Hicks:"I am solidly behind Rafa"

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

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

Didn't you read my post?

I'm a professional cynic.

And yes it's a full time occupational hazard

[disco]

Fredo - you make a very valid point, people are getting very upset about loans etc. without knowing why!

It should only be a concern if it impacts our ability to support the manager via transfer fees, otherwise couldn't give a ****.

[Neil Young]

Hicks should just shut his gob up now

That's uncanny.

fredo should just shut his gob up now

[Guest]

That's uncanny.

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

Notice the thread title; Hicks "I'm solidly behind Rafa".

Perhaps the dispute came about when Hicks tried to bum Rafa?

Just saying, it's another theory to consider.....

....or not.

Let's not.

[Helios Creed]

Hang on a second, todays announcements are quite impressive.

Take a step back and look at what they are proposing. It's actually quite good. They have listened to the fans, the club is not loaded with £300m worth of debt but only £105m which is actually fine in the long term

The stadium plan is impressive.

Dont get me wrong im not impressed by these 2 guys, i still think we got the wrong guys. But they are here and might be on the road to making up for their mistakes. Good start today.

Now as long as Rafa can push on and get us up the table then their shouldnt be too many problems.

I would like to think. Lets keep the pressure on them by backing Rafa, lets get behind the team and hope these Yanks can keep the promises they made today. Hopefully we will soon see the stadium getting built

Yes, because what they are saying is that the £105m that has been loaded onto the club isn't to repay the amount borrowed to buy the club or pay off the old debt, but to pay for the inital ground costs and player purchases. I suppose it's no worse that if Moores hadn't sold the club, but borrowed money against it to invest in the ground and players. As long as the whole £105m is spent how they say...

[disco]

Yes, because what they are saying is that the £105m that has been loaded onto the club isn't to repay the amount borrowed to buy the club or pay off the old debt, but to pay for the inital ground costs and player purchases. I suppose it's no worse that if Moores hadn't sold the club, but borrowed money against it to invest in the ground and players. As long as the whole £105m is spent how they say...

Yes, it has a certain neatness to it.

Makes it easier to identify the true value of the club etc. (and presumably makes it easier to sell )

[Helios Creed]

[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.

If they really do spend the whole £105m on the ground and players, then it is a new debt that the club has taken on and they have taken on the old £40m one and the interest on their previous borrowing themselves. For now...

[dom9]

Back him then with a new contract.

I'm sorry but he does not deserve a new contract based on this season'r perfomances.

[Guest]

I'm sorry but he does not deserve a new contract based on this season'r perfomances.

There were mitigating circumstances though. New contract could have meant a one year extension.

[Helios Creed]

Yes, it has a certain neatness to it.

Makes it easier to identify the true value of the club etc. (and presumably makes it easier to sell )

Can't help thinking that there is a lot of scope for them to fiddle the figures though... For example if they spend £65m on the ground and £40m on players, they could claim that all the new borrowing has been spent as promised, while ignoring the fact that £25m may have been brought in by player sales.


What makes me think they might use this tactic is that they are claiming that they have just sanctionned Rafa spending £6.5m, while ignoring the fact that Momo's sale might bring in more than that. Unless that will go towards Masher..

[Helios Creed]

Also I suppose that when they bought the club, they said that the cost of the purchase to do so would not be placed on the club and they seem to be standing by that. Did we really expect them to also buy us a £300m stadium as well, without any of that cost being placed on us? It appears that it will be funded in stages, presumably further borrowing, sponsorship and from profits drawn from the club..?

[disco]

Tricky one to assess.

If we're getting rid of genuine 'deadwood' and replacing them with better players then it makes sense.

But how do you judge that?

Was Luis Garcia's sale necessary because we needed better or necessary to buy Bennanoon?

[Helios Creed]

Not convinced one bit by them, but I'm prepared again to wait and see what they do to build the bridges.

actually it's a stadium.

[Vermilion]

Also I suppose that when they bought the club, they said that the cost of the purchase to do so would not be placed on the club and they seem to be standing by that. Did we really expect them to also buy us a £300m stadium as well, without any of that cost being placed on us? It appears that it will be funded in stages, presumably further borrowing, sponsorship and from profits drawn from the club..?

Do you feel confident that over time the debt wont be put on the club. Say if Parry was sacked for some reason.