The alternative side to the LFC ownership mess

The ownership crisis at Anfield is still some way short of being resolved, with conflicting claims continuing to muddy waters that haven’t been clear in a long time. And I’ve been asked repeatedly to explain why my stance has shifted from that of the masses. I’ll try.

The mud has been thick these past few weeks, from when George Gillett went on the radio in Montreal to declare his intention never to sell to Tom Hicks, until this morning when a David Moores interview in the Echo will no doubt stir things further. And that’s before tomorrow’s Sundays get onto it.

Taking a step back for a moment and trying to think calmly can be difficult. It’s an emotional subject. Whether you’re a season ticket holder or a fan thousands of miles away with no choice other than watching on TV, Liverpool Football Club is something that becomes part of you, and you part of it.

Earlier in the season, Liverpool supporters holding up banners saying “One DIC is better than two” and singing “Liverpool Football Club is in the wrong hands” were reacting to the news that Tom Hicks had admitted both owners had spoken to Jurgen Klinsmann about Rafa’s job, and fears that the club’s future was on a knife’s edge because of fears over the impact of £350m debt.

What happened to Hicks was that numerous claims and denials he’d made on various issues were put in doubt because he’d admitted the Klinsmann story. To cut a long story short, claims in November were that the owners had been set to sack Rafa, and his Champions League progressions was all that saved him. A private meeting in December saw a statement released that Rafa and the owners had sorted out their differences. An interview soon after saw Hicks say the papers had made up the story they were about to sack Rafa. The admission by Hicks that they had met Klinsmann saw him shown as having lied. How could he claim the papers made it up when he was now admitting the replacement was being lined up?

The admission angered George Gillett and that anger never went away. Gillett felt it would blow over if nothing was said, even though the German FA and Bayern Munich both had senior officials saying Klinsmann had turned Liverpool down. Gillett was also said to be angry at Hicks’ decision to release details of the refinancing.

Go back over the past few months and far more has been said about the situation from unnamed sources and “I believe” type claims than in any official statements or direct quotes.

And because of the hatred that stems back to that Klinsmann incident, and everything else that it brought with it, everything negative said about Hicks is taken as fact by the majority of Liverpool supporters.

And anyone daring to suggest that an opinion different to ‘Hicks must go, Gillett was bullied, Parry is trying to help’ is jumped upon by the angry mob. It’s understandable. I’ve been much the same myself until fairly recently.

Why I am no longer in the camp of believing everything said against Hicks, or in favour of others, is hard to explain. I’ve tried countless times but every time I am accused of being “on Hicks’ payroll” and other such ludicrous shouts. But again it’s understandable.

People won’t like me using this example, but it’s one I’ve used on myself in the past when spending sleepless nights trying to make head or tail of this mess.

Get 100 Everton supporters in a room and ask them what they know about Steven Gerrard’s personal life. You know what they’ll say. Maybe not all of them, but the vast majority will probably sing a certain song, before explaining why they have that song. They’ve no proof of it – because it’s untrue anyway – but that’s of no importance. They hate Liverpool, some hate Liverpool in a quite unhealthy way. After all it’s our fault that (insert any Everton misfortune here) happened. So a story about Gerrard based on rumours started by his enemies is believed without question.

They’ll tell you more tales that a large number of them will at the very least say must be possible, Daniel Agger’s had some unfounded nonsense spread about him recently; much like Robbie Fowler did a few years back culminating in his touchline-sniffing goal celebration that was overreacted to by the FA.

They hate Liverpool, so it’s no problem at all to believe the stories they hear. And for many of them there would never be a change of stance, unless they personally became victims of similar made-up rumours. Some of the more sensible ones might hear ludicrous claims about one of their own players and realise that believing a story just because it fits in with your own feelings towards that person or who that person represents is dangerous.

That’s pretty much how my own feelings started to change.

It hit me really for the first time around the time of the much-hyped meeting in Dubai. I remember seeing the email from Hicks to al-Ansari and Hicks’ angry response to it having been leaked. He blamed it on Amanda Staveley, saying: “She should also know better than to release actual copies of my private correspondence to the press.” At the time I remember thinking that Hicks could have been wrong about who leaked it. It could have been a less senior figure involved in talks, it could have been Rick Parry – who was in meetings with Staveley in the days prior to the leak – or it could even have been someone in his own organisation. I was angry that just at the beginning of the first face-to-face talks between the Hicks organisation and DIC Hicks was throwing angry accusations at DIC’s senior negotiator.

Still, we waited for news. Talks were underway on the Monday, Hicks himself wasn’t there but his sons and others from the Hicks organisation were. DIC had promised that taking a 49% share was ok with them on certain conditions; finally it looked like an end was in site. When they broke down I was devastated. I clearly remember my disappointment.

But then came that claim in the Echo. It was in retaliation to the Hicks statement saying that DIC wanted the club run by committee. I know without any shadow of a doubt that DIC’s representatives had made the claim. The talks had supposedly broken down after the Hicks people were unwilling to consider placing a supporter representative on the board, with voting rights. It was a ludicrous claim in its own right. It suggested that somebody put forward by SoS members (for example) would get to vote on major decisions, to impact on how money might be spent, to influence where pre-season games might be played. Millions of pounds worth of decisions hanging on the views of a supporter neither owner would have any say in the appointment of. On top of that I had an extra reason to disbelieve the claim, based on talks I’d had myself a short time before this incident, which made it clear to me where this idea had come from.

What that did was open my eyes.

That’s all. I just stopped. I turned off the mp3 of anti-Hicks songs and thought about things.

DIC had basically used a reporter to put out a statement designed to make them sound like the fan-friendly organisation we wanted, Hicks to sound like the control freak who had all kinds of evil plans waiting to take shape just as soon as he had the reins.

We had been lied to, by the people we thought we could trust. Our emotions had been played with.

I’d also been in contact with various people. I’m talking about those involved in this ownership wrangle, and others too. I also hear things from people who have their own contacts with similar or even the same people. One way or another, a lot of information comes my way that I can’t – or more accurately won’t – reveal on the site. I started to think through about some of this information; something didn’t feel right about various chunks of it.

All of a sudden, it was like something out of a film – all the past claims I’d based my opinions on were being called into question. It’s difficult to explain, but a hell of a lot of the assumptions we had as supporters were based on claims that DIC had put out there. I hadn’t realised this really, until that point, and they were flashing in front of me like scenes from a film. If anyone saw the recent Ashes to Ashes series on BBC1 they might be able to think about how Alex had sketchy memories and partial details of what had happened in the past, gaps filled in with assumptions, pre-conceived ideas of what had gone on, and as the series went on how much of this changed for her as new facts came into her possession, and old presumptions were discredited. I’m not at the point where the clown’s make-up disappears in the last episode yet, I’m probably still half-way through the series, but more and more is coming clear. Where’s Gene Hunt when you need him?

Talking of clowns, Rick Parry is known as Coco by supporters. At times I’ve felt sorry for him, often wondering if he’s spent hours trying to persuade David Moores to act a certain way only to find he can’t change his mind and he has to announce something he’s not keen on. I felt sorry for him when the owners came in, picturing him having to spend every day with Foster at his side as his working practices were noted down on the way to him eventually moving on and leaving the club. Even the ticket fiasco before Athens drew sympathy from me, when I wondered if the owners had decided to allocate themselves a few thousand tickets for their own contacts, and there was Parry having to explain where they’d gone without being allowed to say where they’d gone. (This wasn’t the case, as far as I know, it was just a thought at the time).

But I’m not sure that feeling sorry for him is the right thing to do. He’s been at the club for ten years, he had a big job at the Premier League before that, and he has no reason to expect an easy ride if he’s not acted to the best of his abilities. He’s well compensated for his job, no doubt enjoys perks most of us would dream of, and is right near the top of the club we all love. He’s no different to Rafa Benítez in terms of how he should be hired or fired based on how he does his job.

If we can excuse Benítez based on lack of transfer budget, lack of an assistant, off-field interference or whatever then we can excuse Parry on certain points. But what is he paid to do exactly? I was asked this question earlier this week by somebody not really a football fan, it was asked in all innocence. It’s a tough question!

Rather than go over the events of the past couple of weeks I’d like to think about the discrepancies between now and little over a year ago.

David Moores may have been the man with the ultimate decision to sell to Hicks and Gillett, but Rick Parry was the man who explained the pros and cons of the decision to him.

And one of those pros and cons was the debt. There’s no hiding from it, £298m was borrowed to buy the club and budget for the first season.

Parry knew all about this. It was all in the offer document, and he knew it would attract interest at about 1.5% above base rate. Estimates at the time put the annual interest payment at around £21m.

The offer document was hardly strict in its wording about how debt might be put back onto the club or not, but clearly strict enough to prevent the purchase costs going back on the club. The £245m portion of the debt that stands at holding company level equates fairly closely to the purchase costs of a year ago, suggesting that’s where this odd split comes from.

But all that had really changed in a year was that the club had to find the money to pay the interest on £350m of debt not £298m. Some of it was secured on club assets, more of it wasn’t. Some cash had been put in now too.

I’m not downplaying the worries about debt being secured on the club, but have they actually been overplayed? I really don’t know. I heard one theory that by putting £105m on the club the £245m was available at a friendlier rate, as was the £105m. So other than the fear of the debt not being paid, that situation could be argued to help the club. But it’s just a theory, I’ve not been told anything to suggest it’s even slightly likely.

We’ve also had the credit crunch, and rumours persist that Gillett and Hicks have been and are being hit by it. Again, I’m not downplaying it, but I wonder how much it really has hit Hicks. I’ve heard too many claims now for me to believe Gillett has escaped its pressures, but Hicks remains an uncertainty in that regard.

So trying to be open-minded, and not ready to angrily dismiss this next statement, how much worse of did our financial position come from what was known to be the case at takeover, to the point January when the next deal was signed? I can see an argument that says we shouldn’t be surprised, let’s put it that way.

I’ve heard claims that the most recent finance came at a high rate of interest, but neither Gillett nor Hicks have said that, not for the £245m or for the £105m. It’s all come from presumptions from certain people. If – and again this is purely out of open mindedness – the interest rate was the same, the new finance deal caused a relatively small increase in the interest burden. I used 7.1% as a rate that sounded feasible compared to the £21m figure I mentioned earlier. The interest on £298m rounds to £21.2m. The interest on £350m rounds to £24.9m. I’ve not looked at interest rates between takeover and January 2008, I’ve just used the same figure twice. And it leaves us £3.7m a year worse-off in terms of our burden for paying off any interest.

This is as valid as any other educated guess that has been made about the interest costs of the finance. And it suggests that we should have been exactly as worried a year ago about debt as we are now.

That’s my own simplistic way of looking at things. If it’s so bad now, why didn’t Parry warn Moores et al back then?

Or is it not really quite so bad now?

I’ve more questions than answers, but more often than not I can’t find anybody with decent, believable answers. If Parry answered that question, short of coming out with some proof that the interest rate is significantly higher than a year ago, he can’t defend himself. He’s helping to worry us all that Hicks and Gillett have put us into unmanageable debt – but it’s only a fraction worse than a year ago, and in football terms it’s a tiny difference.

The stadium costs are still a worry, or are they? if we did take the word of Hicks in his statement of a few months ago then we’ve got £60m waiting there ready to get the diggers hired, foundations dug, and whatever else £60m gets you these days. I’ve heard nothing to suggest that the £60m wouldn’t be enough to get things moving – in fact I’ve heard that even without a change of ownership the stadium work can commence as soon as the necessary approvals have been received.

Getting finance for construction projects is usually done in a way that money is released bit-by-bit over the life of the actual building work. By the time the building is completed, whether it’s a house or something bigger like a stadium, it’s time to pay the full regular payment to cover both the interest and gradual reduction of capital. Simplifying figures for a moment, 7% interest on £300m is £21m a year. If the club paid £24m a year over 30 years at that rate of interest the stadium would be paid for by the end of the thirty years.

DIC are planning to borrow to pay for the stadium too, so criticism of the plans for the stadium financing apply equally to DIC, give or take the potential of fractional differences in interest rates.

Estimates vary as to how much of an increase in revenue would come from the new stadium. We’re not in London, so haven’t the same pull in many ways that Arsenal have, but we’ve no less pull than Manchester United either. But figures of an extra £40m a year seem achievable, and that’s before naming rights are added on. Around £16m a year extra plus naming rights, from the new stadium alone.

Then you remember this £350m debt. Well knock £60m off that for now because it relates to stadium costs. Even so it’s still around £20m a year in interest to find if the current finance model remained. But even that’s a big “if” now. Hicks spoke of ideas where investment wasn’t made using borrowed money; instead it comes from investors looking for a return linked to financial performance. That’s potentially going to mean more than £20m a year if the performance is good enough – but if so then it would suggest good times on the pitch and off it.

And of course, there would remain that worry that the investors in question would not allow the board to spend on transfers if it was to hit their profits too hard. But such concerns can be addressed in agreements made at the time of investment. Hicks would be shooting himself in the foot if he didn’t consider that issue, because a sizeable portion of our income has to go on transfers.

None of this has come from anything one side has put to me to try and win me over, it’s come from my decision to stop for a moment and think. To put other concerns and fears to one side for a moment and to look at things with a less negative approach.

When you compare 12 months ago with now, removing the negativity of the owners’ disagreements and the stories about how George Gillett has no way of staying on board given his financial position, you see that there is a possibility – that’s all – that life under Hicks’ sole ownership may not be as bad as feared. If it is, and again it would be hard for him to answer, why did Rick Parry not warn David Moores?

Very little has changed materially. The stadium costs have gone up because it’s a far superior stadium; I doubt many would want to go back to the “Parry Bowl” idea.

If – and it’s subject to being checked out by those with access to the figures – if the club can afford the interest payments as much now as it could a year ago then where the money actually sits is not a real worry. Securing it on the club means that the owners could be tempted to take more risks than if it was secured on their own other assets, but other than that there should be room there for the club to make the payments and so there never to be a need to worry about the security.

Figures given for Liverpool’s financial gap from Manchester United can’t all be blamed on a smaller stadium, so where are we going wrong? Can we sort that out? Can we sell more shirts in China as mocked by one reporter or other recently? We should be able to. In fact we should already be doing so. Why we’re not is arguably down to Rick Parry, who could have hired a team a long time ago to ‘exploit those markets’ as some would say.

Of course all of this open-mindedness relies on Tom Hicks being able to get the finance he maintains he still can. DIC’s hints at knowing he can’t are either based on fact, or are tactics that are a part of their strategy to unsettle Hicks and those thinking of joining with him.

If everyone involved in the battle for control wants to be all high-and-mighty about washing the dirty linen in public, and the Liverpool way, and all the other stuff thrown out if an opponent does or says anything then that’s fine. Just practice what you preach.

If DIC’s leaked claims that Hicks is on the ropes are true then the battle will soon be over anyway, so it’s a case of waiting until he accepts it and they can come in. The fact they aren’t sitting quietly in wait suggests that he isn’t on the ropes. They’re trying to get him onto them. A lot of people say that this is acceptable, that this is business and in business it’s important to play dirty if you want to do well.

Again that’s fine – but surely it’s also acceptable for all the different sides in the battle to act this way?

Talk is increasing of a finite period having already started, in which Hicks must take up an option to buy Gillett’s half or lose his right to a veto. We can all guess where this talk originates, and it seems to be against what Gillett said in the recent interview. Hicks had merely “threatened” to invoke a veto, said Gillett.

And if the veto time limit of the end of May turned out to be true, would DIC be happy with just the 50%? The earlier claims they could then force Gillett out by blocking moves for the next round of refinancing seem to be untrue. The £105m debt can stay on the club unless the board agree to move it. It can’t be removed by the will of one owner. The rest of the debt may be on the holding company, but it’s secured on other assets belonging to each owner. DIC would not, despite claims we’ve often heard, find it easy to force Hicks out once inside the company any more than Gillett could.

Out of interest, what right did George Gillett have to (according to reports) rebuke Ian Ayre for spending time in London with Tom Hicks as he went to try and get his finance deal done? Hasn’t George Gillett been using Rick Parry to do exactly the same thing with DIC? One of the owners used an executive of the club in discussions with investors aimed at ending the current mess of an ownership situation. So did the other.

I hope that presents as confusing a picture as the one in my mind. To summarise it all, Rick Parry has learned nothing significantly new about Tom Hicks since he was advising David Moores on his sale to the Americans.

DIC were going to pay £201m I believe for the club, including debt, just over a year ago. Now it’s reported at anything from £400m to £500m. Why? What did they miss? They’re not a charity. So why pay double now?

Did David Moores snub them, if so, why? For more money in his own pocket? Or because Rick Parry told him to? Or was it the offer of life presidency? And why does David Moores now think Tom Hicks is so bad. And I’m not talking about the letter, because this goes back much further than that.

And I’m not asking for a list of reasons why Tom Hicks is so bad. I want to know what changed significantly in a year. Parry knew his time at Anfield was limited from the day the Americans took over, the original plan could have seen him out of the door already so he’s done better than he might have expected out of this. But he no doubt felt that once the owners were in, he could survive beyond the two-year maximum they had him marked down for. It seems this idea has been scuppered.

So, we now know Parry stands to lose his job if Hicks takes over. But would he have lost his job under DIC first time round? Is he assured of a job second time round? Is there a bonus in this for him one way or other?

In all, we’re expected to believe that Tom Hicks is so bad for this club that George Gillett is in fear of his life for selling to him. But Rick Parry agrees he’s bad for the club too, so much so that he’s spending a lot of his working week on various trips to London to speak to DIC. And he’s doing this with George Gillett’s blessing, on George Gillett’s behalf almost.

So what’s in it for the club now that wasn’t in it for the club a year ago? Or is all this “best for the club” stuff just a smokescreen?

Even if Tom Hicks threw the towel in today, and Rick Parry agreed to resign at the same time, with no pay-off, I’d still want those questions answering. I’d still want to know what changed significantly; I’d still want to know what the true motives were then and what they are now. From Parry, and from DIC. And also, I’d want to know what Gillett’s true motives are now. Why did he spring out of his early retirement plan as far English soccer was concerned?

So there are, as best as I can explain it, the reasons why I stopped believing any and every negative story about Hicks, and why I started to question the others. If Hicks wins, do we not deserve the right ourselves to have feelings towards the owner based on as much truth as possible? Let’s hate him for the right reasons, let’s crack down on his real faults, let’s try and make the best of it. If it happens. But if DIC’s claims are true this is all academic anyway, they’ll be in and Hicks will be out, but at least in 12 months’ time any unexpected and unwanted policies would be harder to implement, because we’d have questioned them first, rather than let them in with open arms and able to do as they please.

61 thoughts on “The alternative side to the LFC ownership mess”

  1. whether you like or hate Hicks is mute, the whole should resolve around the football. Chariman should not be in the news and should not use the papers to diseminate their stories, if they have a story to tell go on record and that story should be how proud they are of their team.

    we need to get back to the integrity of the team, most fo the senior players have admitted the board room back biting is affecting their game. fix it now either way, but fix it

  2. Jim, did you actually read Moores article/interview in the Echo?

    Exert:

    As far as Moores is concerned, one of the most upsetting things of all is the way the success Liverpool enjoyed on the pitch in beating Arsenal to make it through to the semi-finals of the Champions League has been almost forgotten amidst the off-field turmoil which has erupted since Hicks called on Parry to resign.

    “The most heartbreaking thing about all of this is that we were on such a high after the Arsenal game on Tuesday night and then this comes along and completely takes over the great things the players and the manager did,” he said.

    So,

    even if your change of heart since the so-called DIC idea of putting a fan on the board,

    even if you set aside the position on the debt (not sure you tackled that both Moores and Parry had to resist Hicks and Gillett putting the whole debt on the club – that wasn’t in the offer agreement was it?),

    and

    even if you set aside the funds they promised for signings (all or largely funded through Rafa’s buying and selling and Champions League et al positions)

    when you get to the present day, Hicks is still letting the club, manager, team and fans down.

    No-one is kidding themselves that DIC is not a business machine but with all the mess that Hicks and Gillett have created, the distrust, the venom, the roused passion against them, we all need a clean break.

    PS Your analogy about Everton fans and the Gerrard gossip etc doesn’t work either.

    They like us are football fans and they know a con when they see it. As far as they see it, we’re getting cained because we as a club were too greedy for success.

    A better comparison would be Manchester United Fans. Then at least you could start an argument along the lines of (perhaps) justifying why a businessman could load debt onto the club.

  3. I agree with you. It does seem to be DIC trying to damage Tom Hicks reaputation and start a revolution, the reason for this may be to not give Tom Hicks the time to recover some ground and to regain control of the club, they may be putting him under pressure to get him to force his hand. The thing is though you seem to be missing the point that Tom Hicks has not done himself any favours. Tom Hicks has had since before christmas to purchase George Gillette’s shares, now the credit crunch is bitting harder than it was a few months ago. So if Tom hicks can afford to buy George Gillette out why hasn’t he done so already? The main thing that seems to be dammaging LFC at the moment is the power struggle between the two owners, this war is being lashed out in the newspapers. If Dic bought out George Gillette there would still be a power struggle between the two owners which would still no doubt be fought in the public gaze. Whether we would be better of with one owner depends most probably on who is more of a fan and who wants to line their own pockets more, which no doubt whoevere owns the club would want to do. The best thing in the short term for the club would be would be to get the power struggle between the two owners resolved. Tom Hicks has took a battering and has been made to look like a bit of an idiot, so it remains to be seen whether he can repair the dammage to his reputation or he will spend the rest of his time at LFC looking like a fool, but then maybe thats a small price to pay for the money he will no doubt rake in.

  4. Thanks for that article Jim,
    Ive been waiting, for oh so long, for a report of this type.

  5. Jim, Thanks for the detail you’ve laid out and your reasoning for why you’ve choosen not to shout along with the “anti-Hicks” voices. You know more that you can say here, and to a great extent that has coloured your comments in the past month or so, where (in my opinion) you’ve overcompensated in the opposite direction: as you can’t tell us what has been said to you off the record, your comments have swung what seems like far in another direction to make up for it, and it has come across as deeply skewed in favour of Hicks. While this no doubt was not your intention, that is how it reads. You plead to us to consider all sides of this mess, but when you can’t/won’t come out and say why we should doubt any given party in this, you’ve been advocating seeing the downsides of falling in line with those factions against Hicks. Your intentions are honorable, but your methods have been confusing.

    I’m going to go out on the presumptuous limb here and say we all agree that no faction involved in the struggle for ownership is doing so other than for business reasons. There’s no hero on a white charger who is willing to pour millions into buying the club simply for the privilege of sitting at the head of the table, without regard to making profit along the way. That being said, I (again presumptuously) think that we all agree it’s also an issue of who “deserves” to own the club: the world is full of rich businessmen/women who love football, but who has the credentials, the integrity, the beliefs in the ideals of Liverpool to represent our interests.

    For me, that’s why I will never support Hicks, regardless of how this current powerplay unfolds. If I take your list of the reasons public opinion has turned so radically against him and I temporarily erase the Rafa-as-manager debacle, the questions of who leaked what during negotiations with DIC and even the blurred distinctions between 2007 interest payments and 2008 interest payments, there remain signficant factors and, frankly, embarrassments that undermine any confidence in him as an owner whom the club could benefit from (rather than the other way around).

    Have Parry, Moores, Gillett and DIC been just as collectively disingenuous? Of course. Notice we never hear a peep anymore about the document leaked (do business schools give a course in this?) last year about DIC’s plan to own the club for only seven years, this being the ostensible reason that Moores/Parry pulled out and sold to G&H instead. It is wishful thinking (albeit of the very best kind) to hope that we’ll ever know the full truth of why Moores sold to who he did (and without proper investigation!). Maybe the most constructive approach now is to go forward, acknowledge that what’s done is done, and concentrate our energies into figuring out how we can effect changes to this that supporters can abide by.

    If DIC – most likely the ones to be holding the prize at the finish line – are manipulating public opinion to improve their chances of victory, then let’s ensure they deserve that victory by scruntizing their every move. In the meantime though, there’s a hopelessly dysfunctional partnership that needs to be ousted from the boardroom. What’s the point of having a successful team on the pitch if those successes are repeated smeared by petty corporate powerplays.

  6. So let us examine your own record(Hicks)

    Commercial

    So far have caused both a loss of revenue and an increase in costs expected to be borne by the club, with the potential for further lost revenue from your latest action:

    – Lost Revenue: the delay of over a year in starting construction of the new stadium has lost the club (at a conservative estimate) £25m of revenue.

    – Increased Cost: the fact that you expect Liverpool Football Club to fund the £245m of loans to Kop Holdings supporting the purchase price is costing the club (say) £15m pa.

    – Potential Lost Revenue: if your latest attempt at management, a month before the end of the season, with this year’s Champions League there to be won and next year’s qualification still to be secured, distracts from matters on the pitch, then the club could lose a further £5m this year and (say) £15m next year.

    In summary, despite you appointing a Commercial Director some time ago to look after commercial matters for Mr Parry (and I presume that is also the person you would seek to put into Mr Parry’s job if he chose to resign), you have cost the club £40m so far, with substantial further amounts still to come. I would be delighted to hear from any fans who have noticed any material improvement in commercial activity since your arrival and appointment of a Commercial Director, as I am a heavy “consumer” of all things Liverpool and have yet to see any change. Of course, I have yet to see the ticket prices for next season!

    I also understand that your venture capital firm (Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst) invested in Corinthians in Brazil in the late 1990s, and has since made a less-than-glorious exit.

    Relationship with the manager

    I doubt very much that your actions, all played out in the media, are helping provide the stability and general environment that players want to come into, so it is no great surprise if signings slip through the net. And let us not forget that you are the person who wanted to replace a manager who has now taken us to 3 Champions League semi-finals in 4 years with one who has never managed a club side!

    General (Alleged) Behaviour

    Quite apart from all that, there are rumours circulating on Merseyside that suggest one of your son’s party was so drunk they had to be carried out of the boardroom after one game! I do not know whether or not there is any truth in the rumour, but this is not something we need at Liverpool Football Club.

    Summary / Conclusion

    So when I step back and look at the big picture, it seems to me that the person who should be resigning is you.

    I ask you to find the quickest route out so that Liverpool Football Club can focus on the many things needed in order for the club to move forward.

    I would also ask:

    – Media: to spread the word across the globe, to make sure that no other clubs / “sporting franchises” suffer the same fate;

    – Banks: to be aware of the risks of lending to any part of the Hicks Holdings group;

    – Investors: to think carefully about how credible the business plans of Hicks Holdings are, in the light of your track record to date; and

    – Liverpool fans: to express their opinions to you, and to anyone involved with the media, banks and investors, in a way that does not distract attention away from activity on the pitch at this critical time of the season. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone, and will not tolerate, death threats, acts of physical violence, or any other form of illegal action.

  7. Thought provoking stuff Jim and thanks for trying to explain yourself.

    You make a good argument and one which we should adopt in that we really do need to stay open minded about whoever or whatever comes next, and i understand that.

    However to your repeated question of what has changed, well…

    Hicks and Gillett said they wouldn’t be purchasing the club Glazer style, they did.

    They tried to sack Rafa and line up a replacement.

    And they have dragged the club through the dirt because of this and other things that have materialised.

    If 12 months ago someone had explained that these things would happen obviously no-one would be in concurrence.

    It worries me that DIC might not be the saviours we think they are, not because you ask it – I have thought this myself amny times and is the reason I have not react furiously to some of your comments when others have, but because if this mess has taught us anything, it is not to take things on face value, and in a sentence I think I have summed up what you are attempting to convey.

    The hope that I have with DIC Vs G&H, apart from just having a fresh start is two things:

    Firstly, that even if they borrow money for the stadium, surely if they purchase the £350 million with no interest that effectively halve’s our payments and roughly doubles the amount of free capital to spend on other areas if they so desire like new players, and

    Secondly, that maybe, just maybe, because they, or at least the Sheikh and Al Ansari are allegedly fans, they might actually take money from their own pockets abramovich style and sign several new Torres’s.

    Their procrastination in the original deal and an apparent refusal to just increase their new offer to G&H to take control now seems to make the likelihood of the 2nd point less likely if not completely out of the question. But it may be, as it has been portrayed, that they havent paid over the odds out of principle, and that that might not be a reflection on the money they will spend in the aforementioned regard.

    The 1st point for me though is still a bigee. And the fact that they do have massive pockets does provide a sense of reassurance, as does the fact that we know their CEO is a Liverpool fan. Surely he will want what’s best for us on the pitch as much, or close, as the need of the investment vehicle to make money on their investment off the pitch? or maybe not. I don’t know.

    I still feel that despite DIC using underhand tactics with the media, which i understand is double standards if we say that is ok but condemn Hicks for doing the same thing, DIC are the better option.

    We were promised that no debt would be placed on the club, that the stadium and the club would be purchased with a debit card – maybe that was incredibly gulible, but it was what we were promised. Add sacking Rafa into the equation and well.. It is very easy to get caught up in the million and 1 things that have since transpired, but forgetting the credentials and motives of any new owner for one minute, the current ones have got to go on principle and principle alone. period.

  8. Try as hard as you like your endeavours to destabalise the ant- Hicks campaign won’t work. DIC surely can’t be worse than him. For a start we will have no debts. Hicks has to go pure and simple.

  9. I don’t like to over-complicate things. So I look for someone who demonstrably has the best interests of Liverpool Football Club at heart and also has the ability (based on a track record of success) to put plans into action.

    Currently, based on all the evidence, that guy is Rafa.

    It’s not Moores, Parry, Hicks, Gillett or DIC.

    If Rafa isn’t getting on 100% with Parry then there is a problem.

    No doubt he’ll be asked about Parry tomorrow after the game. He’ll probably prefer not to comment and that’s his right, but if he was to come out in full support of Parry then I think we all know where we stand.

  10. 1. “The admission angered George Gillett and that anger never went away. Gillett felt it would blow over if nothing was said”,

    Jim this is unfounded speculation, Gillett could just have easily been upset that a business partner was willing to lie so barefacedly

    2. “Gillett was also said to be angry at Hicks’ decision to release details of the refinancing.”

    Gillett was said to be angry that hicks was presenting the package as a triumph when in fact it was a close run thing

    3. “Hicks must go, Gillett was bullied, Parry is trying to help’ is jumped upon by the angry mob.”

    Grouping these three together is taking journalistic too far, those phrases have been said but by different people not by any means by a majority.

    4. “Get 100 Everton supporters in a room and ask them what they know about Steven Gerrard’s personal life. You know what they’ll say ”

    This claim is spurious to say the least and the example poor, not content with castigating the mass of LFC supporters as an “angry mob” we now find that there are no Everton supporters capable of discriminating between mindless bigotry and fact

    5. “I was angry that just at the beginning ………………… DIC wanted the club run by committee. ”

    This is where you hang your conversion Jim, the supporter on the committee? It could be offered that DIC had gone a long way towards Hicks in offering to accept a minority share. No one has seen the minutes of the meeting so it is all hearsay. You have simply chosen to accept DIC’s culpability as gospel.

    6. “The talks had supposedly broken down after the Hicks people were unwilling to consider placing a supporter representative on the board, with voting rights.”

    This is new to me Jim I have not yet researched articles from the time but i have no recollection of voting rights being mentioned.

    7. “What that did was open my eyes.
    That’s all. I just stopped. ”

    So that’s it ,the fan on the board issue counters all of the direct quotes and lies listed by bassam the other day?

    8. “DIC had basically used a reporter …………………………………as he had the reins. ”

    So the reporter acknowledged his/her source? I don’t recall that and the statement said anything about Hicks’ plans evil or otherwise is this just embellishment.

    9. “We had been lied to, by the people we thought we could trust. Our emotions had been played with. ”

    Where is the proof of lies? DIC/Staveley have said next to nothing about the meeting or their pre conditions upon buying a majority

    10. “I’d also been in contact with various people. ………… something didn’t feel right about various chunks of it.”

    Jim you used a film analogy, well this is akin to Monty Python it is all nudge nudge, wink wink a nods as good as a wink etc.

    11. “But I’m not sure that feeling sorry for him is the right thing to do. He’s been at the club for ten years……………………………………………….. It’s a tough question! ”

    An easier question is does any of this justify his being put in the position he was this week by an owner without control of the club? It could have waited, especially this week!

    12. “But all that had really changed i……………..Some cash had been put in now too. ”

    Yes but almost over their dead bodies. So now we are to count as a boon something the banks forced them to do

    13. “I’m not downplaying the worries about debt being secured on the club, ”

    But that is precisely what you go on to do

    14. “I heard one theory………………….. why use it to make the case.”

    No favours were done to the club in achieving a lower interest rate. This interest should not be payable by the club at all! It should be payable by the borrowers G&H and only contributed to by way of dividends if our financial results after squad purchases warrant such a payment.

    15. “I’ve heard claims that the most ………………………………………………..as we are now. ”

    But a year ago we owed £80 million well covered by assets albeit mostly players Now we have debts of £105m directly charged on our assets and a further£245m for which the Hicks camp say we will be expected in the first instance to service and covered by the dubious security of our owners well leveraged US assets.

    16. “The stadium costs are still a worry, or are they? ………………………………the stadium would be paid for by the end of the thirty years.”

    This all a red herring as under any regime the stadium will eventually be self-financing. The crucial point is that our owners be able to satisfy the lenders that they have the finance to cover a first phase which has in fact already been secured.

    17. “DIC are planning to borrow to pay for the stadium too, so criticism of the plans for the stadium financing apply equally to DIC,”

    As I said above a red herring except that it could be that DIC will borrow from an associated company at better rates than those obtainable from the open market. Speculative I know but should be mentioned.

    “Then you remember this £350m debt. …………………….. but if so then it would suggest good times on the pitch and off it. ”

    18. This is smoke and mirrors from Hicks and where is the evidence he can interest additional investors on any terms at all never mind “not using borrowed money”

    19. “And of course, there would remain that worry that the investors in question would not allow the board…………………………….portion of our income has to go on transfers.”

    Is it really being suggested that we have little to worry about here? Does anyone honestly believe any owners would lock in place a preordained transfer spending commitment – Leeds here we come!

    20. “The stadium costs have gone up because it’s a far superior stadium; I doubt many would want to go back to the “Parry Bowl” idea. ”

    To the extent that any steel is used the costs have gone up 7% in the last 8 months!

    21. “Securing it on the club means that the owners …………………………….worry about the security. ”

    So we could make the interests payments in this rosy scenario but when do we ever repay any principle and just like ManU when profits are only sufficient to pay the interest the player purchases come vis more debt and more interest Catch 22 (Leeds) again.

    23. “DIC’s hints at knowing he can’t are either based on fact, or are tactics that are a part of their strategy to unsettle Hicks and those thinking of joining with him. ”

    Be fair Jim this has come from respected journalistic sources in the city and owes little to DIC hints. DIC are practising what Hicks preaches as he is always first to the hacks. give David Moores and Rick Parry some credit they have kept quiet for almost a year.

    24. “If DIC’s leaked claims that Hicks is on the ropes are true then the battle will soon be over anyway, so it’s a case of waiting until he accepts it and they can come in. The fact they aren’t sitting quietly in wait suggests that he isn’t on the ropes.”

    I didn’t read any of that in Ansari’s clear statement the other day they simply said they were out until the warring factions in the club sort themselves out no hints involved.

    25. “Again that’s fine – but surely it’s also acceptable for all the different sides in the battle to act this way? ”

    Have DIC or Gillett called for anyones resignation via the media. Have they lied via public statement? Have they told the manager to stop pouting and leave players purchasing/sales to a man thney were planning to get rid of?

    26. “We can all guess where this talk originates, and it seems to be against what Gillett said in the recent interview. Hicks had merely “threatened” to invoke a veto, said Gillett. ”

    More innuendo. I can’t guess where that talk originates apart from it being debated by all the forum attorneys for the last 3 months. Certainly apart from here I have seen no other suggestion that DIC or Parry have ever referred to it.

    27. “DIC would not, despite claims we’ve often heard, find it easy to force Hicks out once inside the company any more than Gillett could. ”

    The claims I have read on this come from corporate lawyers and those experienced in corporate governance what is the counter evidence given the boardroom voting situation?

    28. “Out of interest, what right did George Gillett have to (according to reports) rebuke Ian Ayre for spending time in London with Tom Hicks as he went to try and get his finance deal done? Hasn’t George Gillett been using Rick Parry to do exactly the same thing with DIC? One of the owners used an executive of the club in discussions with investors aimed at ending the current mess of an ownership situation. So did the other.”

    Jim this is a serious accusation against Rick Parry I hope you have decent professional indemnity cover? lol

    29. “DIC were going to pay £201m I believe for the club, including debt, just over a year ago. Now it’s reported at anything from £400m to £500m. Why? What did they miss? They’re not a charity”. So why pay double now? ”

    What point is being made here? DIC want to own the club so did Gillett and Hicks. I’ve seen it argued elsewhere that G&H paid over the odds for the club in the first place. They all see an investment opportunity the difference being imo that hicks only sees the business opportunity as evidenced by his insensitivity this week. DIC see, in addition, the spin-off in terms of their global brand image with a successful and profitable football team.

    30. “And I’m not asking for a list of reasons why Tom Hicks is so bad. ………………………..It seems this idea has been scuppered. ”

    We can’t help you on what has changed Jim all we can reiterate is what has not changed and that is the unacceptably high risk to the club that comes with Hicks and Gillett’s “custodianship”

    31. “So, we now know Parry stands to lose his job if Hicks takes over. But would he have lost his job under DIC first time round? Is he assured of a job second time round? Is there a bonus in this for him one way or other?”

    Innuendo again. Parry’s performance should be considered via a standard performance review as should Rafa et al. The review should be carried out by our owners in concert not by unilateral action by one of them behind then others back.

    32. “But Rick Parry agrees he’s bad for the club too, so much so that he’s spending a lot of his working week on various trips to London to speak to DIC. And he’s doing this with George Gillett’s blessing, on George Gillett’s behalf almost.”

    If Rick Parry is guilty of such corporate misdeeds no doubt his employers will substantiate it and deal with it.

    33. “And also, I’d want to know what Gillett’s true motives are now. Why did he spring out of his early retirement plan as far English soccer was concerned? ”

    Could be he has found a spark of decency or he is appalled as the rest of us at his partners idea of corporate behaviour.

    34. “If Hicks wins, do we not deserve the right ourselves to have feelings towards the owner based on as much truth as possible? Let’s hate him for the right reasons, let’s crack down on his real faults, let’s try and make the best of it.”

    I get the first bit Jim I hate his involvement in our club for what I think are the right reasons. I don’t hate any individual human. The last bit leave me bemused if he wins and I hate his involvement for the right reasons why do I have to sit back and take let alone make the best of it?

  11. 1. “The admission angered George Gillett and that anger never went away. Gillett felt it would blow over if nothing was said”,

    Jim this is unfounded speculation, Gillett could just have easily been upset that a business partner was willing to lie so barefacedly

    2. “Gillett was also said to be angry at Hicks’ decision to release details of the refinancing.”

    Gillett was said to be angry that hicks was presenting the package as a triumph when in fact it was a close run thing

    3. “Hicks must go, Gillett was bullied, Parry is trying to help’ is jumped upon by the angry mob.”

    Grouping these three together is taking journalistic too far, those phrases have been said but by different people not by any means by a majority.

    4. “Get 100 Everton supporters in a room and ask them what they know about Steven Gerrard’s personal life. You know what they’ll say ”

    This claim is spurious to say the least and the example poor, not content with castigating the mass of LFC supporters as an “angry mob” we now find that there are no Everton supporters capable of discriminating between mindless bigotry and fact

    5. “I was angry that just at the beginning ………………… DIC wanted the club run by committee. ”

    This is where you hang your conversion Jim, the supporter on the committee? It could be offered that DIC had gone a long way towards Hicks in offering to accept a minority share. No one has seen the minutes of the meeting so it is all hearsay. You have simply chosen to accept DIC’s culpability as gospel.

    6. “The talks had supposedly broken down after the Hicks people were unwilling to consider placing a supporter representative on the board, with voting rights.”

    This is new to me Jim I have not yet researched articles from the time but i have no recollection of voting rights being mentioned.

    7. “What that did was open my eyes.
    That’s all. I just stopped. ”

    So that’s it ,the fan on the board issue counters all of the direct quotes and lies listed by bassam the other day?

    8. “DIC had basically used a reporter …………………………………as he had the reins. ”

    So the reporter acknowledged his/her source? I don’t recall that and the statement said anything about Hicks’ plans evil or otherwise is this just embellishment.

    9. “We had been lied to, by the people we thought we could trust. Our emotions had been played with. ”

    Where is the proof of lies? DIC/Staveley have said next to nothing about the meeting or their pre conditions upon buying a majority

    10. “I’d also been in contact with various people. ………… something didn’t feel right about various chunks of it.”

    Jim you used a film analogy, well this is akin to Monty Python it is all nudge nudge, wink wink a nods as good as a wink etc.

    11. “But I’m not sure that feeling sorry for him is the right thing to do. He’s been at the club for ten years……………………………………………….. It’s a tough question! ”

    An easier question is does any of this justify his being put in the position he was this week by an owner without control of the club? It could have waited, especially this week!

    12. “But all that had really changed i……………..Some cash had been put in now too. ”

    Yes but almost over their dead bodies. So now we are to count as a boon something the banks forced them to do

    13. “I’m not downplaying the worries about debt being secured on the club, ”

    But that is precisely what you go on to do

    14. “I heard one theory………………….. why use it to make the case.”

    No favours were done to the club in achieving a lower interest rate. This interest should not be payable by the club at all! It should be payable by the borrowers G&H and only contributed to by way of dividends if our financial results after squad purchases warrant such a payment.

    15. “I’ve heard claims that the most ………………………………………………..as we are now. ”

    But a year ago we owed £80 million well covered by assets albeit mostly players Now we have debts of £105m directly charged on our assets and a further£245m for which the Hicks camp say we will be expected in the first instance to service and covered by the dubious security of our owners well leveraged US assets.

    16. “The stadium costs are still a worry, or are they? ………………………………the stadium would be paid for by the end of the thirty years.”

    This all a red herring as under any regime the stadium will eventually be self-financing. The crucial point is that our owners be able to satisfy the lenders that they have the finance to cover a first phase which has in fact already been secured.

    17. “DIC are planning to borrow to pay for the stadium too, so criticism of the plans for the stadium financing apply equally to DIC,”

    As I said above a red herring except that it could be that DIC will borrow from an associated company at better rates than those obtainable from the open market. Speculative I know but should be mentioned.

    “Then you remember this £350m debt. …………………….. but if so then it would suggest good times on the pitch and off it. ”

    18. This is smoke and mirrors from Hicks and where is the evidence he can interest additional investors on any terms at all never mind “not using borrowed money”

    19. “And of course, there would remain that worry that the investors in question would not allow the board…………………………….portion of our income has to go on transfers.”

    Is it really being suggested that we have little to worry about here? Does anyone honestly believe any owners would lock in place a preordained transfer spending commitment – Leeds here we come!

    20. “The stadium costs have gone up because it’s a far superior stadium; I doubt many would want to go back to the “Parry Bowl” idea. ”

    To the extent that any steel is used the costs have gone up 7% in the last 8 months!

    21. “Securing it on the club means that the owners …………………………….worry about the security. ”

    So we could make the interests payments in this rosy scenario but when do we ever repay any principle and just like ManU when profits are only sufficient to pay the interest the player purchases come vis more debt and more interest Catch 22 (Leeds) again.

    23. “DIC’s hints at knowing he can’t are either based on fact, or are tactics that are a part of their strategy to unsettle Hicks and those thinking of joining with him. ”

    Be fair Jim this has come from respected journalistic sources in the city and owes little to DIC hints. DIC are practising what Hicks preaches as he is always first to the hacks. give David Moores and Rick Parry some credit they have kept quiet for almost a year.

    24. “If DIC’s leaked claims that Hicks is on the ropes are true then the battle will soon be over anyway, so it’s a case of waiting until he accepts it and they can come in. The fact they aren’t sitting quietly in wait suggests that he isn’t on the ropes.”

    I didn’t read any of that in Ansari’s clear statement the other day they simply said they were out until the warring factions in the club sort themselves out no hints involved.

    25. “Again that’s fine – but surely it’s also acceptable for all the different sides in the battle to act this way? ”

    Have DIC or Gillett called for anyones resignation via the media. Have they lied via public statement? Have they told the manager to stop pouting and leave players purchasing/sales to a man thney were planning to get rid of?

    26. “We can all guess where this talk originates, and it seems to be against what Gillett said in the recent interview. Hicks had merely “threatened” to invoke a veto, said Gillett. ”

    More innuendo. I can’t guess where that talk originates apart from it being debated by all the forum attorneys for the last 3 months. Certainly apart from here I have seen no other suggestion that DIC or Parry have ever referred to it.

    27. “DIC would not, despite claims we’ve often heard, find it easy to force Hicks out once inside the company any more than Gillett could. ”

    The claims I have read on this come from corporate lawyers and those experienced in corporate governance what is the counter evidence given the boardroom voting situation?

    28. “Out of interest, what right did George Gillett have to (according to reports) rebuke Ian Ayre for spending time in London with Tom Hicks as he went to try and get his finance deal done? Hasn’t George Gillett been using Rick Parry to do exactly the same thing with DIC? One of the owners used an executive of the club in discussions with investors aimed at ending the current mess of an ownership situation. So did the other.”

    Jim this is a serious accusation against Rick Parry I hope you have decent professional indemnity cover? lol

    29. “DIC were going to pay £201m I believe for the club, including debt, just over a year ago. Now it’s reported at anything from £400m to £500m. Why? What did they miss? They’re not a charity”. So why pay double now? ”

    What point is being made here? DIC want to own the club so did Gillett and Hicks. I’ve seen it argued elsewhere that G&H paid over the odds for the club in the first place. They all see an investment opportunity the difference being imo that hicks only sees the business opportunity as evidenced by his insensitivity this week. DIC see, in addition, the spin-off in terms of their global brand image with a successful and profitable football team.

    30. “And I’m not asking for a list of reasons why Tom Hicks is so bad. ………………………..It seems this idea has been scuppered. ”

    We can’t help you on what has changed Jim all we can reiterate is what has not changed and that is the unacceptably high risk to the club that comes with Hicks and Gillett’s “custodianship”

    31. “So, we now know Parry stands to lose his job if Hicks takes over. But would he have lost his job under DIC first time round? Is he assured of a job second time round? Is there a bonus in this for him one way or other?”

    Innuendo again. Parry’s performance should be considered via a standard performance review as should Rafa et al. The review should be carried out by our owners in concert not by unilateral action by one of them behind then others back.

    32. “But Rick Parry agrees he’s bad for the club too, so much so that he’s spending a lot of his working week on various trips to London to speak to DIC. And he’s doing this with George Gillett’s blessing, on George Gillett’s behalf almost.”

    If Rick Parry is guilty of such corporate misdeeds no doubt his employers will substantiate it and deal with it.

    33. “And also, I’d want to know what Gillett’s true motives are now. Why did he spring out of his early retirement plan as far English soccer was concerned? ”

    Could be he has found a spark of decency or he is appalled as the rest of us at his partners idea of corporate behaviour.

    34. “If Hicks wins, do we not deserve the right ourselves to have feelings towards the owner based on as much truth as possible? Let’s hate him for the right reasons, let’s crack down on his real faults, let’s try and make the best of it.”

    I get the first bit Jim I hate his involvement in our club for what I think are the right reasons. I don’t hate any individual human. The last bit leaves me bemused if he wins and I hate his involvement for the right reasons why do I have to sit back and take let alone make the best of it?

  12. I have always enjoyed reading your articles, Jim.

    But I have to say that I disagree with you on just about every point in the above article.

    I won’t waste many words in my response…..suffice to say that Hicks is the biggest most despicable asshole ever to have got in the board-room door at Anfield. He is a massive cancer within our great club. He is a very very dangerous individual. I won’t sleep easy until he has been bought out.

    He seems quite prepared to take the club into ever dangerous financial areas, just so that he might have more opportunity of greater personal financial returns. He has no class. Greed and mistruth seems to be at the core of his being. A big fat uncouth ugly arrogant loud-mouthed Texan turd. He stands for absolutely everything we are against.

  13. Jim,

    It all makes sense now, I think you must be one of the ‘fans group’ who has been receiving texts from Tom Hicks jnr, and the ‘friends in Liverpool’ who got told Parry was history by him

  14. Simple fact of the matter is Parry and Moores changed horses extremely late on when they panicked unnecessarily that DIC might sell the club in seven years. They changed horses, allowed Gillett to trump DIC’s offer (but he didn’t have the funds or borrowing power to buy at that price and had to bring in Hicks. I said on k*apTalk when it happened we would live to regret it and boy, aren’t we just ! Gillett is no more able to finance us than Moores was. So why on earth did they decide to let him buy ? Heaven only knows

  15. the talk of a fan must be rubbish. for a start we are supposed to have 2 fans on the board in moores and parry. how would they pick a fan anyway. it must be just more bull. it is clear all parties to certain degree have been using the press to try and get the fans onside. but at the end of the day all we can do is look on and see what happens, we have no say in who owns the club now or in the future. but what we need is for one person to own the club and run it how they think will give best result for them. at end of day this is now a business, and for it to be profitable we must be successful on the field. to do that funds must be available for players and for the stadium.

  16. Sorry for the double posting above please delete the first of them.

    Ok so so far we have one post on here welcoming Jim’s article and claiming he has been waiting all year for such insight. Well let’s see where that takes us. The fundament hit the fan in November of last year and since then I reckon to have been up to date with every blog/forum of note as well as all the media output on our club and this ownership business. I take the view that the expertise of the journalists involved, certainly in the “quality” rags can be taken as read, by which I mean the financial journos will know about finance and the football lads will know their sport. the same applies to the horrible hacks in the redtops to a lesser degree but some of them can write objectively.

    On the blogs and fora you get a range of “expertise” and posts range from insightful to downright nonsense. My point is that one way and another all this adds up to a considerable thinktank on LFC. If you discount our friendly neighborhood poster from Texas as having an axe to grind and similarly include Modus Operandi as simply a genuine fan with a differing opinion that makes two people subscribing to the philosophy which Jim now espouses.

    If Modus Operandi or Jim invoke the “silent majority” as being of their view then this will not wash unless we are rubbishing the principle upon which all market research or polling is based. We have as much authority to claim the support of the thousands of fans who don’t subscribe to any form of opinion gathering.

    So the premise has two possible rational bases. First, Jim has seen the light and we have all been duped into using a flawed paradigm by the lies and not a single one of us has the intellectual ability to balance all the inputs as Jim has. Or, this is all a plot by some eminence gris (which Jim hints at but cannot name) pulling the strings with a view to preventing Tom Hicks in his simple quest to take Liverpool Football Club on to greatness.

    I don’t buy either and if there was the slightest bit of evidence that we have got Hicks all wrong you would find it behind the doors of the club and as Jim knows full well resentment at this dictat by email approach has been simmering for sometime in the club. Sufficient ammunition to arm the anti-Hicks fans has been leaking for a while and not out of pique but out of real fear for the club’s future direction and the foundations of this great institution. Sorry but I am not for turning, I want both of these two out of our club. Gillett is not the main issue because he has made known his willingness to sell. he has a part to play now in persuading his partner to do likewise and I don’t care what his motives are for doing so. Similarly the pros and cons of any prospective new owners are interesting but of no immediate moment given the scrutiny they will be placed under when they do acquire the club. As the Who track goes “We wont get fooled again”.

    Jim you talk of a future with Hicks as if this could be experienced without more turmoil which despite the considerable talents of our manager would impact on our footballing prospects. As for Rafa he will be aware of Hicks’ approach to coaching at his US teams. With a majority stake Hicks will only tolerate a coach who jumps when he says jump. To that extent Rafa is unfinished business and he knows from Parrygate that Hicks does not forget.

    Do you suppose that if only people would see what you have seen peace would break out? We are too far down the line with this and it needs Hicks to follow Gillett’s lead and get an exit strategy in place so we can all move on and leave the sorry episode behind us.

  17. Nothing – Hicks/Gillette or DIC say can be totally believed. They are not supporters they are businessmen end of story. They both play the press – and we believe the press ?

    If DIC don’t back up their claims (if / when) they get the club.
    then the “We all Hate Hicks” chants could quite easily become “We all hate DIC” chants and then where would we be?

    The day the club was sold was the day things went wrong. We should have expected as much.

    Welcome to the world of most other football fans. It’s not just the foreign owners that can ruin a football club. Most football club owners are “****heads” and treat the fans like dirt.

    We have been very fortunate in the past to have a board so invisible to the public and yet still back the manager with huge amounts of money – year in year out.

    Whatever happens the Liverpool Football Club as we know it has gone , along with the “Liverpool way of doing things”.

    Only time will tell how things go for the club. All we can do is support the team and manager the best we can.

    The Champions league game at Anfield against Arsenal was yet another example of how fantastic our supporters are. You just don’t get that kind of atmosphere and support from fans anywhere else.

    At least that’s the one thing the club owners can never mess up!

  18. Thanks for the heads up midland-red. Joe Bernstein’s piece prompts a question. Can you imagine David Moores using the Daily Mail to pursue a vendetta against Roy Evans or Gerard Houllier when it was decided their time was up? Yet here we have a debate going on whether we should resign ourselves to life at our club under a tyrant who will trample any tradition orany accepted business nicety. Jim each time you argue he has been misrepresented he comes up with another load of merde for you to grapple with.

  19. Read the article Midlands!

    Texas_Dawg is definitely what the CIA refer to as a honeypot.

  20. “how much worse of did our financial position come from what was known to be the case at takeover, to the point January when the next deal was signed?And it suggests that we should have been exactly as worried a year ago about debt as we are now.

    That’s my own simplistic way of looking at things. If it’s so bad now, why didn’t Parry warn Moores et al back then?”

    Jim, Surely our financial position got worse by virtue of the fact that we were promised it wouldn’t be loaned monies or placed on the club. When they took over didn’t they (G&H, Parry, etc) basically say that the operation wouldn’t be done ‘Glazer style’? And now we have interest payments which without getting into a debate about whether or not we can afford them, shouldn’t be there in the 1st place!

    Another thing that bothers me is that you say that DIC would borrow the money for the stadium. Would it not be better for them to just pay it with their own considerable wallets rather than incur interest on any loan too? Maybe i’m missing something obvious here, i’m not an expert in this field. hmmmm…. unless they borrow the money for the stadium, get us or the club to pay it off ourselves over time, then when they sell the club as owners they will get the full value of the stadium back in cash which they won’t have actually paid any money towards. Guess i’ve answered my own question there and was going to delete this paragraph but think i’ll leave it in case anyone else has been thinking this or needs to go down the smae thought process.

    Like i said earlier it is still better for DIC to have one loan instead of the two that G&H (or is it just H now?!) will have in the future if control is retained.

    I wish i could inherit 2.5 billion pounds, pay off G&H, build a 100,000 seater monolith, spend 400 million on players, and then relinquish the club for free to Rogan Taylor’s Share Liverpool to all those who hav attended at least one game at Anfield in the last year!!! lol.

  21. In response to this latest washing of dirty knickers for all to see in the Mail on Sunday, I was about to ask (non-rhetorically and without sarcasm) if anyone could explain the rationale for Hicks’s prolonging the public flogging of Parry. Then I reread the article and realised that we’re back to election campaign tactics and language. Hicks is promoting himself by throwing Parry into the pit and saying, in effect, If you choose me, I promise to do wonderful this, fantastic that and everything will be great and perfect, but if you don’t choose me then your club will fail. Strange that he’s had over a year to make changes and things have only gotten worse, huh?

    Presumably this is meant to influence both the supporters and lending institutions he has approached. If he only realised how far his credibility has diminished, we wouldn’t have to give over ten minutes we’ll never get back just to read his blusterings.

  22. Edward – I thought Texas_Dawg was Ian Ayre!

    And I hope to God Rafa doesn’t comment one way or another tomorrow – right now his allegiance is to our club and our team, not to the sorry excuse of a board. Besides, if Rafa WERE to speak up for Parry, then that would give Hicks an excuse to call for Rafa’s head in public. Which is ten times worse than what’s happening right now.

  23. Martin, Hicks and Gillett borrow because they either don’t have or don’t want to use their own money. They make their money investing other people’s (Banks) funds. They are essentially brokers.

    DIC are in business to invest Dubai’s money. If they borrow it is to maximise tax benefits and avoid exchange rate differentials. Whatever they borrow is matched by Dubai based funding so provides a much cheaper funding option than the premium interests rates paid for LBOs.

    In any event Gillett and Hicks borrowed heavily to acquire our club, that is a fact. DIC borrowing to fund a purchase of our club is speculation usually put forward to discredit them in some way. DIC have never disclosed any financial details of their offer.

    What little we do know is that rather than levy the entire cost of all borrowings on the club as Hicks has stated he expects the club to bear, an orthodox investor such as DIC or even the Norwegian alternative will absorb the cost of any borrowing for acquisition themselves and may obtain their rewards for investment via dividends if they choose to. Again they have made no such proposals public so anything you read on this is speculation. It is by no means the norm for clubs to pay dividends.

  24. Julie, I hear Magnier and Macmanus are the next in the line of suitors? Now that will fire up the fans and probably upset ferguson!

  25. Just to add this point:

    I don’t see what the surprise is behind Parry being at the Klinnsman meeting.

    Parry felt undermined by Rafa re. concerns that he was slow in dealing with transfers.

    Hicks and Gillett felt undermined by Rafa, as he (publicly) exposed that they were not delivering on their promises.

    My enemies enemy is my friend kicked-in and the 3 antiRafa guys decided to look elsewhere.

    Now they’ve fallen out they want to use the popularity of Rafa as a pawn in the game.

    But actually it’s not they, it’s Hicks. I really must advise that advising Hicks to go down a different route.

    Hicks is really bringing shame on our great club.

    Jim, I’ve been very very disappointed by your articles of late but I would be grateful if you would use your sources, whoever they are, to talk directly to Hicks and his clan to tell them it’s time to stop with this public balling. The Club is hurting while Hicks appears to be laughing. Time to call off the attack dogs, Jim. Liverpool FC deserves far far better.

  26. I read an extremely penetrative article today from Ian Herbert which appeared in Saturday’s Independant. I would strongly recommend this article to anyone who wants to get to the bottom of the Parry/Hicks matter. It really is very good and much better than anything I have read recently in terms of clarifying matters and connecting dots.

    Jim, I’m dying to respond to your latest post but I know I simply won’t have the time to do so over the next couple of days. There are so many points I take issue with that it would take me hours to properly respond to them. Suffice to say at this stage I’ve read all your recent posts very carefully and I think many of the comments you’re stating as either fact or virtual fact are anything but and many of your arguments simply don’t stack up to any kind of close scrutiny. Obvious and highly compelling counter arguments exist to most, if not all, of your points but for some reason you don’t seem interested in giving them any airplay. I find it astonishingly hypocritical that someone who is writing in the way you have been lately would complain about others lacking objectivity………but I suppose nothing should really surprise me now.

    Bravo to Jussi, Jofrad, John Steele and others for their recent very insightful posts. John in particular for his excellent posts on this blog.

  27. Edward, read the article. It gives hope.

    Sitting here typing I’m wrestling with two things:

    1) Hicks and why he’s going public in the way he is? I can’t see how it benefits him or encourages others to want to get into bed with him

    and

    2) Jim’s clear and obvious bias towards the Hicks position. Why’s he doing it? Doesn’t make sense based on the Jim we’ve come to know. It’s a real shame and disappointment.

  28. Midlands, I’m fine with Jim because Hicks is in a really
    strong position. He owns 50% of the club and that’s a fact.

    But if the News of the World story is true I think that’s the end
    of Hicks. Nobody could stand up for him after that. Moore’s said
    today that it was embarassing! It’s getting to that stage where it’s just completely non-sensical and stupid.

  29. This is getting scarier and scarier. If you weren’t already losing sleep by now you should be. Just when there was a discernible swing towards Hicks from several interested parties other than Jim, this Bascombe exclusive appears, suggesting that even now, Hicks is sounding out Rafa’s plans with Klinsmann. Its unbelievable.

    Now if you’re firmly in the DIC camp and think that ultimately they will win through, then perhaps you will continue to sleep peacefully. But I think that what Jim and journalists such as John Wallen have been saying is that we should re-evaluate *all* the players in this power struggle before we give any of them our support.

    I have given Jim’s recent posts a lot of thought. I think he is really trying to debate two issues as one, and that’s why its so hard to see where he’s coming from, or more importantly, why. It may be more helpful to separate the two issues and debate the first one before the second:

    1) Challenge the wisdom of accepting DIC with open arms because they are allegedly just as deceitful, duplicitous, manipulative, and downright bullsh*t artists as either one of Gillett and Hicks.

    2) Then, if that point is accepted, discuss whether the case for Hicks is the most attractive of the possible outcomes. Because that clearly is another debate, even before the latest Bascombe bombshell.

    Many of us are so set in our minds that both Gillett and Hicks have to go that we may be at risk of blindly accepting DIC with open arms, simply because they can’t be any worse. This has been said before. But consider this:

    Perhaps we assume DIC are LFC’s saviours because we want them – need them – to be. But if we learn that they are *not*, does that change anything? Doesn’t that mean all the potential owners need to be re-evaluated before we give them our support?

  30. If Klinsmann really has been seeing Rafa’s transfer targets, is it possible that they reached him from Gillett rather than Hicks? Maybe I’m just in denial.

    It was Gillett who originally had the relationship with Klinnsman and given events I find it hard to accept that it would be Hicks carrying on a relationship of this kind with him now.

    Given that there are two owners of the club, never mind a 6-man board, its not that unthinkable that they all wouldn’t know about Rafa’s transfer targets. To me this is sounding like the letter to Parry, with everyone denying having seen it when they probably knew perfectly well everything that was in it.

  31. Before I go on I just want to point out that I’ve still not had time to piece together all the claims and counter-claims of the past few days, in the wake of “the letter”, so I’m going to try and put that issue to one side for now.

    I’ll try and respond to the comments left here in the past few hours…

    midlands-red ::
    “Jim, did you actually read Moores article/interview in the Echo?” No, well yes, but not properly, if that makes sense. I spent today trying to get my points across without wanting to bring the past few days’ storm into it.

    ” (not sure you tackled that both Moores and Parry had to resist Hicks and Gillett putting the whole debt on the club – that wasn’t in the offer agreement was it?)” Not sure what you mean here MR. I believe that the offer document said the club wasn’t being purchased with debt on the club. I think there was some dispute as to whether that was a statement of fact (as in it had already happened) or a statement of intent (as in it wouldn’t happen later either). I don’t know really how the mechanism of blocking the debt on the club really worked, because I have been told before now that the six-man board doesn’t work on a one-vote-each basis. There are two votes, one each for Hicks and Gillett. But the banks can impose any conditions they like, and if one of those was a unanimous agreement from all board members, irrespective of voting rights, then that would have blocked the loan.

    “…the funds they promised for signings…” This issue has me a little confused now. Did Rafa get promised a figure, £XXm, or did Rafa get promised (say) a centre-back, a winger, a striker? Did he have a list of options if it was the latter, and how many of his top choices did he get? Gillett said something along the lines of, “We agreed Rafa’s plan with him”. Later on we saw a report in the Echo saying Rafa had to lower his sights and aim for Diego Forlan. Rumblings were heard that Rafa had been left hanging waiting for the figure he had to spend. We all assumed Rafa had to rip up his original shortlist and start a new one from a lower level of quality. But GG maintains Rafa got what he asked for, without really going into details. I’m not saying one way or the other whether Rafa got what he asked for, got his plan, got what he was promised. I just want to try and find time to go back to Rafa’s own quotes through the summer again and see whether his comments were all aimed at the owners, at Parry, at all three, and if a point came where he started to say he was happy.

    when you get to the present day, Hicks is still letting the club, manager, team and fans down. I don’t want to start on “the letter” here really, but the reaction to the letter has been worse than the letter in some ways.

    No-one is kidding themselves that DIC is not a business machine but with all the mess that Hicks and Gillett have created, the distrust, the venom, the roused passion against them, we all need a clean break. Would that include sacking both Rafa and Parry as soon as DIC took over? What about Ian Ayre? Is anyone safe? Just thinking out loud.
    PS Your analogy about Everton fans and the Gerrard gossip etc doesn’t work either. They like us are football fans and they know a con when they see it. As far as they see it, we’re getting cained because we as a club were too greedy for success. A better comparison would be Manchester United Fans. Then at least you could start an argument along the lines of (perhaps) justifying why a businessman could load debt onto the club. You’ve missed my point I think MR. I chose that analogy because it was a situation we were familiar with. Everton fans will believe something said that goes against a Liverpool player because they hate Liverpool. It’s nothing to do with the ownership situation. It was nothing to do with the ownership situation when Fowler was accused of having a drugs problem. Perhaps it’s a bad example. Some people hate Hicks so much that anything said against him will be believed – regardless of where it’s come from, regardless of how feasible it might be.
    Julie (Toronto) ::
    Thanks for the comments Julie, I take on board what you’re saying.
    The point “…we all agree it’s also an issue of who “deserves” to own the club…” is very important. Do any of the candidates deserve us? It’s a good point.
    ”Notice we never hear a peep anymore about the document leaked (do business schools give a course in this?) last year about DIC’s plan to own the club for only seven years, this being the ostensible reason that Moores/Parry pulled out and sold to G&H instead. That document is mentioned a little bit now and again but I can’t remember the last time I saw it in any article. I’d heard DIC had denied it was anything to with them, but they weren’t denying it recently. It was played down though. It wasn’t something unusual in a deal like this, and from what I remember the seven-year things was an option, not a firm plan. It’s an issue that needs looking at again, although your idea to put the past behind us is worth considering too. The timing of it suggests it was leaked with the help of those who didn’t want DIC on board.
    ”If DIC – most likely the ones to be holding the prize at the finish line – are manipulating public opinion to improve their chances of victory, then let’s ensure they deserve that victory by scruntizing their every move.” I think they need as much scrutiny now as everybody says we should have subjected Gillett and Hicks to a year ago.
    Martin ::
    We do need to be open-minded. We might all come to a conclusion no different than from being close-minded. But at least we’ll know we got there for the right reasons.
    “Hicks and Gillett said they wouldn’t be purchasing the club Glazer style, they did.” That’s a good point, one of the claims I’d forgotten about, I’d like to read that actual quote again at some point.
    “They tried to sack Rafa and line up a replacement.” This seems to have stemmed from some intelligence received against Rafa by the owners. I say seems to, it’s interesting that this intelligence wasn’t given as a reason in the admission. I’d like to know more about that and if it was genuine intelligence they both still trust today, or if they’ve since realised the source might have had other reasons for speaking as it did.
    “It worries me that DIC might not be the saviours we think they are, not because you ask it – I have thought this myself amny times and is the reason I have not react furiously to some of your comments when others have, but because if this mess has taught us anything, it is not to take things on face value, and in a sentence I think I have summed up what you are attempting to convey.” You might even have been one of those voices I kept hearing back when I was falling for the spin far too easily!
    “…that even if they borrow money for the stadium, surely if they purchase the £350 million with no interest that effectively halve’s our payments and roughly doubles the amount of free capital to spend on other areas if they so desire like new players…” I think one point that’s perhaps been lost in what I’ve said lately is that although DIC might still be borrowing significantly to buy the club and build the stadium, it’s hard to imagine them having a finance plan that would be worse than the current one. What I’ve tried to say is that Hicks’ plan is hoped to be far better than the current one, and could easily be good enough to take us forward. And that DIC’s plan may be of a similar standard to that if they’ve chosen to borrow a large part of their purchase costs. But there isn’t a situation I can envisage that would leave us worried financially if DIC took over other than maybe how they chose to finance transfers and so on. We just need to be wary of assuming too much.
    “Secondly, that maybe, just maybe, because they, or at least the Sheikh and Al Ansari are allegedly fans, they might actually take money from their own pockets abramovich style and sign several new Torres’s.” I think that’s something a lot of people really think would happen. Even if only secretly, and it’s part of a dream almost. I don’t think they would. (I also have a lot of scepticism about the Sheikh being a fan.)
    ”Their procrastination in the original deal and an apparent refusal to just increase their new offer to G&H to take control now seems to make the likelihood of the 2nd point less likely if not completely out of the question. But it may be, as it has been portrayed, that they havent paid over the odds out of principle, and that that might not be a reflection on the money they will spend in the aforementioned regard.” Good points again. Although to be honest the idea they are so stubborn on points of principle is pretty worrying too. A principle might cost them £300m!
    “The 1st point for me though is still a bigee. And the fact that they do have massive pockets does provide a sense of reassurance, as does the fact that we know their CEO is a Liverpool fan. Surely he will want what’s best for us on the pitch as much, or close, as the need of the investment vehicle to make money on their investment off the pitch? or maybe not. I don’t know.” We don’t know. That’s the trouble. How DIC would handle any future ownership of our club is completely unknown. We can’t trust what their PR machine has told us. We’ve got the statements made by al-Ansari here and there that confirm he likes the club etc, but he seems unwilling to engage supporters (so far, and I’m not faulting that) so we don’t know how he intends to work. We can’t help him get in, we can’t stop him getting in, but we can make sure he is held to any post-takeover promises if he does get in.
    “I still feel that despite DIC using underhand tactics with the media, which i understand is double standards if we say that is ok but condemn Hicks for doing the same thing, DIC are the better option.” I accept that. I’m not telling anyone that DIC won’t be good for us, as I think you know, I’m just trying to get DIC off a pedestal and Hicks out of the pedal bin. Let’s put them both in front of us and see how acceptable, if at all, each one is.
    “We were promised that no debt would be placed on the club…” Which one promised that? I need to go back and check who it was, and how they worded it. But: “Add sacking Rafa into the equation and well..” If Rafa was genuinely willing to forgive Hicks, would we be willing to allow him to forgive Hicks? “…the current ones have got to go on principle and principle alone. period.” I understand that feeling. Out of interest, how would you feel if you woke up tomorrow and it was all over, Gillett had sold up and Hicks was now our new owner? Would you be willing to hear him out on his plans and maybe give him time to show them, or would you be giving up on football / protesting big style etc?
    Edward :: I don’t think Rafa has got on 100% with Parry for a long time. I really don’t think the club is big enough for the both of them, and it’s a big club!
    John Steele :: Here goes. This might take some time…
    1. “The admission angered George Gillett and that anger never went away. Gillett felt it would blow over if nothing was said”,
    Jim this is unfounded speculation, Gillett could just have easily been upset that a business partner was willing to lie so barefacedly

    It is not unfounded speculation. And I was talking about Hicks admitting they’d both spoken to Klinsmann, not him lying about it.
    2. “Gillett was also said to be angry at Hicks’ decision to release details of the refinancing.”
    Gillett was said to be angry that hicks was presenting the package as a triumph when in fact it was a close run thing
    Is that unfounded speculation too? Why was it a close-run thing, in your view or from what you know?
    3. “Hicks must go, Gillett was bullied, Parry is trying to help’ is jumped upon by the angry mob.”
    Grouping these three together is taking journalistic too far, those phrases have been said but by different people not by any means by a majority.
    I don’t agree, I think the majority are quick to criticise anything that challenges those three loose ways of describing how each of those three people is depicted.
    4. “Get 100 Everton supporters in a room and ask them what they know about Steven Gerrard’s personal life. You know what they’ll say ”
    This claim is spurious to say the least and the example poor, not content with castigating the mass of LFC supporters as an “angry mob” we now find that there are no Everton supporters capable of discriminating between mindless bigotry and fact
    Lighten up John. Seriously. We’re all angry and annoyed in one way or another but it we can’t find time for a bit of levity we’re going to be ill!
    5. “I was angry that just at the beginning ………………… DIC wanted the club run by committee. ”
    This is where you hang your conversion Jim, the supporter on the committee? It could be offered that DIC had gone a long way towards Hicks in offering to accept a minority share. No one has seen the minutes of the meeting so it is all hearsay. You have simply chosen to accept DIC’s culpability as gospel.
    Conversion? I can’t work out if you twist things deliberately or otherwise. That’s where I opened my eyes. A lightbulb lit up above my head. I was slapped in the face by a thick book of PR-sent promises from DIC. Conversion? It suggests I’ve converted. Has the thought crossed your mind once that taking sides isn’t the only option? I can go to a polling station on voting day with no idea who to vote for, because either I have strong support for policies and promises for more than one candidate, or because I’ve not decided which of the lesser of a number of evils I should go with. We don’t have a “none of the above” option here either unfortunately. It’s rare that I’ve had a strong draw to one candidate or one party really. But I’ve heard people so committed to one party that they burst a blood vessel every time anyone gets them started on the subject. I’ve seen such people goaded for fun on websites because they’ll predictably launch into a defence of their favourite party so strong that it actually puts people off. Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you meant, but it’s possible to be undecided, or to be willing to accept more than one option, or to like nothing that’s put in front of you.
    6. “The talks had supposedly broken down after the Hicks people were unwilling to consider placing a supporter representative on the board, with voting rights.”
    This is new to me Jim I have not yet researched articles from the time but i have no recollection of voting rights being mentioned.
    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/03/11/tom-hicks-rejects-idea-of-liverpool-fc-fans-on-board-100252-20605103/ It is understood that DIC wanted a supporter representative in the boardroom, with full voting rights. That is a big part – but not the only part – of why this claim opened my eyes like it did.
    7. “What that did was open my eyes.
    That’s all. I just stopped. ”
    So that’s it ,the fan on the board issue counters all of the direct quotes and lies listed by bassam the other day?
    No. The fan on the board issue proved to me, personally, that Hicks was not the only one telling lies. In fact (and I’ve not read the list of quotes but I do intend to go back and do so at some point) here’s another bit to it. Many of Hicks’ no doubt regretted statements have come from him speaking personally in answer to a question when put on the spot. I can think of at least one example where I called a Hicks’ claim untrue based purely on what seems to be misinformation spread by or on behalf of DIC. It’s not good for Hicks that he answered difficult questions when put on the spot by telling us something he knew wasn’t true (and again I need to check out that list of quotes to see whether this is a minority or majority of the time) but it’s (my view) worse that DIC seemed to have been more calculating with misinformation or lies they’ve put about. A lies a lie, but this article is here to explain why my views changed from blindly attacking Hicks and sticking up for DIC. It doesn’t mean I’m right.
    8. “DIC had basically used a reporter …………………………………as he had the reins. ”
    So the reporter acknowledged his/her source? I don’t recall that and the statement said anything about Hicks’ plans evil or otherwise is this just embellishment.
    For reasons I won’t go into on here I know exactly where that came from. By all means call me a liar if you really think I’m not being honest, but as awful as it was this claim did come from the party I said it did. I could even give you the actual name of the person, but I won’t. As for “Hicks’ evil plans” – if you’re going to sit there reading each paragraph ready to pull it apart to fit in with your obvious hatred of Hicks then you’ll miss the point of what I am saying. This claim was made for what reason? To make Hicks look good? To portray him as a hero? Or to add to what I saw now had been a steady stream of what would be called smears if this was about an MP? Read what I said. Why I stopped and realised something wasn’t right, like a cartoon character suddenly realise the edge of the cliff was 30 yards ago.
    9. “We had been lied to, by the people we thought we could trust. Our emotions had been played with. ”
    Where is the proof of lies? DIC/Staveley have said next to nothing about the meeting or their pre conditions upon buying a majority
    I knew, 100%, that I had just read a lie, and that it had been told on behalf of DIC by people paid to deal with the press on their behalf, as per their brief. I started running through other “facts” I knew had come from the same people and realised how many of them were untrue. That is what I realised, that was the point where I stopped trusting at face value what was being said from that particular direction. I think you mean pre-conditions upon buying a minority. Staveley issued a statement around the time the leaked letter to al-Ansari came out. She wanted changes to the partnership/shareholder agreement. On Monday Hicks said the talks broke down because of them wanting to run it as a committee.
    10. “I’d also been in contact with various people. ………… something didn’t feel right about various chunks of it.”
    Jim you used a film analogy, well this is akin to Monty Python it is all nudge nudge, wink wink a nods as good as a wink etc.
    If you say so John. I’m afraid if that’s your attitude then there’s absolutely no point in me trying to explain any more. Is there?
    11. “But I’m not sure that feeling sorry for him is the right thing to do. He’s been at the club for ten years……………………………………………….. It’s a tough question! ”
    An easier question is does any of this justify his being put in the position he was this week by an owner without control of the club? It could have waited, especially this week!

    Especially this week? I’m not going into the letter now, as I’ve said, because I’ll get jumped on if I try and give my view on it without explaining it carefully. But I just wondered what you meant exactly by “especially this week”? If you are saying “especially during the season” then fair enough, but what is special about this week that didn’t apply last week, or wouldn’t apply next week or the week after? I hope you aren’t using the event of next week.
    12. “But all that had really changed i……………..Some cash had been put in now too. ”
    Yes but almost over their dead bodies. So now we are to count as a boon something the banks forced them to do
    No John. Where did I say that? I was comparing the differences between the two loans. I was pointing out that little had changed. And I was asking if this years’ loan was so bad and so dangerous for the club, how the hell did the club get sold under an offer document that clearly showed a loan with a large number of similarities? And out of interest, as you keep challenging me about how I know things, how do you know the banks forced them to do this? I’m not saying they did or didn’t. I’m asking how you know.
    13. “I’m not downplaying the worries about debt being secured on the club, ”
    But that is precisely what you go on to do
    Why? Why do I downplay it? I don’t mind being contradicted or better still corrected, because I’ll admit to anyone that there are so many different aspects to this whole tale that it’s easy to either miss or misunderstand something. The debt being secured on the club means that the last resort of the banks is to take action against the club and its own assets. The last resort of the banks in the current (£245m) arrangement is to take actions against the owners’ own guarantees. And of course, that is not going to be allowed to happen. The owners would act the way the banks would had the debt been on the club. It’s very close to being as dangerous as the debt being secured on the club. My point was, we can end up in a real mess with a loan of £298m not secured on the club, and if a loan of £350m is so dangerous, why did the £298m loan and takeover go ahead?
    14. “I heard one theory………………….. why use it to make the case.”
    No favours were done to the club in achieving a lower interest rate. This interest should not be payable by the club at all! It should be payable by the borrowers G&H and only contributed to by way of dividends if our financial results after squad purchases warrant such a payment.
    Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I’m not even saying it’s actually happened anyway, it’s a theory. I agree that the interest should only be paid by the club if it can afford to do so. The banks clearly think it can otherwise they wouldn’t have given the loan. The delay was reportedly because one owner couldn’t get his guarantee together. The club’s ability to pay was already established. The owners will have to make up any shortfall on bad years and will no doubt make the most of any over-performance on good years.
    15. “I’ve heard claims that the most ………………………………………………..as we are now. ”
    But a year ago we owed £80 million well covered by assets albeit mostly players Now we have debts of £105m directly charged on our assets and a further£245m for which the Hicks camp say we will be expected in the first instance to service and covered by the dubious security of our owners well leveraged US assets.
    You say £80m, I think it was £60m, but whatever it was it wasn’t necessarily well-covered by players. Had word got out we were struggling then only our most expensive players would attract the fee we wanted, and even then that might be presumptuous. To raise £60m from player sales when our precarious financial state had leaked out would be extremely difficult without leaving us with an absolute shell of a squad. Obviously £105m debt is worse than £60m debt, but let’s not pretend that in financial difficulties our old debt wouldn’t have mattered at all. I also think – and this is another of those opening my eyes moments – that it’s wrong to say the security is dubious. When you do do this you imply RBS are incompetent! Maybe they are, but they would not lend money on security they did not feel was correctly valued.
    16. “The stadium costs are still a worry, or are they? ………………………………the stadium would be paid for by the end of the thirty years.”
    This all a red herring as under any regime the stadium will eventually be self-financing. The crucial point is that our owners be able to satisfy the lenders that they have the finance to cover a first phase which has in fact already been secured.
    So you agree with my realisation that throwing worries about the stadium costs at the owners was unfair?
    17. “DIC are planning to borrow to pay for the stadium too, so criticism of the plans for the stadium financing apply equally to DIC,”
    As I said above a red herring except that it could be that DIC will borrow from an associated company at better rates than those obtainable from the open market. Speculative I know but should be mentioned.
    I think this type of speculation is fine, as long as it’s not used to condemn one party over another. Some might also argue that DIC could get the materials at a lower price, thus giving us the possibility of cost savings too – but this is irrelevant if – IF – fixed price contracts have been signed.
    “Then you remember this £350m debt. …………………….. but if so then it would suggest good times on the pitch and off it. ”
    18. This is smoke and mirrors from Hicks and where is the evidence he can interest additional investors on any terms at all never mind “not using borrowed money”
    Maybe it is smoke and mirrors. I could be quite cynical here and ask where is the evidence he can’t interest additional investors? I’m not talking about the general feeling about applicants similar to Hicks. I’m talking about real evidence that he’s been turned down. Exclude any banks or institutions that are so disreputable that they leak the details of any confidential meetings or contact with clients like Hicks and his representatives. Time will tell if he’s got the finance or not, and that’s when we should find out how he’s got it and if we can live with it or not. Of course getting the finance is only the first obstacle, I don’t think it’s insurmountable.
    19. “And of course, there would remain that worry that the investors in question would not allow the board…………………………….portion of our income has to go on transfers.”
    Is it really being suggested that we have little to worry about here? Does anyone honestly believe any owners would lock in place a preordained transfer spending commitment – Leeds here we come!
    I don’t know. There must be some protection in place in deals of that nature. If you threw several thousands of pounds into a local coffee bar to help them get off the ground and to hopefully see good annual returns in time, how would you feel about them running the cafe without you having any control? If you found your returns were hit because they kept buying the latest coffee machines and renewed the decor far too often what rights would you have? Likewise what rights would they have if they found you kept blocking their attempts at jazzing the place up, leaving them with damaged tables, chipped cups and barely-working machines? Surely such deals – ok that example is on a small scale – have agreements in place on how decisions over profits v investment are made.
    20. “The stadium costs have gone up because it’s a far superior stadium; I doubt many would want to go back to the “Parry Bowl” idea. ”
    To the extent that any steel is used the costs have gone up 7% in the last 8 months!
    Have you got a reference for that John? Last time I saw some figures on steel they were being used to attack Gillett and Hicks to stop them blaming the cost of steel for price rises – the figures showed barely a change. I can’t actually remember where they came from, but it would be interesting to see some more up-to-date figures and over a longer period too maybe.
    21. “Securing it on the club means that the owners …………………………….worry about the security. ”
    So we could make the interests payments in this rosy scenario but when do we ever repay any principle and just like ManU when profits are only sufficient to pay the interest the player purchases come vis more debt and more interest Catch 22 (Leeds) again.

    We are what was it, £60m a year worse off in revenue compared to Man Utd? Maybe when we close that gap we start paying off the principle. Just a theory. Also in the version of investment I’ve hinted at being likely I think our debt in the form of loans would possibly be halved. The other investor(s) get their capital back on selling their part of the club later.
    23. “DIC’s hints at knowing he can’t are either based on fact, or are tactics that are a part of their strategy to unsettle Hicks and those thinking of joining with him. ”
    Be fair Jim this has come from respected journalistic sources in the city and owes little to DIC hints. DIC are practising what Hicks preaches as he is always first to the hacks. give David Moores and Rick Parry some credit they have kept quiet for almost a year.
    Who are these respected – I assume – financial journalists? Don’t forget, financial journalists are also on the contact list of DIC’s PR agency. If the journalists you mention have other sources too then fair enough, but I still take it with a pinch of salt to some extent.
    24. “If DIC’s leaked claims that Hicks is on the ropes are true then the battle will soon be over anyway, so it’s a case of waiting until he accepts it and they can come in. The fact they aren’t sitting quietly in wait suggests that he isn’t on the ropes.”
    I didn’t read any of that in Ansari’s clear statement the other day they simply said they were out until the warring factions in the club sort themselves out no hints involved.
    They weren’t sitting quietly if they issued a statement saying that the owners were going to have to sort their differences out first. Especially when more was added to clarify the statement later just in case anyone read it as they’d pulled out. Sitting quietly is saying nothing, waiting for nature to run its course.
    25. “Again that’s fine – but surely it’s also acceptable for all the different sides in the battle to act this way? ”
    Have DIC or Gillett called for anyones resignation via the media. Have they lied via public statement? Have they told the manager to stop pouting and leave players purchasing/sales to a man thney were planning to get rid of?
    Again, I don’t want to go into that letter yet, although to be honest I’ve spent however many hours it is replying to these comments as they stood when I cut and pasted them into Word earlier tonight that I could have spent on “the letter”. I think I’m going to have to cut back on spending this amount of time doing this. It’s 2.25am and I could do with being asleep, but I feel I should carry on. For now. Lies via a public statement. A little over a year ago from what I recall Rick Parry said DIC gave David Moores 12 hours to make his mind up. DIC said no ultimatum was issued. So – which one lied? Most of the claims we know – not think – have come from DIC are done without their names against them. You know this. Gillett chooses to keep quiet rather than admit a wrongdoing more often than not. If you’re happy to say that Hicks lying in person is worse than DIC lying through an employed agency then that’s your choice. But really, one person doing something wrong doesn’t forgive another for doing something wrong.

    26. “We can all guess where this talk originates, and it seems to be against what Gillett said in the recent interview. Hicks had merely “threatened” to invoke a veto, said Gillett. ”
    More innuendo. I can’t guess where that talk originates apart from it being debated by all the forum attorneys for the last 3 months. Certainly apart from here I have seen no other suggestion that DIC or Parry have ever referred to it.
    You can’t guess where it came from? Seriously you are unable to guess? Let’s think of some possible sources. 1) Complete fabrication by the reporters writing about it. 2) Tom Hicks, in some kind of double bluff. 3) George Gillett, despite it being against what he hinted at two weeks ago. 4) Rick Parry? I don’t think so actually. 5) DIC through their off-record briefings?
    I best not say where I know it’s come from.
    27. “DIC would not, despite claims we’ve often heard, find it easy to force Hicks out once inside the company any more than Gillett could. ”
    The claims I have read on this come from corporate lawyers and those experienced in corporate governance what is the counter evidence given the boardroom voting situation?

    Interesting John. So how could your corporate lawyers see Hicks forced out by DIC any more than he could be forced out by Gillett? Do you know, having seen anything with your own eyes, how the voting works at LFC? My own strongest belief on what I have learned is that the voting is literally split down the middle, half for Tom Hicks, half for George Gillett. And your corporate lawyers will no doubt have told you that every company is different, and much of what governs its functioning is uniquely defined in its own set-up documents. So the lawyers can speculate using their experience of other companies, but without having access to specific LFC documents they can’t be sure. By all means explain what you were told though, I’m just putting some meat on my own opinions here.
    28. “Out of interest, what right did George Gillett have to (according to reports) rebuke Ian Ayre for spending time in London with Tom Hicks as he went to try and get his finance deal done? Hasn’t George Gillett been using Rick Parry to do exactly the same thing with DIC? One of the owners used an executive of the club in discussions with investors aimed at ending the current mess of an ownership situation. So did the other.”
    Jim this is a serious accusation against Rick Parry I hope you have decent professional indemnity cover? Lol
    What did I accuse Rick Parry of John? I asked a question. My answer’s here:
    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/03/05/liverpool-fc-boss-george-gillett-ponders-massive-dic-pay-off-100252-20561764/
    29. “DIC were going to pay £201m I believe for the club, including debt, just over a year ago. Now it’s reported at anything from £400m to £500m. Why? What did they miss? They’re not a charity”. So why pay double now? ”
    What point is being made here? DIC want to own the club so did Gillett and Hicks. I’ve seen it argued elsewhere that G&H paid over the odds for the club in the first place. They all see an investment opportunity the difference being imo that hicks only sees the business opportunity as evidenced by his insensitivity this week. DIC see, in addition, the spin-off in terms of their global brand image with a successful and profitable football team.
    It is your opinion, of course it is, but I don’t see a satisfactory reason anywhere as to why they walked away from buying the club unchallenged at half the price it is now. And that’s based on the lower of the figures quoted that they’ll pay. I am determined not to go into the letter here but I think the reaction to it is almost laughable. With Rick Parry being fond of using lawyers to help him answer letters I would probably be best not saying why. As for DIC’s image, it’s actually an extra point for me in terms of questioning what’s going on. As a rich company, we could argue that they missed out on the chance to make £200m clear profit in 12 months. Obviously there is no other DIC waiting to spend that kind of money so maybe they’d have had nobody to profit from. But it just does not do their image much good that they lost £200m on principle. Principle being the only reason I’ve heard for them walking away. Maybe there’s a better reason but they’ve made no effort as far as I know to share it. I suppose you could argue that after a year of regret that they acted in haste they’ve decided to hell with their image and are going to get this club. Although what will this club’s image be like by the time they get it? Can they restore that? Again, they aren’t the only ones, but they have played a massive role in dragging the name of the club through the mud. A massive role.
    30. “And I’m not asking for a list of reasons why Tom Hicks is so bad. ………………………..It seems this idea has been scuppered. ”
    We can’t help you on what has changed Jim all we can reiterate is what has not changed and that is the unacceptably high risk to the club that comes with Hicks and Gillett’s “custodianship”
    So there was an unacceptably high risk to begin with? So why were they allowed in? When did Parry decide that he had to help DIC force Hicks out, if that’s indeed what he’s done? I don’t think that there is a significant difference between what we know now and what we could have known a year ago about Hicks. Parry knows the truth about how the owners actually acted with regards Rafa, and which one drove that attempt to sack him forward, and he also knows the truth about his own role in the relationship between Rafa and the board.
    31. “So, we now know Parry stands to lose his job if Hicks takes over. But would he have lost his job under DIC first time round? Is he assured of a job second time round? Is there a bonus in this for him one way or other?”
    Innuendo again. Parry’s performance should be considered via a standard performance review as should Rafa et al. The review should be carried out by our owners in concert not by unilateral action by one of them behind then others back.
    Innuendo? Or a genuine desire to find out whether there are ulterior motives behind Parry’s decision to first of all go with the “unacceptable risk” option a year ago, and his actions now? So Gillett allegedly dressing down Ian Ayre, with Parry present, but behind the back of Hicks, without his prior knowledge, is acceptable under this idea of both owners acting in tandem? Of course it’s not, Gillett’s treatment of Ayre is as acceptable as Hicks’ treatment of Parry if the criteria is that both owners have to agree on how to treat their directors. I said I wasn’t going to do the letter yet.
    32. “But Rick Parry agrees he’s bad for the club too, so much so that he’s spending a lot of his working week on various trips to London to speak to DIC. And he’s doing this with George Gillett’s blessing, on George Gillett’s behalf almost.”
    If Rick Parry is guilty of such corporate misdeeds no doubt his employers will substantiate it and deal with it.
    Can they? First of all, what could the action against Parry be if he was found to have been meeting with Staveley without the approval of the board, whether that’s the full six or both the top two? If he has been revealing confidential company information without that approval? Is it grounds to terminate his employment? Grounds to suspend him, dock his pay, give him notice? Let’s say hypothetically that Parry was so blatant that he even put expense claims in for the trips to DIC’s representatives’ offices. Or perhaps his mobile phone records showed that when it was switched on, it was used to call those offices many times a day. Tom Hicks is rightly angered. As would Gillett have been had the tables been turned. He has the evidence, can he sack (or otherwise discipline) Parry for something like gross misconduct? Or would he need board approval? This is where Hicks may have a problem. Can Parry do as he pleases now, because he knows Hicks can’t sack him? Or is Hicks on his own entitled to sack him for clear breaches of security.
    33. “And also, I’d want to know what Gillett’s true motives are now. Why did he spring out of his early retirement plan as far English soccer was concerned? ”
    Could be he has found a spark of decency or he is appalled as the rest of us at his partners idea of corporate behaviour.
    John, what prompted Gillett’s action? What happened the morning of that interview on Canadian radio that heralded his return from hibernation? From what I remember nothing had been going on in the press of note. It was the week before Hicks went to London to get his finance sorted (or otherwise). He didn’t spring out of Colorado because he was worried Hicks would get the money did he? Sorry, but decency isn’t going on the radio when all is quiet to speak to a reporter you’re friendly with to slag off your partner. Can you really defend that interview? If Hicks had done it you wouldn’t.
    34. “If Hicks wins, do we not deserve the right ourselves to have feelings towards the owner based on as much truth as possible? Let’s hate him for the right reasons, let’s crack down on his real faults, let’s try and make the best of it.”
    I get the first bit Jim I hate his involvement in our club for what I think are the right reasons. I don’t hate any individual human. The last bit leave me bemused if he wins and I hate his involvement for the right reasons why do I have to sit back and take let alone make the best of it?
    With regards the first bit people are capable of considering alternative points of view where they are available. They may not change their minds but at least they know they’ve had the opportunity to consider doing so. Except they don’t get the opportunity too often, given the way this is being reported in most places.
    So, if people are going to hate him – and that’s a strong word often overused but does apply literally with many people – is it acceptable to base this on selective facts and the lies of others? Give them the full story, if they still ‘hate’ him they ‘hate’ him for the right reasons. Their own reasons, not the reasons of others who essentially told them what to think.
    Then, is that then the end of it? If Hicks took control would everyone who ‘hated’ him just carry on hating him? We have to accept that if he gets the finance he can eventually get control of the club. And if he does, is it best to keep ‘hating’ him or best to try and talk to him? To try and persuade him to fit in with us better, to understand our needs better? To ignore the false and exaggerated claims against him and focus on concerns relating to real facts.
    Quarter to four. Time for sleep.

  32. I WOULD PREFER TO SEE EVERYBODY REMAIN SILENT AND LET THE OWNERSHIP MESS RUN ITS COURSE AND WHEN IT IS RESOLVED WE CAN JUDGE IF THE EVENTUAL OWNER IS THE RIGHT ONE OR NOT. THE ONE THING WE DO KNOW IS, THAT THE PRESENT PARTNERSHIP IS NOT THE RIGHT ONE BECAUSE THE PARTNERS HAVE FALLEN OUT. THIS MESS WILL RUN ITS COURSE NOT MATTER WHAT IS WRITTEN AND THE JOURNALISTS AND FANS WILL NOT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE IN ITS FINAL OUTCOME WHATSOEVER.
    WE HAVE SEEN THE LAST OF LFC AS A FAMILY OWNED CLUB, NOW GET USED TO IT BEING A BUSINESS WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.

    ONLY THE FANS OWNERSHIP OPTION CAN CHANGE THIS AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN BE RAISED, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE, (I WOULD LET MORE THAN ONE SHARE BE OWNED BY ONE PERSON BUT, LIMIT IT TO SAY 10, IT WILL HAVE A MUCH BETTER CHANCE).

  33. Sorry lots I’d love to reply to but I really don’t think I can do it. I’m sorry, but I’ve just spent about 5 hours writing that last lot!

    I’m also going to ignore anyone who calls me biased without at least trying to explain why. The biased ones tend to do that.

    Anyway.

    Go and read Chris Bascombe’s article again.

    Please.

    Read between the lines.

    Watch out for the use of the term “the club”.

    What does that mean to you? Not what should it mean or did it mean or whose fault it is that it doesn’t mean what it did mean.

    What does it mean?

    Let’s face it, a club can’t actually be stunned. So who does it mean? Who was stunned?

    The names of who “the club” could mean really are the six board members. In fact we can probably rule out David Moores, and the two sons.

    So, three board members left.

    I’ll let you choose.

    They obviously approached Chris Bascombe, “the club”.

    And from what I can tell Rafa has not spoken to Chris on the matter. It’s all “will want” and “will antagonise” and so on.

    If Rafa has spoken to Chris, he’s not allowed him to in any way show that he has. There’s no “source close to” or “is understood”. It therefore looks like Chris’s opinion. It doesn’t mean he’s off in his opinion though either.

    There was “a source close to Hicks” who said that “to their knowledge” there hadn’t been any contact with Klinsmann for months.

    So – who’s your take on who “the club” might be?

    First of all, does everyone agree that it’s unlikely to be anyone other than the co-chairmen and the CEO?

    And would I be safe in saying it’s not going to be Tom Hicks?

    That leaves Parry and Gillett. Would it be wrong of me to say it doesn’t really matter which one it is, that they are acting as one anyway?

    WHY THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO THE NEWS OF THE WORLD WITH MORE OF THIS NOW IF THEY WANT AN END TO THE PUBLIC BATTLES?

    Sorry for shouting.

    I hope they all have the decency to shut up on Tuesday.

    I hope none of them are planning dirty tricks to make it look the other didn’t shut up.

    If they were kids I’d bang all their heads together and send them to their rooms.

    And you know what? I’ve not even started to think about whether this might be true or not – the email to Klinsmann that is.

    That’s another rats’ nest.

    Although it would be funny if it was a fake target, or Rafa said “who?” when he was finally asked about it.

  34. Just another thought on the Bascolme story, is it possible that it has some truth to it but is being spun out of proportion. Maybe an e-mail was sent to klinsman asking his opinion on one of our summer targets? Maybe the target in question was Phillipe Lahm and maybe it was a question regarding how hard he would fight to keep the player and how he would feel about a firm offer for one of his players who has about 14 months left on his contract?

  35. I will have to stand by Jim’s side on this one, basically because non of the “figures” relating to LFC are actually pulling any good string to date to help us at least preserve a liable source for granted. Hicks might sound a villan, but out of all the 3 of them was the only one to come out with any statement to date. Where the hell was Gillett when Hicks made all his statements starting from the “Shut up and work on your team” until recently asking Parry to “resign” ?… Where the hell was Parry as well on such relative matters to come out and make at least a usefull comment that might at least pull the fans and supporters a bit to the side and help them relax a bit?… To me, both Gillett and Parry are on a par with Hicks and I do hold my own reasons of hating them, each and everyone have a reason or two at least to have this hatred towards them, and it is very much justified.

    Jim might said that he’s not singing the anti-Hicks songs now, but he didn’t say that he’s not against the Texan anymore?… there is every reason for us to hate Hicks for all his stupid antics.

    It is true when you say that some have got to reach the extremes to make their businesses work, and I very much expected the Liverpool way to go out the window once two folks came in from across an ocean, and that justifies a bit why the moran came up with the Klinsmann revelations at first. The thing is, his intentions aren’t clear on that matter, and although matters have become better “assuming” between Rafa and Hicks, this incident in particular have made sides withing Anfield with Hicks coming to one side along with Rafa who’s been very quite on the issue as well “and no one can ever blame him for actually focussing on the team instead of all this melodrama”,
    with Gillett trying to appear as the angel from up above with Parry on his side…

    It’s a long story, and it won’t just end in a matter of seconds, even if Parry resigned, in which I believe Hicks has every right to ask for his resignation considering that he’s taking sides, not helping us financially in exploiting “the markets we should have explored already” and in him not being any where vocal or helpful. His resignation might be the undoing for Gillett “who’s yet to announce that he’s actually selling for real, and not because of threats to his cell phone!!”, and the fact that Hicks will have more control might enable us to more freedom on many aspects in the club. First and foremost, having one to run the ship with the ability to finally shut up and not be able to damn any one concerning our club is just what we need really, and then, having one person “although we all have a grudge feeling for him” running the club with all decisions being only made from his office and not having to visit each and every person out there to contend with!

    I do agree with Jim, although I only read his article and his last response “sorry guys can’t read all 180+ articles at work”

    Overall, I totally believe that all of this is a smokescreen, Gillett and Parry know that they are on the losing side, and that nothing to be gained without at least a fight, which is what their trying to do. Even if Hicks is having the whole club on debts, he’s having a better stance than Gillett and Parry put together, and sadly it was all down to the diabolic approach from Parry and the naivity of Moores! Cheers

  36. Great Piece Jim

    I have 3 things that i could never figure out and in the last couple of days they have been answered

    1- Why the big turn around and sell to the Americans in the first place, especially with NO home work been done by the club into Tom Hicks…….. Since the whole investment circus started the club said they would look into who ever was interested………. Dave Moores then says yesterday ….” We did not know tom that well and took Georges word on him being a good man to come in”……. To me that is sicking after all they said the club was sold on the word of someone????????

    2- Why did Gillet want to get his hands on the club so much when he was never in a position to BUY and to be honest has not tried one bit to move the club on?????………. The answer here is simple … Profit…. If rumours are true 25 to 30 million profit for one years work is not bad. He would have got to see the running of the club and seen we where been sold way under value, In Hicks I think Gillet saw someone who might be in for the Quick buck. The problem now being Hicks can see how much he can make if he stays for the long haul.

    3- Why are D.I.C still around????? This one is a bit of a puzzle. Why did they not just up there offer last year????? 325million would have got them the club……. So why are they offering a supposed 450 to 500million now. The difference is huge no matter how much oil your pumping. I could only see the answer to this when Hicks sent the letter the Parry…. The club is and has been run a bad way for many many years. Take the sponsors on the jersey for god sake Its a beer, How many countrys are the club missing out on here?????? all over Asia you can not sell tops with Alcohol on them, An easy-er one is this. I live in Ireland and it is basically Liverpool and Man utd fans here. Anywhere you like you can get utd gear, and although its getting better Liverpool are miles behind them here. Just think this. D.I.C take over. Change sponsors, Get the marketing sorted out, Deals on the new stadium and who knows where it will all stop….. We are as big as utd it is just they are making money off there bigness and we are not, By the way they sold for 700million so now that’s why i think both Hicks and D.I.C want the club

  37. I read a lot of yr articles on here and I was under the impression you were a Liverpool supporter.

    If you want to start a fan club for tom hicks maybe you should rename the website to something more appropriate. Say http://www.iamatomhickssuck.co.uk

    I have come to the opinion that you think hicks will survive and continue to own the club and you will by being seen as one of his greatest apologists get more access to the throne than the other LFC fan sites.

    Frankly its the only reason I can find to explain how someone like you could possibly see the hicks saga in the way you have.

    The other possibility is you have been invaded by an alien who has frazzled yr logic chip.

    I believe the former to be a likely scenario.

  38. The only people we should trust with our club is with a fan based ownership that is proposed. Clubs in Spain like Barcelona have got it right. Do what I’m planning to do and that is put £5000 of my own money to the cause of a one share per fan scheme. Hicks, Gillet, DIC????? Lets raise the £500million we need to buy these cowboy, profit seeking, press loving, typical yank mother FUC*ERS out of our club and out to pasture and get our club run and moving forward in the proper way. The LIVERPOOL way. To rafa and the boys were all with you. IRWT

  39. In chaos is always opportunity …. lets take the opportunity we have on the pitch and leave those who deal in deceit and business tactics (smokes and mirrors) to there games … we know that the club is ours and anyone , group or business will ultimately answer to the fans, as without us, they have no business, no control and no future! We the fans will stay focused on our job … being the 12th man and leave the school ground silliness to the businesspeople …. maybe one day, the owners will understand real passion … real belief and ultimately understand what its like to be part of this great football club and the great city of liverpool!

  40. Jim, I am totally flabbergasted as to your thought-processes. You make no sense. I think you must have over-analysed things…..and now left is right, up is down, inside is outside, etc, etc.

    One doesn’t need to spend hours writing paragraph after paragraph, of point after point.

    It’s quite simple.

    * Hicks and Gillette totally misled us from day one.

    * They didn’t have, and probably never will have, the money to buy the club and fund the stadium (without putting the debt on the club).

    * Gillette is merely the slicker of the two. He is as sweet as mama’s apple pie. Heck, you want to desperately believe in this seemingly sweet, decent and generous guy. Hicks though is merely Gillette without the slickness or sweet marketing line in spin. Hicks is Gillette with the mask off.

    Jim, just look at David Moores interview this weekend. He knows the massive mistake he has made, in allowing Hicks into the club (on the coat tails of Gillett).

    And you yourself know that Hicks also made big promises when he bought into top Brazilian club Corinthians 8 or 9 years ago. The plans to build a brand new shiny stadium for that club also fell apart.

    Hicks is all about making money. And he’s not the brightest business man on the planet. He has no class. He’ll fight to the very last drop of our blood, so that he might have the opportunity to make another dollar.

  41. I’ve been reading this site for a while now and i’d like to throw my thoughts in. First tho, think that its great we have a fan site like this that is allowing this conversation and reporting as well as considered, thoughtful posters. Its a testiment to how much we love this club and how we all want what is best.

    I think we are going along lines of here’say and rumor again on alot of this. While we can only go on what we read and find in papers etc the main points remain clear…

    We do not want Hicks or Gillet!
    Hicks speaks before thinking and is as delicate at getting his points across as a atom bomb.
    Gillet is the weaker partner in everything but shared ownership – he is not a financial powerhouse, its took him over 10 months to finally speak and now he thinks he is big time ( anyone remeber him flashing his money in the stand at Anfield?)
    Parry is a joke as well. for the last few seasons, Liverpool Fc have been operting at a loss. Marketing wise (a dirty word, i know, but a fact of Football today) he doesn’t have a clue. the only Liverpool store outside Liverpool is in…..Chester! so much for making the most of emerging markets and the Far East. I’m afriad i don’t have the links to back this up but if you look into how much Liverpool earnt on their Champion League campaigns compaired to the other English clubs – its pretty evident.

    Many people have also forgot that when DIC where the original only bidders, they to were called into question ( quite rightly) , with people worried about their business record and the fact they admitted they would look to sell the club in the future. Its also naive to think they will become a suger daddy and use their own funds – this is not the way investment at this level works.

    If we knew what as going on at board room level all the time, we would be having fits after every match. DIC might not be the knight on a steed we want and their method of leaking things to the press and undermining contracts and ownership talks stinks and is the same as the tit for tat that is going on with Gillet and Hicks.

    What i’m saying is- yes, this cannot contine.

    We, as fans, deserve better. The club that we love deserves better. the partner ship does not work. I think Parry should go, but lets get Hicks and Gillet out first.

    My biggest fear is that, when the dust settles and we finally have 1 owner ( be it Hicks, Gillet, DIC or one that is currently unknown), will we still have a manger that is taking the club forward? Will we still have player that can produce what they did on Tuesday? Will the status of the club be tarnished to the point of us not being able to attract players of Torres quality?

    YNWA

  42. Remember … one business deal differs little from the next …. DIC, tescos, hicks, asda ….. it doesn’t matter who buys our club, they are a business and will NOT put too much of there own money in …. standard business practise, borrow what you need! …. we are no longer owned by a true fan … we are owned by business and we will be sold and bought again … time to let the fairytale go people, the business world is what you are seeing now at our club …. no matter who is in charge, it will be via business world rules. I’m also concerned that peoples opinions are based on paper talk …. come on, this club is bigger then gossip and its time we ALL stopped talking about people we don’t know or understand, we should stick with what we do know, and thats how to be the 12th man …. I’m going to stay with what im good at and not make judgement of a situation I can only trust newspaper talk …… walk on (with hope in your heart)

Comments are closed.