital - the investment arm of the Dubai Government - are ready to make an offer to buy the club outright.
So what exactly is going on off-the-pitch at Anfield?
What does refinancing mean?
Refinancing's a bit like remortgaging, or consolidating loans.
It is a chance to get rid of some more punitive debts with high interest rates in the short-term for lower repayments over a longer period.
It helps viable businesses facing cash flow problems, for instance like a successful football club needing to build a new stadium!
Why is the club being refinanced?
Hicks and Gillett need to spread the risk.
They have got a stadium to build and need money at a time when the global "credit crunch" is making borrowing expensive - and in some cases, impossible.
It's quite normal for businesses to do this - the Glazers did it with Manchester United. It is down to the judgement of the directors as to how they want to run their finances.
Do Hicks andGillett want to sell? If so, at what price?
It is very difficult to give a straightforward answer to that. The Americans are businessmen, who are ultimately looking for a return on their investment.
When they take that return might be influenced by any number of things. Hicks is adamant that talk of selling is out of order, he has not been negotiating on a deal and is committed to the club.
On the face of it, that is unequivocal. But we know there have been talks at some level.
Some might view this as just playing "hard to get".
There are offers that cannot be refused, but at the moment it seems Hicks and Gillett are giving the impression they are not desperate to sell, and DIC do not want to overpay.
If those positions shift, then things will probably happen quite quickly.
Who controls the club? Do Hicks and Gillett or the bankers who lent the money?
Again, it is a bit like the mortgage on your house.
You own a bit, the banks own a bit and if you cannot make the repayments, then the banks hold the security of your property up their sleeves.
Normally, a bank would not get involved in the day-to-day running of a business, unless they stopped getting the monthly payments.
As long as Hicks and Gillett keep making them, they will keep calling the shots.
What financial state are Liverpool in?
They are a successful club, benefiting from unprecedented payments from the Premier League's TV deal with strong match-day revenue streams.
owever, Liverpool are not as strong as Manchester United, Arsenal, who have bigger stadiums or Chelsea, who are bankrolled by owner Roman Abramovich.
And now the club is loaded with debt associated with the purchase by Hicks and Gillett.
Moving to the new home in Stanley Park is a crucial part of their future business growth plans. It is all about risk.
They could stay put, take the TV money and try and make the most of 40,000 bums on seats each week.
Moving is a longer term investment, much as Wembley is for the Football AssociationA - lots of cash upfront, but in the end, it gives you a better return.
The question is, how long are Hicks and Gillett prepared to wait for payday?
Is this usual business practice for Hicks and Gillett?
They have made their money through a number of different business models, among them by getting into business with debts, restructuring and reorganising, making them profitable then selling them on.
The sports franchises they have invested in have been longer-term interests. Hicks bought the Dallas Stars Ice hockey team in 1995 and the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1998.
Gillett bought the NHL side the Montreal Canadiens in 2000 and there are no signs of them being offloaded. But they are risk takers and risk calculators.
What's the outlook for the team with this uncertainty going on?
It's a bit of a cliche to suggest the players and manager get distracted by this sort of thing.
It is not a given. Some, like Jamie Carragher, are clearly upset at what is been going on, but that doesn't mean he is playing worse or better as a result.
A lot of players probably do not give two hoots.
Fans are upset because their feelings for the club and its history transcend the short term issues of profit, loss and ownership.
That said, Manchester United had a dip in form during the Glazer takeover wrangling. Perhaps that was a co-incidence, but maybe not.
On balance, you would say that stable ownership with a hands-off approach to team affairs from the owners - take Randy Learner at Villa for example - probably makes for the best climate.
What are the implications for Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez?
If Gillett and Hicks stay, their differences of opinion over transfers and the Jurgen Klinnsman gaffe would make you question Benitez's long-term position.
If DIC take over, then it would not be unusual for the new owners to change the management around.
If they come in promising a transfer war chest for the summer, they might want someone different to spend it for them.
But Liverpool might have won the Champions League by then!
