CL Result: Reds 1 Chelsea 1

For 94 minutes at Anfield tonight Liverpool controlled and at times dominated a match that Chelsea just seemed unable and unlikely to ever get back into. The indicated four minutes of time added on had already passed, the seconds were ticking on and Chelsea had a throw in. Then John Arne Riise had a moment he’ll never forget. But for all the wrong reasons.

Riise headed the ball into his own net from about two feet off the ground. He’ll never be able to explain why he did it.

Hopefully it’ll be the comedy clip on the end-of-season DVD, a gaffe forgiven after the second leg result made it irrelevant. But first Liverpool have to lift their heads and put the disappointment away. They deserved to win this game, they made life difficult for Chelsea, and if they play the same way at Stamford Bridge they’ll be in Moscow in a month’s time. The timing of the goal devastated Liverpool’s players and fans.

Liverpool had led 1-0 from just before half-time, when Dirk Kuyt’s perseverance saw him hit the back of the net, the ball passing under the body of the Chelsea man-of-the-match, goalkeeper Petr Cech, on its way in.

Cech had to work hard to keep Chelsea in it, making saves from the likes of Gerrard and Torres. Reina had barely touched the ball all night.

The goal Chelsea have is an away goal, meaning Liverpool have to score or they’ll go out. Torres was battered tonight by John Terry, who got away with more than would normally be expected in a European tie.

Joe Cole spurned a chance for Chelsea in the first half and Didier Drogba had a penalty appeal turned down. Liverpool had an appeal turned down in the second half after the ball hit Ballack’s arm in the area. Ryan Babel shot from well outside the area and was unlucky to see it turn wide at the last second.

Riise had only come on after Fabio Aurelio had been stretchered off with what seemed to be groin injury around the hour mark. Knowing he had a Chelsea player right behind him as the cross came in following the throw-in, the ball took an awkward bounce, Riise decided heading was better than hitting with his right foot and Chelsea had got a undeserved goal and a draw from nothing for the second time this season at Anfield. Why Riise chose to head it over Reina from such a low height rather than heading it wide only he knows.

Liverpool can come back from this. One Liverpool goal in West London and Riise’s error is forgotten. Two and Chelsea have a real fight on their hands.

Liverpool: 25 Reina, 17 Arbeloa, 23 Carragher, 37 Skrtel, 12 Aurelio (6 Riise, 61), 18 Kuyt, 14 Alonso, 20 Mascherano, 19 Babel (11 Benayoun, 75), 8 Gerrard, 9 Torres
Unused subs: 30 Itandje, 4 Hyypia, 11 Benayoun, 15 Crouch, 16 Pennant, 21 Lucas
Goals: Kuyt 43

Chelsea: 1 Cech, 20 Ferreira, 6 Carvalho, 26 Terry, 3 A Cole, 8 Lampard, 4 Makelele, 13 Ballack (39 Anelka, 86), 10 J Cole (21 Kalou, 63), 11 Drogba, 15 Malouda
Unused subs: 40 Hilario, 7 Shevchenko, 12 Obi, 33 Alex, 35 Belletti
Booked: Terry 90
Goals: Riise (og) 90

UEFA Stats: (Liverpool – Chelsea)
Shots on:
7 – 3
Shots off: 4 – 4
Corners: 6 – 5
Fouls: 20 – 16
Booked: 0 – 1
Possession: 55% – 45%

BBC Stats: (Liverpool – Chelsea)
Shots on:
11 – 7
Shots off: 2 – 0
Corners: 6 – 5
Fouls: 20 -17
Possession: 53% – 47%

Referee: Konrad Plautz (Austria)

Attendance: 42,180

169 thoughts on “CL Result: Reds 1 Chelsea 1”

  1. I don’t think a “human” owns either half of the club.

    (I just know what comments are coming now).

    But what I mean is that Gillett has a company and Hicks has a company and their companies own their halves of “Kop”.

    We’ll see, as Dawg says, eventually.

  2. Fred,

    I’m not trying to wind you or anyone up. I’ve simply responded to your points with an argument to the contrary. And regarding the Stars/Rangers, I respond from the perspective of a devoted fan of both teams (from a time before Hicks owned either). And I don’t think my viewpoint on either is very far from that of the mainstream opinion of the fans of both teams. I’ve admitted Hicks mistakes but explained why it would be irrational to have expected much better with both teams.

  3. Chelsea are rubbish –

    Rosenborg, Valentia and Fenerbache have all scored against them in the Champions League. They’ve conceded 17 goals at Stamford Bridge this season. If Villa, Leicester and Birmingham can rack them up so can we….

    Birmingham 2, Rosenborg 1, Leicester 3, Everton 1, Villa 4, Newcastle 1, Everton 1, Huddersfield 1, Derby 1, Arsenal 1, Wigan 1

    We’ve scored 34 goals away from home this year. There’s no way that we won’t score up there next week…..

    Mancs look pretty poor too….

  4. Dawg – looked up some of your comments on igottarant…

    Dallas dawg to Texas Dawg: “Did you ask TH if he’ll fly over to watch the game with y’all to support daddy’s team?

    So you are a friend of TH jnr, are you not? Or someone closer? Does Hicks have any other sons?

    Dawg: “Hicks will keep him on (rafa) no matter what at this point just to show the fans he wasn’t planning on firing him as many have claimed. He’ll wait for them to strongly call for that firing (should they choose to do so) for awhile first.”

    So he isnt backing him for the right reasons then? And he’ll wait for ‘a while’ first for the fans opposition before firing him anyway?!

  5. Dawg “I’ve never expected anyone here to think much of me anyway”

    Its a good thing !!

  6. Jim – Shares in the eyes of the law are property. Protocol 1 Article 1: Protection of Property is very wide meaning. It can include shares. The article says that the government or a public authority cannot restrict what you do with your property, unless there is a law that allows them to do this and there is a good reason for it.

    Basically what this means that under this countrys law and the European Convention on Human Rights there is not a court in Europe that will be able to dictate to Gillette and tell him what he can and can’t do with his half of the club.

    ” But what I mean is that Gillett has a company and Hicks has a company and their companies own their halves of “Kop”. ”

    The way to look at this is if LFC was being used to launder money for instance then wouldn’t Gillette and hicks be held accoutable for the crime that was taking place. If what you where implying that no human owns LFC then I could go to the police and hand the club in as lost property, in a few months time if no-one came forward to say it was theirs then technically the club would become my property.

  7. ” Gillett remains determined to sell his 50 per cent stake to DIC in the belief that, despite Hicks’s fierce objections, it will be able to buy at the end of May, at the expiry of a 90-day exclusivity period offering Hicks first option on his partner’s shares. Hicks, who has also caused consternation by demanding the resignation of Parry, maintains that no such clause exists in the share document and that DIC – which sent Sameer al-Ansari, its chief executive, and Amanda Staveley, the chief negotiator, to Anfield on Tuesday – will not get a single share in the club. ”

    You see Hicks has said now that the 90 day period does not exist, but it doesn’t also say that he has got an unlimited period in which to come up with the money.

    For the full article:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3803622.ece

  8. “So he isnt backing him for the right reasons then? And he’ll wait for ‘a while’ first for the fans opposition before firing him anyway?!”

    Come on now, Martin. You’re trying too hard to read something nefarious into that.

    All I was saying there was that even if Liverpool finished 5th or worse and dropped out of this year’s CL early (since that was the “what if” question I was answering), Hicks would still be behind Rafa… if only because the fans almost certainly still would be. I was simply saying that Hicks is listening to the fans on the question of the team’s manager right now.

  9. Tom Hicks has confirmed that no exclusivity period exists, but it still does not mean that it is written into any contract that he has an unlimited period to come up with the money to buy out Gillette.

    Here is an extract from the Times:

    ” Those words hinted at a breakthrough of sorts, but there are no other signs that a peace summit is in prospect. Gillett remains determined to sell his 50 per cent stake to DIC in the belief that, despite Hicks’s fierce objections, it will be able to buy at the end of May, at the expiry of a 90-day exclusivity period offering Hicks first option on his partner’s shares. Hicks, who has also caused consternation by demanding the resignation of Parry, maintains that no such clause exists in the share document and that DIC – which sent Sameer al-Ansari, its chief executive, and Amanda Staveley, the chief negotiator, to Anfield on Tuesday – will not get a single share in the club.

    Here’s the link to the full story:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3803622.ece

  10. Hicks has said in this interview that no 90 day period exists, but it doesn’t mean that there is also an agreement that he has an unlimited period to buy out Gillette.

    Those words hinted at a breakthrough of sorts, but there are no other signs that a peace summit is in prospect. Gillett remains determined to sell his 50 per cent stake to DIC in the belief that, despite Hicks’s fierce objections, it will be able to buy at the end of May, at the expiry of a 90-day exclusivity period offering Hicks first option on his partner’s shares. Hicks, who has also caused consternation by demanding the resignation of Parry, maintains that no such clause exists in the share document and that DIC – which sent Sameer al-Ansari, its chief executive, and Amanda Staveley, the chief negotiator, to Anfield on Tuesday – will not get a single share in the club.

    Here is a link to the full story:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3803622.ece

  11. Hicks has said that there is no 90 day notice for him to buy out Gillette, it doesn’t also mean that there is an agreement that Gillette must wait until Hicks can come up with the money.

    Those words hinted at a breakthrough of sorts, but there are no other signs that a peace summit is in prospect. Gillett remains determined to sell his 50 per cent stake to DIC in the belief that, despite Hicks’s fierce objections, it will be able to buy at the end of May, at the expiry of a 90-day exclusivity period offering Hicks first option on his partner’s shares. Hicks, who has also caused consternation by demanding the resignation of Parry, maintains that no such clause exists in the share document and that DIC – which sent Sameer al-Ansari, its chief executive, and Amanda Staveley, the chief negotiator, to Anfield on Tuesday – will not get a single share in the club.

  12. Jim – Even if it is Gillettes and Hicks company’s that own Liverpool FC, and they own LFC indirectly as directors of their respective companies the companys act will still say that they are accountable for LFC. The buck stops with them in the eyes of the law.

  13. Good evening everyone.
    Back to normal – we are not talking about football anymore!

    Just need to clear somethings here.

    1. There is no company registered by the name of Kop Holdings or such variation in England & Wales. This is a misnomer for all you battering away at English law principles. Most likely that the company is registered under Delaware law (mainly for tax reasons).

    2. The parties can and normally do decide which law/jursidiction applies. Therefore unless anyone (including you Dawg) have seen the Agreement, you really don’t know which law to apply.

    3. On the basis that it is English law, Companies Act only applies to registered companies. See point 1. The holding company is not registered here. Therefore, assume it is partnership law, if either party wanted to bring a greviance to an English Court. Court can order either party to buy the other out, valuation normally pro-rata as to contribution or order a dissolution of the partnership (which would trigger a free for all).

    4. Dawg et al – on principle I must disagree with you as not putting a time limit on accepting/refusing/completing an offer for purchase/sale of shares. I have previously said that the type of lawyers involved would be high end given the financial amounts involved and I trust my legal brethern and sisters to advise accordingly on such restrictive clauses.

    Anyway, the irony of a 0-0 between ManU v Barca when all the experts (so-called) expected fireworks.

    Leanne, did you go to the match yesterday?

  14. Raju – If there was no timeline put down as to how long Hicks has got to buy out Gillette, and there is nothing written down that Hicks has got an unlimited amount of time to buy out Gillette then surly Gillette could sell right this very second.

  15. Own goal in 94th minute due to Drogba cheating, diving and staying on the deck after brushes from the opposition.

    The man is a cheat.

    Then to run to his fans and grabbing the badge on his shirt in shear delight.

    Disgraceful.

  16. What point I am making is that Hicks must have the money to buy Gillette out in the first place. If he hasn’t got the money to buy out Gillette then Hicks does not have any rights to make Gillette wait until he has the money. Gillette will eventually be able to sell his stake in the club without Hicks being able to stop him.

  17. [b]Ray: I get your point about Pepe and the idea he’d put Rafa before the club. I think if Rafa and LFC parted for the wrong reasons he’d be within his rights to leave. If Rafa and LFC parted for the right reasons (poor results for example) then he’d be wrong to leave.[/b]

    Don’t players have to honour their contracts? I get the feeling looking at Reina he really likes it at Liverpool so I’m surprised to hear about his attitude assuming he’s been qoted correctly.

    I don’t see Rafa walking. In fact don’t you think he’s looked more relaxed in the last week than for a very long time? I think if DIC end up as owners they’ll not upset the apple cart for a minimum of one season and they’ll give him money to strengthen the squad plus lose some deadwood.

    If LFC then finishes in the top two they might well keep him. They know sacking a manager means a squad upheaval and more time lost.

  18. Anthony,

    Unfortunately it is not so straight forward as that for a multitude of reasons.

    You would expect to allow either party reasonable time to buy the other out. At best, Hicks or Gillett would have an extended period of time to buy out as opposed to a third party outsider seeking to buy into a business. It is typical in closed partnerships for restrictions to be placed to protect the remaining partner(s) particularly in family companies who want to control the composition/demography of ownership.

    In my view, it would be inconceivable for status quo to remain if one party is not happy. The legal remedies available generally differ from country to country but there are generally underlying principles which underpin the local law. For example, a member/shareholder can bring an action for unfair prejudicial conduct against another member or director under English law (perhaps the closest applicable to the present case of LFC). I suppose that there would similar remedies available in other jurisdictions.

    The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that if there is split in the present situation, there will not be split ownership after this. I would take it as a given that both Hicks as well as Gillett have or should have learnt a painful lesson in joint ventures. If Gillett leaves then Hicks will sell up as well if he can’t buy out.

    That is my view. Like many, I have been trying to make sense of the extraordinary events in the last few months. This appears to be most plausible explanation I am satisfactorily able to advocate. I may be totally wrong of course.

  19. If Jason Burt knows people who really know what’s going on he doesn’t use their information in his report…

  20. Jaju – That was the point that I was making. People seem to believe that if there is no exclusivity period then Hicks must have an unlimited amout of time to buy out Gillette. But people must also be aware that there very probably is also no agreement that stipulates that Hicks has an indefinate amount of time to buy out Gillette. So therefore the fact remains that if neither exists apart from whatever exists prior with regards to what happens in such an event. If Hicks can’t find the money to buy out Gillette then Gillette can sell to whoever he wants. In order for Hicks to be able to stop Gillette he must be able to purchase Gillettes shares, and if he can’t do that then the law will state that he has no right telling Gillette what he can and what he can’t do with his shares.

  21. “But who do we believe Mr Burt or the Dawg ??”

    Sounds to me, Jofrad, like Burt is just making the same old speculation about Hicks not having money for an offer simply because one hasn’t been reported yet. Doesn’t sound like he has any inside source there… meanwhile, you know my sources. :-)

  22. raju,
    does this information contradict your findings or is it some other entity?

    Kop, a private limited company incorporated in England and Wales, was formed on 18 December 2006, exclusively for the purpose of making the Offer. The company number is 6032198. Since its incorporation, Kop has not traded.

    The current directors of Kop are George Gillett Jnr., Foster Gillett, Thomas O. Hicks and Thomas O. Hicks Jnr.

  23. “The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that if there is split in the present situation, there will not be split ownership after this. I would take it as a given that both Hicks as well as Gillett have or should have learnt a painful lesson in joint ventures. If Gillett leaves then Hicks will sell up as well if he can’t buy out.

    That is my view. Like many, I have been trying to make sense of the extraordinary events in the last few months. This appears to be most plausible explanation I am satisfactorily able to advocate. I may be totally wrong of course.”

    You are correct, raju.

  24. I suspect timing of offers is irrelevant. 90 days is irrelevant. Hicks having to match the offer might even be irrelevant. If the clause is just a veto then that’s that. Hicks has Gillett by the balls.

    On that basis the contract *is* even. Its just that Hicks has zero intention of selling. If it was the other way around, and if Gillett was smart enough, then Gillett would have Hicks by the balls.

    Any wonder that Hicks couldn’t wait to sign last year once he saw the opportunity that was LFC? On those terms? With a partner who was short of cash? Its this business savvy that’s probably why Hicks is a dollar billionnaire.

    If it went to court, which I doubt it will, my guess is that it would be on the basis of Hicks being unreasonable in not allowing Gillett to sell his shares. And my guess would be that the only outcome of that would be that Gillett would have to sell the shares to Hicks (assuming Hicks could buy them).

  25. Co-owner Tom Hicks met Benitez before the game and again yesterday and said: “I visited the manager at the training ground and we had a great meeting.

    “The talks were really positive. He is happy and wants to talk about where he is taking the club in the future.”

  26. Jaju – DIC have always claimed that Hick’s right to veto any sale between themselves and Gillette is based on very weakly binding legal terms, which supports what I have said in my posts this evening. The law will eventually tell Gillette that he can do whatever he wants with his shares.

  27. Edward

    how strange! My search did not bring this up. however, this may not be the company that effectively owns the assets inc. LFC particularly given the tax effectiveness of other off-shore legal systems. Can always do a full search and find out if it has legal charges/debentures secured. To be honest, I don’t see what this would achieve apart from further academic speculation.

    I would stand by my original points though.

  28. You continue to have it spot on, Hop.

    And I too very much doubt Gillett will throw this into the courts. I think even Rick Parry will give Gillett his consent to fold if it comes to that point.

  29. Anthony,

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry my name is Raju…it is simple enough.

    Besides that, unfortunately, your view is slightly flawed. This matter will not go to court. time is money and court system is slow. therefore this will not happen.

    Hop, speculate all you like…generally the reality of the situation is not like this.

    I have used this analogy before but you cannot keep people married against their wish.

  30. Hop – If Hicks can’t find the money to buy out Gillette then it will make no difference whether there was a veto or not. Protocol 1 Article 1: The protection of property will state that should Gillette choose to sell to DIC then Hicks will be powerless to stop him, because the courts cannot intervene on his behalf. Possession is nine tenths of the law, Hicks will have no right to tell Gillette what he can and can’t do with his shares.

  31. Jaju – I know it will not go to court, because the courts woould be powerless to stop Hicks from selling to Gillette. Where is it flawed, point it out to me?

  32. There were claims from some sources that Benítez had told Hicks that he was unwilling to discuss anything of significance unless Gillett, the Texan’s estranged co-owner, and Rick Parry, the chief executive, were in attendance. But Hicks said: “I am surprised if anyone else is saying different. We plan to all get together and discuss the future and Rafa is happy with that.”

  33. Anthony,

    I will come back to you tomorrow or in 10 hours time.

    The starting point is that the protection is afforded to individuals or legal persons against state interference. The greviance here by Gillett or Hicks would be a matter private law and therefore it would not fall on the court to use or interpret the Protocol you refer to. Company matters are governed by Companies Act 2006 etc. and the European court recognises that the individual state members are best placed to deal with private law matters so long as they are in general harmony with the rest of Europe.

    Of course, this is all on the basis that the proper asset holding company is actually that which Edward kindly pointed out. I am not convinced that it is.

  34. Dawg: “Hicks will keep him on (rafa) no matter what at this point just to show the fans he wasn’t planning on firing him as many have claimed. He’ll wait for them to strongly call for that firing (should they choose to do so) for awhile first.”

    ME:“So he isnt backing him for the right reasons then? And he’ll wait for ‘a while’ first for the fans opposition before firing him anyway?!”

    DAWG: Come on now, Martin. You’re trying too hard to read something nefarious into that.

    I dont think it was as innocent a statement as you’re making out Dawg, but i’m willing to concede that its not condemning either. I dont think Hicks would be stupid enough to fire him now anyway. Not now he realises how much he is backed by the fans and how he is as close as can be guaranteed to earn additional revenues via the champions league, right? 😉

  35. Raju – The state will only be able to help Hicks if there is a law that say’s that he has a right to stop hicks from selling and that there is no law saying that Gillette cannot sell to DIC.

    Shares in the eyes of the law are property. Protocol 1 Article 1: Protection of Property is very wide meaning. It can include shares. The article says that the government or a public authority cannot restrict what you do with your property, unless there is a law that allows them to do this and there is a good reason for it.

    If Hicks can’t get thje money to buy out Gillette then I can’t see how he’s going to be able to stop him from selling.

  36. Someone earlier speculated (probably accurately) that Dawg is some spotty kid who likes shooting off his mouth…………………but the one thing you can safely assume from his comments about the legal situation is that he’s no lawyer !!!

  37. Maybe we’re not quite there yet but it seems to me we’re starting to agree on substance of the veto and that offers and 90 days etc are irrelevant. Its also unlikely to go to court because all parties probably accept there’s no real reason to do so. All that really seems to be in dispute now is whether Hicks can afford to buy Gillett’s shares.

    I don’t know whether he can or can’t but right now I believe the amount he’d have to come up with would be a hell of a lot less than some people think. I’d be interested to get some further insights from others. But in my ignorance my guess is that Hicks just needs to come up with the 25M/50M/75M or whatever it is that would represent Gillett’s profit after 15 months. Would he need to come up with any more?

  38. Yes, he would need to come up with enough to match or better DIC’s offer to Gillett which is a lot more than any of those figures you’ve quoted………………………………… and almost certainly a lot more than he can afford.

  39. raju: thanks so much for providing some legal framework around all our speculation…and I promise to never refer to you as the name of a pasta sauce.

    re: the match last night…gutted – need I say more? (except that John Terry is surely one of the dirtiest players in English football and Drogba falls down if you breathe on him…neither of which is new news)

    re: Hop’s query about how much money Hicks would need to come up with to buy out Gillett…

    No doubt I’m oversimplifying this, but wouldn’t it be a similar scenario as two people signing a mortgage to buy a house? It turns out that the marriage breaks down and partner B wants to sell their half of the house to a third party and get out of any monetary obligations to carrying the mortgage with partner A.

    Wouldn’t that then void the original agreements with the bank that gave the mortgage as the original two names on the contract were no longer the valid mortgagees? And so to buy out partner B and thus free them from the contract with the bank, wouldn’t partner A have to come up with half the cost of all outstanding loans plus whatever profit the third party was offering for partner B’s share?

    To translate, then: wouldn’t Hicks have to come up with half of £350million (or whatever the real figure is on the loans) plus whatever profit on his shares DIC is offering to extract Gillett from legal obligations to repayment of the loan? Otherwise, if the severance of the partnership doesn’t activate dissolultion of the loan agreement and Hicks is permitted to carry the entire weight on the loan on his own (thus only offering Gillett £50million in profit), then Hicks would have to double the value of the collateral he is currently offering on his share of the debt.

Comments are closed.