The Case FOR Hicks

[Sarb]

Torres.
Babel.
Mascherano.
Skrtel.

None with his own money. It's all loans mate. Next point.....

[Craig_H]

Torres.
Babel.
Mascherano.
Skrtel.

As already stated, he borrowed cash to supply transfer funds.

Providing funds to buy players is what any owner SHOULD do, he's not going over or above the call of duty there. And he's done it by borrowing and loading the debt onto the cloob. Nothing positive there.

[Joe King]

No case for Hicks. The only thing which has been positive is that he has told Parry to **** off. He did make good points about Parry, the fact that his reign has been a disaster: 2 or 3 commercial sponsors, lacking of buying quality, stadium not being built yet. Quite ironic as Parry brought Hicks and Gillette in and now Hicks wants him out.

Other than that, he has tarnished the good model of Liverpool with his lying and deceipt.

[Alpha]

If you can afford to make the payments, yes.

What if I think I can but maybe I can't?

[Reece]

Did we have these type of transfers when Parry was in charge (I mean Moores) ?

We moaned because Moores would not/could not stump up the cash to sign truly World Class players (a la Torres), so when Hicks/Gillette do, we dismiss any credit that may go their way? Bizarre.

[Guest]

Cultural differences? If that's the case, why isnt Randy Learner having public fights with his CEO and colleagues? Why isnt he tapping up other managers and telling the world and his dog about it? Why wasnt it Randy Learner who'd made promises to Corinthians and broke them all?

Nope, nothing to do with cultural differences, Hicks is a money-hungry cnut who'll do anything to get what he wants. As for Hillsborough, i dont expect him to feel it like we do, but the least he could've done was his homework and made some kind of comment about the anniversary. Even Ian Cotton would've been capable of that.

As for being worth 1 billion, that's what asset stripping can do for you.

Mate, maybe it's just a case of personality then !?

But I agree with you. We need to go back to basics and have someone who just gets on with his business and doesn't interfere and certainly doesn't invite the press in exclusives of all sorts.

[Guest]

What if I think I can but maybe I can't?

So in this case it's the fault of the banks then !? Giving individuals money without checking if they have the assets to cover their arses ? I find it a fairly simple argument mate.

[Tee]

We moaned because Moores would not/could not stump up the cash to sign truly World Class players (a la Torres), so when Hicks/Gillette do, we dismiss any credit that may go their way? Bizarre.

I never moaned about that - I moaned at the way Ged pissed all his money up the wall on ****e like Diouf, Diao etc...

I read that the net spend by Hicks/Gillett has been about 20 million - that is teh very least they should have invested, and even that is borrowed money.

They have done nothing, absolutely NOTHING compared to what David Moores did for this club. He may have ****ed up in selling out to them but that is the fault of that ****in clown (one thing we can all agree on) Rick Parry - I despised this cunt since he set up the Premier League.

[Craig_H]

Mate, maybe it's just a case of personality then !?

But I agree with you. We need to go back to basics and have someone who just gets on with his business and doesn't interfere and certainly doesn't invite the press in exclusives of all sorts.

Certainly personality comes into it, and it's the fact that Hicks is a cnut that makes me want him gone. He's a liar, his priority is money and he has no concern for the Liverpool Way, how we do things or what's important to us.

Put simply, he's not a Red, 'one of us' and he never will be.

[Rishi73]

People need to realise whoever takes us over is in it for the money. Football is now a business and for those thinking DIC will come and save the day will be pleasantly surprised. They are an investment company which means they will make Liverpool profitable for their own good. Hicks has the same intention but the difference is he's probably not as good a businessman nor does he have the financial clout. TBH I'd like to see Hicks, Parry and Gillett all gone but if I had to choose one side it would have to be Hicks because at least he's backing the manager and has pinpointed our failures. Parry has been a total flop, had he done his job properly we would of been a self sustaining club like Manure and we wouldn't be in this mess. Ok Manure did get taken over by the Americans but they didn't have to get involved too much with the running on the club because it was a sound business.

[Alpha]

So in this case it's the fault of the banks then !? Giving individuals money without checking if they have the assets to cover their arses ? I find it a fairly simple argument mate.

In reality it is anything but simple.

Moores has the assets to cover loans that would have financed larger transfers during his time as chairman. But he wasn't willing to risk the future well-being of the club. Isn't that the reason why he sold up?

Are we to be grateful that our new owners care little enough that they are willing to take the risks Moores wasn't?

This isn't just about transfers though. We know there is nothing unsual about buying players on tick. It is just that Hicks and Gillett have bought the club and everything in it on tick.

[Kenneth]

Certainly personality comes into it, and it's the fact that Hicks is a cnut that makes me want him gone. He's a liar, his priority is money and he has no concern for the Liverpool Way, how we do things or what's important to us.

Put simply, he's not a Red, 'one of us' and he never will be.

Unlike a bunch of guys from the United Arab Emirates.

[Craig_H]

Unlike a bunch of guys from the United Arab Emirates.

They havent been out in the press discussing every aspect of whatever they're doing and dragging the club through the mud.

Hicks, by virtue of being co-owner, has had the chance to prove my theories wrong and failed miserably. I'm not judging him based on nothing. DIC havent had that chance, so i dont think it's fair to level the same accusations at them. Hicks deserves the criticism because it's come as a direct result of his actions.

[Kenneth]

They havent been out in the press discussing every aspect of whatever they're doing and dragging the club through the mud.

Hicks, by virtue of being co-owner, has had the chance to prove my theories wrong and failed miserably. I'm not judging him based on nothing. DIC havent had that chance, so i dont think it's fair to level the same accusations at them. Hicks deserves the criticism because it's come as a direct result of his actions.

The current situation has come about while there was joint ownership and Hick's control has been limited and actions have not been solely his. Sole ownership could look considerably different to the situation to date.

[carlton]

Hicks gave a reasonably polished performance and if you werent familiar with all the bull**** going on you'd conclude he was an ok sort of guy but then again he's hardly likely to come out with all guns blazing and give us fans more reason to hate him.

He is right about Parry but then why hasnt Parry been performance managed by the owners? Hicks is also spot on about the lack of commercial success in other parts of the world and with sponsors-we should have a stack of sponsors-and we should be doing better with merchandise and so on. We have all complained about Parry and his lack of achievement in this respect.

Hicks is all about booting Parry to even up numbers on the board but can we afford to be held back by Parry for another 12 months? Give Rafa control over transfers at least-all Parry should be doing is organising the paperwork. The owners should at least agree on that. I think rafa has proven he spends big money responsibly so that shouldnt be a problem for GG.

If GG is not going to sell to Hicks then he should either sell up to DIC right away or find a way with Hicks where the business of the club can be conducted on and off the field. If Parry has to be sacrificed better him than Rafa.