Hicks' dark past

[Dhav]

It's all very easy....

DIC....Moores and Parry gone.
G&H...Moores and Parry stays.

G&H are not so dumb that they didn't knew how eager Moores and Parry was to stay on and they used that to their full advantage.

Who do you think leaked the DIC seven year plan, if it ever existed?

Only really two options, Moores or Parry. That gave them an excellent excuse to dump DIC and they really needed one at that time.

This fabled "7 year plan" is beginning to look like a red herring in my eyes. If it ever existed, it is just as likely its contents were misconstrued or spun in a certain way.

For the reasons why G&H are in charge now, look at AFII's post quoted above. That is it in essence, + of course the extra $$$$ the yanks offered.

[sonsofthedesert]

Who do you think leaked the DIC seven year plan, if it ever existed?

Only really two options, Moores or Parry. That gave them an excellent excuse to dump DIC and they really needed one at that time.

As others have said it wont have been Moores and Parry that leaked it. There are only 3 possibe reasons:
1. A Journo made it up and leaked it
2. G&H made it up and released it
3. It was real
To suggest anything but that is just comical.

[dww]

This fabled "7 year plan" is beginning to look like a red herring in my eyes. If it ever existed, it is just as likely its contents were misconstrued or spun in a certain way.

For the reasons why G&H are in charge now, look at AFII's post quoted above. That is it in essence, + of course the extra $$$$ the yanks offered.

To be honest the seven year plan makes perfect sense. If the investment is going alright but it is too much effort to keep it profitable sell it and still make a good profit as a backup option. If all goes to plan and you start raking in money and prestige then you can keep it. I'm not sure why it worried people so much that DIC were business like in this regard.

I think you have to accept that they are an investment group and will try and run the club as a business - taking out loans and aiming t make money. The difference between them and G&H is that they may have the backup wealth to put more money in up front and get better terms on the loans they take out.

I think the Parry thing is a bit of a red herring. I think that self interest in terms of the offer value and the fact that DIC removed themselves from the bidding at time when everyone thought the deal had to be done then or never were more important factors. Wanting to keep someone in the loop who really cares about the club is not the crime some would like to portray it as anyway - whatever you think of Parry's business skills (I think he is an excellent accountant who may well be good at much of his job but lacks the ambition/risk taking we have needed commercially and the hard negotiating skills that top transfers require but have little firm evidence to back this view much like everyone else doesn't).

[Dhav]

As others have said it wont have been Moores and Parry that leaked it. There are only 3 possibe reasons:
1. A Journo made it up and leaked it
2. G&H made it up and released it
3. It was real
To suggest anything but that is just comical.

I agree that it is far fetched to suggest Parry leaked it, although it's clear he gained a lot from it. I wouldn't rule it out completely however. I know that this rumour has being doing the rounds for a few months now and AFII has picked it up and ran with it, but have no idea where it originated from.

One thing I would say is this; none of us have seen the document and/or are fully aware of its contents. I would say it is extremely likely, that if the document does exist, details of its contents have been spun to suit a particular agenda.

[sonsofthedesert]

One thing I would say is this; none of us have seen the document and/or are fully aware of its contents. I would say it is extremely likely, that if the document does exist, details of its contents have been spun to suit a particular agenda.

I think what DWW has put above is likely to be the closest to the truth.

[Dhav]

To be honest the seven year plan makes perfect sense. If the investment is going alright but it is too much effort to keep it profitable sell it and still make a good profit as a backup option. If all goes to plan and you start raking in money and prestige then you can keep it. I'm not sure why it worried people so much that DIC were business like in this regard.

I think you have to accept that they are an investment group and will try and run the club as a business - taking out loans and aiming t make money. The difference between them and G&H is that they may have the backup wealth to put more money in up front and get better terms on the loans they take out.

I think the Parry thing is a bit of a red herring. I think that self interest in terms of the offer value and the fact that DIC removed themselves from the bidding at time when everyone thought the deal had to be done then or never were more important factors. Wanting to keep someone in the loop who really cares about the club is not the crime some would like to portray it as anyway - whatever you think of Parry's business skills (I think he is an excellent accountant who may well be good at much of his job but lacks the ambition/risk taking we have needed commercially and the hard negotiating skills that top transfers require but have little firm evidence to back this view much like everyone else doesn't).

Well, regardless of how sensible the business plan and 7 year exit strategy was (and I think commercial minded people on here have said it's a standard business practice to have an exit srategy as a precaution if nothing else and it will be required from the banks' perspective to lend you money), it was clearly used by our board in the press to suggest DIC were not the right people for LFC and G&H were more suitable. Bose said after the takeover was completed that this document is what turned our board against the DIC takeover bid.

Have no problem with DIC's 7 year exit startegy, running the club on sound business lines, their lengthy due diligence - as I've always said, all of this exihibits business efficacy, which is what you want from club owners. Compare to G&H who bumble from one incompetent mess to another; it started with a 3 day due diligence and it has gone downhill from there.

The whole Parry/Moores keeping their job thing - as I've said, I think from their perspective they were not necessarily doing this from a slefish standpoint, it could have been an altruistic move. They probably thought having two people on board post-takeover who loved the club and had it's best interests at heart would ensure the new owners ran the club the right way and in accordance with taditional LFC principles. Sadly they were naive and grossly mistaken,.

[sonsofthedesert]

If I remember correctly Moores and Parry said the reports about the document concerned them, this however was after DIC had walked away. I think the fact the document concerned them said more about how Morres and Parry aren't business men and how they didn't want the club treated like a business than anything. The joke is that they sold it to people that wanted to treat it as a business and nothing else.

[Dhav]

If I remember correctly Moores and Parry said the reports about the document concerned them, this however was after DIC had walked away. I think the fact the document concerned them said more about how Morres and Parry aren't business men and how they didn't want the club treated like a business than anything. The joke is that they sold it to people that wanted to treat it as a business and nothing else.

Spot on. Ironic isn't it?

[AFII]

Well, Parry said that they did a big check up on both Gillett and Hicks.

Sounds like he lied.

[sonsofthedesert]

Well, Parry said that they did a big check up on both Gillett and Hicks.

Sounds like he lied.

I think the point is mate they were the only people around to buy the club, everyone felt it was now or never to sell the club and never just wasn't an option so they got the club because DIC walked away. I personally think the club would be owned by DIC now if they hadn't walked away and we shouldn't forget they are partially to blaime for this situation. Buying the club now and doing things in the right way would only start to correct their mistake.

[spud_gun]

Shock horror a multi millionaire business man who's made some dodgy investments and bad deals.

[Dhav]

I think the point is mate they were the only people around to buy the club, everyone felt it was now or never to sell the club and never just wasn't an option so they got the club because DIC walked away. I personally think the club would be owned by DIC now if they hadn't walked away and we shouldn't forget they are partially to blaime for this situation. Buying the club now and doing things in the right way would only start to correct their mistake.

in that case, Parry and Moores buckled under the pressure, gambled and got it spectacularly wrong. we're in a worse position now under these two than we ever would have been udner Moores.

[sonsofthedesert]

in that case, Parry and Moores buckled under the pressure, gambled and got it spectacularly wrong. we're in a worse position now under these two than we ever would have been udner Moores.

yeah.

[Exiled_red]

Lets not forget that at that point there was only 2 choices, G&H or nothing. Moores didn't have another choice as DIC walked away. Amazing how this is always forgotten.

Moores still didn't have to sell at that point, his quote about finding the right buyers and only selling the family silver once looks worse and worse by the day!

[sonsofthedesert]

Moores still didn't have to sell at that point, his quote about finding the right buyers and only selling the family silver once looks worse and worse by the day!

They had to prove to th council they could afford the new stadium. There was a big deal made in the press about this so I think (and that is the key part here it is only my belief) that he felt he had no option but to sell. They obviously made all the right sounds in the meetsings with moores, just a shame they didn't follow it through.