David Moores letter to The Times

[Kenneth]

"It's this PwC did DD", "Rothschilds vouched for him" stuff that I find annoying. It's used as evidence of support for the decision without any knowledge of the instructions given in the DD, or what the DD actually came up with and how that affected the decision to sell. DD doesn't result in a 'yes, that's a good business', or 'yes, he's a top bloke' or 'he's a bit of a wrong un' FFS. I would GUESS that it is likely that the focus of the DD was on the finances of the investors and their ability to fund the purchase.

[Kenneth]

No we'd still have Djimi Traore and Milan Baros. Torres would be at Barca and we'd still be dreaming of No19 and No5, and we'd probably still have Parry as chief executive!

I know which I would choose, and it's not crippling debt and Fernando Torres.

[BillobShaisley]

No. People are reacting to a letter written by David Moores, which covers David Moores' views on the sale from David Moores' perspective

It's ALL about David Moores in this instance

And the 1st 3 or 4 pages slating him before the letter was even published?

And then the other 50% of replies that dont seem to be able to link 2 sentances together before quoting and commenting?

[Broner]

For anybody that's interested, Adrian Durham and Mickey Quinn are saying LFC should go into administration, thus getting rid of the Yanks.

[BillobShaisley]

If someone offers a price to buy the club, say for example £400m and this was accepted - do G&H take all of that £400m, with the new buyer then having to also underwrite the debt?

If so, in effect, a buyer would have to pay the price to buy the club and then also pay off the debt.

No. LFC isn't in 400mil of debt.

[Kenneth]

For anybody that's interested, Adrian Durham and Mickey Quinn are saying LFC should go into administration, thus getting rid of the Yanks.

One doesn't necessarily follow the other though.

[Craig_H]

Did you actualy read the letter or only Craig_H's responses to it?

You are all a ****ing disgrace and make me ashamed that this is the current state of LFC support.

What was the right choice for DM to have made? Sell to DIC, hold out longer, maintain ownership? What.

All these google champions failed to find the crucial information which would have identified the pair as a risk in the weeks and months after the sale.

Can you imagine if he'd been writting this letter now and had done as you'd all suggested?

"I hadn't heard of Hicks and allthought PWC, Rothschilds and Gillett all vouched for him, I had a look on google and couldn't find anything so I pulled out of the deal"

The painful irony is that Moores himself could've borrowed against the club and started work on the new stadium. As it is, he sold to the cowboys who have loaded the club with debt and yet STILL not started on the new ground. So which option would've been better? Yes indeed it would've been better for Moores to keep hold of the club.

As for your google point - i dont really get what point you have, of any validity.

Hicks ****ed Corinthians over, and that information was out there and accessible, yet somehow he has been allowed to come and do the same to us. Do you not think that serious research into Hicks' past needed to be done before allowing him to get his dirty hands on the institution that is Liverpool Football Club?

[Craig_H]

For anybody that's interested, Adrian Durham and Mickey Quinn are saying LFC should go into administration, thus getting rid of the Yanks.

If it didnt equate having to sell ALL of the valuable playing assets, i would advocate administration.

I dont know how likely it is though, that we could go into administration, and the appointed administrator wouldnt instantly sell off the playing assets.

[Craig_H]

No. LFC isn't in 400mil of debt.

Really?

Kop Holdings apparently is - and this is the ownership company of LFC.

They've put the debt onto us. So how are we not in £400m debt?

[Kenneth]

If it didnt equate having to sell ALL of the valuable playing assets, i would advocate administration.

I dont know how likely it is though, that we could go into administration, and the appointed administrator wouldnt instantly sell off the playing assets.

Not necessarily all, but enough to cover the renegotiated loans. Part of the administrators duty is to work towards leaving the company as a going concern, so it wouldn't be a complete asset strip.

Would also make it almost impossible for us to borrow money on reasonable terms, so the stadium would never happen and we'd be limited to spending withing the regular revenue amounts. We'd sink like a stone.

[Kenneth]

Really?

Kop Holdings apparently is - and this is the ownership company of LFC.

They've put the debt onto us. So how are we not in £400m debt?

Maybe, out of the goodness of their hearts, H&G would sell shares in Liverpool FC owned by Kop Holdings and dissolve KH, repaying the debt and pocketing the £10 difference.

[BillobShaisley]

And if you go back and see my posts at the time you'll see that I wanted Moores to stay in control and 'Sack Parry' which was all we needed to do.

As for the falling behind part, we did, I wont deny that, but Man U got their big boost by becoming a PLC which we all hated the idea of. Blackburn had the original sugar daddy and since then Chelsea, Spurs and Man City and Villa have all had huge external cash injections.

It's all very understandable being upset now, but the hate campaign against Moores I find detestable.

[Craig_H]

Hate campaign is pointless and unwarranted, the whole thing was a disasterous accident, not deliberate.

I detest the stupidity of the decision though.

[BillobShaisley]

Really?

Kop Holdings apparently is - and this is the ownership company of LFC.

They've put the debt onto us. So how are we not in £400m debt?

"They've put the debt onto us" - What does that mean?

New buyers wont buy Kop Holdings they will buy lfc, probably with some debt, at least but not limited to ongoing player purchase costs etc. G&H will then use the money from the sale to pay Kop Holdings debts and keep any leftovers.

[Kenneth]

And if you go back and see my posts at the time you'll see that I wanted Moores to stay in control and 'Sack Parry' which was all we needed to do.

As for the falling behind part, we did, I wont deny that, but Man U got their big boost by becoming a PLC which we all hated the idea of. Blackburn had the original sugar daddy and since then Chelsea, Spurs and Man City and Villa have all had huge external cash injections.

It's all very understandable being upset now, but the hate campaign against Moores I find detestable.

Hate campaign against, or criticism of ? I am not sure you are distinguishing.