George Gillett’s decision to accuse Liverpool fans of issuing death threats against him, his wife, his son and his daughter-in-law, ones he took so seriously that he decided to back out of a potential sale of his half of Liverpool FC, couldn’t have come at a worse time.
The claims were made on Canadian radio on Thursday night, when Gillett was interviewed on The Fan 590, a sports channel based in Toronto. The show was Prime Time Sports with Bob McCown, with both Bob and Stephen Brunt speaking to Gillett.
It’s pretty clear that Gillett had planned this interview, planned what he would say, and it says a lot about him that he chose to use Canadian radio to speak for the first time about his part in acts that have put Liverpool’s future potentially in doubt.
One point he wanted fans to believe as he worked towards his claims of those death threats was that he hasn’t had any abuse directed purely at him. He claimed he received up to 2000 emails a week, only 100 of which would contain abuse to both owners. The rest, another 1900 per week, were completely aimed at his partner Tom Hicks. It seems far-fetched to say the least. Not far-fetched that he would get emails demanding both owners leave the club, not far-fetched that he would get another chunk of emails complaining to him purely about Tom Hicks, but extremely far-fetched that he would not get one single email containing abuse aimed purely at him.
Also far-fetched is that he has had emails as recently as Thursday from fans (plural) from “important blog sites” (plural) inviting him to the “famous pubs” to “see how they sing their songs or get ready to sing the songs. And there’s none of the hostility or animosity that is felt or seems to have been directed at others in the ownership group.”
He admits that the 2000-a-week figure has dropped somewhat, down to just 25 on Thursday, but even so it’s extremely unlikely he’s getting no hostility. He certainly got one on Friday morning that contained a long line of angry questions.
After months of spin and leaks from people understood to be connected to DIC, Hicks, Parry, Moores and even Rafa, it was unexpected for Gillett to come out of hiding like this. There had been a lot of speculation about why Gillett had disappeared from the scene, even recalling his son from his Melwood office. Even before that he’d largely decided to stay out of the limelight. He even got praise for keeping quiet from some, especially when certain figures inside the club were letting it be known that he was somewhat the victim of Tom Hicks’ bullying.
Without absolving Tom Hicks of all his “sins”, George Gillett has far from been an angel.
It seems that one of the biggest reasons Gillett has been so quiet has been for tactical reasons. Tom Hicks spoke to the press, made statements, got Rick Parry to make statements and over time dug himself some holes. George Gillett sat back with his feet on his Colorado desk and watched the show. Hicks became the only true villain of the piece, the bad cop. Gillett got away with it, even now he’s getting praise from supporters who seem willing to forgive him and gloss over his part in a disastrous first year of American ownership.
In the interview it was clear he was desperate to get his allegations against Liverpool fans in. He’d had these death threats, and he was so sure they were real he’d now changed his mind about selling to Hicks. “I must say however that the most difficult part for us… the thing that angers fans the most is the prospect I might sell even one share of my stock to my partner. They do not want him to have a controlling interest in this club – they don’t even want him to have any ownership in the club. So as a result of that – and it’s been very difficult for my wife with the amount that I travel – we receive many phone calls in the middle of the night threatening us our lives – death threats. They’ve come to the office, a number of them have come into the office and Foster and Lauren, my son and daughter-in-law, have received a number of them themselves.”
Pause for a moment. That’s a serious allegation. It suggests a sustained and organised attack on him and his family.
If it’s true, and these threats were serious, not kids playing pranks, then it’s gone too far. Way too far. It’s only football, no matter how much it means to us. As we know ourselves only too well, it is not worth a life.
Do we believe Gillett? Is he seriously and genuinely in fear of his and his family’s lives?
Well there’s an easy way to prove that. I asked Mr Gillett to provide details of his reports to police of those threats. Obviously anyone in Gillett’s position getting death threats that are considered to be even remotely plausible would go to the police. It’s a serious crime, and is probably something that could see the perpetrator charged with a list of offences. Despite the likelihood that the calls were transatlantic, technology is improving all the time and with the co-operation of US and UK police forces there is every likelihood those responsible can be traced, especially if steps were taken before the next death threat was made.
I’ve not had the details of any reports yet, or even confirmation that the offences have been reported, but no doubt Mr Gillett will be willing to provide either this, or an explanation for making these allegations when he didn’t even think they were worth telling the police about.
I know that certain posters on certain websites were posting details of switchboard and fax numbers for the offices of Hicks and Gillett, all of which are available on hundreds of US business-listings websites. It seems Gillett’s home number is also publicly listed, which may be par for the course in the US but seems an odd approach to have. I can’t imagine Richard Branson or Alan Sugar’s numbers showing up on a search of directory enquiries. Gillett said he was even getting calls to his mobile phone, which again is odd. He said “a number of the blog sites” had these private numbers on them, although I assume he means “forum” sites in the main. If the numbers are indeed private and otherwise unavailable on the net then they shouldn’t really be reproduced on any other sites, but if they have been taken from public phone book websites then Gillett really has no room for complaint to the sites that listed those numbers.
He said: “We’re very private people but my number is in the phone book.. I’m not shy and if I make a mistake I’m prepared to take the hit for it. It’s interesting the calls are not against my wife or myself or my son or my daughter in law, as much as they are against us selling to our partner and so, er, we’re rethinking that. Frankly I don’t think it’s fair for me to put my family in that kind of danger. So instead of thinking about selling maybe we’ll think about buying.”
He really did say that. He believed those death threats to the extent that he is now “rethinking” selling to his partner. And maybe, he claims, he’s even going to “think about buying.”
Putting the death threats to one side, it’s the first admission in public that Gillett has been willing to sell to Hicks. Behind the scenes it’s been known for some time that Gillett wanted to sell, it was never in any doubt, but this is the first time it has been admitted in public. The DIC announcement three weeks ago where they were willing to buy 49% made it quite obvious that Gillett was ready to sell 1% to Hicks, but that wasn’t actually confirmed.
The claims he’s thinking of buying sound hollow. It’s been made clear for some time now that he was stretched to his financial limit with the recent refinancing deal, in fact he was one of the main reasons the duo had tried so hard to put more debt onto the club. The loan of February 2007 for £298m was fully in the names of Gillett and Hicks, but by January 2008 they could only put £245m against their own assets, putting the other £105m onto the club. Their assets had dropped in value over the course of the year and so both partners had to use more assets to guarantee the loan. Gillett was just about at his limit. That was in January, and the markets have dropped yet further since then, so quite how he’s going to find the kind of money that would persuade Hicks to sell is difficult to imagine.
Claims that Hicks and Gillett had fallen out first surfaced in November, quickly dismissed by Rick Parry: “In fact it’s absolute nonsense,” he insisted. Hicks later admitted there had been disagreements between the pair, but insisted nothing more than any other partners might have. But eventually there was no longer any point pretending otherwise. Gillett said their relationship was now unworkable: “Oh it has been for some time, yes.” Not that any of it is his fault of course: “But not because of us – we have tried to be co-operative, we have tried to be supportive but when your public persona is more important than the facts, that makes it very difficult to have a rational relationship.”
We have all seen Tom Hicks seem to lose his temper after some story hits the press, responding off the cuff and in turn backing himself into a corner. But what was Gillett referring to specifically?
Was it the “Snoogy Doogy” interview with the wads of cash being waved around? If looks could kill Hicks would have done there and then what Gillett claims Liverpool fans have threatened to. Gillett was promising more than was eventually delivered. Assuming they’d already decided not to fund Rafa as promised, it seems in that instance Gillett was putting his public persona – Mr Generous Nice Guy – ahead of the facts that transfer funding would be much the same as past seasons.
Was it the first attempts at revealing the new stadium under the US ownership? The announcement in July made the pair look like heroes, but was later dumped because of cost. Was Hicks too busy making himself look good to consider getting it priced up properly.
Was it the admission that they had spoke to Klinsmann? That has been rumoured as a major factor in their split already. Klinsmann was Gillett’s business associate, and it was Gillett who is understood to have recommended him to Hicks as next boss. Some sources have claimed Gillett had pushed for Rafa to be sacked and replaced by Klinsmann, and have said this was why Gillett was at the Marseille game days before the December meeting between Rafa and the board. If the team had lost in France, Rafa would be sacked. But eventually the sacking didn’t go through, Klinsmann didn’t want the job – especially with Rafa still in it – and by the time the meeting had been admitted to – in January – Gillett was fuming. He didn’t want Hicks to reveal what they’d done, up until then they’d managed to keep this false image of it being all a misunderstanding and a storm in a tea-cup, but now Hicks was admitting it was much more of a plan than that. In that case Gillett was putting his public persona (Mr Nice Guy and Rafa’s Mate) ahead of the facts (allegedly Mr Hatchet Man and Rafa’s Enemy).
The other big claim of being a cause of a split was the refinancing situation. And that in itself is full of claims and counter-claims over who said what. Gillett allowed it to be leaked that he was trying to block Hicks from putting all the debt on the club. Other claims said it was Parry and Moores trying to stop any of the debt going onto the club. In fact it seems most likely that it was Parry and Moores, with the help of the banks, blocking moves to put 100% of the £350m onto the club. Hicks has never denied that he wanted to try and do this, but of the two owners he was almost certainly the one most able to take more of the burden on his own assets. Gillett could barely afford the deal that finally went through, so quite why or how he would be blocking this move is difficult to work out. Gillett was said to be angry when Hicks made an official statement detailing the terms of the new finance package. Hicks put the facts in the open, Gillett didn’t like it – again was this his personal public persona being more important than the facts?
Talking of facts, Gillett was asked how this possibility of him buying more of the club would work, was it feasible or was it a dream? Sounds like a dream: “It’s really hard to say until you literally put something in writing and you put the money in the bank that’s a speculative answer, any answer I give you, but what I would say is this: We were very fair. We gave our partner a long period of time to try and make the arrangements to buy us out we didn’t put pressure on him we could not have been a better partner and he ultimately didn’t get to the finish line.”
What a quick change of subject – diverting from the question of whether he could afford to buy Hicks’ share into an attack on Hicks for failing to find the means to buy his half. Gillett can’t afford to buy Hicks out. Strange also that Gillett claims not to have put pressure on Hicks, when it’s been in the public domain, albeit in a cloak-and-dagger off-the-record kind of way, for some time now that he’s been in bed with DIC looking to sell to them for a profit quoted in some instances of as much as £80m. Just before the Dubai meeting between DIC and Hicks it was rumoured that Gillet was still turning down that level of profit for selling 49% to DIC.
Gillett insists that he won’t be selling to Hicks because of the alleged death threats: “In the meantime, because of things that he said, the fans’ reaction has been so negative towards him – and towards us if we sold to him – that that has now made that an untenable alternative for us.”
So what options does Gillett have? He can stay, and face the same worries Hicks will face in summer 2009 when this finance option comes to an end. He can’t buy Hicks out on his own, so unless he has a secret partner lined up then that’s nothing more than a dream. And if his dream comes true, he’s then got to make Hicks and offer he can’t refuse. He can’t sell to DIC unless Hicks agrees to it, or until he finds a way of getting around the veto Hicks says he will use to block any sale to DIC.
Hicks hasn’t yet blocked any offer from DIC – it seems DIC haven’t actually made one yet. Asked about Hicks blocking the deal Gillett was reluctant to answer but eventually coughed up: “Well that’s another one of the points (laughs, hoping that he isn’t pressed). (When pressed) He threatened to.” Obviously DIC can make an indicative offer, but with making an actual offer then there is nothing for Hicks to veto.
Playing to the crowd, Gillett used the fans again to attack Hicks. Despite implying already that DIC hadn’t actually made an official offer, he made out it was Hicks who had blocked moves from DIC to buy into the club. No admission of having turned down repeated unofficial offers of a massive profit himself, he pinned all the blame on Hicks for DIC having been unable to buy the club: “I think that was certainly one of the things that made the fans upset. Lord knows they had the money and with oil prices going up every day, that’s not an issue. They certainly have the history and they’re fans and I think they’d have been very responsible owners so I guess not making that possible or making that difficult again didn’t endear people to the fans.” DIC have actually not yet left the building, despite the implication here it was now a lost cause. They still believe they’ll have won the battle within a month.
Gillett’s failure to stick to his promises, including the implied promises, has messed the club up and put its future at risk. He’s no less guilty than Hicks for that. But he continues to work the fans with his well-worn sincere face and over-used phrases: “So as you all are saying there’s an awful lot going on here, much too complicated for me to try and handicap but what I know is that, er, the fans and the great fabled history of this club deserves better – and, er, we’re going to do everything we can to provide that in whatever role we play.” Jim Royle has a saying for moments like this.
To defend Gillett for a moment, although he’s being far from honest, a pattern we’ve grown used to, the claims he’d held out until offered £80m, that he’d forced Klinsmann onto Hicks and almost onto the club and that he’d been the main reason for the attempts to refinance the loans using the club for 100% of the debt could all be denied by him, all of those claims are from unnamed sources.
Hicks did not respond directly, instead taking a refreshing approach of avoiding making things worse by issuing official statements or giving interviews. There was however a brief statement from “a source close to the Texan,” which said: “It is not very helpful to talk about this situation, given the importance of the next two or three weeks coming up in the fixture list. These bits and pieces in the media are not beneficial to the overall performance of the club and that’s what we want people to concentrate on at this stage. With games against Everton and the Arsenal coming up, football has to come first.”
The mess looks like never ending, but sooner or later hands will be forced. Ignore Gillett’s claims he can buy Hicks out – he can barely afford to hang onto what he’s got. But as more and more time goes by the claim from Hicks that he can buy Gillett out is looking increasingly hollow. And so DIC wait in the wings for something to give. Eventually something has to. Hicks might have to admit defeat if his US fortunes are hit hard enough by the financial chaos in the US. He may well have somebody lined up, but perhaps is being led down the garden path. Gillett might hit the point of being forced into a sale before Hicks though, but with Hicks and DIC unwilling to share power he might not get anything like the profit he wanted.
It would be far better for the club if the public spats came to an end, especially when, like Gillett’s attempts on Thursday, they feed the opposition with more ammunition to aim at us.
Full transcript of questions relating to LFC.
Asked what was happening at Anfield now: “Oh boy! I think we’re at that point where there are things going on- there are pieces on the chess board being moved or being contemplated to be moved but I think it would not be helpful for us, or the club, to comment.
“Suffice it to say however, that our goal from the beginning was to try and be supportive and add to the lustre of this magnificent storied franchise and what’s happened this year has not done that.
“We certainly haven’t done it on the pitch yet, although we’re playing well in the Champions League, but we’ve had a marginally good year in the Premiership [Premier League], our loss to Man U on Sunday 3-0 was a heartbreaker because you know we played them 11 on 10. We had Mascherano thrown off for what’s unclear as to what happened but clearly they sent a referee with a no tolerance program and we happened to make the wrong comment to the new tough referee at the wrong time. You just can’t play Man U. It’s tough enough playing them 11 on 11.
“So I think we’re at a point now where we want to finish the season out, play well in the Champions League- Foster and I are going to be going over to the Arsenal game next week and we’ve just decided this is an extraordinary time and we’re going to enjoy it and we’re going to be there and by God we’re going to try and be a positive influence on this process.
“You know, we get, or we’ve gotten, as many as 2,000 emails a week here. And I would say that ninety-five percent of them have been directed at some of the comments made by my partner and five per cent have been (laughs) frankly aimed at both of us saying, you know, ‘Go Home Americans!’
“But for the most part, and you know as recently as today, we’ve gotten 25 emails, I’ve had several conversations with fans who represent important blog sites and so forth and they are inviting me to come in and come to the famous pubs, be their guests, see how they sing their songs or get ready to sing the songs. And there’s none of the hostility or animosity that is felt or seems to have been directed at others in the ownership group.
“I must say however that the most difficult part for us has been that because of the things that have been said that have upset and angered the fans as much toward one or both of us the fact is that the thing that angers fans the most is the prospect I might sell even one share of my stock to my partner. They do not want him to have a controlling interest in this club – they don’t even want him to have any ownership in the club. Based on what they’re saying and sending to me.”
“So as a result of that – and it’s been very difficult for my wife with the amount that I travel – we receive many phone calls in the middle of the night threatening us our lives – death threats. They’ve come to the office, a number of them have come into the office and Foster and Lauren, my son and daughter-in-law, have received a number of them themselves.
“A number of the blog sites have, you know we’re not, we’re not, we’re very private people but my number is in the phone book and you I, you know, I’m not shy and if I make a mistake I’m prepared to take the hit for it, but the private phone numbers the cell phone numbers and so forth are apparently on some blog sites and we’ve received a number of calls and again it’s interesting the calls are not against my wife or myself or my son or my daughter in law, as much as they are against us selling to our partner and so, er, we’re rethinking that. Frankly I don’t think it’s fair for me to put my family in that kind of danger. So instead of thinking about selling maybe we’ll think about buying.
(Asked if the partnership with Hicks was unworkable) – “Oh it has been for some time, yes. But not because of us – we have tried to be co-operative, we have tried to be supportive but when your public persona is more important than the facts, that makes it very difficult to have a rational relationship.
(Asked what the exit or entry strategy was a phone conveniently rang which Gillett decided he had to answer. The presenter went to a break and on their return the question was changed to one about whether buying out Hicks was feasible or more of a wish). – “It’s really hard to say until you literally put something in writing and you put the money in the bank that’s a speculative answer, any answer I give you, but what I would say is this: We were very fair. We gave our partner a long period of time to try and make the arrangements to buy us out we didn’t put pressure on him we could not have been a better partner and he ultimately didn’t get to the finish line.
“In the meantime, because of things that he said, the fans’ reaction has been so negative towards him – and towards us if we sold to him – that that has now made that an untenable alternative for us.
(Regarding Hicks claiming he would block Gillett from selling to Dubai). – “Well that’s another one of the points (laughs, hoping that he isn’t pressed).”
(When pressed). – “He threatened to (block the deal).”
(Regarding DIC, the interviewer asked a question in the past tense, did Gillett think the deal would have and could have gone ahead?) – “I think that was certainly one of the things that made the fans upset. Lord knows they had the money and with oil prices going up every day, that’s not an issue. They certainly have the history and they’re fans and I think they’d have been very responsible owners so I guess not making that possible or making that difficult again didn’t endear people to the fans.
“So as you all are saying there’s an awful lot going on here, much too complicated for me to try and handicap but what I know is that, er, the fans and the great fabled history of this club deserves better – and, er, we’re going to do everything we can to provide that in whatever role we play.”
Hicks did not respond directly, however “a source close to the Texan” said: “It is not very helpful to talk about this situation, given the importance of the next two or three weeks coming up in the fixture list.
“These bits and pieces in the media are not beneficial to the overall performance of the club and that’s what we want people to concentrate on at this stage.
“With games against Everton and the Arsenal coming up, football has to come first.”
…..and it’s because we’re like brothers and sisters that i never re-read my text – until after i’ve sent it! – cos I know I’ll be forgiven!
Yes, that’s a great piece by Martin Samuel, really giving us all hope that we are much closer to Manure than the table may imply…
Pierre, Jim’s writing is in the public domain and the comments box is for feedback, warts and all. The moving finger writes and having writ moves on etc. – so interpretation is the privilege of the reader.
Jim, I was not for a minute “had” by the BBC’s flying penguins or the sale of This is Anfield yesterday. However,I had to do a dooule take on the additional piece you put up with the assertion that Hicks has garnered the support he needs and will buy out Hicks.
You hint at sources deeply embedded so that they cannot be named nor can you report fully what they tell you. Uniquely amongst all the journos, from Oliver Kay and the “quality” press to the horrible hacks in the redtops, from the myriad of commentary on the web and via the US press such as we can read it via Google, your source claims Hicks has made it to Gilletts finish line!
Even more in the face of logic it seems that during that carefully crafted interview the other day Gillett lied through his teeth. He said categorically that he would not sell even 1% to Hicks because:
a. Hicks had not taken up his offer and had failed to cross the finish line.
b. There was the added pressure of death threats and the antipathy of the fans to Hicks.
Yet you now claim that a sale to Hicks is on the cards?
I re-read the last few articles together with your responses to comments as a single treatise and I still only detect two streams of argument viz, the vilification of Gillett and the corollary, the rehabilitation of Hicks. In summary It seems you are saying:
1. Gillett is very bad. He not only lies he sometimes says nothing which is worse than telling lies??? Gillett has no friends.
2. Hicks is bad, but not very. He only tells lies, he doesn’t do the silence thing. He has friends. Hicks and his friends will buy LFC 100% and in afew years time we will have a new stadium will be netting £100m per year and we will have won the league twice.
3. DIC is a far away company of which we know little.
Jim, if all comes to pass as you say where will we be? The football institution formerly known to fame and fable as Liverpool FC will be gone. Replacing it will be a franchise in all but name. Hicks will have in place a jobsworth coach with no “management” authority. The club may well be able to make its interest payments each year but the providers of finance will need to be immortal as there is no prospect of the debt burden ever being amortised.
There will still be turmoil on the terraces, many long term supporters, this one included, will have reverted to support via TV, it being possible even now to watch every game live.
A final thought, what has happened to SoS? Have they decided to go underground? We have not had a statement for an age.
Jim, like others i really appreciate your work here, it’s always interesting to read your posts, comments and views, you did explained well some issues in last post. About Gillett´s interview i was also so amazed how he put all the blame solely for hicks on every problem. For me the most striking part was the nerve on his part to criticise rafa and the team "we cartainly haven’t done it on the pitch yet…” Still if i had to decide wich one of these ”e-mail owners” are the worst it would be hicks.
You have mentioned on couple of occasions the liverpool fan-director who leaved Dic, what was his role there and in what section..? It was interesting to find out what kind of people DIC have recruited recently and the kind of people who works there currently. It’s quite impressive team of different experienced professionals. For example three recently recruited persons for their Global strategic equities fund. One was former Chairman of the advisory board in SONY, one was chief executive and chairman of the management board in BMW and the third one was chief executive officer in GlaxoSmithKline. Clearly they hire best and most experienced people possibly available to work for them, you would imagine who they would bring to our board..
Jim, you also explained that after all Sameer Al-Ansari being real fan, he’s still only employer in investment company and you seemed to be worried about something bad happening for him in future and what would happen then for the club..We can’t see the future but i would think we don’t need to worry about that. He helped found Dic and before that was involded in establishing Dubai Holding. He was chief executive officer for sheikh bin rashid’s Executive office long time, i think there’s only one man between the family and al-ansari, Dubai Holding Executive Chairman, (Mohammad Al Gergawi). He (Al-Ansari) has had the power to use more than 5$ billion on different assets / deals in last three years, and in interview last october revealed to make it 20$ billion in couple of years time, so maybe we should’t regard him just an employer for holding company. In everything they acquire or invest be it Sony, DaimlerChrysler or in case of Dubai Holding, Jumeirah Group, they seem to want the best so lets just hope they get the best football club also..
Sheikh himself i dont think he’s a liverpool fan, maybe he likes football but is not a passionate football fan, i think thats just media stories. But i think what drives him is the brand, culture, fans and commercial gain of liverpool and what it could offer to Dubai, after all improving Dubai is his passion..
Further more, i’m not sure but if i remember correctly, was hicks trying to get help from jp morgan to find private funding, cause Dubai Holding(dic part of it) was investing or has some kind of agreements with them and also Al-Ansari´s right hand man was managing director in JP Morgan before joining Dic. Would hicks really get help from them?
Thanks everyone!
Pierre » I think that’s a good summary Pierre.
If Hicks manages to buy us, we’ll need to make sure he knows what we want, and we’ll need to make sure our demands are reasonable and realistic. I think it’s our right to demand that we have a manager who starts next season believing he can challenge for the title with the squad he has. It’s not right to demand we get Abramovich-style investment. We might have to find a way of telling Hicks that we’re ready to listen to what he says, to take it on board, to analyse it for bull, and to give him a bit of a chance to keep to whatever promises he makes. That might be the job of someone like SoS, but the alternative, to attack him and ignore everything he says would be of no help to anyone but our rivals. All of that, remember, has that great big “IF” at the front of it. IF Hicks takes control.
midlands-red » I agree that we need the various points of view. I read it all, even if I don’t always reply, and I do take it on board. Sometimes in replying and trying to explain why I disagree I see that some of my previous thoughts were wrong. I suppose we all do, or we do if we keep an open mind.
Open minds are harder to keep when it comes to reporters who look like Bluto. To be fair to him if you read his articles in isolation, and as a neutral, without any knowledge of how accurate his facts are you’d probably be impressed with most of them. I can’t fault the actual writing style, I just find his articles often seem to have arguments based on dodgy foundations. Whether he does that to suit his cause or doesn’t actually check his facts I don’t know. I also worry when someone like Samuel is building us up – when and how is he going to knock us down again? Perhaps he’s still not been told that Liverpool fans were singing “Inter” at the end of the game in the San Siro rather than “England”…
That is a good article though – I’ve only read it at speed so I’ll go back to it later. Hopefully the owners will get to see a copy of it in a waiting room or hotel lobby somewhere and learn from it!
(John I’ll reply to you separately, this part of the reply’s been sitting here since before lunch when I had to nip out for a while. I started writing a reply so I’ll paste it into a new comment…)
John » First of all re SoS – they are getting ready to go for a big launch I believe, rather than announcing different bits and pieces as and when they happen. Not sure of the details of what’s going to be announced when they do launch ‘properly’ but I think they’re looking for maximum impact. They sound quite excited about it all, but I’ve not pushed them for information on what’s going to happen. I’m not even going to consider using the word ‘imminent’ to describe how close they are to launching everything! It was late last week when I spoke to somebody about it, if I hear any more that’s of note I’ll try and remember to post it here. Kick me again if I don’t mention something soon…
I’ll just clarify my view on Hicks and whether or not he got the financial support. As far as I know he hasn’t got anything in place yet. As far as I can tell he is still confident he can get something in place. But for now he’s not got anything agreed.
If it was the equivalent of going to a bank for a mortgage then I’d say he was at the point where he had checked the bank’s lending criteria, feels he meets it, has got all of his evidence together, has got the application form filled in and is about to go and see the bank manager.
If you’d just put a bid in on a house and were asked by the people selling it if you were confident of getting that mortgage you’d say you were. If they asked you to put a non-refundable cash deposit down to hold the house until you’d had word on the mortgage, you’d probably feel confident enough to do so.
But at that stage you still had to convince the bank manager, and probably head office. Even if the bank manager was happy, head office might have stricter rules than the easily-charmed bank manager you’d just spoken to. Although it’s unlikely you’d be turned down at that stage if you’d convinced the bank manager, you might find head office have decided you’re more of a risk than other customers and their offer might be one you’d either struggle with or prefer not to take.
That’s my reading of it. I’ve not been told he’s got the finance. He is not at the finish line yet. Sorry if it sounded different.
I think it’s now safe to say that he’s gone past any stage of being laughed out of town, from what I can gather, so I assume now it’s a case of convincing those he’s speaking to how his figures add up, and for them all to haggle and barter or whaever it is they do before agreeing on the terms. That might be the point where he’s laughed out of town, it might be the point where someone snatches his hand off. Probably somewhere between the two extremes, and probably a very tight decision on whether it’s worth his while or not. That’s my view based on the fact he’s so sure he’ll get the money balanced out with the views of you and others that he’s no chance.
GG to sell to Hicks? Well GG insisted he wouldn’t but I still don’t believe that. If GG’s earlier agreement to sell was done formally, in writing, with an asking price and a deadline, maybe that’s part of the pre-emption process and GG can then sell to DIC. However if that was the case, I can’t see why DIC haven’t actually now bought it, unless they really don’t want to have just 50%. (Which would throw more discredit on them with regards their earlier announcements that 49% was enough if they were allowed equal voting rights). Maybe Hicks was bluffing about having a veto, maybe the veto is now invalid given the time given to Hicks to buy, maybe the veto is on dodgy legal ground and GG’s only just had it confirmed. But all in all unless the pre-emption agreements allow GG to sell to DIC then GG has two choices. Sell to Hicks (if he finds the money) or sit it out and hope Hicks is forced into quitting before he is. And I feel certain that if GG does sell to Hicks he’ll say he did it because it was the best option for the fabled storied lustrous club and its fans from the options he had open to him. Like I say, the timing of this announcment might suggest the pre-emption conditions have been met, but otherwise it sounds to me more like GG getting impatient and needing his cut, whoever it comes from. As for the death threats, well I’m not going to go there for now.
Re the 1-2-3 numbered list, and what you said following it, you make some good points as always. What I’m saying about GG isn’t that being quiet is as bad as lying (although it can be sometimes, sometimes it would be better to speak out) just that we’ve not got to assume that he was quiet because he was thinking of the club, or that he was quiet because he wasn’t the one who was feeling guilty about Rafa. In terms of what you said below that, I think you’ve seen what I’ve just written above and that my views are not that one thing or other WILL happen, just that they CAN happen, and IF the scenario comes up which sees Hicks take control I think your points need to be remembered and raised. I don’t profess to fully understand the workings of these types of deals, I really don’t!
I don’t fully understand how a club can be making (on the whole) a slight profit each year excluding transfers, which becomes (roughly) a break-even figure when transfers are added into things, and be worth one figure, then a year later, having had to borrow money to pay for transfers and other stuff, and go from £50m debt to £100m debt (excluding the purchase debt held outside) and it can be worth so much more. Or perhaps I do understand it, I just don’t believe it!
These potential Hicks Sports investors, if they are doing this the way I’ve suggested, wouldn’t necessarily be expecting their “debt” back until the day comes when they sell their share. Unless something went badly wrong, if they stuck £200m into Hicks Sports tomorrow it would be worth more than £200m in 12 months’ time, 2 years, 10 years etc. If it was, I don’t know, a pension company, they’d be glad of a good return each year on their investment, knowing that they could cash it all in later if needed.
I’ve not sat and looked at any figures, but it’s possible I’m sure for more than half of the current £350m debt to be turned into equity this way. It’s possible that 60,000 season tickets will be sold every season. It’s possible for it to be rosy under Hicks, if enough of the “IF”s are “WHEN”s. But I understand your points. I hope – if Hicks does win – that he’ll allow someone from SoS or elsewhere, someone independent, enough access to the figures to allow us to feel reassured about the future. But we’ll see.
Just looking at what you said in point two, I’ve not said we’ll have won the league twice in a few years’ time. I’m going back to the original reasons for the investment search, and our expectation we’d get squad investment. If Parry and Moores had made sure the offer document was tighter before recommending a sale then maybe we’d be in a situation where the squad investment would have been a necessity. Maybe we’d have even been able to insist on a set figure to be invested each season for the next nn years until the stadium opened. Didn’t happen. The implied obligation to invest in the squad was ignored, and nobody is around now to insist on it happening from any future owners. Which in turns brings us to what would motivate a future owner to invest in the squad. If, as some say, a top four finish and CL QFs every season is enough to make the lions share of money for a season, how much extra would it bring in if we won the league every couple of years? I think the prize money for the league increases buy a million or so for each position higher you finish, but I’d need to check. You’ll probably also feature in more live games, and for league games I think you get a fixed amount of TV money plus extra money for each game you feature in live. So there’s a bit of extra money possible there if you win the league in that you’re more of a draw to Sky if you’re in the chase right to the end. But all in all it’s not a massive increase directly in revenue for winning the league. My question was, is there a chance that winning the league would break records for the club in merchandise sales around the world, is there something else that makes winning the league rather than finishing fourth substantially better financially? If we want an extra £20m a year to help us win the league, rather than finish 4th, how much of that £20m would we get back, remembering that the money itself guarantees nothing? Will it help us get better naming rights when the stadium opens? I don’t see personally how winning the league can appeal to any investor who’s here purely for the money. DIC say they’ve got feelings for the club so if true they’ll have a motivation for paying more for players. Has Hicks got that same motivation? If he’s not, and he can’t see a financial benefit in improving the squad to a standard where it can win the league, he’d better brace himself for some serious protests in the future. That was a key requirement in the club being sold originally.
But how do we know if this is what Hicks wants? We don’t. When would we be able to tell? Pretty soon after he got control. And I think we’d see protests like never before. I think we’d see people picketing the turnstiles, and the shop, and I think Hicks knows this. So, again without saying it’s what is going to happen, I really think Hicks knows he’s got to think about more than profit if he’s to be in control of the club, because if he doesn’t think of more than profit he probably won’t make any profit. He had one chance and fluffed it, if he got two chances and fluffed that I can’t see any way back for him.
An interesting and clearly thought out article by Martin Samuel (I usually don’t find his commentary as infuriating as that of the uber-smug James Lawton).
I’ve reread a number of the posts from Jim and the rest of the "family" on this thread and I remain firmly seated on the Gillett-is-not-as-vile-as-Hicks side of the table. I get that Jim is encouraging us to take the tablespoon of strong distasteful medicine by encouraging everyone to consider that Hicks could be at the club for years to come. However, I choose to take the Mary Poppins approach, sweeten that medicine with a spoonful of sugar, and will not accept such pragmatism as an inevitabilty.
Whatever signs are written on the wall…whatever secrets are being whispered off record…whatever rumours are being circulated about who has what money and which influential friends, it is simply not possible to come to terms with the prospect that Hicks will be involved with the club past the summer, nor that H&G will sink this institution through their avarice.
Reasoned arguments analysing the past and present behaviour of H&G are essential, but no matter what you say, Jim, I refuse to consider the legitimacy of any points tally between the two about who’s the bigger villain. Hicks will screw this club over – he’s done it to the Rangers and the Stars, and there is absolutely no reason why Liverpool would be an exception to his pillage.
Jim, let us suppose Hicks and his friends buy the club for what in effect will be £400m (they have to match DIC’s offer). The returns are sufficient to service their finance but not much more. The stadium finances itself as it gets close to completion and from then on by virtue of the extra season ticket sales and overall capacity. Hicks’ & Co’s real gain, and what will attract these investors into what is a risky venture, lies in the growth in value of the club as a going concern. They will not be long term investors and at some stage will want to sell. Suppose in 10 years time they put the club up for sale for one billion dollars and they find a buyer. All of the main value enhancers (new stadium, Increased TV revenue etc,) will have been realised so the new owners will have to squeeze club revenues even further to make a gain on their massive purchase. The situation will be even worse. This is the inevitable out come of a leveraged buy-out – future buyers pick up the tab.
Jussi » Interesting points on al-Ansari. You’re right, the chances of him no longer working for DIC are very slim, but it would be reassuring to know how DIC would treat LFC if he left. But then again from what you say it’s hardly worth losing any sleep over!
I know what you mean about DIC hiring the best people, although I’m a little worried about the idea hinted at previously that al-Ansaria and Amanda Staveley would head up the club. And I mean a little worried. With Sameer it’s because he’s not exactly kicking his heels waiting for something to do, and so I doubt he’d have much time to spare for the club. With Amanda it’s because as good as she seems to be at finance, and that’s an important skill for the club to have, I’m not sure how well she would understand football’s differences to other businesses. That said, as a team, they’d possibly have all we need.
The person who left DIC and was an LFC fan had been pictured at Anfield in the run-up to DIC first attempt failing. He was sometimes falsely labelled in press stories as al-Ansari. I’d need to look him up, but he was in charge of, I think, emerging markets. He left at the time Hicks announced the talks were all off. I’d need to look it up to find the details, but he certainly didn’t seem to have the kind of power or respect you mention al-Ansari has.
There are some issues when the JP Morgan name comes up in this story, again I need to check the details, but JP Morgan were supposedly his main people in terms of his US finance, and wasn’t there also a story that claimed they’d told him to sell LFC to shore up his US assets rather than expect any extra money from them. No idea how true that is, but if Hicks is already tied in with them it might still be easier to deal with them than with people less familiar to them, even if there is a link between JPM and DIC. I’ve not checked any of this, and although I don’t doubt that dirty tricks take place in big business, with rules broken here and there, al-Ansari’s man shouldn’t be able to interfere in Hicks’ dealings with JPM.
They’re both not worthy but for my money at least Gillett saw the opportunity to buy-into soccer, sorry football, first. Hicks only got the bug once Gillett told him about the money to be earnt. So they both saw dollar signs first – as any businessman would – but Hicks saw only that.
The only tick I can give Hicks is this: without him we would not have known for sure what he and his partner were upto and what pressure Benitez was under (hence the Newcastle outburst).
So thanks for that Tom, now go!
Julie (Toronto) » Thanks Julie – I think it’s probably fairly irrelevent who is the worst when it comes to Gillett and Hicks. This article was written on Saturday, eventually, after listening to comments made on Thursday evening, which I heard on Friday morning UK time. I reacted to it based on what I’d already seen and heard and was most unhappy about the use (on the eve of the derby) of the death threats as the main reason for not selling to Hicks, which were folowed by a claim it was because he’d not got the money together quickly enough. I suppose it could be read as them deciding that he was already running out of time when out of the blue these death threats were made and it confirmed their decision for them. But I think, only think, the death threats were a while back. If you are going to take death threats seriously, you don’t wait a couple of weeks before deciding you’re going to take them seriously.
I understand that Gillett is adamant these were serious, chilling in fact, and that it caused serious upset, mostly to his wife. Whoever made them needs locking up, if they were as serious as I understand they are claimed to be. It’s a pity – in my view – that Mr Gillett is unwilling to put more details of them in the public domain and to see if the worldwide fanbase of Liverpool fans can’t work out who made them. Let’s face it, it could be someone who only hangs around with people likely to make death threats themselves, but it could be someone one of us sits next to every day on the bus, at work, at college, or even in the pub. As far as I know the perpetrator is still at large, and if they are as serious as worst-case-scenario they could be then Gillett needs good security for tonight. But even serious death threateners can be bottlers when it comes to action, I think the biggest danger tonight is some childish popcorn throwing in the exec box!
It was a confused message on Thursday though – he was changing his mind about selling to Hicks because of death threats, because of a failure to get the money in time, because of wanting the fans to be happy.
If Hicks shows him the money and Gillett turns it down I will be surprised – but from what you know of him you say he’s unlikely to go back on his word from Thursday night. I just don’t see it myself, but that’s based on what’s been said about him in his role at Anfield this past year more than anything else. He’s still quite well respected by supporters of the Canadiens, and the NASCAR team he part-owns see him as a saviour.
That’s unlike Hicks, who is respected more by the fans of his US teams than those of LFC, but that’s probably because he couldn’t be respected any less. The attacks on him tend to be low-key, one site touted as evidence against him for a spell hasn’t been updated in an absolute age. But the evidence is still there, and I’ve noticed attacks on him in the US media more than once in recent weeks and months. Gillett’s not really been attacked at all.
Anyway, I can’t see any way of Gillett carrying out that little threat of buying more of the club himself, and I can’t see any way DIC would join forces with Hicks, so we’re down to two possibilities. Hicks or DIC. Hicks says he can block a sale to DIC. Gillett says he won’t sell to Hicks. If both are right then we’ll get nowhere, but sooner or later finances surely have to force somebody’s hand. So, Hicks or DIC, and as everyone keeps saying, if this went to a vote we’d have Arabic owners by a landslide.
But it’s not a vote, so we might find ourselves having to get used to an owner that the vast majority of supporters don’t want.
Let’s try and forget about that for a couple of hours!
John Steele » Thanks again John.
I think one thing to add to that is that surely football’s bubble is going to burst sooner or later? Maybe I’m way off the mark, but to keep growing it’s going to have to keep finding richer and richer people to fund it, and as customers rather than supporters, clients rather than die-hard singing fans. Big clubs will get bigger until small clubs just disappear. And all of a sudden the die-hard fans won’t be able to go after being priced out, and if the interest wanes with those, sooner or later the wealthy clients will find another hobby because football is nothing without atmosphere. Maybe football will go back to being the sort of game it was twenty or thirty years ago. Maybe not, but I just can’t see how this progression can continue without eventually rebounding.
Even so, even if that doesn’t happen, the game has to peak sooner or later as you say as far as new or improved income streams are concerned. Thinking long term as you are, that’s a very worrying thought. In the short term we’ll see all kinds of ways to bring more money in, and whoever owns us we’ve really got to capitalise on them. We’ve got to be bigger around the world, we’ve got to improve some of those stupid annoying things like the ticket office and the club shop. Some of them need a Gordon Ramsey style makeover in terms of how they are run, they’re being run like back-street pound-shops instead of major parts of a massive world-renowned organisation.
The only positive I can put on a scenario like you mention is that when any vultures are gone and Liverpool’s value has become static, but owners of the time want out, maybe there’ll be a working ShareLiverpool organisation ready to step in. Maybe.
Jim, after a long and interesting exchange of views we arrive at the kernel. At the top level European football is awash with a sea of easy money and inflated player transfer fees and wages. The “holy trinity” of Shankly is gone, replaced by a new one of Banks, players and players agents, fans are simply a commodity. There will be a correction, probably as a consequence of the general economic malaise. This is already happening at the lower levels of our game and even higher up the league in Scotland (Gretna).
When the volcano that is professional football erupts the vast majority of leading clubs will weather the crisis because by virtue of their ownership structure they are situate way down the slope vulnerable only to a shower of ash. The two clubs operating on the rim of the crater and susceptible to the mildest eruption are LFC and Man U. All those other clubs whether supporter owned or with “orthodox” shareholdings have a safety valve in the tradeability of their shares and the willingness of their owner/fans to roll with the blows. Here it is useful to recall a truism – Liverpool football club has never in its long history paid a dividend, nor in fact has Arsenal, Man City etc, etc., it is in fact the norm!
In using the word orthodox above I am pointing to the fact that rewards to shareholders in the vast majority of cases are serendipitous, dependent upon results in the rare case dividends have been paid, e.g. Villa under the latter Ellis years, or only realised at the point of sale of the club as in all supporter owned clubs and most other listed or close company setups. In the two cases of LFC and Man U rewards to shareholders whether in the form of interest or dividends are in effect the first call on the gross margin and are payable in times of both feast and famine. This, Jim for me is the nub, the crux, the kernel, call it what you like, this is why, regardless of any case that is made for our short or medium term future under Hicks, I remain implacable in my opposition and want him out sooner than later by hook or by crook.
I note your lucid and detailed responses explaining your rationale for discussing the possibility of Hicks staying on but I believe this should wait until continuation of his tenure is a fact and we have confirmation that he has control of the Gillett shares or enough of them. Fans who support Hicks are free to argue their case on here or anywhere else. Opponents of Hicks should not afford him the succour of believing we are resigning ourselves to life with him.
I plagiarised Neville Chamberlain in a previous comment on DIC (a far away company…) and I make no apologies for it, appeasement is the enemy of the activist and is most dangerous when the end game is near. Let’s not let Hicks imagine for a second that he has weathered the storm of antipathy.
Jim, any progress on upping this site to a forum? I echo the general sentiment and enjoy the dialogue, finding it interesting, stimulating and above all, for me, a learning experience. I am under a life ban from RAWK for use of the phrase “Intellectual arrogance” so I know about distorted dilalectic, but that is another story. Suffice it to say I appreciate the time you take and patience you display in responding and in the care and research put in to the lead articles.
John Steele » Thanks for the comments yet again. It’s a very good number of points you’ve just put across, as always.
We’ve a lot of ‘if’s and ‘but’s in front of us now, and hopefully soon we’ll have a resolution. I still feel that the important thing is we get resolution before the end of this season, but I know some would rather that not happen if it meant a certain Texan taking control.
The possibility that this could drag on until Christmas is worrying, but it’s a real possibility. In fact it’s almost the compromise position based on what everybody claims to want, or not want. If Gillett won’t sell to Hicks, and Hicks won’t let DIC buy, we’re stuck with two Americans who refuse to budge.
In fact one other thought struck me about the outburst from Gillett. If all the signs are true that the finance world is not in a position where it can offer Hicks the deal he’s looking for, he’ll find that out pretty soon. If he knocks on the door of every office on the street full of potential investors and gets told “no”, he’ll have no choice but to concede. In fact he might only knock on 3 or 4 doors before deciding enough’s enough.
If GG had kept quiet, Hicks could have found this out in the next week or two. If he can’t get the money, he can’t get the club. At that point his fight is over and he’s got to talk to DIC. But if GG is now changing his mind, blocking Hicks’ moves or even upping his demands for an already obscene profit, Hicks might hold back from meeting potential investors a touch longer before working out the figures now needed.
For many, it’s a case of ‘when’ not ‘if’ Hicks finds out he can’t buy GG out because of the financial situation. The sooner he finds that out the better. If that’s what we’re heading for, I’d rather us get there today. So perhaps GG should try and get his people to talk to Hicks’ people and see if they can agree a deadline for the sale. If GG still doesn’t want to sell he can drop that bombshell later. Because, if people are right, it won’t even get to that stage.
I think there’s a lot to be said for crossing our bridges when we come to them, especially in situations where we have our hands tied.
GG – tell Hicks you’ll give him another week or two.
TH – get moving on that financing and get some final decisions this week or early next.
RP – make sure they do this.
If by the end of next week we’ve got a cheque on GG’s desk from Hicks, he can decide what to do. If he decides to accept it, we can then decide what to do. If by the end of next week we’ve got an admission from Hicks that the game is up, DIC can be brought in. We can then decide how we deal with that too.
I’ve not forgotten about the forum, and was actually thinking this last night and this morning that it needs putting on sooner rather than later, so I’ll do that soon. In fact it will be something useful to take my spinning mind away from the takeover stuff for a while whilst messing with html, php, sql and other techie nerdy stuff!
Gillett is just a whiner. He was just in this for the investment and now that he can’t sell for what he wants, he is just going to whine and cry. Thankfully Hicks will be the Liverpool owner for a long, long time, and Gillett will soon be gone.