DIC or Share Liverpool?

[MARTINOZ]

It's true that DIC may turn out to be good owners. The benevolent dictator scenario is not implausible, but who knows what they'd do really?

When I say I support ShareLFC then obviously it assumes that the idea flies in terms of being able to raise the money etc.

I think we need to learn lessons from the last 12 months. If Hicks & Gillette had been using the Weetabix model but had been mega mega rich then we'd be stuck with them now.

There is a potential scenario which says that DIC don't turn out to be the saviours everyone thinks (hopes?) they'll be but simply milk us as a business, throw their truck in with the idea of international rounds and the like.

If that happens (and I've no idea what kind of owner they'd be), then we'd be stuck with them because unlike TomnGeorge, they won't have the stretched finances issue to force them to sell up.

If they turn out to be an owner that produces the same sort of feeling from us as the current lot, we'll be stuffed and will never be able to get rid of them.

That is the lesson we need to learn from this last 12 months in my view, and we need to be looking at what mechanisms will protect the club from that in the future. The safest, if the cash can be raised, is ShareLFC.

If that's not possible then we need to explore what other mechanisms are out there to protect the club from future owners who behave in ways similar to Tom and George.

But Al, what happens if the fans take over and there is a vote on a crucial decision and it is won 51% to 49%? Just under half of the "owners" upset?

And financially, how can the fans be expected to fork out more cash after the initial 5 grand?

You say the fans could fix things, but judging by a lot of fans I know, this may not prove easy.

There are too many pitfalls with mass ownership. The romantic in all of us would love to see it happen and run smoothly, but in business terms and as a matter of urgency for the good of the club, without doubt DIC is the way to go at the moment.

We just have to take the risk of them looking after the good of the club.

[Slinky Skills]

If we have a chance to get DIC who make roman look poor then why not.


How much are DIC worth exactly, does anyone know?

I always though Abramovich was worth more.

[alunevans]

But Al, what happens if the fans take over and there is a vote on a crucial decision and it is won 51% to 49%? Just under half of the "owners" upset?

And financially, how can the fans be expected to fork out more cash after the initial 5 grand?

You say the fans could fix things, but judging by a lot of fans I know, this may not prove easy.

There are too many pitfalls with mass ownership. The romantic in all of us would love to see it happen and run smoothly, but in business terms and as a matter of urgency for the good of the club, without doubt DIC is the way to go at the moment.

We just have to take the risk of them looking after the good of the club.

51 to 49 well thats democracy innit. And democracy is a good thing don't you reckon?

I don't know the ins and outs of what Rogan Taylor is advocating in terms of sustainability of the club to be honest and would be interested to hear his answer to that question.

If there is a hitch in the idea its the cash, not the democracy.

I don't see a problem though in electing a board to run the club which is pretty much what would happen. If the board do a really poor job or crap on the fans then they'd be voted out.

I bet the ticket office would start working pretty good if there was a board member responsible for the ticket office who'd lose his post if it ran poorly. Just as a for instance.

[alunevans]

If we have a chance to get DIC who make roman look poor then why not.


How much are DIC worth exactly, does anyone know?

I always though Abramovich was worth more.

I suppose my point is that everyone is assuming DIC will be good stewards. If they buy the club lets hope they are. But what if they're not? There is an inherent danger in terms of handing over the club to people who may have a different agenda to us.

The obvious way to ensure that the owners have the same agenda as us, is for the owners to BE us, which is why I like the ShareLFC idea.

The key question is in terms of the money for me, but everything else ticks the boxes for me. We are the only custodians who will definitely have the club's interests at heart.

[carlton]

Can you imagine us owned by the posters on here DJS and CMS would have the manager fired every second week. SG would be sold to chelsea and we wouldn't sign El Jefecito because he is "too expensive".

No thanks!

Same here What a horrible, horrible, thought.
DIC for me. We need someone to spend outrageous amounts of money very quickly to restore the balance.

[Leyton388]

If we have a chance to get DIC who make roman look poor then why not.


How much are DIC worth exactly, does anyone know?
I always though Abramovich was worth more.

Apparently i heard about 645 billion which includes assets, oil, finances ect. Roman has about 7 billlion, sheik mo about 35 billion personal cash

[Resu]

Me.

True fans that go to the match and really support the club, manager and team yes but the likes of many on here who purport to be fans - no way.

I think if an averge guy is paying £5000 for a share it`s fair to say he`s a fan. Being a fan isn`t the same as beliving everything the board/manager does is right.
Having said this there has been a few low-shots here recently, but that is why there will be a elected board to run the day-to-day business.
I have to say it`s the Share option for me.

[barnes10]

DIC buy us, invest, turn us into a top business and take us to the top.

Then sell the club... to Share LFC.

Perfect solution no?

If it means paying what equates to 10k per 100000 share (or even better why not issue 1mill shares at 1k each) for what is then the world's top club and a solid business (as opposed to todays 5k for a struggling side in need of serious investment) then I know it would be more appealing to basically everyone.

[alunevans]

DIC buy us, invest, turn us into a top business and take us to the top.

Then sell the club... to Share LFC.

Perfect solution no?

If it means paying what equates to 10k per 100000 share (or even better why not issue 1mill shares at 1k each) for what is then the world's top club and a solid business (as opposed to todays 5k for a struggling side in need of serious investment) then I know it would be more appealing to basically everyone.

Isn't the first part a big assumption though.

Okay, here's my question to everyone. Given that DIC are rich enough to stay with us for as long as THEY want, what happens if they turn out to be a set of asset strippers who just want to milk us profit wise and aren't too interested in pumping their cash into us?

What happens if they are keener on profits than success and feel they can pretty much get low risk profits by keeping us as we are now instead of higher risk (not that much greater) profits by chucking money at us?

I know many of you don't believe they'd do that, but what if they did? None of us really know how they would run the club. They could be excellent stewards or they could be an absolute fecking nightmare. Nobody can know yet. We are all just guessing. All we know is that they have money - none of us know if they'd use it to build us, or use us to build their profits further.

So what if they turn out to be just a stronger, wealthier, and therefore impossible to shift version of G&H?

How do we protect the club if that happens?

Any answers? Or are people just praying that we get a good owner?

My question is: what if they are a shower of ****bags? Where do we go from there?

[Gazmo1]

What happened whenwe last had a owner who was more of a fan and loved the bones of the club but wasn't a hot shot business man?

If you put a cub like Liverpool in shared hands (fans) we'd have nobody left on the playing staff. Prior to the Inter game people on here were on for shifting 15 playing staff because, alledgely they did respect Rafa anymore.

My point is that you shouldn't mix emotion with business.

All IMO by the way.

[alunevans]

What happened whenwe last had a owner who was more of a fan and loved the bones of the club but wasn't a hot shot business man?

If you put a cub like Liverpool in shared hands (fans) we'd have nobody left on the playing staff. Prior to the Inter game people on here were on for shifting 15 playing staff because, alledgely they did respect Rafa anymore.

My point is that you shouldn't mix emotion with business.

All IMO by the way.

If you'd have had a vote though every year - wouldn't you have booted Moores off the board about 15/16 years ago when his lack of nouse was obvious, and replace him with someone who had genuine commercial experience?

I can understand people's doubts about the money side of things and whether it can be raised in sufficient quantities to compete.

I really didn't expect that people would have so much contempt for themselves and each other to be opposed to democracy - surely one of the least controversial ideas around?

[Kenneth]

If you'd have had a vote though every year - wouldn't you have booted Moores off the board about 15/16 years ago when his lack of nouse was obvious, and replace him with someone who had genuine commercial experience?

I can understand people's doubts about the money side of things and whether it can be raised in sufficient quantities to compete.

I really didn't expect that people would have so much contempt for themselves and each other to be opposed to democracy - surely one of the least controversial ideas around?

Fair point, but I don't trust fans to base their opinions on impartial facts as opposed to tabloid fed hysteria etc, even Liverpool fans. Democracy isn't perfect and probably isn't a good way to run a business. FOr example, ticket prices; they should be as high as possibly while still filling the stands for us to maximise revenue. Supply and demand etc. Would 'fans' accept this?

[barnes10]

I see your point and for sure there are no guarantees but i think the reason people believe in 'good intentions' from DIC (and the yanks initially) is that lfc has can be the best very quickly and relatively easily. the right investor will look to realise this and if this wasn't dic's intention, then why are they after us again now? of all the clubs to take to the top, we're best placed due to both our history, current standing (europe in particular) and current (relatively low) value. nobody has maximised anything about us yet on the pitch or off it. we're just a push away - upgrade each aspect of the club (marketing & merchandising, stadium, team) and we're at the top and raking it in.

keeping us where we are (4th) will not get any serious investor any return on their investment worth bothering with. certainly nothing worth risking 400mill on. Plenty of better options out there. None of which comes with the prestige of a world beating LFC tho. Asset stripping (assume you mean players) will just put us into a downward spiral, bankrupt us and lose whichever owners money, waste their time and reputation. what's the benefit in that? godolphin shows that these investors know about the risks in sport.

I don't think anyone is expecting them to be the abramovich of the sand dunes but they at least have the resources to pull off running lfc successfully. the yanks clealy lack the money and the expertise. what we expect is the new owners to revamp us commercially and run us as a viable and successful business. if this means debt then it means debt but not at the expense of taking the team forward which is the engine behind any football investment. if dic then want to sell up and realise a 100-300mill or so profit gained by turning us into a proper, top level, global footballing business then fair enough (and where we could buy in). that was what we signed up for when 'selling the family silver' was it not? If they decide to keep us and enjoy it then again, fair enough.

[Exiled_red]

What's the latest on the Share Liverpool front what sort of level is the interest at? Have enough people registered there interest yet or is it still way short of the target?

[Gazmo1]

If you'd have had a vote though every year - wouldn't you have booted Moores off the board about 15/16 years ago when his lack of nouse was obvious, and replace him with someone who had genuine commercial experience?

I disagree with this point Alun. I think that you have reached this opinion based on hindsight. Obviously knowing what I know now I would 100%. Was he lack of nouse so obvious?

In 1992 nobody knew that football would mushroom in the way it did. Maybe Michael Knighton had an idea when he offered £20 Million for Man U in 1989?