Gillett fancies a pint for his trouble

Take your cameras with you to the pub tonight if you’re one of those lucky enough to be enjoying a pre- or post-match pint either side of the game.

George Gillett is rumoured to be planning a visit to the Albert.

It seems to be all part of an orchestrated campaign to recover his reputation with fans.

We all heard his claims recently that after months of being a willing seller of his half of the club to Tom Hicks he’d now changed his mind after receiving death threats. He took the death threats seriously enough that in fear of the lives of his wife and family he was going to go back on multi-million-pound business deal.

So now he’s off to the pub to mix with the very people that might have been making those death threats he spoke of.

The only two reasons he gave for now refusing to sell to Hicks were the death threats, and that Hicks had run out of time.

Yet it’s hardly a secret that when he finally found the means with which to convince the banks to allow him to sign for his half of the £350m club debt he did so at the absolute limit of his financial means. He was already said to be pushing himself close when he took out his half of the original £298m borrowed for the original takeover, but pre-credit-crunch he still had some room to manoeuvre. By the time the duo were speaking to the banks about the renewal of that deal, he was getting short shrift. His assets weren’t even close to the value they had been listed at when that first loan was agreed.

So why, now, is he suddenly able to talk about buying the club himself? It would cost more to buy it now than it did to refinance it in January, so where’s he suddenly found the money from? And considering Hicks has resisted all the advances DIC have tried to make, we’re not talking about a small amount of money. Hicks has no intention of selling, he isn’t holding out for a pre-conceived figure, he wants to stay around for the long term.

Some say that Hicks will struggle to find the money to buy Gillett out anyway. If this is true, what chance has Gillett – the poorer partner of the two – got of raising the money? In reality it looks like Gillett has no chance whatsoever. And he’s not had a chance whatsoever – really – since that first hint from the bank last autumn that they didn’t think his assets were up to scratch.

So if Hicks raises the money, would death threats still stop Gillett from selling to him? Like-for-like, two equal offers from Hicks and DIC, one of which could be done pretty instantly and the other which would depend on Hicks selling his half at the same time, would Gillett turn Hicks down?

We’ll see, of course, if that scenario does eventually arise. DIC made it clear last month that a joint-ownership situation wasn’t a real possibility to them, and their lack for so long of an actual offer for the club that could trigger the supposed legal action against a Hicks veto suggests that they are waiting until both owners are willing to sell.

None of their tactics have worked so far. So are they now joining forces with Gillett?

Why has Gillett now come out and decided to announce he won’t sell to Hicks. If those death threats, no matter how serious, were going to stop him, a visit to the Albert with Foster wouldn’t even be joked about. Would he have even visited Anfield?

Has he had help in securing this visit to the Albert? He’s played as big a part in the mess as Tom Hicks, arguably more, and his answer to resolving the mess was to sit quietly and wait for someone to buy him out.

And what’s changed? Really, what’s made him find his voice again?

Gillett still seems to hold a grudge against Rafa, and although Hicks was there when the talks with Klinsmann were taking place, Hicks is now backing Rafa, and that seems to be more than just spin, for once. Gillett can list numerous reasons why he doesn’t think Rafa is the person the fans think he is. Rafa has been criticised for reportedly backing Hicks, but he knows Gillett isn’t keen on him, so what else is he supposed to do? He can’t exactly speak officially with DIC, to see what their plans are if they do succeed in taking over, although if they share Gillett’s ideas on a coach’s place he wouldn’t have a future.

Another question is just who is helping Gillett with his new-found interest in a club he deserted three months ago? Why has Foster returned to England after clearing his desk three months ago? If someone inside the club is helping Gillett, what’s in it for them? Are they thinking of the club, or thinking of themselves?

Gillett’s reported aim of turning up in the Albert seems designed as part of some plan, based on the invitation he claimed to have received when he was talking about death threats from Liverpool fans. By appearing at the Albert, photographer at the ready, having a pint of good old English beer (can you get a good pint in the Albert these days?) and smiling alongside fans, it seems he’s trying to prove a point. The point being that he really is that well-loved guy from Canada (as many still think he is), here to do nothing but good for the club. He’s nothing of the sort. He lives in Colorado and he’s here to make himself rich.

He’s here to make money, as much as possible, and every penny over the odds he asks for is a penny that could have gone towards helping the club. That’s his right, and if that’s what he wants to do there’s little to stop him. But let’s not hear any more about how he’s doing it for the club or the fans. Or from anyone else for that matter.

85 thoughts on “Gillett fancies a pint for his trouble”

  1. I doubt he received any death threats at all.  He just made up a lie to keep holding out for more money before he eventually sells to Hicks.  He’ll be gone very soon.

  2. Gillett’s latest appearences at games and the pint-at-the-Albert, if he went for one, are nothing more than making the most of the LFC experience and enjoying it while he can.  He’s about to divest himself of LFC (I just hope not to Hicks!)

  3. I want him to go!!simple as that!! Hicks and Gillett are only here as they still smell the Money. I really hope the Credit Squeeze hurts them both in a big way, as the only way to hurt these guys is through there wallets

  4. I’ve not heard whether or not he went through with the plan to go into the Albert, the lack of publicity so far suggests he didn’t. My concern was that as he’d spent the day visiting various members of staff at Anfield (and in the other satellite offices the club currently has until the new stadium is built) that he was being put up to it by those who were accompanying him. Maybe they actually talked him out of it. Maybe it’s not planned for a match day, and he’ll be there today. Whatever it was, the word was out that he was planning to do this. And he’d not do this unless he knew it was safe to do so without a negative reaction from fans.

    He genuinely believes that 95% of fans think he’s a great guy!

    And although his financial situation was pretty bad when he took out that loan in January, and nothing has happened since to suggest it’s improved, he’s now claiming he can buy. How?

    What if he’s been given a way of buying the club himself, helped by another interested investor, who will agree with him that he sells to them later? What if he’s planning a 12 month stint as sole-owner, before selling to DIC?

    And given his way of doing things, I personally don’t trust him. Certainly if he had his way even now Rafa wouldn’t be here. There’s a grudge there that he’s not willing to swallow his pride over, and whatever you think of Rafa, even his harshest critics wouldn’t say sacking him because of a grudge and some unbelievably paranoid and outlandish theories is acceptable.

  5. He genuinely believes that 95% of fans think he’s a great guy!…What a joke!!!
    If Hicks won´t sell to DIC, then there is no chance that he will sell to someone like Gillett, who said that there relationship had broken down beyond repair…or words to that effect..

  6. "is rumoured"….."it seems"….."yet it’s hardly a secret"…."He was already said"…."some say"….etc. Jim this lot is straight out of the Spin doctor’s phrasebook. Not one new or substantiated quote or fact. Even worse rumours about Gillett’s finances presented as fact. Gillett’s grudge against Rafa? I could opine that he has apologised to Rafa and they are on civil terms with just as much credence. It is also just as likely that he has been told to disregard those "death threats" as crank calls and the proposed visit to the Albert was a test of that theory.Gillett getting help to buy out Hicks is sinister? But Hicks’ prostituting our club to all and sundry is acceptable.The last sentence of the penultimate para (substitute US for Canada and Texas for Colorado) and the final para in its entirety are as applicable to Hicks as to Gillett. Jim these two are as bad or as good as each other, there is an evident grudge though but it is yours against Gillett. 

  7. Perhaps Gillett is giving Hicks a little of his own medicine ie leaking fantasy stories to the press. You say you don’t trust Gillett and perhaps you’re right but I trust Hicks even less. He’s a far far bigger threat to the future of LFC than Gillett who at least acknowledges the mess the club is in and in my opinion will sell only to DIC.
    This sad saga has some way to run but I think time will prove Hicks to be the villain and Moores to be the fool.

  8. "He genuinely believes that 95% of fans think he’s a great guy!"

    That was the funniest part of his recent Montreal radio interview.  Hilarious.

  9. Jim, I’m puzzled by the hate-on you have for Gillett that appears far greater than any animosity you hold for Hicks. If it’s based on the number of lies Gillett has told, surely Hicks’s tally in this is considerably greater. If it’s based on the assumption that it was Gillett’s idea to get rid of our manager last November, well, we only have Hicks’s word for this, don’t we, and he’s not about to admit any culpability. If it’s based on his silence and absence over the past three months, frankly isn’t that better than making public statements that are only self-serving and duplicitous. (Of course, we’d all prefer the club’s owner(s) to be transparent and tell the truth in any public dealings.)

    You advise the wisdom of aceepting that Hicks could be tenacious enough to hold on to his share and thus we should prepare to negotiate with him for a more stable and profitable future for Liverpool (which, for the record, I think is giving up the fight). But then you cast a glaring spotlight of suspicion on Gillett’s motives when he does make an appearance in town.

    By the way, just to be 100% clear, Gillett is not Canadian. He was born in Wisconsin and lives in Colorado.

  10. "Jim, I’m puzzled by the hate-on you have for Gillett that appears far greater than any animosity you hold for Hicks."

    Maybe it’s because Jim isn’t completely irrational about this topic. 

    "If it’s based on the assumption that it was Gillett’s idea to get rid of our manager last November, well, we only have Hicks’s word for this, don’t we, and he’s not about to admit any culpability."

    Call it learning his lesson, listening to the fans, whatever, but Hicks has since repeatedly said that he is fully behind Benitez.  So what’s the problem?

  11. John Steele » John, I understand your point of view and I don’t dispute your right to put it across, everyone has their opinions and so we’ve all got to allow ourselves to be heard. I know your own experience and contacts afford you more background knowledge on a lot of this than I could ever hope to have.

    I respect that.

    In fact I probably give more thought to replying to your comments than I probably have time for, but it’s important I try.

    Before I go on, I just want to say that the use of words and phrases such as “seems”, “rumoured”, “some say” and so on isn’t out of an attempt to spin anything. I want an end to this mess, to this infighting, to this use of the supporters as puppets. I want to know where we stand with whoever takes over and I don’t want false hopes or unnecessary fears. Spin isn’t my thing really. The reason I used those words is because I haven’t got any proof! I don’t record phone calls, for example. And not everything I say that is prefaced with one of those words or phrases could even be proved by the FBI with all their intelligence gathering capabilities. For example – it’s safe to say that Riise seems to have had an accident when trying to colour his own hair. But even if I’d seen him with a bottle of bleach and a basin I can’t change that wording to Riise had

    I hope you understand why I word things in those ways.

    My own personal approach to information provided to me is that it’s automatically off the record unless I’m expressly told otherwise. If I see it or hear it elsewhere, or already knew it anyway, I feel I can then discuss it. I’m more interested in trying to move the process along by suggesting a view perhaps each of those involved hasn’t seen, than getting a scoop or anything.

    I’m a trusting yet suspicious kind of person. Even out there in real life I’ll hear anyone out, and often end a conversation feeling happy enough with what they’ve said at face value. I don’t pull people up on things that seem out of place, to not quite add up, but I kind of make a mental note. Sometimes it turns out I misheard or misunderstood something. Otherwise it’s all stored away until later. Sometimes I don’t even notice the discrepancies until sometime later. Eventually there comes a point where the benefit of the doubt goes against a person if they’ve caused me to have doubts enough before.

    It’s not always the case that my views for or against anyone in this mess have been shaped by one party speaking out for or against another. In fact I’m too suspicious (see above) to allow that to happen anyway. But certain parties have managed to dig their own holes as far as getting the benefit of the doubt is concerned. People have been their own worst enemies at times.

    I’ve said it before, and I think many would agree with this, but we deserve honesty. We can’t expect it for everything, I wouldn’t expect anyone involved in this mess to reveal secrets that could give their opponents (and not just related to this deal) an advantage, but where we can’t have honesty perhaps silence is better.

    Gillett’s first words on LFC after disappearing included him blaming the dollar’s exchange rate for his inability to invest in LFC. I pointed out the dollar had barely changed since takeover, and suggested the credit crunch was more likely to be to blame. I got some criticism for this, because some people still can’t believe Gillett might be a bad guy after all. And some felt – probably correctly – that he’d be stupid to admit to credit crunch related troubles. Yet swap that around, put in Hicks instead of Gillett and the other substitutions you suggest above, and instead of mild criticism of an attack on Gillett I’d be getting slaps on the back for an attack on Hicks.

    The best I’ve heard about Gillett’s finances probably came from inside Anfield, certainly I didn’t hear this directly but via someone I trust to pass on what he’s been told rather than make something up himself. I never push anyone who I speak to to reveal anything more than they want, and wouldn’t ask those with sources already to tell me who they were. It was literally that the banks were not happy with the security Gillett was putting up for the loan and so he had to keep fighting to find a way round it. He did in the end, of course, but at the eleventh hour. His ability to put anything more into LFC was now at an end, he’d put in all he could. Forget intentions, he couldn’t put another penny in, borrowed or not, even if he wanted to. And the likely source for this is now – it seems – trying to support Gillett.

    What happened with Gillett, Hicks and Rafa is actually still quite sketchy, in terms of where it goes back to. Was there an issue back in the summer where they were considering sacking him, but were stopped? I think it’s possible, but I don’t know how much it played a part in what went on later. Rightly or wrongly, it seems they had received intelligence about Rafa’s agent and his talks with other clubs. I could attack Rafa and say this was because he’d told his agent to find him another job, I could attack the owners by saying this was because Rafa felt his job was becoming untenable, but in reality I think it’s probably more likely that Rafa’s agent was doing what all agents do and seeing what was out there. And add to that the fact that other clubs thinking of changing coach are always likely to contact agents of other top coaches. It’s part of life in European football, but if anyone with an axe to grind mentioned it they could easily turn it into something more.

    In fact this was an own goal scored by Hicks later – he said one of the reasons for looking at a replacement for Rafa was because of tabloid speculation about Rafa. Basing such an important decision on tabloid speculation is obviously never going to happen, ever. By all means investigate the claims further, but unless it’s a video of your manager in a compromising situation with his car, you can’t use gossip to shape such strategic decision making. And so it cast doubt on what was being said. Surely there was more to it than gossip? Perhaps there was, and although both owners could perhaps be forgiven for panicking at the idea Rafa’s agent could be lining him up with a way out, perhaps somebody else with more knowledge of the European game could have put them straight, or done more in-depth digging.

    Of course it’s possible the person with the longer experience in this game was also looking out for himself, maybe he’d had issues with Rafa previously.

    What I’m coming to here is that if I’m being ultra-generous to both owners, their reasons for looking at a replacement for Rafa were understandable – at a push. It’s a mistake you’d make once in a business new to you. Maybe they didn’t ask for advice from those at the club who should have been able to help – but if they did then questions may have to be asked as to why they weren’t put straight.

    Remaining generous, if you then sit down with both owners and Rafa, explain what each side was really thinking, then see what’s left to worry about, it’s possible that there isn’t anything left to worry about. Rafa reacted to a situation that he thought was a threat to him, but the situation was caused by the owners feeling he was about to leave anyway. Bruises take time to heal, but the relationship shouldn’t have been beyond repair at that point if this was the true situation. From that point on, although his pride perhaps stopped him from explaining what had really gone on, Hicks does seem to have buried the hatchet with Rafa.

    But indications from many different angles suggest Gillett hasn’t. I’ve not heard Gillett back Rafa once since the arguments, aside from a third-hand report of a speech made after a private function. (Note to self: Check to see if Gillett has made such a statement today after burying said hatchet before posting this reply). Of course that in itself doesn’t mean he’s got anything against Rafa, but it’s still a big question. But there is far more to it than his public silence, and that’s as far as I want to go on here for now really. Sorry.

    Even forgetting the death threats, allowing the possibility that Gillett no longer takes them seriously, he saw what allegedly happened to Hicks Jnr in the Sandon, so any visit to the Albert would be risky and he knows this. Unless it’s done at a time other than pre- or post-match, in a closed pub, with a photographer at the ready. I don’t think it’s going to happen now actually, but I believe it was being put about that it would be.
    Again the emotive use of the word “prostituting” to describe Hicks’ trips around London is understandable, but not entirely accurate. He was here for the best part of a week, and in that time used, we are told, a reputable company to help him in his dealings with possible investors. This email from The Mail sounds a little far-fetched in terms of its tone, and the implication it was sent willy-nilly at random.

    I’ve said for some time now that Hicks is confident he can get the right kind of finance to not only buy out Gillett but to enable the club to make it towards that goal of the end of the first part of the first season in the new ground. Everybody says he can’t get it. Time will soon tell, and if he can then persuade Gillett to sell we’ll be able to ask for details of how he’s done it. If it’s underhand, he’ll be found out soon enough. I think the lack of much in the way of accusations recently (other than this supposed email) suggests he’s got something fairly reputable and workable lined up.

    But what has Gillett got lined up? I am as certain as I can be based on everything I’ve heard that he can’t afford to buy the club from Hicks; in fact he can’t afford to remain an owner after the end of this finance’s term, which is summer 2009. Perhaps he’s being offered a bridging loan (in effect) from those who want to ultimately run the club, it’s hard to tell right now and there’s still nothing more than theories to throw at it. But something made him wake up from his hibernation.

    I understand your concerns because of the LBO way of doing things, if that’s the only way that Hicks has ever done business than that’s understandable. Is it the only way he’s ever done business?

    I feel this story still has an uncountable number of loose ends that need tying up, but despite all those strong arguments against Hicks I’m not 100% convinced that we are getting anything like the true picture.

    And I’d hate to sit here in a year looking at a mess in terms of ownership and be asking myself why I hadn’t spotted this then.

  12. Tom Hicks – The Best Of

    i don’t think David Moores would have chosen us to be the new custodians of this club unless he was convinced we share the same sense of responsibility. From the players point of view, the best thing that can happen is that they feel nothing has changed except for a new stadium being built and more agressive support in the transfer market.

    We are going to build the finest team for the finest stadium in the premier league.

    I Think we have budgeted a big number for transfers but of course i can’t say more.

    The Stadium design is now final. It’s spectacular and i cant wait everybody to see it.

    We brought in some good players and spent money more than has ever been spent in this club.

    It is really time for Rafa to quit talking about new players and coach the players we have.

    Rafa’s ability to coach and manage in the Champions League should be unquestioned. In the Premier League i think we are doing okey.

    Rafa want’s to win The Premier League badly and we haven’t lost it yet. I totally support Rafa.

    (asked about the rift) George and i have never been closer. We both were very disappointed and confused where that inaccurate information came. 

    (DIC) I just want to clear up with you that i am not selling any of my shares to anybody. I have no idea why anyone would think that. It was just rubbish.
    I quess we are absentee owners, there’s no question about it. We come as often as we can.

    January 2008

    Liverpool are going to throw off lot of extra money which, if i choose to i can use fund The Rangers and Dallas Stars.

    In November, when it appeared we were in danger in not advancing in The Champions League, weren’t playing well in our Premier League matches and we were having communication issues with Rafa over the january transfer window, George and i met with Jyrgen Klinsmann…

    We have never turned down Rafa’s request for any player he has asked for.

    Well i did talk to them (DIC) about a 10-15% participation.

    As soon as we complete approval process and our judicial review, we’ll start digging in Stanley Park and get it going. Right now we have got the capital and I Have put in a lot of money. People will come to realise it will become the finest football stadium in the world.

    George and i get along fine. Sometimes we don’t agree, but that’s what business partnership is all about.

    Not only am i not going to sell, my partner cannot sell without my approval.

    I’ve decided to exercise my right under the Kop Football Limited partnership to veto any sale of any portion of Kop and the club to DIC.

  13. Thanks Julie,
    It seems i missed atleast one..
    He went to a press conference and kind of pouted and answered the same question 20 times. And then the media made up everything from that point forward. They made up that we were goin to fire him. They made up that i told him to shut up. It’s really funny to kind of watch.

  14. Jussi: it’s easy to overlook one when there are just so many examples of cowboy-boot-in-mouth to choose from.

  15. Jim, coincidentally some quotes from Rogan Taylor have been released today which support my contention that this Hicks/Gillett beauty parade is a sideshow.<br><br>"What has been going on at the club, regardless of who owns it, is a vivid illustration of the pattern of ownership in the UK," Mr Taylor said.<br><br> "Great clubs, established social institutions, are being traded on the global capital markets, with no knowledge of the clubs. <br> <br> "Fans offer everlasting support and should be given the chance now to own an everlasting share." <br> <br><br>This is the fight worth fighting and which all of us should be supporting until it is achieved or proven to be impossible. Good progress is being made though.

  16. John Steele » Mixed feelings on what Rogan says there. First of all I think it’s a brilliant idea, and worth pushing, but I feel that raising the kind of money they need to buy the club outright will be a tall order.

    Unfortunately the days of a local fan becoming a millionaire and buying his boyhood team just aren’t really on the cards in the top flight any more, certainly not for the larger clubs. Go back in time to show David Moores a glimpse of the future, to show him what happened to the club when DIC left the scene and Gillett and Hicks came in and his first reaction would be to change his decision, not to sell to G&H. But at the same time I think he’d also be strongly against selling to DIC too.

    I fail to see why he couldn’t have found another way to fund the stadium, without having to sell up in this way, and with the help of that time machine I think he’d have worked on it one way or another.

    Remember when Steve Morgan said the club was overvalued at something like £70m? (I’ve pulled that figure off the top of my head so don’t assume it’s accurate!) Did he really think it was overvalued, or did he just not have the means to pay for its true worth? Was he our only option as far as wealthy LFC fans were concerned?

    I wonder if Morgan (who’s now owner of Wolves isn’t he?), Miskelly and all these others who have shown interest in the past, and also Moores, would look at things differently if they knew then what we know now. Could they have put their differences to one side a year and a half ago and have put money into the club in a way that diluted existing shares and pumped money in?

    It doesn’t matter now, because that ship has sailed.

    Football is a stupidly expensive game now and if you want to do well you’ve got to find the ways of making the money one way or other. The days of grumbling about the McDonald’s “M” on the Kop are the days that saw us lose ground on the Mancs. We still have supporters who seriously bemoan the fact our shirts have a sponsor’s name on.

    We were the first English club to have a shirt sponsor but we were the last (in the top flight at least) to get a web site. I’m not a fan of supporters being priced out of the game, but sometimes our supporters can’t throw their money at the club as fast as they want to!

    Maybe if we’d got more of that side of things sorted back when that “M” was causing grown men to have kittens we’d never have needed the investment in the club. Or maybe we’d have needed less.

    But I think that although looking back is useful in reminding us of lessons we’ve now learned, we’ve also got to start looking forward again now.

    So Rogan’s idea, should it be abandoned if it doesn’t find the £500m they first claimed they would, or should it be tweaked to see if they can get a partial share of the club for now, with more to come later? It’s actually a complex situation, because there are issues over how profit would be distributed in a club part owned by those who are “normal” shareholders and part owned by an organisation made up of people with a fixed-price share. But rather than sulking in a corner crying over milk that has long since drained away l think it would be a good move to accept that fans’ money is the same as anyone else’s, and if a group like this is able to inject £60m into the club in return for a vote on the board equivalent to that amount it has to be good. If the club was worth £500m, and the fans group had raised £50m, then it might only get a tenth of the overall vote, but it’s still a vote, still a start.

    In all, we’ve got to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and accept that for the chance of being a top club, in the top league, in the top continent, as far as this game is concerned, we’ve got to accept we are likely to always be owned by something or someone other than a local business man.

  17. Jim, there are surely businessmen around who would be enough of a fan to turn up at a crucial game like last nights. We know where we stand in the Hicks scheme of things as he deems it more important to be at the equivalent of a pre-season friendly for his hockey team. This at a time when even you concede LFC is the jewel in his corporate clown. There are business men around who would subscribe bigtime to LFC if we were quoted and this allied to the number of fans willing to buy shares or subscribe to debentures does offer an alternative. Arsenal sustain such a situation where the shareholders however many shares they hold are fans first business men second. We are rapidly approaching a situation due to the increasing importance of the club in Hicks’ portfolio that we are his business and we will be needed to prop up his house of IOUs.

  18. "Jim, there are surely businessmen around who would be enough of a fan to turn up at a crucial game like last nights. We know where we stand in the Hicks scheme of things as he deems it more important to be at the equivalent of a pre-season friendly for his hockey team."

    What a petty complaint.

  19. John,

    He owns other sports teams besides Liverpool.   Yesterday was Opening Day for his Major League Baseball team.  Not the level of a Champions League quarterfinal,  but that is a very big day in US sports.  If he’s at the Liverpool game instead, Texas Rangers fans complains; Rangers game, you complain.  Some people are just going to find fault and have  petty complaints no matter what is done. 

  20. ‘Not the level of a Champions League quarter final’ sums it up. He should have been at Anfield – not that we wanted him there – but his heart took him home while his cash cow got on with winning the game.

    John Steele – keep up the fight.

    I’m no fan of Gillett or Hicks. I think Gillett bought in for the money and Hicks certainly bought in for the money. Nothing wrong with that per se. But they can’t bring themselves to say that because their PR people led by acolytes like Mr. Dawg know it would be damagingly – if it could ever get any worse – quoted over and over again. Fortunately we have their initial public press conference and words to remind us of their lies.

    Texas_Dawg – tell your paymaster Hicks to stop with the press manipulation ( I wonder if he knows the Liverpool team or players???) and just go….and take you with him.

  21. Actually, Texas_Dawg, my last comment about Hicks ‘taking you with him’ was a little personal and harsh – though I know you can take it. But I suspect like many on here, your words make us dislike the idea of any involvement by Hicks even more.

  22. I have to agree that attacking him for being at a big day for the Baseball team rather than at a big day for the football (soccer) team is a little petty. Ironically, if there hadn’t been a big baseball game on and he’d missed a trip to Anfield purely to go to the office for a normal working day then nothing at all would have been said about his absence. Nothing.

    People who are fans first and businessmen second probably don’t have the kind of money we need to move forward. We need businessmen who are businessmen first, but still aren’t purely businessmen. If David Moores had been a businessman first as well as a big Red he could have looked at ways to increase his own personal fortune to the extent that he could have invested more in the club and so avoid the need to look elsewhere. Instead he pretty much sat around and let his fortune remain static.

    These people at Arsenal that are significant shareholders, capable of backing the club financially if needed, well I doubt they’d have gone to last night’s match (or last week’s) if they had some major business deal to finalise in Tokyo or New York. Where possible, yes, they’ll try and sort their diaries out to fit the football fixtures in, but they’re not going to miss out on a £50m deal for a football match.

    I seem to remember a Formula 1 name being big at Arsenal, or aiming to be – what would he do if the FA Cup final clashed with a major Grand Prix?

    If DIC take over LFC, al-Ansari will not drop everything for LFC. The Sheikh might not even come to Anfield. Amanda Staveley might be a full time board member and as such expected to attend all games. But that’s a little like the way the current partnership was supposed to have half the board at every game – Moores, Parry, Foster. Those three were supposed to be full-time at Anfield. Moores in return for his perks, Parry in return for his rather meaty salary, Foster because that’s what he was living in a million-pound English house for.

    I’m sure if Hicks takes over he’ll have people at every game representing him, now that might be his own self-appointed CEO and a couple of other board members, he might choose that one of his sons will always be at a match, and he might come to as many games as he can himself.

    To me the main point of who is located where is that those who have the power to make the majority of the decisions are pretty always on hand to make them. Hicks would need to delegate to whoever he puts in charge in England. If Gillett did take control he’d have to either insist Foster stayed on and stopped running away or appoint someone else to do it. If DIC take over their man (or woman) on the ground would have to have the power.

    I think, personally, we’ve got to prioritise our gripes. Whoever takes over will have clashes in their diary, and as long as they’re not sitting on a beach with their mobile phone switched off just as a major transfer is about to collapse or a star player is about to leave then I think we’ve got to accept this.

  23. Petty? Hicks’s business is sports period. He reputedly values LFC at $1bn – more than all his other sports interests put together. He is willing to parcel up and sell shares in the other US clubs so as to maintain and increase his involvement with us. LFC is a day at the office for him. He has been to very few other games since he bought into us and is willing to travel to Marseilles and Milan. No one has any problem with him not being there for 40 odd "insignificant" matches during the season but the CL is crucial to his plans to enhance the clubs value. 

  24. Jim, i was hoping to read your in depth analysis on the current situation,
    -why Hicks didn’t denie Gilletts accusations in the interview?
    -why he wasn’t sitting with Parry in the emirates, and the talk of Parry and Moores not getting tickets?
    -Gillett with Parry in yesterdays game, and talk of Gillett holding meetings with Ian Ayre?
    -Hicks promising positive news after tuesdays game?
    -the silence from DIC?
    -Hicks trying to find investors all over the world?
    BUT what i find is post after post, slating of Gillett and growing defense of Hicks.

    There is no use to analyse why Hicks was in Rangers game yesterday. You know the reason and that’s because his precense was NOT WANTED at anfield and he knew that and did’t want to get badly humiliated. Simple as that.  Anyway how can he ever come to anfield anymore? It would also put across very bad image fom him, getting slated by fans especially now when he’s desperately trying to get investors.
    If there hadn’t been a baseball game on and he had missed a trip to anfield purely for a office day, nothing would have been said about his absence. Of course not, how many games has he watched at anfield this season?
    You talk about the main point of having people with power located near so big decisions can be done quiqly. Hicks would need to delegate to whoever he puts in charge. So why Hicks or Gillett haven’t done that already? Why they didn’t hire people when they started or why Foster or Tommy jr don’t have the power. Is’n that what Rafa was also complaining. Hicks and Gillett are both absentee owners (in Hickses own words) so its not fair from you to rather disgraceful manner write about Dic women or Foster running away..
    Sorry Jim, You are definetely in the Hicks camp now, thats for sure. What have they done?You said Gillett genuinely believes 95% of the fans think he is good guy.  Lets say that 99 % of the fans thinks he needs to leave but is definetely better than Hicks, and 95% thinks he is still a good guy because he wants to sell. And also because he says he doesn’t want to sell to Hicks. Thats what everyone is hoping for.  Gilletts interview was best news for a long time to this saga, why Hicks hasn’t denied all or any of those claims? Other than the uncharacteristic response(it’s not helping, when there are important games coming up). Maybe he can’t deny those claims cause they are mainly true?


    Thanks for the comment again Jussi.

    How about I answer your questions this way, and then someone can answer them a different way if they don’t agree?

    -why Hicks didn’t denie Gilletts accusations in the interview? If you read / listen to the interview the accusations against Hicks weren’t too strong. GG claimed a lot about how he knew how the fans felt, spoke about death threats, and tried to big himself up about being co-operative and supportive. He hinted that Hicks had a “public persona… more important than the facts”. That was about it really. A “source close to” Hicks did respond by saying it wasn’t helpful to come out with this now, with so many big games coming up. I personally don’t think any comment he could have made directly against the details of what Gillett said would have helped anyone other than Everton and Arsenal, so I’m glad he kept it quiet.

    -why he wasn’t sitting with Parry in the emirates, and the talk of Parry and Moores not getting tickets? The talk of Parry and Moores not getting tickets, from what I can gather was that the two owners grabbed all the tickets between them. Hicks had been planning to attend for some time, the Gilletts leaving it late to decide. A majority were taken by Hicks and co, but they (I think) handed some back which allowed Moores and Parry a seat each. Did Hicks choose not to sit next to Parry, or the other way round?

    -Gillett with Parry in yesterdays game, and talk of Gillett holding meetings with Ian Ayre? I’ve no idea how the seating worked out last night at the game. I did see clip of Parry and Gillett next to each other, with Foster next to his father, but this is the front row of the director’s box. I don’t know where Tom Hicks Jnr sat. There was a meeting with Ian Ayre, maybe the contents of it will be made public one day.

    -Hicks promising positive news after tuesdays game? Hicks didn’t promise anything. Joe Bernstein of the Mail wrote: “The Texan has given himself until the end of the season to find investors who would buy George Gillett’s shares and leave him in sole control of Liverpool. But he hopes to have some positive news for fans once the club’s Champions League tie against Arsenal is completed on Tuesday.” He may have got that from Hicks, he may not have done, but this is something we’ve got to watch. A reporter writes “he hopes” and we let it evolve into “he promised”. Not only did Hicks not get quoted, the reporter’s version was upgraded.

    -the silence from DIC? I like it. It doesn’t mean they’ve gone away, in fact they’re I think still quite active, as much as ever, but through phone calls and meetings not leaks and press briefings.

    -Hicks trying to find investors all over the world? He probably did look close to home (I don’t know this for sure), he gave DIC a chance to discuss investing as a minority shareholder, and he’s certainly looked in London, but other than that it’s hardly all over the world.

    BUT what i find is post after post, slating of Gillett and growing defense of Hicks. Gillett would be a far worse sole-owner than Hicks, in my view, based on a number of different things. For him to get sole control would without any doubt in my mind be pretty much the end of the club as we know it. There isn’t a way it can be done that I can think of that wouldn’t have a massive impact on the club. Gillett isn’t now saying he won’t sell to Hicks because of death threats or loyalty to fans. So why is he now blocking a deal he says he was happy to go through with before. What’s in it for him that isn’t in it for him when selling to Hicks?

    There is no use to analyse why Hicks was in Rangers game yesterday. You know the reason and that’s because his precense was NOT WANTED at anfield and he knew that and did’t want to get badly humiliated. Simple as that. Anyway how can he ever come to anfield anymore? It would also put across very bad image fom him, getting slated by fans especially now when he’s desperately trying to get investors. Gillett should not be any more welcome at Anfield than Hicks. If you remember what set the protests off, first of all it was the threat to Rafa’s future, back in November, second of all it was the admission that the talks with Klinsmann had happened, third of all it was the putting of £105m of the £350m debt onto the club. Was Gillett innocent in any of those three things? He pushed as much if not more than Hicks for each of those, yet he’s somehow considered to be OK! Why?

    If there hadn’t been a baseball game on and he had missed a trip to anfield purely for a office day, nothing would have been said about his absence. Of course not, how many games has he watched at anfield this season? The point there Jussi is that we’re letting minor points cloud the major ones.

    You talk about the main point of having people with power located near so big decisions can be done quiqly. Hicks would need to delegate to whoever he puts in charge. So why Hicks or Gillett haven’t done that already? Why they didn’t hire people when they started or why Foster or Tommy jr don’t have the power. Is’n that what Rafa was also complaining. Hicks and Gillett are both absentee owners (in Hickses own words) so its not fair from you to rather disgraceful manner write about Dic women or Foster running away.. Hicks and Gillett supposedly agreed that Foster would act as their go-between from the UK to the US. I don’t think he was ever given full power, in fact it’s never been clear exactly what his power was. What did he do? Has anyone ever heard him speak in public? I’m sure he’s a nice bloke, but rumours persisted that he wasn’t happy, nor was his wife. I think decisions remained on the backs of Hicks and Gillett, and this is one of the reasons Hicks refused to go with DIC’s 51-49 but 50-50 voting deal. The reference to DIC “man (or woman) on the ground” was referring to their supposed planned structure of Sameer al-Ansari as chairman, Amanda Staveley as CEO. Al-Ansari won’t be around all the time, he’s got big deals to sort out as he’s also chairman of DIC. So either they trust Amanda Staveley or we’ve got a situation no different to either Hicks or Gillett taking control and sitting in the US insisting all decisions go through them.

    Sorry Jim, You are definetely in the Hicks camp now, thats for sure. I’m not in anyone’s camp Jussi. And that includes the blind-faith DIC camp too. Why are DIC prepared to pay absolutely massive amounts more now, when they had the exclusive rights to buy the club back then for what seems like peanuts now?

    What have they done?You said Gillett genuinely believes 95% of the fans think he is good guy. Lets say that 99 % of the fans thinks he needs to leave but is definetely better than Hicks, and 95% thinks he is still a good guy because he wants to sell. And also because he says he doesn’t want to sell to Hicks. Thats what everyone is hoping for. But why is he better than Hicks? Seriously, why is he better? And he admitted the week before last he was willing to sell to Hicks until death threats eventually made him change his mind. Did it take death threats for him to suddenly have some concern for the fans feelings? He may have had these death threats, and they may well have frightened him immensely, but I do not believe he changed his mind because of them. He was rumoured to have turned down almost £80m profit fairly recently – how much did it take for him to have a change of heart?

    Gilletts interview was best news for a long time to this saga, why Hicks hasn’t denied all or any of those claims? Other than the uncharacteristic response(it’s not helping, when there are important games coming up). Maybe he can’t deny those claims cause they are mainly true? As I said above, there weren’t too many claims to deny. He slagged off the fans by accusing us of issuing death threats. He said he gave Hicks loads of time to buy him out. He said Hicks put his public image before facts. Again, not much to deny from Hicks’ point of view, but a hell of a lot for Gillett to prove unless people want to believe it blindly.

    These people can dig their own holes in terms of how I personally would view them. DIC could sit in front of me now listing reasons why Tom Hicks or George Gillett are bad for the club, but I’d take the vast majority of that with a pinch of salt. Tom Hicks could sit in front of me now listing reasons why DIC or Gillett are bad for the club – again, pinch of salt. And Gillett could also do the same with Hicks and DIC and the reaction would be the same. But any one of those is capable of landing themselves in it by themselves.

    I want LFC out of this mess. If Hicks can come up with the finance to make Gillett an offer then the ball’s in his court. I’d like to hear his reasons for turning down an offer at that point. It’s won’t be because of death threats, and it won’t be out of concern for the fans, and it certainly won’t be down to any concern for the club.

    The problem is that in trying hard to point out the flaws in Gillett it looks again like a PR campaign for Hicks.

  26. “Petty? Hicks’s business is sports period.”
    That’s not true.  His sports teams are just a part of his business.  He was a billionaire before he even owned any sports teams, he still operates a very active private equity fund, and just recently completed a major IPO:

    “There is no use to analyse why Hicks was in Rangers game yesterday. You know the reason and that’s because his precense was NOT WANTED at anfield and he knew that and did’t want to get badly humiliated. Simple as that. ”
    What silliness.
    He was at MLB opening day where he watched the entire Liverpool game from his seat, while Tom, Jr. was at Anfield for the game.

  27. ‘Not the level of a Champions League quarter final’ sums it up. He should have been at Anfield – not that we wanted him there – but his heart took him home while his cash cow got on with winning the game.
    Bitter Texas Rangers fan: “He should have been at The Ballpark – not that we wanted him there – but his heart took him to Liverpool while his cash cow got on with losing the game.”
    Some people will whine and complain no matter what happens.

  28. Texas_Dawg , when have any of his “teams” won anything??  MLB is a big event in the U.S, ok, But that happens EVERY YEAR!! why would he not take the time out to see his other Sports Team play in the QF of the Champions League, which doesn´t nessesarly happen EVERY YEAR!! Hicks took the easy option that day, and chose to goto the MLB..
    I believe that DIC are still around, I think they have given themselves a period where they will sit back and wait and see if Hicks can come up with his own money to buy the club, which i think (DIC)  know he cannot get the backing he needs. DIC are waiting for him to fall flat on his face, before they step back in and try again, only this time with a better deck of cards so to speak… Gillett is as bad as Hicks, make no mistake about it “Be carful of the Quiet ones” well that saying is very true!! they are both Quiet, and at times for long periods. LFC is something neither of them can afford to keep much longer, Gillett wants out, and Hicks is Diluting his other sports interests to try and raise money, With the Reputation of these two Cowboys in this world since the Takeover there will not be many people who will want to invest with them.. They are your “Laurel and Hardy” in the Business world…After all the problems they´ve had, all the public fallings out with each other and the Supporters, no-one will go near them untill they have been removed from the Club..and only then will they be able to go home and repair reputation in the Business world.. Hicks and Gillett will soon be gone, its just a matter of time!!!

  29. Texas Dawg, 2 questions:

    Is Liverpool or Texas Rangers his ‘cash cow’? In other words which one means the most to him financially?
    And, which team is close to his heart Liverpool or Texas Rangers?
    and, why is he interested in remaining at Liverpool FC if it is not just for the money?

  30. A local rumour is gathering pace around comments allegedly made by George Gillett to LFC staff. When asked about job security Gillett is supposed to have said he could give no assurances as DIC would soon own the club. Hicks was promising “good news” for fans immediately before the Arsenal match which did not materialise unless he was referring to his non-attendance. Could it be that the completion of the financial arrangements for Hicks to buy out Gillett is still problematic?

  31. midlands-red – are you sure you’re not Graham Poll? He has trouble with 2 and 3!

    Jofrad – I saw that earlier on RAWK I think. Seems this person is well-known for grumbling about things, so probably best ignored.
    John – Hicks himself didn’t promise the good news, in fact it was a reporter claiming Hicks “hoped” to announce good news. Gillett I believe also allegedly seemed (I think that covers it all!) to say to some staff he’d only sell to someone who would buy both of them out. He maintained his “won’t sell to Hicks” public stance.

    If we don’t get any announcements today or tomorrow I don’t think we’ll get any until after Tuesday. But even if Hicks had said this about “good news”, it could be something a few steps away from being able to take over. He never planned to be in England on Tuesday, so taking over surely can’t have been the “good news”.

    Let’s see.



  32. All things considered, isn’t it better that Hicks was not at the match on Tuesday? It wasn’t the kind of night where the attention of the Anfield faithful should have been distracted for even one minute from the events on the pitch – if Hicks AND Gillett had been in the directors’ box, protests surely would have ensued.
    Come to think of it, it’s just too convenient that Gillett missed last week’s match (snowstorm, apparently) and Hicks missed Tuesday’s match (hanging out with the Rangers). No doubt it the avoidance of spending time in each other’s company was handily effected by emails between their respective PAs, because God forbid their squabblings should take a back seat to the biggest matches thus far this season.
    Jofrad: I read the link you sent, and I’m confused as to whether the author of the article is complaining about anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism…or just plain ol’ hates the Brits. In which case you have to wonder why she’s lived in the UK for thirty years. Regardless, her superficial analysis of the Liverpool situation is shoddy and irresponsible journalism.
    Jim: any word on the details of what Gillett actually did get up to while he was in town? Presumably he didn’t go for a pint or it would have been in the Echo.
    John: Given that Liverpool are now one step closer to Moscow, it seems really unlike that we’ll hear any news of any kind of ownership shift until the early summer, don’t you think? The cache of a sixth CL trophy would certainly up the selling price, not to mention the assumption of greater club revenues.

  33. Texas_Dawg , when have any of his “teams” won anything??”
    The Dallas Stars won their first Stanley Cup under Hicks.  The Texas Longhorns won their first college football national championship in decades when Hicks helped turn the program around.  The Texas Rangers have not had as much success, but they’ve been bad for a very long time, and their failure to succeed under Hicks hasn’t been due to any lack of his spending a lot of money in attempt to make them better.
    Hicks and Gillett will soon be gone, its just a matter of time!!!
    Gillett will be.  Hicks will be around for a long time.  Adjust your sentiments accordingly.
    1) Is Liverpool or Texas Rangers his ‘cash cow’? In other words which one means the most to him financially?  2) And, which team is close to his heart Liverpool or Texas Rangers?  3) and, why is he interested in remaining at Liverpool FC if it is not just for the money?
    1) Liverpool, I’m sure.  2) Not sure; but Hicks wasn’t much of a Rangers regular before he bought the team.  My family has had season tickets at Rangers games a lot longer than he has.  But that’s fine with me.  He clearly cares about the Rangers winning, just as he cares about Liverpool winning.  3) As I’ve said a dozen times now: because he is a huge sports fan and wants to win with a great club.
    Dawg, here’s an article showing that some hockey fans wanted Hicks to choose Anfield over Arlington!
    Wow.  Stop the presses.  Like I said, there will always be people whining and complaining no matter what is done.
    “When asked about job security Gillett is supposed to have said he could give no assurances as DIC would soon own the club.”
    That’s false.

  34. Julie – I’ve not heard anything about GG going into the pub, so I’d say it’s a safe bet he didn’t. I also assume he’s now back home, so he’s not likely to appear in there today.

    I don’t know why the change of plan, or if it ever really was a plan, or if there was a misunderstanding on how much of a set-in-stone plan it was. I’m glad it didn’t happen whatever the reasons.

  35. Sky news got a ‘breaking news tag on liverpool’ at 4pm. Any ideas?…….although I’ve only got 2 mins to wait!

  36. Now we know….Hicks has been asked to resign by Hicks! I wonder what Gillett has to say to that?
    Don’t want him out until Hicks goes, as he’s clearly planning something that Parry’s preventing.

  37. I think:
    Hicks is responding to that Radio interview of 2 weeks ago, where Parry more or less backed Gillett.
    Parry (and Moores) are not backing Hicks when it comes to decisions he wants to make.
    Quite possibly, Hicks Jnr saw Parry and Gillett close-up on Tuesday and reported back to Pa.
    The question is: how does this affect the ownership of the club? And the performance of the players ie beating Chelsea in two or so weeks?
    We’re once again on the front pages instead of enjoying our success on Tuesday……and now I hear DIC has pulled out until Gillett and Hicks sort themselves out.
    What a mess. It’s time to hear from Moores…….and we’ve got to somehow get that Hicks man out but how is the question????

  38. Yes but Hicks cannot sack Parry without the approval of Gillett who won’t give it. Things are coming to a head and Hicks is showing his true face, nasty, petty, vindictive and not interested in the welfare of the club.
    The management will remain paralysed until someone has a major interest in the club.

  39. It’s all about the cash. Gillett – as much as the doubts are being written about his personality and motives – holds the cards. Hold out and prevent Hicks from buying his share. But can he afford to? Or, sell up and allow that ruthless money-grabbing man – who is trying to show he ain’t going nowhere if he has a say in it – to get it all and make us as miserable as hell.
    Is this the Liverpool Way we’ve been brought up on. I think not!

  40. For all the moaning that we’ve all done about how ineffectual Parry has been in effecting a resolution to the ownership mess, he may still be in an influential position behind the scenes. The perception is that he favours Gillett, no doubt why it’s Hicks who is trying to push him out (surely a calamitous PR move on his part  – what’s Hicks going to use as his reason? “Oooh, Parry has to go because he doesn’t like me?”). No matter what you think of Parry’s motives, he’s the one who’s come out and said something has to change…and he’s right. The problem remains though that there’s no single person (or in DIC’s case, entity) who can make this change happen on their own. It will take agreement – no doubt greased by a barrow full of money – and that’s still no where in sight.

  41. Tom Hicks decides that what we need right now is further evidence of the abject state of this clubs administration. Not having the authority to fire Rick Parry he should not have gone public in such a way as to force a polarisation of support within the club’s hierarchy. The man has learned nothing of what this great club is about and this is evidence of the “my way or the highway” approach. Rafa will be safe as long as he keeps a civil tongue on Hicks’ boots! Now Jim how is this Gillett’s or DIC’s doing? lol

Comments are closed.