DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[El Jefecito]

[QUOTE=m100900;986442]I think you might be getting the quote confused if you are referring to this

Les Lawson, secretary of the Liverpool Supporters' Association, said: "As far as I'm concerned, there is no way Hicks and Gillett are going to win back the trust of the 5% (i.e RTK) of intimidating, xenophobic and generally myopic supporters."


The % and general insult was added to the end of the piece by Speedy G

Les Lawson was making the point that he feels Hicks will never win back the trust of supporters.

Speedy was making the point that many fellow supporters are intimidating, xenephobic and myopic for not being pro-Hicks.[/QUOTE]

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort and trying to paint me like that is disingenuous and shallow. The point was that RTK are in no way representative of the other 95% of fans. If that's too subtle for ya, skip my posts.

[El Jefecito]

thanks fella

I wonder if i'll get a constructive reply to a constructive email?

You will I did. But it's from a PR company and the info they put out is pretty much just elaboration on positions he's established in the press.

[El Jefecito]

How many more of them kind of signings do you think there will be? Will banks keep lending him money for a superstar signing every summer?

I think not

Think about the long-term

Think our new stadium revenues would take care of that. Is that not the whole point of the stadium?

[El Jefecito]

The problem is that we also need a new stadium, Man U didn't exactly needed that when Glazer bought them.

Regardless of what the money is for we still need MUCH less than maure took out, probably by a couple of hundred million.

[El Jefecito]

In regards to a fan representative on the board...





So who do you think these members of 'this committee' are?

DIC, Hicks and?

How should I, or you, know?

[El Jefecito]

It isn't a state of the art world class stadium anymore. They have removed the bits that made it special.

Not even if Hicks or rather RBS bought Aguero, Alves and Diego would change my opinion about him.

Hicks out.

I disagree about the stadium. But respect your right to your opinion

Please respect mine as well.

[AFII]

I disagree about the stadium. But respect your right to your opinion

Please respect mine as well.

[AFII]

Moores sold out so the club wouldn't be in debt and could move on and start building the new stadium.

Hicks and Gillett lied about that when Moores sold to them.

[El Jefecito]

Rubbish Speedy G.

What DIC seem to appreciate and you don't, is that opinion is a strong sales motivator.

Look at the news. The dollar is ****ed. Credit is ****ed. The banks know it, and they ultimately have the last call.

So what does that mean?

It means you have a massive voice to vote with your pocket.

Look at it this way. If people started boycotting games, would the banks be so sure in investing in Hicks next time the review comes up?

I doubt it, especially when there is a keen buyer in the wings.

And what does Hicks do to alleviate away from fan pressure? Sell Gerrard, Torres? To reduce the wage bill and recoup on club assets to make up on below par revenue to finance a 100% loan!!!! How does that win fans over???

The choice comes down to one simple question on who should own this club.

Which one has history of supporting it?

I've covered that pointless times in this thread.

95% of fans care only about the team. They are the silent majority. Just because RTK is pissed off and AFII won't buy anymore replica shirts, is going to make 0 difference. The stadium will be full every week.

All this BS about selling SG etc is just scare stories from the uninformed. It has no LOGICAL basis at all. so debating it is a waste of time.

There are so many what ifs being taken as fact by those that insist that only bad things can happen.

[El Jefecito]

Moores sold out so the club wouldn't be in debt and could move on and start building the new stadium.

Hicks and Gillett lied about that when Moores sold to them.

Not true, he did not have the means to secure the loans, simple as.

[AFII]

Not true, he did not have the means to secure the loans, simple as.

Eh, he had the club, the same club that Gillett and Hicks have used to secure the £350m loan. So he had the means to do it.

[El Jefecito]

Eh, he had the club, the same club that Gillett and Hicks have used to secure the £350m loan. So he had the means to do it.

They've put up personal collateral that he does not have.

[AFII]

They've put up personal collateral that he does not have.

No, they didn't. All of the £350m is against the club, every pound. It was all explained in a few articles at the time how Gillett and Hicks had tried to made it look like only a part of it was against the club but when in reality all of the £350m is against the club.

If you search after the articles then you will find them.

[Kronenburg1892]

Look, I have a lot of time for Moores. He is a fan. If I could defend him I would.

BUT

On this one, he's sold to a partnership that has split within 12 months, one is not on speaking terms, the other is struggling to finance the loan to the point of diluting assets in his other mediocre sport franchises. Who, under pressure, set the debt up under Kop Holdings rather than the club, which is a paper way of diverting ownership of debt, which really boils back to the club, as the club owes Kop Holdings and holds all the collateral!

Hicks has consistently lied. Previous ownership would avoid the direct answer, ie playing the media.

But more importantly, Hicks has no idea about football, the team, the history of the club, or it's spirit.

[El Jefecito]

No, they didn't. All of the £350m is against the club, every pound. It was all explained in a few articles at the time how Gillett and Hicks had tried to made it look like only a part of it was against the club but when in reality all of the £350m is against the club.

If you search after the articles then you will find them.

I'm talking about the collateral against which the loans are secured not the loans themselves. Moores did not have that collateral.