Why do Reds fans want DIC?

[TheRedDragon]

Came across this and thought others mind want to read it....
I still want D.I.C after reading it, how ever it does make you think alitttle more rationally


Why do Reds fans want DIC?
by Mark May, 25 January 2008

Why do Reds fans want DIC?

With American duo George Gillett and Tom Hicks finally securing the refinancing of Liverpool Football Club, Reds fans are understandably dismayed that their club has fallen into the hands of a bunch of money men who appear to have no real love for the club and its proud history.

Of course, this is all different to when the duo sailed onto Merseyside in March 2007 amid much fan-fare, promising to make The Reds a European powerhouse again, not to mention capturing the elusive Premier League title their fans crave so much.

However, following the revelations that the club went behind the back of manager Rafael Benitez to seek out Jurgen Klinsmann as the new manager – an insurance policy according to Mr Hicks – and the refinancing of the club, Liverpool fans are more than wary now of the motives of the American billionaires.

In fact, a recent survey carried out by the Liverpool Supporters' network showed that 76% of 2,000 fans questioned said they would "seriously consider reducing their financial commitment to the club" if the current owners stayed in charge.

This is despite a considerable outlay by the pair to fund the capture of record signing Fernando Torres, investment in Liverpool's academy, not to mention the costs involved in the plans to build a new stadium in Stanley Park.

Reds fans though now appear to be pandering to the feet of the Arab investment company Dubai International Capital (DIC) to save them from the evil reign of terror of Gillette and Hicks.

The company is an investment arm of Dubai Holding, which is owned by Dubai Crown Prince and United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

Sheikh Mohammed, whose family is internationally renowned for its running of the Godolphin horse racing stables, and is the world's fifth richest man, with an estimated personal wealth of $14 billion.

But why is it that Liverpool fans would welcome this company with open arms? Are there no lessons to be learned from the euphoria that greeted ‘the Yanks?’

DIC have a history of speculation throughout the world as they look to reach their mandate of $10 billion investment in global companies. The Dubai-based group can name Sony, Daimler Chrysler, Mauser and a host of other big corporations as recent investments where they hold a stake.

In March 2006 they snapped up a variety of assets in Great Britain as they looked to increase their property portfolio in the country, purchasing Tussaud's Group - the theme park operator - for £800m. Tussaud’s group was subsequently sold in March 2007 to Merlin Entertainments for £1.03bn plus a 20% stake in the combined company, a handy profit of £200m in less than a year.

In August of 2006 they picked up Travel Lodge - the hotel group - for £675m. DIC were reported to be delighted to have added the company to their collection, with Sameer Al Ansari, Dubai International Capital's chief executive declaring: "It is a strong brand with growing potential.” Surely the words “strong brand” and “growing potential” are pure business parlance; the antithesis of the genuine football fan.

In fact, one of the apparent reasons former Liverpool chairman David Moores refused to sell the club to DIC last year, instead opting for the American option, was that DIC saw the club as merely a business asset, without regard to the fans.

DIC are well known for their ruthless streak and the Liverpool board were afraid they were not looking out for the best interests of the club.

Why is it then that Liverpool fans believe that their beloved club would be any different to any other investment the canny Arabs have made since the company was established in October 2004?

A banker with links to Dubai Holdings told The Daily Telegraph last year: "These guys are not after trophy assets. They buy and sell businesses for pure commercial reasons. They have proper investment objectives."

Of course with football being football, ethical considerations do not even get a mention! In a city that has faced many hardships in the past, particularly in its treatment of workers, it seems these considerations do not apply to potential owners.

While Manchester City’s Thaksin Shinawatra and Chelsea’s Roman Abramovich have what one might describe as chequered histories, it does not stop football fans from foaming at the mouth at the thought of a successful football team, regardless the trail of the money used to finance the side.

Dubai has up to 250,000 foreign labourers, which it treats less than tolerably, with many of whom living in conditions described by Human Rights Watch as being "less than human."

National Public Radio (NPR) – the privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization - reports that workers "typically live eight to a room, sending home a portion of their salary to their families, whom they don't see for years at a time." The BBC has reported that "local newspapers often carry stories of construction workers allegedly not being paid for months on end. “They are not allowed to move jobs and if they leave the country to go home they will almost certainly lose the money they say they are owed.”

But then what do football fans care of struggling immigrants in the Middle East? It appears for the moment at least that this investment firm will not be getting its hands on Liverpool Football Club. But should that time come, whose to know if one old adage will not ring true: out of the frying pan…

[Vermilion]

aaaaaaAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...... not another thread.

[AFII]

Maybe they should point out that the "Western world" use Africa and the poor Asian countries in the same way as the Sheikh use the underpaid workers in Dubai.

Everyone do it, it's the way it is. The world is a rotten place but there isn't anything you can do about it.

It's wrong but as I said, there isn't much you can do about it.

[Vermilion]

Maybe they should point out that the "Western world" use Africa and the poor Asian countries in the same way as the Sheikh use the underpaid workers in Dubai.

Everyone do it, it's the way it is. The world is a rotten place but there isn't anything you can do about it.

It's wrong but as I said, there isn't much you can do about it.

[Darth Marty]

ho hum, Yanks out, anyone with lots of money and Liverpools best interests at heart in. Simple.

[dom9]

A lot of pro yank, anti DIC articles today.

[TheRedDragon]

I'm far from being "pro Yank"

And yes "another thread" but it puts another spin on things, even though I ain't bothered what goes on and where. It does make you think of just WHY they want LFC and WHAT they would do with it.

[Neil Young]

A lot of pro yank, anti DIC articles today.

Yes but we would be fools to call for a DIC bid without taking into account the negatives they bring with them.

That's not to say DIC and the current owners are equally reprehensible, merely that to go around regurgiating pro-DIC propaganda because we want Hicks out would be to commit the same idiocy twice. Isn't that what many people did when Hicks and Gillett bought the club off Moores in the first place?

[TheRedDragon]

Yes but we would be fools to call for a DIC bid without taking into account the negatives they bring with them.

That's not to say DIC and the current owners are equally reprehensible, merely that to go around regurgiating pro-DIC propaganda because we want Hicks out would be to commit the same idiocy twice. Isn't that what many people did when Hicks and Gillett bought the club off Moores in the first place?

[AFII]

The Sheikh needs something that will be the ice cream on the cake, to promote the Dubai brand.

Something that everyone will talk about. DIC or Dubai have a lot of investments but nothing that really sticks out. They are still missing their crown jewel.

Buying or invest in a company wouldn't achieve that. They need something else that will tell everyone that they mean business. It's also a lot cheaper to buy and invest in us than it's to buy a big company.

IMO.

[dom9]

Yes but we would be fools to call for a DIC bid without taking into account the negatives they bring with them.

That's not to say DIC and the current owners are equally reprehensible, merely that to go around regurgiating pro-DIC propaganda because we want Hicks out would be to commit the same idiocy twice. Isn't that what many people did when Hicks and Gillett bought the club off Moores in the first place?

Absolutely.

The timing is interesting though.

This time last week, (and ever since), there have only been pro-DIC articles.

[Neil Young]

Absolutely.

The timing is interesting though.

This time last week, (and ever since), there have only been pro-DIC articles.

You could be right (if I have understood you correctly) to sense a DIC PR campaign followed by a Hicks PR counter-offensive.

Equally though it's the way journalism works. Screaming at the top of your voice, run in one direction with a storyline then, when that starts getting less newsworthy, turn round 180º and run in the opposite direction, screaming even louder.

The other journalists all follow because (a) it gives a more newsworthy angle to the story and (b) they have space to fill and no sources of their own to exploit.

I suspect there has been a PR blitz but also that most journalists are lazy and that newspapers and other media outlets are ravenous wolves that have to be fed with raw meat on a regular basis.

[dom9]

Yep.