Parry asked to resign as DIC claim they can’t afford LFC price

This day could turn out to be one to remember for Liverpool fans, with Rick Parry asked to resign from his post as Liverpool CEO, and DIC claiming they have pulled out of their attempts to buy Liverpool FC.

DIC’s CEO, Sameer al-Ansari, said that the problems between George Gillett and Tom Hicks had played a part in their claimed decision to withdraw from attempts to take over at Anfield. In an extract from an exclusive interview with Arabian Business Magazine due out on Sunday al-Ansari said:  “You have two partners who do not see eye to eye. And we decided that we pull out completely. Let them sort out their problems.

“We will continue to be interested and would love to own the club but we are not going to put ourselves in a difficult situation where we make the investment but we have no control over the destiny of the club and we cannot influence the success of the club. Unfortunately, the terms that have been put on the table do not allow us to do that.”

Although this could mean DIC feel that their maximum investment in the club would be all but eaten up by paying the price demanded by Gillett, Gillett is the only partner willing to sell. Hicks hasn’t put a serious valuation on his half of the club because he wants to buy Gillett out, take control, and stay with the club until the new stadium is built and beyond. DIC don’t want half of the club, and have no intention of making the kind of offer that would change the mind of Hicks.

Whether this decision to pull out is true, or just the latest in a long line of negotiation tactics carried out using the press remains to be seen.

But Hicks’ determination to make something special of his time at Anfield has seen him write to Rick Parry asking for him to resign.

Parry has refused, saying: “It is my intention to remain focused on the job of serving Liverpool Football Club to the best of my abilities at this very important time of our season.”

Although there are reports that Parry is siding with Gillett in the various attempts at resolving the ownership situation, this is not believed to have been given as a reason Parry should leave his post.

Parry has been at Anfield as CEO for ten years, and in that time there have been many accusations levelled at him from fans, and more that are believed to have come from current manager Rafael Benítez.

His attitude to fans in the wake of the Athens ticket fiasco caused unprecedented anger from Liverpool supporters, stunned at the attitude of the CEO to their concerns that ticket distribution seemed to suggest some tickets had not been allocated to fans. He refused to be drawn into the “numbers game”. This was but one example of where fans felt he had been dismissive towards them.

He has at least two nicknames, either Krusty or Coco, alluding to his perceived ability to make a mess of things somewhat like a clown, amongst other reasons. Prior to the arrival of the current owners Liverpool were offered a chance to buy Manchester United’s Cristiano Ronaldo for a fairly nominal fee, but turned the offer down. The fee wasn’t a problem – it was the wages that Parry said were too steep. Yet those wages worked out at around two-thirds of what was paid to the failed French “Gem” Anthony Le Tallec.

Theo Walcott almost knocked Liverpool out of the Champions League on Tuesday night, but the Arsenal youngster was desperate to play for Liverpool before Arsenal made their interest known, and it was Parry who was blamed for allowing the chance to pass the club by. Again Liverpool could have had him for a fraction of his eventual fee, with Southampton in need of the money, but Parry was said to have refused over a relatively tiny amount of a difference in his valuation and Southampton’s.

Perhaps his indecision helped the club last summer; Florent Malouda’s decision to join Chelsea over Liverpool is believed to have been caused by Rick Parry’s lack of communication with the player. His reputation for switching his mobile phone off when major deals need to be worked on is legendary. He famously went on holiday instead of talking to Steven Gerrard about a new deal after Istanbul, the captain coming unbelievably close to joining Chelsea after being left to think the club didn’t really want him.

But Rafa is believed to have been referring to Parry last summer when he complained about a lack of action in the transfer market. The blame for this outburst later shifted to the owners, as part of the fallout from the infamous Klinsmann revelation, but in reality Rafa was frustrated that transfer deals were failing because Rick Parry was not working on them the way he should have been.

Parry announced in 2003 that Liverpool’s need for a new stadium was essential to their future hopes of competing with the likes of Manchester United. He said it would open in 2006, in good time for the 2008 Capital of Culture celebrations in the city. In 2007 it was still not open, in fact work had still not even started, and by the time the new owners came in they announced that the outdated plans had to be replaced. The “Parry Bowl” was consigned to history.

But finding investors to enable a new stadium to be built wasn’t the only way Liverpool could have made money. From being the first English club to have shirt sponsors back in the seventies Liverpool became the last top-flight club to get a website. Before long the website was renowned as a place to avoid if looking for official merchandise, with constant anger from supporters unable to buy the kit they wanted. It was much the same in the club shops. Fan frustration over tickets isn’t limited to the way the Athens ones were dished out – people have to risk their jobs by spending the whole day with the phone to their ear, hitting redial over and over until they are finally through – at which point they are then in a cue for hours on end. Sometimes they get to the end of that queue without being cut off. Excuses given for the problems with this service have never washed with fans, who are also frustrated at the length of physical queues when tickets are sold at the ticket office windows.

If those basic services are so poorly run, questions must be asked as to how much more income has been missed out on by fans the world over who want to spend anything they can on their beloved Reds. The days of kids getting their mums to sew a home-made number seven on the backs of their red t-shirts should be long gone, but have often shown signs of having to come back.

Liverpool fans themselves have helped Parry to allow the club to remain stuck in the past from a commercial point of view. The outcry when a McDonald’s “M” appeared on the side of the newly-built seated Kop showed that fans weren’t ready for anything too commercial, and many fans still grumbled about having the name of a not-too popular beer on their shirts. But these things make money, and whilst other clubs embraced it and overtook Liverpool, the Reds were left behind.

Of course Parry was always nothing more than the CEO to David Moores post as Chairman, and not all decisions will have been his alone. But his job is to do what’s best for the club, and unfortunately that isn’t any longer in line with what was best for the club ten years ago when he arrived, and it was up to him to make that clear to David Moores.

Parry was in London today with Premier League meetings to attend, and also with Javier Mascherano’s failed appeal taking place. But he will have seen the contents of the letter and will be aware of the reasons that one half of the club’s ownership wants him out.

Hicks, however, is not in a position to sack Parry because major decisions of that nature require both owners to agree. Gillett is hardly likely to agree if the claims he’s been using Parry to help him engineer a hugely profitable sale of his half to DIC are true. But the message couldn’t be clearer. Parry has no future under Hicks. And with DIC planning to install al-Ansari and Amanda Staveley if they did take the club over, it does seem his days at Anfield are numbered one way or another.

191 thoughts on “Parry asked to resign as DIC claim they can’t afford LFC price”

  1. Gillett speaks:

    Apr 11 2008 EXCLUSIVE by Tony Barrett Liverpool Echo

    GEORGE Gillett today publicly backed Rick Parry after co-owner Tom Hicks called on Liverpool’s chief executive to resign.

    Hicks sent Parry a letter demanding he ends his nine-year tenure at Anfield, but Gillett told the ECHO he did not support the ultimatum.

    Gillett also revealed that he had no idea his co- owner was planning an audacious attempt to force Parry out.

    “Rick Parry retains our full support,” he said.

    “Any decision to remove him would need the approval of the full Liverpool board which, it should be remembered, consists of six people – myself, Foster, David Moores, Rick himself, Tom Hicks and Tom junior.

    “We have not seen the document in question and we were not party to it.

    “We are not able to comment on the detail because we have not seen it. But I would reiterate that Rick retains our full support.”

  2. This is assuming the proportions of a counter coup and I am taking some comfort from it. How can Gillett do a volte-face now and sell to Hicks?

  3. John,

    Thank you for clearing that up.

    I await Jim’s response the posts made this morning.

    Midland – I can’t seem to find gillett’s statement…have you seen it?

  4. This is from a Daily post article this morning:

    “Last night, claims emerged that Hicks’s son Tom Jnr has been sending texts to fans’ groups over the issue of Parry’s continued involvement at the club.

    It is believed Parry’s legal team will also be investigating these allegations.

    Contrary to a report in Arabian Business magazine that DIC were pulling out of bidding for the club, Sheikh Mohammed and Al Ansari were last night said to still be keen on completing a deal.

    Their £500m offer for the club is understood to remain on the table. That would pay off the club’s £350m debt and leave both Hicks and Gillett with £40m apiece.

    A deal could apparently be struck as soon as Hicks’s lawyers call DIC’s London-based chief negotiator, Amanda Staveley.

    Although relations with Hicks broke down more than a month ago, Staveley is said to be on good terms with Gillett and in “constant discourse” with him.

    The only sticking point on a deal, insiders say, is Hicks.

    He has recently been in London with American investment bank Merrill Lynch seeking credit with which to buy out Gillett.

    It is thought a “first refusal” agreement between the Americans, in which one must offer their slice of the club to the other before selling to a third party, comes to an end in about six weeks’ time.”

    That bit about Parry’s lawyers getting involved will have the dawg re-reading some of his posts.

  5. Today’s LFC press conference cancelled. Obviously there is a need to concentrate on the Blackburn match but all the reporters will want to quiz Rafa on the Parry affair.

    Hicks’ position to any man of honour would be untenable but no doubt he intends to maintain his schoolyard bully act to the bitter end.

  6. Hicks’ position to any man of honour would be untenable but no doubt he intends to maintain his schoolyard bully act to the bitter end.

    Yes indeed John. All the more reason why i’m looking forward to Jim’s words.

  7. It occured to me last night – after a day of foul moods from this new embarrassment – that Hicks’s public gaffe with Parry is very reminiscent of what happened during Hicks’s public gaffe with Rafa and the disclosure of the meeting with Klinsmann. Without consideration for the effect on the individual, the club and the fans’ reactions, Hicks has shot off his mouth and publicly humiliated a key member of the Liverpool team, based on his own instinctual response to a perceived slight (in Rafa’s case, addressing the media about transfers; in Parry’s case, the BBC interview and, even further removed, the retaliation for the dressing-down Gillett gave Hicks’s lackey, Ian Ayres).

    It’s ironic, really. The club at the boardroom level is screaming out for strong effective leadership, stuck as it is in a tug-of-war in a mudpit. Instead, what we’re getting is dysfunctional bullying from a man who’s ego has no sense of proportion to his circumstances. This could not have been handled worse if he tried.

    Two by-the-ways…
    I think it was midlands-red who called for David Moores to make a statement this weekend. I honestly don’t think that will happen, as Moores seems to be the only one left who has any respect for the Liverpool way of dealing with these kinds of matters behind closed doors. Rightly or wrongly, I’m guessing he will confine his comments to Parry, Gillett and DIC.

    Also, it’s somewhat encouraging that various media sources are including in their Parry stories a reference to bringing in a mediator to help resolve the deadlock. If the six-more-weeks-and-the-right-of-refusal deadline is true, that puts the possibility of a resolution to this whole sorry debacle at the beginning of June.

  8. “texas_dawg, is Hicks son…”

    I’m not. Just a friend. I already admitted this.

  9. I did call for Moores to make a statement but now that Gillett’s said something this morning that’s enough for me. I think – or rather hope – that everyone else on th board, apart from Hicks Snr and Jnr, are behind Parry (for the moment) because the bigger picture is getting Hicks out.

  10. “Hicks 500m mate!!! take it and do us a favour…bog off…”

    He doesn’t want it. Money isn’t his primary motive in wanting to own Liverpool.

  11. “How can Gillett do a volte-face now and sell to Hicks?”

    Easy. Gillett never wanted to be a long-term owner of the team. He just saw a good investment that has paid off more quickly than most expected. He wants out but out of pride does not want to sell to Hicks. Unfortunately, that will continue to be his only option… and he will eventually take it.

  12. Bloody hell, Dawg, you made me spew my coffee all over my keyboard when I guffawed at your last post.

  13. Texas_Dawg, it’s about power and money!

    Hence, the bully boy tactics now. And your bosses search for funds from DIC previously and valuing the club at £1billion. Nothing wrong with that (he’s a business after all) but don’t be naive – or think we are!

  14. “Texas_Dawg, it’s about power and money!

    Hence, the bully boy tactics now.”

    I don’t deny that financial concerns matter. But the “bully boy tactics” don’t prove your point. Hicks simply wants to run the club as he thinks best and does not want a short-term owner and his interests getting in the way of the long-term goals for the club.

    Hicks has already made a lot of money on his investment, midlands. He could easily sell now and be gone, as Gillett wants to do. But Hicks wants to own the team; Gillett doesn’t. This should be pretty obvious at this point. At least Jim is rational enough to consider this possibility… and time will attest to Jim’s wisdom here.

  15. Delighted to see Hicks has got 2 friends the other being George Bush but what is he going to do now that its written large that GILLETT WILL NOT SELL TO HICKS and he is out voted at board level.
    The battle lines are drawn lets all watch the fight. My money’s on the red corner of Gillett and Parry etc. with DIC to pick up the pieces.

  16. “Hicks wants to own the team.” But the fans don’t want hicks to own the team, his fellow directors don’t want him to own the team. It is fair to say all the employees of the club would prefer to be owned by someone who does not let it be known that an employee is not wanted by leaking letters to the media. That leaves who? Mr Ayre?

    Hicks has a plan in mind for sure and it involves owning the club long enough to make a profit on sale sufficient to clear his debts on the two teams he really cares about and they are closer to home than Anfield or neoNew Anfield if it ever gets built.

    You have to laugh at the crass ineptitude though. Who would have believed a few weeks ago that the cack-handed attempts of hicks and his PR jokers (dawg included) could produce a Rick Parry and a George Gillett appreciationj society. Laugh, I almost did.

  17. John, the only thing i would say is that these ‘PR jokers’ are being paid handsomely for what??! It just shows what a mess Hicks would leave us in if he assumed control.

    Texas_Dawg: If I cashed in my very limited investments now I could make money. Not the £40+ million Hicks could walk away with now but money nontheless. The reason why Hicks wants to own the whole club is because he knows there’s far more than the £40+million to be earnt in the long-term. Now, is there anything wrong with that. No, not really. But when you and your friends keep making out he’s in it for the club – while he’s back home in Texas watching the Liverpool Reds on the box for their most important game of the season – suggests where his priorities are.

  18. Right – popping in quickly to show my face, and let you know I’ve not run away.

    I was awake until after 3am, spent all day today with the mother of headaches, managed a bag of crisps for lunch. It’s been a crazy day one way or other.

    Not all down to LFC, some of it more mundane but still time consuming.

    I see that there are lots of questions for me above (and on other posts) but I’m not sure how soon I’ll get time to respond to them, but if anyone wants to drop me a summary using the contact form I’ll maybe have more chance of remembering. I’ve not had time to even read them all today.

    Someone said something about whether I’d had a text or texts off Tom Hicks Jnr yesterday I think – no, sorry.

    I will say that I’m absolutely disgusted at the lies being told to attack Hicks and defend Parry/Gillett, and even more disgusted at some more that might be on the cards.

    One thought for you.

    Rick Parry has a secretary. She opens his mail, snail or otherwise.

    Rick Parry has a mobile phone.

    Is she so incompetent that she didn’t think to call him on this matter?

    Is he so incompetent that he didn’t switch his phone on from what, say 10am when the post arrives until after 4pm when his relative phoned?

    Or does he ignore calls that are clearly business and instead only answer calls from relatives?

    Does anyone, in their right mind, believe that Rick Parry didn’t know about this letter until after Sky broke the news? Forget him being in meetings, he had time during the day to check his phone.

    If you do believe he didn’t know about this letter until then, how can you then say this man is capable of holding down a position at such a high level in one of the so-called top four clubs?

    There’s a lot more to talk about, hopefully I’ll get time later, but please stop thinking it’s all black and white. I can attack Gillett without it meaning I suddenly want Hicks to take over. I can say Hicks is not as bad as people make out, and that DIC might be worse than people make out, without it meaning we’ve got to go with Hicks.

    I would prefer people make up their own minds, but they aren’t. They’re falling for lie after lie and it’s a long time since those lies came from Hicks as far as I can remember.

    I grabbed an Echo earlier and quickly turned to pages 4 and 5, where I think I saw a claim from GG that he’d not only had nothing to do with the letter (I agree with that) but that he’d not even seen it. If he’s not seen it then it’s a suggestion that either his own secretary is incompetent, or that he’s ignored it, or that he’s not being truthful.

    I need to go back and read the quote again to see if it’s been carefully-worded, but if that is what he has claimed then I am again annoyed.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, and if that letter to Parry shouldn’t have gone out, lying about when or how it was seen does no good to anyone other than those telling the lies. It does nothing for the club.

    Nor does threatening legal action, as Parry has just done. He was asked to resign because of perceived incompetence I believe. Not told to, asked to. What good would a legal battle be between he and Hicks? If he cared about the club he’d answer those claims and explain why Hicks was wrong, or admit the failings and come out with his action plan.

    Anyway, so much has happened and is happening I’ve not had time to go through it all. Hope to get time soon!

  19. I keep having this image in my head of Hicks swaggering around like John Wayne (I’m hoping over-the-counter medication will rid me of the torment), and I finally realised why…

    In the film, Red River (1948), set in the mid-19th century, John Wayne plays a gruff bullying arrogant character who wants to set up a cattle ranch in Texas after a bunch of those nasty Injuns have killed all the folks in the covered wagon convoy. When he finally arrives at the land he’s decided he wants, it turns out it’s already owned by someone else. Instead of moving on to unclaimed land or negotiating with the other landowner (one of them nasty Mexicans), he pulls out his gun and shoots him dead and takes his land. Can you already guess John Wayne’s character’s name in Red River…Tom.

  20. Jim, I’ve never known you write a blog like this. You’re beginning to go down in my estimations not because you seem to support Hicks – that’s your perogrative – but that you hide behind headache’s etc for not responding/providing a full response. I’ll make a bet that my life is just as ‘mundane’ as yours – and just like you, since that fabulous night on Tuesday I’ve had a rotten headache, acheing body and cold – but you’ve not really taken your posts seriously. Are you in contact with the Hicks family or Hicks PR machine, Financial Dynamics or/and Hicks Jnr?

  21. Jim, I have to say I’m stunned at your reply. You’re disgusted at the lies being told about Hicks?

    Do you really think that we’re ALL that gullible and naive to be taken in by a spin campaign, regardless of who it’s for?

  22. Something very sinister in your reply Jim. You checked the echo comments for what? It suggests that you had certain knowledge that the letter had been copied to Gillett and also that you are aware of the chain involving the original letter to Parry. You seem to be aware of the address style as it could not have been marked “Addressee only” if you are saying his secretary could have been aware of the contents.

    “even more disgusted at some more (lies) that may be on the cards” My head is still spinning with that one. So you know in advance what is to come from the “guilty parties'” perpetrating the lies, guilty parties being anyone but Hicks.

  23. Jim we’re all aware of your journalistic licence and ‘owning this blog’ but your post is the nearest you’ve come to demeaning those that actively take part everyday. I’m stunned!

    Come on Jim, come back all’s not lost….yet!

  24. Oh come on Jim get real, whatever really happened when that letter arrived at Anfield Parry was only using Hicks’ own tactics to get back at him and show him up for what he is. This matter should have dealt with in private at board level but when was the last board meeting ??
    You’re being naive, look at the bigger picture don’t you know a con-artist when you see one ? and a badly advised one at that.

  25. I’ve been reading this blog all afternoon and it is absolutely scintillating stuff I must say. But I was not expecting that from Jim! Jim, what on earth do you mean by lies (and more lies)?

  26. “Delighted to see Hicks has got 2 friends the other being George Bush ”

    I think this is ultimately the root of much of the anti-Hicks sentiment. Just anti-Americanism masquerading as sports club management expertise. Credit to Jim and others that can rise above such pettiness.

  27. If a letter arrived for Parry by post or courier, stamped as it should have been “private and confidential”, we have no way of knowing what Parry’s arrangement is with his PA for dealing with such correspondence. The whole issue of whether or not his PA would have read the letter and contacted him by mobile becomes moot. I for one wouldn’t want my PA reading a letter from my boss encouraging me to quit before (or even after) I’d seen it.

    But if we suspend our disbelief and even assume that Parry was being disingenuous when he said he hadn’t read the letter, it still ignores the bigger issue here that there’s no way this should have been made public to begin with, courtesy of a Hicks leak. And, Jim, don’t slip in an insinuation that Parry leaked it himself and played the innocent afterwards – apart from it being completely without substantiation, it also doesn’t account for the texts from Hicks Jr to other supporters groups.

  28. “But Hicks wants to own the team; Gillett doesn’t. This should be pretty obvious at this point. At least Jim is rational enough to consider this possibility… and time will attest to Jim’s wisdom here.”

    The $ signs appear in Hick’s eyes when thinks of the prospect of the new stadium. He knows Liverpool will be acash cow for years after that. The problem is getting there. He simply doesn’t have the finances to able to invest in the team and deliver the stadium. DIC can. Even without the lying, the disgraceful public outbursts and utter disregard of the traditions of LFC, DIC are the better option.

  29. Who gives a flying fart where Hicks comes from – we are concerned only with where he goes! You know you are perpetrating a downright lie as all you have to do is research the reaction when the fans heard Robert Kraft might be interested in buying our club. The barrel is being scraped now.

  30. I must say I am truly shocked. I have sensed some dark arts at play on this site.

    I sense that Jim, you are flicking through the posts and reporting back to your paymasters on how the last gaffe is being taken by the fans.

    You post is even more stunning than the request for Parry to resign. That is saying something!.

    P.S. Jim, the balance in your posts which drew me to this site have gone.

  31. Dawg,
    Its what we call a joke designed to provoke and it worked !
    Gillett’s an American isn’t he and he can’t stand Hicks so its not Anti Americanism its personal and who is accusing who of pettiness ?
    Not very bright are you ?

  32. “Gillett’s an American isn’t he”

    Yes, but 1) he’s hated by the same people complaining about Hicks, and 2) he’s not a friend of Bush’s.

    “Jim, the balance in your posts which drew me to this site have gone.”

    Actually, I think you mean that the stridently anti-Hicks tone that drew you to the site is gone. What has replaced it is balance, and that is exactly what you do NOT want.

  33. Texas_Dawg, we like balance, yes. But not the sycophantic stuff we’re reading now.

    I don’t mind jousting with you. We know where you’re coming from.

    Jim was something else but now it’s undergone a conversion along the amazing and unbelievable lines of former darling of Maggie Thatcher, Michael Portillo – from raving rightwinger to subtle centre politics.

    So Jim, bring back some balance – not this tripe you’re writing at the moment.

    Texas_Dawg continue with your ‘tripe’ 🙂

  34. Read the comments on Rick Parry in the header article and Jim’s follow up. His business failings are listed – no problem, but also time is taken to bring in the personal attacks on him – the nicknames etc. then read the follow up where Parry is virtually called a liar despite the fact that what he said to the reporter is “I haven’t seen the letter, you lads know more about that than me” He does not suggest that he doesn’t know of the contents. No case put in Parry’s defence, see any balance? I don’t.

  35. Mr. Dawg,

    How do you know when I started browsing on this site?

    Furthermore, there are many other sites with much stronger anti-Hicks bias than this site.

    My argument is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, hence my last post.

  36. Dawg,
    Replying to you is like kicking into an open goal.
    Gillett is not hated by the same people complaining about Hicks because Gillett wants to sell his shares to the organisation who most supporters want ot own the club. In trying to prevent this your friend has diminshed his own status (if thats possible) and increased that of his co owner with the fans.
    Woof Woof.

  37. Are people paranoid or what?

    My mundane day today – so far – consisted of some interruptions for personal phone calls, a ride out to collect my daughter, before popping into a supermarket I won’t give a free plug to, where I found myself standing on the phone for maybe 15-20 minutes talking about LFC to someone (not Hicks, Gillett, Parry, Moores or any variations thereof).

    I was in the supermarket when I saw the Echo, and that’s where I had my brief chance to read what I saw was linked to from their front page, which had a picture of Parry on. I literally read about two paragraphs, before I got that phone call I just mentioned, after which my daugther and I paid for her sandwich and my paper and went home.

    I saw that there were a lot of comments, which from the control panel I read some of, quickly. I saw a question that related to an earlier question, something about a lawyer and “9”, but not the earlier question.

    I’ve hardly been near the PC.

    But I quickly threw that comment on to say why I’d not been around to update anything. Perhaps I shouldn’t have.

    Oh – and I’m actually writing this from a fast-food place that also doesn’t deserve a plug (given how crap its coffee is) using their wifi thing because I wanted to try and get on top of things. I’ve called here because I’m in the middle of another mundane trip involving my daughter and her need for a lift, and instead of going back home I thought I’d save time and try and log on from here instead. But instead of getting time to read up on what’s been said, and writing up what I’ve heard or seen, I’m having to respond to this conspiracy theory!

    Julie: I’m not disgusted at Gillett lying about Hicks. I’m disgusted at Gillett lying. Full stop, period. If he was so blatantly lying about Alex Ferguson or Arsene Wenger or David Dein or Peter Kenyon I’d be embarrassed, rather than disgusted, but he’s lying in a way that adds more crap to the crap our club is being buried under.

    Everyone is so full of hate for Hicks that they don’t see the mess others are making too. Stop assuming that everything against Gillett is for Hicks. Or against Parry is for Hicks.

    midlands-red – I’ve been in contact with all the different camps involved in this mess one way or other. Except “Financial Dynamics”. I’ve never been in touch with them. And that’s all I think I need to answer on that score really.

    John – sinister? You really need to calm down, maybe we all do, but I checked the Echo because the stack of papers in the supermarket were there in front of me. As simple as that.

    Lies on their way? Maybe that was the wrong thing to say, in a rush, so I’ll fix it. I’m worried about extremely damaging claims that might be on their way, and the damage I’m worried about isn’t to Hicks. I am also hopeful that it won’t actually be released, because it could actually be considered to be libel, unless of course it was true. And I don’t think it is.

    And I’d also like to say that of the various people I’ve contacted I’ve been personally lied to more than once by more than one of those involved in this mess. Things said to appease me were taken on board by me, and then time has proven them to be lies as public admissions were made by the same people that contradicted what they’d told me earlier.

    MR – what do you mean about demeaning people? I’m sorry if my tone seems angry, but all I seem to get these days is “Jim you are in Hicks’ camp” or words to that effect if I dare move even a millimetre from the idea that Hicks is the devil and nothing else matters. I can’t point out something someone outside the Hicks camp may have done that is even slightly critical without being attacked. Not all people on here do that, but it’s enough for it to feel like that’s all I read – especially when I’m speed reading.

    I know some on here are open-minded enough to at least think about what I say, and often come back with great answers that have me stumped.

    But a lot of people have made their minds up and will never, ever, move from that. And that’s a shame.

    It’s like Everton fans who genuinely believe the song about Steven Gerrard, the rumours about Agger’s injury and those claims all those years ago about Robbie Fowler. None of those are true, but you find a blue that doesn’t think so. They’ll not change their minds.

    That’s a quick response, i’ve got to go before the battery dies, and I’ll try and read everything again later.

    If someone wants to send me a brief summary of any burning questions I’ve missed please do so, but I’m probably not going to be able to answer until this evening.

    As for the leak over the letter, I’m still trying to find more out about that. So far I’ve not been able to find the fans group that leaked it, by asking people from the fans groups I’ve got any contacts with. I’m not saying it didn’t happen that way, or that i’ve even asked the correct fans’ group, But so far i’ve drawn a blank.

    I’ll say one more thing.

    I’ve no need to stick up for one side over another. I want this to end, and I feel it will soon. It has to. It might not be DIC who win, it might not be Hicks who wins. It’s going to be one of them of course.

    But if you already have your mind made up that Hicks is the bad guy, end of story, and won’t consider anything bad against the others involved in this mess, it’s not worth reading this site. Seriously. As I hear things and see things and realise things I’ll try and explain them, where I can, and if that’s for or against Hicks I’ll still write it. I might hear something later today that leaves me writing a story you all want to hear, but I’ll not make one up just to keep everyone happy.

    I wish it was as simple as Hicks is bad, everyone else is either good or forgiveable. It isn’t.

    I might not reply to comments later, I might try and write something else instead. This reply has taken me about 45 minutes. Time to go. Back later.

  38. Texas_dawg..Does Hicks Think he can win the Battle for the Ownership? Is he confident that he can secure Gilletts half of the club, despite, the fact that Gillett has said that there is no way he will sell his side to Hicks??
    Gillett is not a “Friend” of Bush!! does that make a big difference to Gillett?? I guess being a Friend of Bush is a rewarding line of work, i suppose, but only if your prepard to put money in peoples pockets!! you´ll get something from Bush…apart from the fact that Hicks made him a Millionaire a few times over when he bought a club, that was headed by Bush..but anyway that is straying from the Subject…

  39. I so promised myself I wouldn’t sink to replying to his nonsense, but out of sheer disgust, here goes…

    Dawg, Where do you get your arrogance from? It’s one thing to come on a site like this and engage in debate about the issues at hand. However, you and your unmitigated gall have wrapped your comments in the of mantle of “I know best” about what’s happening with “our” (as in, belonging to all of us) football club. There are people who read and post on this site who have passionately supported Liverpool for decades, all their lives; you, on the other hand, have blessed us with your bombast because your pal Tommy’s dad last year bought up 50% of the club. Somehow you’ve got it into your head that making blanket statements about what a good guy Hicks is, how money-grubbing Gillett is, and how anti-Americanism is behind all the negativity towards Hicks are going to influence opinions here. Smug propaganda is not the way to encourage anyone to look at a situation from an alternative perspective – if you genuinely are interested in engaging in an exchange of ideas and opinions here, then deflate the size of your head, open your eyes and consider that there’s a lot more at stake than who yells the loudest and who has got the biggest…feet.

  40. Ok… why is my earlier comment awaiting moderation please? I aked what Jim meant when he referred to lies (and more lies on the cards) being told…- and he’s kind of answered in his latest post.
    Explain.

  41. Jim, I haven’t made up my mind that Hicks is THE bad guy. I have made up my mind that Hicks is A bad guy. You seem to push the view that all the dirt you can dig up on the other parties involved accrues to the benefit of Hicks. How does that make sense? I’ve no doubt you will leave no stone unturned trying to find out who leaked the letter to Sky. How does that detract from the crass behaviour of Hicks in writing it, knowing full well that as a 50% shareholder and in a minority on the issue in the boardroom he was not able to effect Parry’s removal. It was nothing more than a piece of gratuitous visciousness and deserves to be exposed as such regardless of your determination to show that Gillett, DIC et al are just as capable of telling lies.

    At least we don’t here so much of the “what do we really know of DIC” argument. We have got to the stage at which Pol Pot would be seen as a better proposition than what we have in place. In fact most fans can see one scenario worse than the current one and that is Hicks with an effective majority.

  42. Jim – I too was drawn to your site by your investigative and analytical insights on all things Liverpool. But I also found comfort in your continued support for Rafa in the face of deceitful media attacks AND your please to both Gillett and Hicks to sell up to DIC. About two months ago, I began to detect a change in your position, as others have. Suddenly, you’ve become mistrustful of DIC’s intentions for no good reason, and always jumping up to give Hicks in particular the benefit of the doubt. This has become your cause now to such an extent that I have come across your posts on the London Times’ website commenting in favour of Hicks. What is going on ? Please come clean.

  43. Jim, jim, jim, what’s happened mate? Can’t believe what i’m reading sometimes.

  44. It’s taken a while but I finally see balance in these articles…
    Well done Jim.

    All this reminds me of a lyric from a tune I love….
    “We’ll tell ’em if you like
    We’ll tell ’em all tonight
    They’ll never listen
    Because their minds are made up…”

    I ‘believe’:
    Hicks will still own Liverpool this time next year.
    Gillett will have taken his money.
    Parry will have gone (he could be said to have caused this in the first place)
    We will be 1st or 2nd in the league.

  45. Modus Operandi, I agree that Parry caused it in the first place by bringing in Gillett and Hicks but at least he’s making an attempt to correct the problem.

    In case you don’t know Hicks only ‘owns’ 50%. The banks will determine his future position.

    And how well we do next season will depend on Rafa making the best of the mess Hicks and the rest have left behind……..if Rafa stays, which I hope he does.

    Hicks is not a white knight in shining armour – although that’s what we were promised. Instead all we got were lies and disruption, typified by yesterday.

    So thanks modus but no thanks – au revoir Hicks et al. The sooner the better.

  46. Agree with Charles. Always came to this site as it seemed the best informed and well reasoned. What is it you (suddenly) know Jim????

  47. Modus,
    Ah but how will Hicks get the money to buy out his old friend George ? And if he borrows it will he load the debt on to the club ?
    And if he’s not in it for the money, why does he want to own a club he’d never heard of 18 months ago, playing a game he knows next to nothing about, opposed by a majority of the board, loathed by the fans and where he cannot attend a home match for fear of his own safety ?
    A philanthropist perhaps, I think not. An crass, arrogant, ignorant Texan who’s used to having his own way and God help anyone who gets in his way more like.

  48. Hey, midlands-red, maybe that headache of yours is a sign of your psychic powers?

Comments are closed.