Hicks:"I am solidly behind Rafa"

[Skillz]

Some are. Some simply don't trust these blokes.

Too many gave them more than the benefit of the doubt when they took over. Hicks and Gillett really don't deserve more of the same right now.

Too bloody right. These pricks are treading and very slippery slope. They have been warned, big time, not to **** around with Liverpool Football Club!

Respect. That's what I want.

[bigfooty]

Or else Gillett is smart enough to learn from the last few weeks and keep his beak out of the press altogether. Hicks has some grovelling to do to the fans so that warrants his speaking out.

This isn't the press, its an official statement on the official site from the owners of the club.

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

Darren they set conditions - which they have subsequently broken - when they took over the club. I really find this painting of the resistance to the yanks as some kind of moronic lynch mob deeply offensive.

Interesting.

I think this goes back to the preconceived romanticised ideal of who runs the club, and more importantly how it's run.

I think the people who are now ranting and raving about the Yanks are the same people who fell for their talk at the beginning, with their so called "conditions", promises if you will.

I think this lynch mob mentality has a lot to do with people’s personal embarrassment that they got sucked in by it all. Perhaps it's possibly to do with DIC not taking over first time also.

You see I'm a professional cynic, and yes my heart’s in it , I knew what they were as soon as they arrived. I always thought they'd do something perceived to be unpopular, because to them it’s about money, they aren’t fans. I knew as soon as David Moores sold the club that we stopped primarily being a football club, and became a business, especially for anyone looking to invest.

And yet the consensus opinion was that we apparently had to go down this route to compete. "The lady doth protest too much" comes to mind now.

[DannyMan2006]

Sounds like they've got their work cut out to turn people around

Question - what would it take in the summer for people to edge from 'total disapproval' to 'cautious optimism'?

Mate, my problem is this:

David Moores himself admitted that he had looked at getting a massive loan and paying for the stadium that way. He decided against this becasue he knew he would not also be able to fund the purchase of players to build a team to be proud of.

The reason new wners were brought in was so we could pay for the stadium and also pay for new players. Lets say we spend £40m plus on players this summer. Great. But what about the season after that? And the one after that? And what about the rest of the money to fund the new stadium? Where does that come from?

You see, my main problem with the Yanks is that they just don't have the finances to do what they were brought in to do. I just can't see how we would have been worse of if Steve Morgan had been brought in a few years ago. At least that way we'd still have LFC fans in charge.

At the moment we're £105m in debt more than they said we would be. I can only see that figure getting bigger in the near future.

They have lied, simple as that.

[disco]

Are you paying the price for living life at the limit, Niall?

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

Are you paying the price for living life at the limit, Niall?

Oh, I wish.

[Danish_Pastry]

[QUOTE=disco;918800]Remind me. What are these broken promises? The debt they used to buy the club is on them, not the club.
QUOTE]

You seems to forget hovw things were bore G&H came around. Then LFC were carrying a debt of 40M£. This debt were of so huge concern to Moores, that he asked Parry to find another owner.

NOW

we are ending up with a debt of the 40M£ + 65M£ more (to pay intererst of) + the assumable obligation to pay the interest for Kop Ltd.s loan of 190M£.
No more debt against the club, when it has risen from 40 -> 105M£ when promised the opposite. I must take that as a pretty direct LIE and just a sort of nothing - but probably a lie of a higher amount of money than most of us here ever wil make i our whole lifetime.

Please find some better excuses for the two americans.

[DannyMan2006]

Interesting.

I think this goes back to the preconceived romanticised ideal of who runs the club, and more importantly how it's run.

I think the people who are now ranting and raving about the Yanks are the same people who fell for their talk at the beginning, with their so called "conditions", promises if you will.

I think this lynch mob mentality has a lot to do with people’s personal embarrassment that they got sucked in by it all. Perhaps it's possibly to do with DIC not taking over first time also.

You see I'm a professional cynic, and yes my heart’s in it , I knew what they were as soon as they arrived. I always thought they'd do something perceived to be unpopular, because to them it’s about money, they aren’t fans. I knew as soon as David Moores sold the club that we stopped primarily being a football club, and became a business, especially for anyone looking to invest.

And yet the consensus opinion was that we apparently had to go down this route to compete. "The lady doth protest too much" comes to mind now.

It was the right decision to sell. But after so much time, where it started to become an embarrassment, they still amnaged to choose the wrong buyers. After 4 years or so of seriously looking for financers to come in, they choose the muppets who completed due dilligence in 3 days. And complained about a business who was doing it thoroughly and were beginning to find big faults with the valuation put on the club by Moores.

[Neil Young]

You seems to forget hovw things were bore G&H came around. Then LFC were carrying a debt of 40M£. This debt were of so huge concern to Moores, that he asked Parry to find another owner.

NOW

we are ending up with a debt of the 40M£ + 65M£ more (to pay intererst of) + the assumable obligation to pay the interest for Kop Ltd.s loan of 190M£.
No more debt against the club, when it has risen from 40 -> 105M£ when promised the opposite. I must take that as a pretty direct LIE and just a sort of nothing - but probably a lie of a higher amount of money than most of us here ever wil make i our whole lifetime.

Please find some better excuses for the two americans.

Your username has made me feel hungry.

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

It was the right decision to sell.

Was it?

And more importantly did we need to?

To be blunt perhaps Moores was honest with himself, and he knew he didn't have the business expertise, or just didn't want to take the risk of re-financing by the way of massive debts.

I think someone with more bottle and more nouse could've done what G+H are doing now, without selling to outsiders, and made it work. But perhaps I'm being romantic now.

[redlancer]

Mate, my problem is this:

David Moores himself admitted that he had looked at getting a massive loan and paying for the stadium that way. He decided against this becasue he knew he would not also be able to fund the purchase of players to build a team to be proud of.

The reason new wners were brought in was so we could pay for the stadium and also pay for new players. Lets say we spend £40m plus on players this summer. Great. But what about the season after that? And the one after that? And what about the rest of the money to fund the new stadium? Where does that come from?

You see, my main problem with the Yanks is that they just don't have the finances to do what they were brought in to do. I just can't see how we would have been worse of if Steve Morgan had been brought in a few years ago. At least that way we'd still have LFC fans in charge.

At the moment we're £105m in debt more than they said we would be. I can only see that figure getting bigger in the near future.

They have lied, simple as that.

in an ideal world the new owners would be here to fund players buy us a stadium - provide free drinks at half time etc etc


The new owners had to be people who can make money and turn us into a profitable buisness. If that means getting loans or putting in thier cash does it matter.

Would we really want Morgan - Rafa wouldn't be here, niether would Torres.

[Tom]

Interesting.

I think this goes back to the preconceived romanticised ideal of who runs the club, and more importantly how it's run.

I think the people who are now ranting and raving about the Yanks are the same people who fell for their talk at the beginning, with their so called "conditions", promises if you will.

I think this lynch mob mentality has a lot to do with people’s personal embarrassment that they got sucked in by it all. Perhaps it's possibly to do with DIC not taking over first time also.

If your hobby is amateur psychiatry, i'd take up water colours mate

[disco]

[QUOTE=Danish_Pastry;918896]

Remind me. What are these broken promises? The debt they used to buy the club is on them, not the club.
QUOTE]

You seems to forget hovw things were bore G&H came around. Then LFC were carrying a debt of 40M£. This debt were of so huge concern to Moores, that he asked Parry to find another owner.

NOW

we are ending up with a debt of the 40M£ + 65M£ more (to pay intererst of) + the assumable obligation to pay the interest for Kop Ltd.s loan of 190M£.
No more debt against the club, when it has risen from 40 -> 105M£ when promised the opposite. I must take that as a pretty direct LIE and just a sort of nothing - but probably a lie of a higher amount of money than most of us here ever wil make i our whole lifetime.

Please find some better excuses for the two americans.

I admit I don't understand the reasoning behind leaving the £40m on the club, probably a good financial reason for it.

I work for a very large financial company, and some of their financial arrangements (including loans), cross-company guarantees etc. would look bizarre to the naked eye (and to be fair, do to me!!), but make sense from a tax and/or earnings point of view. It wouldn't surprise me if it was as simple that paying off the £40m triggered a tax charge somewhere - who knows.

The additional 65m is there in cash, so no problem with that.

At the risk of repeating myself, the 'leveraged buy-out' is unusual to a lot of people, but makes perfect financial sense. Why tie up millions in capital that they can't use?

[redlancer]

Was it?

And more importantly did we need to?

To be blunt perhaps Moores was honest with himself, and he knew he didn't have the business expertise, or just didn't want to take the risk of re-financing by the way of massive debts.

I think someone with more bottle and more nouse could've done what G+H are doing now, without selling to outsiders, and made it work. But perhaps I'm being romantic now.

thought had crossed my mind - not sure how much Moores is worth but that 40M debt must be comming close to it.

Its not like we're talking car loans here

[Guest]

[QUOTE=disco;918920]

I admit I don't understand the reasoning behind leaving the £40m on the club, probably a good financial reason for it.

I work for a very large financial company, and some of their financial arrangements (including loans), cross-company guarantees etc. would look bizarre to the naked eye (and to be fair, do to me!!), but make sense from a tax and/or earnings point of view. It wouldn't surprise me if it was as simple that paying off the £40m triggered a tax charge somewhere - who knows.

The additional 65m is there in cash, so no problem with that.

At the risk of repeating myself, the 'leveraged buy-out' is unusual to a lot of people, but makes perfect financial sense. Why tie up millions in capital that they can't use?

Do we need to go into this, as fans though ? I mean, as long as we're competitive off and on the pitch and money is made available without fuss, can we ask for more ?

All this talk is hypothetical, as unless these guys come out and explain all the ins and outs to us, we'll be speculating ... Just look at the enormity of this thread.

Again, I'm afraid to say, we'll just have to wait and see.

Hicks should just shut his gob up now, and let things stabilize under the current refinancing scheme.