The Case FOR Hicks

[Exiled_red]

Did I say DIC was going to inject their own money? You seem to think my only problem with Hicks is the fact he loaded debt on the club?

I can list you a whole load of reasons why I don't like him

1. Uses the Hate Mail as his mouthpiece
2. Uses Sky Sports as his mouthpiece - On the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster
3. Day after we beat Arsenal he asks for Parry to quit - Taking away from the players achievements
4. He's a liar who spoke to Klinsmann...now doesn't like the reaction and says it wasn't his idea and he didn't even know who he was.
5. Talks about the ineptitude of Parry. How about this...makes a big fanfare for a new stadium then realises he hasn't the money and embarassingly scales down the design
6. He's a useless lying ****er

I couldn't find 6 reasons for disliking Moores. The only thing was he was a bad businessman

So let's not keep going back to DIC. This ain't about DIC. It's about Hicks and I'm sorry...he just ain't good enough and he's a compulsive liar

I'm no defender of Hicks but I think those six reasons are a little over the top:
1. Whatever paper he speaks to someone will have something against. Aside from the scum which is the lowest of the low all the other papers are on a par as far as I'm concerned
2. Everyone uses the SSN these days there's no real alternative, I agree the tiing was poor
3. There's never a good time to come out with something like that during the season, and waiting until summer isn't really an option
4. When the Klinsmann story broke at first it was mentioned as Gillette who arranged it I seem to remember, I don't believe that he didn't know Klinsmann but I believe the meeting was set up by Gillette
5. I agree
6. I agree

I don't like the man and I don't trust him, I don't believe he is the right man to be in control of the club I love.

I do think that alot of people are concentrating on the little things he does and using them as a stick to beat him with, when there are much more important issues, the new stadium, funding of transfers, the debts etc. These are the things that worry me most

[dom9]

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

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.

Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but what is wrong with debt? I have yet to hear a proper reasoned argument against it?

Who here has a mortgage? Could you buy a house without one?

Borrowing is required for investment. The Government does it (Gilt edged bonds), Companies do it (Corporate Bonds), Individuals do it (bank loans, mortgages, credit cards).

Please explain to me what is wrong with this.

I pointed this out to that drama queen Tom one day and he had a benny, so I'm expecting more of the same.

[Crazy-Horse]

I agree however I also think that Gillett and Parry dislike Rafa and want him out.

I have seen this claim in a number of posts. However I have seen nothing that even gives a hint of this, apart from in the spin from Hicks. On what are you basing this idea?

[Craig_H]

Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but what is wrong with debt? I have yet to hear a proper reasoned argument against it?

Who here has a mortgage? Could you buy a house without one?

Borrowing is required for investment. The Government does it (Gilt edged bonds), Companies do it (Corporate Bonds), Individuals do it (bank loans, mortgages, credit cards).

Please explain to me what is wrong with this.

I pointed this out to that drama queen Tom one day and he had a benny, so I'm expecting more of the same.

Debt in itself is fine, but Hicks' financial state has meant he's saddled the club with £30m+ interest payments each year, and unless he finds a magical pot of gold, that's effectively our transfer budget gone.

My understanding is that DIC, for example, would have been able to secure finance with far lower levels of interest.

[Crazy-Horse]

Torres.
Babel.
Mascherano.
Skrtel.

Why is he getting the credit for these signings? Aren't GG and TH 50/50 partners? So it is just as correct to say that without George Gillett, we wouldn't have signed Torres, Babel, Mascherano and Skrtel.

[Reece]

Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but what is wrong with debt? I have yet to hear a proper reasoned argument against it?

Who here has a mortgage? Could you buy a house without one?

Borrowing is required for investment. The Government does it (Gilt edged bonds), Companies do it (Corporate Bonds), Individuals do it (bank loans, mortgages, credit cards).

Please explain to me what is wrong with this.

I pointed this out to that drama queen Tom one day and he had a benny, so I'm expecting more of the same.

And as I've said in previous posts before, this is how the Scum have done it, and they are doing alright at the moment aren't they?

[Exiled_red]

Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but what is wrong with debt? I have yet to hear a proper reasoned argument against it?

Who here has a mortgage? Could you buy a house without one?

Borrowing is required for investment. The Government does it (Gilt edged bonds), Companies do it (Corporate Bonds), Individuals do it (bank loans, mortgages, credit cards).

Please explain to me what is wrong with this.

I pointed this out to that drama queen Tom one day and he had a benny, so I'm expecting more of the same.

There's nothing wrong with borrowing money if you can afford the repayments and you're getting something out of it. The problem for most people here is than the interest on the loans which were taken out to buy the club are secured against the club directly or in directly (via the holding company), for which the club gets nothing.

Estimates place the repayment levels of these debts at £20-30m per year. The club has barely made any profit over recent years so thios money means other areas of spending must be cut or other revenue streams opened just to "stand still"

I have no problem with debt for the new ground going against the club (whoever bought us I wasn't expecting a new ground for free) but with debts for a new ground and for TH & GG buying the club it's difficult to see where money for players etc will come from (Torres Babel etc where bought with loaned money) It also seems that neither TH or GG has the finances to bail us out if we can't afford to pay off the debts

[dom9]

Debt in itself is fine, but Hicks' financial state has meant he's saddled the club with £30m+ interest payments each year, and unless he finds a magical pot of gold, that's effectively our transfer budget gone.

My understanding is that DIC, for example, would have been able to secure finance with far lower levels of interest.

If you borrow a lot, you pay more interest. Simple really.

The credit crunch means rates are higher than they have been for a long time. That is bad timing, but there is no choice.

If enhanced profits cover the interest payments, and allow for the required investment in the squad, that is a good thing, no?

[barnes10]

"he's saddled the club with £30m+ interest payments each year"

wasnt this the finanically stricken gilett that forced this on us?

hicks, as he said, isnt going to subsidise a 50-50 partner. hicks doesnt need to do this but gg does

[Sarb]

"he's saddled the club with £30m+ interest payments each year"

wasnt this the finanically stricken gilett that forced this on us?
hicks, as he said, isnt going to subsidise a 50-50 partner. hicks doesnt need to do this but gg does

No. It's a 50-50 partnership so it was a joint decision I assume. Can't see Hicks being forced to do something he didn't want to do. Can you?

[barnes10]

well yes. they had to refinance as GG would cause a default. so hicks is forced to either subsidise him or refinance on terms gg can afford. so yes hicks can be forced to do something he doesnt want to.

thats the scenario im thinking of because its clear gg doesnt and never did have the cash to back us. the crunch will only have made that worse.

[Craig_H]

If you borrow a lot, you pay more interest. Simple really.

The credit crunch means rates are higher than they have been for a long time. That is bad timing, but there is no choice.

If enhanced profits cover the interest payments, and allow for the required investment in the squad, that is a good thing, no?

The interest levels will also depend on your financial status. Firstly DIC wouldnt need to borrow as much and if they did, they'd get better interest rates. It's all costing us more under Hicks and that's before we even discuss whether he's able to service the debt...

[andyinswinton]

I've not read the thread but I saw the interview this morning.

My wife who has no interest thought he came across like he had the best interests of the club at heart, admitted he has made mistakes and wants control to stop the infighting, get rid of Parry and give Rafa a new contract.

The interview was of course a smoke and mirrors piece designed for anybody who doesn't know better to think just that.

The bottom line is that Hicks doesn't have enough money for Liverpool Football Club.

[redwien]

Frodo you weak willed fool, he's just used the old Jedi mind trick on ya lad. These are clearly not the droids we are looking for!!!!!!!!!!

[barnes10]

I've not read the thread but I saw the interview this morning.

My wife who has no interest thought he came across like he had the best interests of the club at heart, admitted he has made mistakes and wants control to stop the infighting, get rid of Parry and give Rafa a new contract.

The interview was of course a smoke and mirrors piece designed for anybody who doesn't know better to think just that.

The bottom line is that Hicks doesn't have enough money for Liverpool Football Club.

how do you know that he hasnt the money? he was brought in because he does have the money no?