David Moores letter to The Times

[Craig_H]

[Matt]

I've been thinking this too.

Surely if there were written guarantees that they wouldnt load the debt onto the club - and the fact that they obviously have done this - isnt there a legal issue whereby they can be held accountable for this lie?

Despite Morgans recent claims in the press he did FULLY endorse Hicks & Gilletts offer at the time

I'd guess such a document wouldn't be legally binding, similar to an election manifesto?

[Kenneth]

If you look into the motivations and frailties of all sorts of people who make **** decisions you tend to be able to appreciate their thought processes, or rationalise their decisions. This approach would actually leave relatively few people who could be abused for their actions without compromise or guilt. This is why, in the paradgym of calling people cunts, such human considerations are discounted and a consequentist view adopted. It can be seen everywhere; in politics, business, sport and personal relationships:

He made a decision that has turned out to be ****, therefore, he is a cunt.

[Lecter]

Surprised to hear Steve Morgan was 'insistent' about selling to the americans, as Moores says.

edit: well no, surprised is the wrong word....intrigued.

Morgan’s faith in US pair
Mar 26 2007 by Chris Bascombe, Liverpool Echo

FORMER Anfield shareholder Steve Morgan today explained why he agreed to sell his six per cent ownership of the club prior to today’s final deadline.

Liverpool’s American takeover was drawing to a conclusion this afternoon, when all remaining shareholders had to decide whether to sell or not.

George Gillett and Tom Hicks are already guaranteed full ownership of Liverpool having passed the 90% threshold.

Those who have not sold already will be forced to sell later under a compulsory order.

Speaking for the first time about his decision to sell, which came earlier in the process, Morgan said a meeting with Gillett convinced him it was the right thing for the future of the club.

He said: “I spoke to George Gillett and I recognised he needed the 100% ownership, so I decided to sell my six per cent shareholding to the new owners.

“He seemed a nice enough guy and we came to an understanding on the matter. I recognised the deal was going to go through.

“As a Liverpool fan, obviously it’s a sad day for me to have to sell my shares after 12 years’ ownership but it seemed to be in the best interests for the future.

“Now, like every supporter and shareholder, I wish George every success in his ownership of Liverpool.”

Gillett and Hicks will now begin the process of purchasing the shares, before formally taking control.

They hope that will happen before they return to England at the end of the week, when they’ll watch the fixture with Arsenal and hold their much publicised meeting with manager Rafa Benitez.

The American duo also face more pivotal planning meetings as they make a decision on the future of the Stanley Park stadium following a reassessment of those design changes which are both feasible and legal.

[Guest]

Cock. Are you Shaggy? Aye? Non?

You ****ing wind up merchant will you just go away?

[Lecter]

I believe him when he says he acted with genuine honesty and in good faith.

He did, however, produce the most monumental ****-up in the club's history and whilst i'm not abusing him for it, it was an absoutely disasterous decision which he needs to be made accountable for.

[RichC]

we trusted Moores........ with great power comes great responsibility.

He ****ed it.

Spot on.

DM got it wrong simple as that - didn't do it on purpose but the simple fact of the matter he handed the keys to the castle to a couple of ****ing leeches

Bad businessman & a bad judge of character but I really do believe he'll carry quite a bit of guilt at what he allowed to happen to this great club.

[Kenneth]

am i being a bit thick or is it not as simple - why, if there is a document in place stating that the club would not have debt placed on it, they can't be ****ing sued for i don't know blagging they were going to do one thing to get the club, then once they got it, they did the opposisite.

Surely, if they had stated that they would leverage debt onto the club, then there is an arguement in there that the club would not have been sold??

Sued by who? And for what? There was no direct loss to Moores or the shareholders from any breach of such an agreement. It didn't alter the value they received for their shares.

[barnes10]

Appalling. To admit he took Hicks on trust, a disgrace.

he did what he did. do you want him to lie about it instead?

[Lecter]

am i being a bit thick or is it not as simple - why, if there is a document in place stating that the club would not have debt placed on it, they can't be ****ing sued for i don't know blagging they were going to do one thing to get the club, then once they got it, they did the opposisite.

Surely, if they had stated that they would leverage debt onto the club, then there is an arguement in there that the club would not have been sold??

I doubt something like that was written into the contract of sale

Even if it was chances are it would have a time limit on it

There has been various whispers over the years about Moores investigating pursuing a legal case against the owner because exactly what you have stated

I assume he does not have a leg to stand on otherwise he'd have taken it further legally

[Dalglish]

By the right thing I meant he had to sell the club.

I don't think we'll end up with the right owners even after those americans anyway, this is a lottery and I don't trust any of those capital ****wits to do what is right for this club. They'll only be concerned about their money.

That's awafully naive Fredo. He engaged in the sale of a massive sporting institution, once for which he claims only to have had the best interests of at heart. He then ADMITS that he recieved an offer from Gillet who told him that Hicks was coming in with him as a result of which he FAILED to properly vet Hicks.

This wasnt someone selling their car or a 3 piece suite, it was a multi million pound sale of one the world's foremost football clubs. He sold it without properly understanding who he was selling it too.

Whilst it may be argued that he had no obligation to the club post sale, he utter neutralises that argument when he gives us all his "cant believe how bad they are please sell now" bollocks. The man clearly only wanted the money and that was that.

There can be no other conclusion drawn. He should shut the **** up because he inane, pathetic excuses are nothing more than a ridiculous charade desigend only to get him back on side with the fan base and to allow back into his padded executive seat with use of the complimentary bar.

He's a ****ing disgrace.

[Bender]

we trusted Moores........ with great power comes great responsibility.

He ****ed it.

Stop quoting that dickhead of a movie spiderman

[Craig_H]

I'd guess such a document wouldn't be legally binding, similar to an election manifesto?

Evidently it's not, otherwise something would've been done by now.

I thought the 'no debt on the club' thing was actually a condition of the sale.

But apparently not.

[cream]

Stop quoting that dickhead of a movie spiderman

[Lecter]

Evidently it's not, otherwise something would've been done by now.

I thought the 'no debt on the club' thing was actually a condition of the sale.

But apparently not.

If you put those sort of conditions as part of the sale I doubt you would find a buyer at all