Bob Paisley

[kev776]

Me too, brilliant.

[Lecter]

Moores only ever had control of the club just because the shares were in the family. He was evidently ill equipped to serve it, or indeed any business, well.

This isnt quite true

The Moores family did have shares in the club and David Moores did "inherit" those shares

However it was not a controlling stake. He gained the controlling stake on the back of underwriting a share rights issue to fund the building of the Centenary Stand. The take up of the share rights issue was poor and as such Moores' underwriting of the issue meant that he had increased his stakeholding in the club to such an extent that he gained a controlling stake think he ended up with 60%+, of which 9.9% was then sold later to Granada

[Red_Polo]

This isnt quite true

The Moores family did have shares in the club and David Moores did "inherit" those shares

However it was not a controlling stake. He gained the controlling stake on the back of underwriting a share rights issue to fund the building of the Centenary Stand. The take up of the share rights issue was poor and as such Moores' underwriting of the issue meant that he had increased his stakeholding in the club to such an extent that he gained a controlling stake think he ended up with 60%+, of which 9.9% was then sold later to Granada

None of which would have been possible but for his inherited position.

[Lecter]

None of which would have been possible but for his inherited position.

I realise that but to suggest he got given control of the club is incorrect, if the take up of the share rights issue had been better he wouldnt have had control

[Red_Polo]

I realise that but to suggest he got given control of the club is incorrect, if the take up of the share rights issue had been better he wouldnt have had control

I didn't say he was given control though. I said he only got it as a consequence of the shares in the family. Point being he wasn't a successful person who managed to make great strides and win control of the club. He bumble ****ed his way in then did the same number on the way out.

[frank the tank]

I realise that but to suggest he got given control of the club is incorrect, if the take up of the share rights issue had been better he wouldnt have had control

don't let the truth get in the way of a good moan....

[Lecter]

I didn't say he was given control though. I said he only got it as a consequence of the shares in the family. Point being he wasn't a successful person who managed to make great strides and win control of the club. He bumble ****ed his way in then did the same number on the way out.

You probably need to edit your post then

"Moores only had control because the shares were in his family" (sounds like he was given control)

Pedantic I know but perhaps it should read

Moores only had control because the rest of us refused to put our hands in our pockets

Moores gets a rough ride at times and people forget some of the good things he did

Yes they are balanced out with some horrendous decisions but I think hes too often maligned to be fair to him, the rot set in a few years before he gained control

[Red_Polo]

You probably need to edit your post then

"Moores only had control because the shares were in his family" (sounds like he was given control)

Pedantic I know but perhaps it should read

Moores only had control because the rest of us refused to put our hands in our pockets

Moores gets a rough ride at times and people forget some of the good things he did

Yes they are balanced out with some horrendous decisions but I think hes too often maligned to be fair to him, the rot set in a few years before he gained control

It can read that way if you choose it to, but it is clearly not the point being made given the context. It was in response to a post talking about the importance of getting the right people in and questioning how coming from a position of such competence, Moores could come to be at the helm. His inheritance is the single most important thing that answers that question. What happened with the share issue on the other hand, does not, as the fact the he would even be in a position to do as much is the crux of it.

How any of us rate him and whether he gets a rough ride is another kettle of fish altogether. I'd say he was poor but I have a slight soft spot for him too. I'm not really sure why. Heart was in the right place, I guess.

[Lecter]

It can read that way if you choose it to, but it is clearly not the point being made given the context. It was in response to a post talking about the importance of getting the right people in and questioning how coming from a position of such competence, Moores could come to be at the helm. His inheritance is the single most important thing that answers that question. What happened with the share issue on the other hand, does not, as the fact the he would even be in a position to do as much is the crux of it.

How any of us rate him and whether he gets a rough ride is another kettle of fish altogether. I'd say he was poor but I have a slight soft spot for him too. I'm not really sure why. Heart was in the right place, I guess.

You see I blame the "supporters" as much as him for coming to be in that position

They should have supported the rights issue more

I have a soft spot for Moores also, heart was in the right place

I also believe that our malaise started a long time before he came to power.

I've said it before the reason why the club was successful was because they were innovators on and off the field. On the field you have the players and management teams and what they achieved is well documented

Less well documented is the off the field stuff, the club I believe was one of the first to have advertising hoardings and the first to have shirt sponsorship. That was innovative but at some time they stopped doing that. Whether that was because they became complacent or whether it was the events of Heysel making them withdraw and become insular I'm not sure (financially losing European football was an enormous blow even then). Hillsborough then followed and that really threw the club off key (understandably). I think its taken many many years to fully recover from that

Moores was involved in some good decisions, building the Centenary Stand, selling a stake to Granada, appointing Rafa but he was also involved in some calamitous decisions - letting heart rule head regards to Souness, joint manager roles, keeping Houllier too long and selling to Hicks & Gillett

I think however he will be remembered for the Hicks & Gillett deal because that was the biggest and last decision he made (and he got it badly wrong)

[Red_Polo]

You see I blame the "supporters" as much as him for coming to be in that position

They should have supported the rights issue more

I have a soft spot for Moores also, heart was in the right place

I also believe that our malaise started a long time before he came to power.

I've said it before the reason why the club was successful was because they were innovators on and off the field. On the field you have the players and management teams and what they achieved is well documented

Less well documented is the off the field stuff, the club I believe was one of the first to have advertising hoardings and the first to have shirt sponsorship. That was innovative but at some time they stopped doing that. Whether that was because they became complacent or whether it was the events of Heysel making them withdraw and become insular I'm not sure (financially losing European football was an enormous blow even then). Hillsborough then followed and that really threw the club off key (understandably). I think its taken many many years to fully recover from that

Moores was involved in some good decisions, building the Centenary Stand, selling a stake to Granada, appointing Rafa but he was also involved in some calamitous decisions - letting heart rule head regards to Souness, joint manager roles, keeping Houllier too long and selling to Hicks & Gillett

I think however he will be remembered for the Hicks & Gillett deal because that was the biggest and last decision he made (and he got it badly wrong)

I was too young and oblivious to notice at the time but yes it's obvious the innovation ground to a halt.

Would be interesting to know how much of the decision making actually came from him and how much he basically ceded control to others like Noel White and Rick Parry.

Agree with some of the good things there. On Sounness, he said a load of facepalm stuff just recently which I'm sure someone will remember. Part of it was turning down chance to sign Schmeichel and Cantona, but there was something else that was gold.

[Lecter]

I was too young and oblivious to notice at the time but yes it's obvious the innovation ground to a halt.

Would be interesting to know how much of the decision making actually came from him and how much he basically ceded control to others like Noel White and Rick Parry.

Agree with some of the good things there. On Sounness, he said a load of facepalm stuff just recently which I'm sure someone will remember. Part of it was turning down chance to sign Schmeichel and Cantona, but there was something else that was gold.

Noel White was chairman before Moores (before he even became a majority shareholder)

So really it was just Parry

[Red_Polo]

Noel White was chairman before Moores (before he even became a majority shareholder)

So really it was just Parry

Aye but he remained a director until he did that ****ty interview, and knew Parry well from their roles in the Premier League before he was appointed to us. He never managed to convince anyone on Morgan thank ****

[Lecter]

Aye but he remained a director until he did that ****ty interview, and knew Parry well from their roles in the Premier League before he was appointed to us. He never managed to convince anyone on Morgan thank ****

He didnt have any power, he lost a lot of credibility with the board before Moores even got control of the club

He would have been ousted anyway

[Red_Polo]

He didnt have any power, he lost a lot of credibility with the board before Moores even got control of the club

He would have been ousted anyway

Bit of a stretch - he was there 15 years beyond his chairmanship before he finally went, and we can thank Rafa for him finally going far more than the board whose hands he forced!

[Angryred]

Let's get back to Bob please before we get outta hand here!