Liverpool civil war 'erupted when Parry blocked plans to put club in debt'

[einar]

The Liverpool crisis was sparked by chief executive Rick Parry's refusal to allow £245million of the American co-owners' debt to be loaded on to the club, it has been claimed.

Parry and former chairman David Moores, who both remained board members following the takeover by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, blocked an attempt to tie the debt to Liverpool.

The sum in question was the £185million loan the Americans took out to buy the club in February last year and the £60m existing debt on Liverpool's books at the time of the takeover.

Hicks and Gillett promised at the time the debt would not be loaded onto the club and, as part of the takeover deal, agreed that any attempt to do so would have to be ratified by every single board member.

Towards the end of last year, when Hicks and Gillett were negotiating a refinancing deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland, they proposed to the six-man board — made up of themselves, their two sons, Parry and Moores — that the £245million debt should be tied to the club.

Parry and Moores both refused, and when the refinancing arrangement was announced in January, the £245million was tied to Hicks and Gillett's company Kop Football (Holdings).

The pair's stance enraged Hicks in particular and started the Texan on the course that has led to him falling out with Gillett, labelling Parry “a disaster” and calling on the chief executive to quit.

A source close to the club said: “That was the trigger. Hicks needed every board member and not just a majority to agree but Rick and David Moores stood up to him.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=560326&in_page_id=1779&ito=newsnow

[Tee]

The Liverpool crisis was sparked by chief executive Rick Parry's refusal to allow £245million of the American co-owners' debt to be loaded on to the club, it has been claimed.

Parry and former chairman David Moores, who both remained board members following the takeover by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, blocked an attempt to tie the debt to Liverpool.

The sum in question was the £185million loan the Americans took out to buy the club in February last year and the £60m existing debt on Liverpool's books at the time of the takeover.

Hicks and Gillett promised at the time the debt would not be loaded onto the club and, as part of the takeover deal, agreed that any attempt to do so would have to be ratified by every single board member.

Towards the end of last year, when Hicks and Gillett were negotiating a refinancing deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland, they proposed to the six-man board — made up of themselves, their two sons, Parry and Moores — that the £245million debt should be tied to the club.

Parry and Moores both refused, and when the refinancing arrangement was announced in January, the £245million was tied to Hicks and Gillett's company Kop Football (Holdings).

The pair's stance enraged Hicks in particular and started the Texan on the course that has led to him falling out with Gillett, labelling Parry “a disaster” and calling on the chief executive to quit.

A source close to the club said: “That was the trigger. Hicks needed every board member and not just a majority to agree but Rick and David Moores stood up to him.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...79&ito=newsnow

Sounds very plausible. We need them all out TBH, with the exception of Moores - forgive him and keep him on.

[Pacman]

Liverpool civil war 'erupted when Parry blocked plans to put club in debt'

The Liverpool crisis was sparked by chief executive Rick Parry's refusal to allow £245million of the American co-owners' debt to be loaded on to the club, it has been claimed.

Parry and former chairman David Moores, who both remained board members following the takeover by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, blocked an attempt to tie the debt to Liverpool.

The sum in question was the £185million loan the Americans took out to buy the club in February last year and the £60m existing debt on Liverpool's books at the time of the takeover.

Hicks and Gillett promised at the time the debt would not be loaded onto the club and, as part of the takeover deal, agreed that any attempt to do so would have to be ratified by every single board member.

Towards the end of last year, when Hicks and Gillett were negotiating a refinancing deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland, they proposed to the six-man board — made up of themselves, their two sons, Parry and Moores — that the £245million debt should be tied to the club.

Parry and Moores both refused, and when the refinancing arrangement was announced in January, the £245million was tied to Hicks and Gillett's company Kop Football (Holdings).

The pair's stance enraged Hicks in particular and started the Texan on the course that has led to him falling out with Gillett, labelling Parry “a disaster” and calling on the chief executive to quit.

A source close to the club said: “That was the trigger. Hicks needed every board member and not just a majority to agree but Rick and David Moores stood up to him.”

[Skillz]

The Liverpool crisis was sparked by chief executive Rick Parry's refusal to allow £245million of the American co-owners' debt to be loaded on to the club, it has been claimed.

Parry and former chairman David Moores, who both remained board members following the takeover by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, blocked an attempt to tie the debt to Liverpool.

The sum in question was the £185million loan the Americans took out to buy the club in February last year and the £60m existing debt on Liverpool's books at the time of the takeover.

Hicks and Gillett promised at the time the debt would not be loaded onto the club and, as part of the takeover deal, agreed that any attempt to do so would have to be ratified by every single board member.

Towards the end of last year, when Hicks and Gillett were negotiating a refinancing deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland, they proposed to the six-man board — made up of themselves, their two sons, Parry and Moores — that the £245million debt should be tied to the club.

Parry and Moores both refused, and when the refinancing arrangement was announced in January, the £245million was tied to Hicks and Gillett's company Kop Football (Holdings).

The pair's stance enraged Hicks in particular and started the Texan on the course that has led to him falling out with Gillett, labelling Parry “a disaster” and calling on the chief executive to quit.

A source close to the club said: “That was the trigger. Hicks needed every board member and not just a majority to agree but Rick and David Moores stood up to him.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...79&ito=newsnow

That's very well written. Short and concise, to the point. Is that from the Daily Mail?

**** em their full of ****e!

[CincyRed]

So Hicks is saying its Parry's fault that this crisis has occurred bc Hicks is a liar and wouldnt hold up to his original bargain to not put debt on the club?

Right.

[spud_gun]

Interesting. Where's the article from?

[Norbs]

Parry's the good guy after all...

[dww]

Interesting. Where's the article from?

The Mail.

I've merged the posts on the same article from the case for hicks thread with here, so there is now a link in the first post.

[Dhav]

Parry said this himself last week didn't he? that he thought him and Moores were gone when they veto'd the debt being placed on the club's books?

[saveferris]

Parry did say that himself.

This is the first piece from the Mail that isnt pro Hicks in a while.

[-V-]

Robbo Robson on 606-

It’s time to praise Liverpool. Not the club, but the manager and the players.

It’s unthinkable that any other team under the circumstances could’ve got their way to a Champions League semi with the sort of shenanigans that’s going on off the pitch.

True, it’s down to two players mostly, but that doesn’t make it any less of an achievement.

At a time when fans and players were marking the anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy, Tom Hicks was busy sharpening his sword and preparing to dig it in to the ribs of anyone within stabbing distance.

This bloke says Rick Parry’s time as chief executive has been a disaster. Well, maybe, it hasn’t been too clever, but the biggest mistake he made was selling the club to America’s version of Cain and Abel.

Hicks is keen to put the skids under Parry – the Klinsmann meeting was set up by Rick apparently, and although he thought it was out of order, Hicks was there too, with his son Tom.

That tells you all you need to know doesn’t it? Tom Hicks has called his son Tom. Why do Yanks do that? All them American golfers called summat-summat the third. Like you’re not so much a person, just a sequel.

Hicks says if he bought Gillett out he’d put Rafa on a one-year extension straight away so he was around when the stadium was finally finished. One whole year, Tom? Taking your employment tips from the RFU, are you?

"Well done, Mr Ashton, would you like to keep your job for a whole year after getting a bunch of concrete-filled pillowcases to the World Cup Final?

"Good! That’ll give us plenty of time to undermine you by talking to other people behind your back. And then when we’ve done that we’ll sack you and offer you a rank alternative." That’s top management, isn’t it?

Hicks says Parry’s relationship with Rafa is fragile. Right. I suppose, though, if they went out for dinner, they might be able to string together a conversation, unlike, say, you and George.

You can see it now. "Could you ask Mr Hicks to pass me the salt?" "Could you tell Mr Gillett that the salt is in easy reach" etc, etc.

Do the two of them really think the public, and especially the Liverpool fans, are really going to believe anything they say when it’s all so obviously about two overgrown and unfortunately wealthy schoolboys having a playground spat?

It couldn’t be worse if Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie were the majority shareholders. I can’t imagine Parry’s job at the moment is anything other than that of an exhausted parent.

DIC has been looming in the background dangling the keys to Fort Knox in the faces of Parry, but the hapless pair aren’t going to put up with that. Hicks will never sell.

Gillett will sell to DIC maybe, but there’s a gentlemen’s agreement about one of them selling up independently of the other. Mind that’s a gentlemen’s agreement so it doesn’t apply to Gillett and Hicks.

In the meantime who decides what cash Rafa’s going to get to strengthen the squad (that is if he really wants a better than fourth place finish in any given year)?

Rafa really needs to offload a few n'all – Voronin, Pennant, Arbeloa, and Hyppia are looking a bit like a Grand National chaser coming into the home straight for the last time.

I mean it’s a joke. There’s a lorra lorra people out there who think the Beeb goes on a bit too much about Liverpool. But the board are a disgrace right now – and this is the club that set the benchmark for keeping everything in-house and out of the papers.

Hicks seems so bent on washing his dirty linen in public he should move out of football and into launderettes.

The idea that Liverpool might win the Champs League and the six board members will be jumping up and down in delight is a bit bloody sickening.

Not quite sure how any of them have helped – save for the cash for Torres, which any other bidder would have provided anyway.

At this rate they’ll be moving into a soulless shell of a stadium, with no Kop-like aura, and there’ll be two executive boxes at either end of the main stand to stop the stropsters from throwing peanuts at each other.

The ground’ll be called the Hicks-Gillett stadium on one side and the Gillett-Hicks Stadium on the other. And they’ll never get away from the ground very quick cos they’ll be letting each others’ tyres down and keying each others paintwork.

It’s a total joke. I was surprised that the Glazers weren’t carried out of Old Trafford on tumbrils and tipped into the Manchester Ship Canal – but what they’ve done well is they’ve kept their heads down.

Cos they know nowt about footy. And the club’s done fine, of course. But even Liverpool’s success can’t stop these prissy pillocks arguing the toss about just about everything.

I have spent half my life watching and whining at Liverpool FC cos for years you just couldn’t stop them winning anything unless you were a genius like Cloughie.

I suppose now I should be laughing, but it just makes me bleeding angry - and by the way, it’s not cos they’re American.
It’s cos they’re pathetic. Pick up your balls and go home and let someone else have a go.



Funny Chelsea reaction to our problems
You lot should worry. We have an owner who only likes his mates around him. (Shev & Avram.A manager who does not know what he is doing. A captain who does not like one of the trainers. A striker who never wanted to come anyway. A centre bach who would have come if he knew Mourinio was going. A tea lady who only drinks coffee. 2 midfield so called stars who cant link up together. A team that draws too many home games just to prolong some now unimportant record. strikers who cant score but are never the less deemed invalueble. And Kenyon on loan from Man U. so whats your problem. And you will dump us out the CL again.

[Scratch]

Wait...so TH, TH, GG and FG were all voting in favour of the deal? And RP and DM voted against it?

So the 2 votes of RP and DM were enough to win the decision?


Edit: Just read the last line... never mind.

[Skillz]

Wait...so TH, TH, GG and FG were all voting in favour of the deal? And RP and DM voted against it?

So the 2 votes of RP and DM were enough to win the decision?

I've got no idea, but RP and DM votes are very important. They are both much more likely to vote the same as the average supporter it's not funny.

Not funny at all.

[Galb]

Similar report in the Guardian last week:

Andy Hunter
Friday April 11, 2008
The Guardian


The surprise lay in the timing of Tom Hicks' letter demanding the resignation of Liverpool's chief executive, Rick Parry, yesterday, not in the blunt request itself.
From the moment Parry encouraged Dubai International Capital to buy into the club last autumn and sided with Hicks' joint owner, George Gillett, in the bitter dispute that has paralysed Liverpool, Parry knew it was a question of when, not if, Hicks would seek his head. Like any supporter, however, he would have wished to bask in Tuesday's pulsating victory over Arsenal and the achievement of a third Champions League semi-final in four seasons for longer than 42 hours.

------------------------------------------------------------

That Liverpool were denied even two days to savour such a triumph illustrates Hicks' priorities, and the single-mindedness of the Texan, whose response to supporters' calls to quit has been to try to strengthen his hold on the club. That Parry can reject such a request highlights the power vacuum inside the Liverpool hierarchy and his own belief that Hicks' pursuit of a majority shareholding is far from the fait accompli the co-owner had hoped it would be only a month ago.
It was Parry who maintained contact with DIC and its chief executive, Sameer al-Ansari, when it became apparent last year that the US co-owners were divided over their plans for the club and struggling to meet the financial commitments required to build a new 70,000-seat stadium. Parry's detractors among the Liverpool support would suggest that was the least he could do.

Having frustrated DIC's initial attempt to purchase Liverpool for approximately £430m last February, Parry has borne the brunt of criticism for enabling Hicks and Gillett to gain control. The ultimate decision on whether to go with Dubai or US money was, of course, taken by David Moores, the former chairman and now honorary life president, who received £88m for selling his 51.6% stake to Hicks and Gillett, £8m more than he would have earned from DIC.

Neither Moores nor Parry has revealed any regret at the outcome of their three-year search for new investment (the chief executive is in no position to) though both have worked to limit the impact of the Americans' business plan for Liverpool. Hicks and Gillett initially intended to borrow £600m to refinance their takeover and build the stadium, before opting for a £350m loan with the Royal Bank of Scotland and the US investment bank Wachovia in January. The stadium project, still no further than the planning stage, would then be funded with future loans. Only the intervention of Parry and Moores prevented the Americans loading the majority of the £350m refinancing debt on to Liverpool, with their veto of a plan that required the full support of the boardroom apparently a major surprise and inconvenience to Hicks and Gillett.

From the moment he helped to reduce the debt on Liverpool's books to £105m, with £195m secured against the Americans' holding company, Kop Investment, and the rest in personal guarantees, Parry knew his long-term future at Anfield was in doubt - or beyond question should Hicks ultimately gain majority control.








I think people really need to take what's in the papers on who favours who with a pinch of salt - its very obvious that at least some (and I would say most) of the 'behind-the-scenes' reports are being fed to the press by Hicks.

Im based in the US at the moment and looking at his career from this side of the water is interesting - the man has always leveraged his sports teams and intefered with management in a pig-headed and misguided way. That's the way he works. He also tends to shout his mouth off in the press. That's how he works.

Make up your own mind, but to me, that's not what you need in a chairman or from a board. They need to stay out of sight, ensure there is money for the manager and trust them over a decent period of time. That's all.

As far as I can see, he's trying to get the fans on his side (eg, with his laughable 12-month extension for Rafa - 'pro' Rafa indeed) to put pressure on the rest of the board to cave in before the deadline for Gillette to have to offer him his shares runs out in May. He cant raise the money at the moment from the debt markets so he's struggling. Leveraging is the only way he knows and now is a bad time for that. If we can get to the end of May when GG can sell to a third party, I think then we'll see DIC or whoever re-rentering the fray and Hicks' game will be up.


And to those who have recently said that he will have to make us successful because he'll own us and that's the only way he can make money - my guess is we're a means to greater things for him. He's trying to secure financing for his whole sports empire at the moment and we are undoubtedly the jewel of his collection (partly because he's mismanaged the others so badly). If he has control of us, he will be able to get a much better deal, regardless of how successful (or unsuccessful) we are in the long-term.

[-V-]

Tom Hicks-- Greedy, Liar, Ignorant, Hard to judge his intentions, Self-obsessed, Clueless about football

Gillette- Clueless about football, Wants to get rid of Rafa, Can't buy-out Hicks and now either needs a new partner or must sell his stake, complete liability, Klinnsman (FFS)

Parry- Weve been saying sack Parry for ages, he's incompetant and always has been. Only good thing he has done is hire Rafa. His only real saving grace is that his heart is in the right place and he is liverpool through and through. Doesn't intentionally screw up, just his nature. On one hand we can do better than Parry but on the other hand it might be scary to leave Hicks with too much power

Moores- Trusted Parry too much, Weak Leader, poor businessman, Sold to the wrong people. But Wants whats best for the club and the fans