Rafa demands answers over Parry role

Liverpool’s 3-1 win over Blackburn was a welcome but short-lived distraction from the hapenings off the field that have made the headlines far too much in this past few days.

Events at Anfield are coming to a head with various reports coming out of ultimatums having been issued by one unhappy member of Liverpool’s staff.

We had two weeks of relative peace following the breakdown of the brief talks in Dubai between Hicks Sports Group and Dubai International Capital. Supporters speculated on what might be happening behind the scenes but in truth very little was.

Then one Thursday night George Gillett came out of his cave to announce the end of his hibernation time. He growled a lot about his relationship with Tom Hicks, and the battle was back on. He also promised he’d be at the Emirates for the Champions League quarter-final first leg.

Rick Parry followed this on the Sunday, saying that he was hoping to see some progress that week in the ownership situation.

On the Wednesday a story about the Hicks party taking 16 of the 20 tickets, and Gillett’s group taking the other four, saw a genuine chance that Rick Parry and David Moores would be unable to sit in their privileged seats at the Emirates. In the end the Hicks group gave some of their tickets back and the seats were made available. But not everyone in the total party of twenty sat down to eat together. And George Gillett didn’t appear anyway, claiming to have been snowed in back in Vail, Colorado, or Chicago, depending on which version of events was meant to be believed. His son Foster, who works out of the same office, did make the game, and rumours spread that Gillett hadn’t really got stuck back home at all.

Tom Hicks attended the Saturday league game, again at the Emirates, before heading back to the US for a big day out there that saw him criticised by some for not being in two places at once. His son Tom Jnr stayed behind. By Tuesday George Gillett had managed to beat the snow and after spending most of the day rebuking Liverpool staff on the day of his and his son’s first visit to Anfield this year he sat with Rick Parry – who had been with him in his earlier meetings – to watch the memorable second leg against Arsenal.

Wednesday was spent celebrating a memorable night, then all hell broke loose.

In short, a letter was sent to Rick Parry, requesting he resign. The news of the letter broke on Sky Sports News at 4pm, a good few hours after Parry’s secretary would have received the letter, which wasn’t only sent by snail mail. It was copied to the other board members too.

Parry claimed he knew nothing of the letter until after his family sent him a text about it at some point after 4pm. No explanation was given as to why his secretary hadn’t phoned him on his mobile – the one he got those claimed texts on – or if she had, why he’d not bothered to answer it.

Hicks was widely condemned for the letter, by Rick Parry claiming to be upset, and George Gillett claiming to have been upset and also not to have actually seen it. Mentions of not washing dirty linen in public were spat out as ever.

That was on Friday, and by the end of Friday the Echo website announced they had an exclusive interview planned for the following day with David Moores. It was the first time he’d spoken out about the problems since the first rumbling of discontent began, and it took something that upset Rick Parry to make him speak out.

On Sunday, today, we began with more details of what had been said in the letter, with Tom Hicks explaining what had happened from his point of view, along with a claim in the News of the World that Jurgen Klinsmann had warned what could only really be either Rick Parry or George Gillett about Tom Hicks sending details of a Rafa Benítez target to him by email. And it could only really be either Parry or Gillett who actually fed that story to the News of the World.

Then we had the game. And after the game Rafa had something to say on the record. He said: “Off the pitch, I am surprised at things I have read. I need some clarification about a meeting with a lot of people that I did not know about.” He was referring to the Klinsmann meeting. “I will talk with the board about this – as soon as possible, today or tomorrow. I need to resolve questions and I want some answers. I want to clarify things. I am really calm – but I want answers.”

We already knew of course that Jurgen Klinsmann was met by Tom Hicks and Rick Parry last November with a view to him becoming manager of LFC in place of the Spaniard. But Parry’s presence at the meeting had never been made public before. And that’s was Rafa said had upset him: “I need to talk to the board to clarify things. I was surprised about a meeting with another manager. What concerned me was the people who were in the meeting.”

Clearly it’s next to impossible for Rafa and Parry to remain at the same club long term, given the long list of differences between them. It’s believed that Rafa is sufficiently concerned that should his concerns not be addressed with more than just words that he may act himself.

144 thoughts on “Rafa demands answers over Parry role”

  1. Anfielder, Brilliant post as per usual. But I am afraid you are wasted on this website. Jim Boardman is no longer interested in facts or history. All he cares about is pushing the Hicks agenda down our throats. How he can’t see that he is being totally manipulated I’ll never know.

    Jim, I think you are far too caught up in the nitty gritty to see the big picture. You need to forget all the quotes and press leaks etc. Now that you’ve done that – look at the situation with untainted eyes.

    The club is in absolute turmoil. The owners have no money and have no interest in spending their own money. Lifelong Liverpool supporters in Rick Parry and David Moores are being destroyed via the press. The owners have gone behind Rafa’s back.

    The owners have not built the stadium nor will they. (Have you noticed in Hicks statements latetly that he is now concentrating on the commercial end to make money where as previously it was all about the stadium.) And the club is £350m in debt.

    And the reason is Hicks and Gillette. No excuses they are in control nobody else.

    Now we have one that wants out but the other is determine to hang on and in doing so bring down the club and everyone associated with it. They need to go. No if, no buts, this isn’t about them its about us – we are the fans and we are the club. We are the only permenant fixture and we are being treated like assets to be sweated for our hard earned wages. I for one was so proud to support a club that always put the fans first. This is no longer what Liverpool is about. And it is sickening to watch us squabble.

    We need a change and I for one support the Share Liverpool FC campaign to the hilt. These are the people who will give us an out. We need to plead to Hicks and Gillette. They will not sell to themselves, they will not sell to DIC but how can they dare not sell to us – the fans. We are the passion behind the club.

    So, Jim I would plead to you step away from Hicks as he will eventually bring you down and start promoting us ,the fans, and what we can achieve. Reclaim our club!

  2. Anfielder,
    Right with you but unfortunately nothing we say here will make any difference to the outcome. If the fans stay together and make their protests felt at Anfield and elsewhere then maybe they can influence matters. We should tackle one problem at a time and the main problem is Hicks. He is getting desperate because he is running out financial backers and he can feel the ownership slipping through his fingers. His only tactic is to divide and rule hoping he alone will pick up the pieces, this is the reason for his public outbursts. He must be delighted with publicity he is receiving good and bad.
    I have no doubt that Parry will patch things up with Rafa, if only in the short term and in the short term the fans should back the majority quartet on the board to the hilt. There will be plenty of time for bloodletting with this unbelievable mess is sorted out.

  3. Yeah,

    If you look at Moores and Parry preventing debt been
    put on the club. Regardless of what you think about them if
    they hadn’t had have done it where would we be now? (plus still no start on a stadium!)

    & now we’re supposed to casually betray these two men and
    run into the arms of Hicks?

  4. Midlands Red – I don’t know how far Chris Bascombe would go to demand proof on something he was told, that’s entirely up to him. Also I suppose it depends on how easy it is to prove. I don’t know how much proof he had on that story, but if you follow that it spoke of (I think) an email forwarded from Klinsmann to “the club” then it wouldn’t take long for “the club” to forward it to Chris. I personally wouldn’t go to Chris and say, “Have you got any proof?” It’s all about trust isn’t it?

    Jofrad – it’s a good point you make, about us being divided, because I’ve never known us to be so divided. Not sure about the point you make about why Gillett won’t sell.

    You’re saying that Gillett turning up to one home game more than Hicks is a sign of him genuinely caring for the club. So much so that he’d put that care for the club ahead of his business interests. All on the strength of him attending one home game. Do you not see how that is stretching it? It’s that kind of argument that to me actually acts against the overall argument you have. Reverse the names for a second. If Hicks had been to the Anfield game and Gillett to the two Emirates games, would you then say it proved how much Hicks cared for the club and that Gillett didn’t? Is it that easy for Hicks to prove he thinks so highly of the club? If it was, he’d have been there. And we’d have heard “ah, just a PR stunt.”

    The problem is if you actually believe what you said, if you really do believe that Gillett being at one home game was a sign he cared about the club. Being at the game (or not) proves nothing unfortunately. These are the arguments that work against those trying to get others to see their view. If you did a count of all games, home and away, attended by representatives of each family the Hicks family would win anyway I think, but it means nothing really.

    Back to the point about us being divided.

    Rewind to the olden days, even just a couple of years ago, and the height of our disagreements amongst ourselves were on issues like whether Traore was the best left-back we’d had in years or the worst. Or if one of our players deserved the red card, and if so, if he was a disgrace to the club. Nice, simple arguments where we could disagree, even quite passionately, without being accused of having ulterior motives. Further back when doubts first started being aired about Houllier, it was never anything like as bad as now.

    Now it’s all about accusations of bias and ulterior motives.

    Texas Dawg clearly supports Hicks and would never be swayed any other way. Some of his comments I expect he knew were a little over the top, probably out of a sense of fun more than anything. By over the top I mean I don’t think even Tom Hicks himself would praise himself that much. But I did notice that he’s been able to put his points over, on the whole, in a calm and rational manner in the face of intense anger from those who don’t agree with him. He could have got abusive but as far as I can remember he never did. He also tried to find “evidence” where he could to support his arguments, which is helpful when anyone doesn’t agree or isn’t sure. I think one time his “evidence” was shot down, but it wasn’t any worse a source than some of those used against Hicks and others.

    He’s not the only one who’s managed to post in that way. A lot of those who have the completely opposite view have tried just as hard. Some have even noticed how light-hearted some of the Dawg’s posts are and have responded in an equally light fashion.

    Every day I see, hear or read something that questions my beliefs in this whole mess. Sometimes it’s something a mate tells me, not something he’s heard on the grapevine or anything like that, just how he might have seen a few bits come together and suggest something different to what I’d thought. I might hear something on the grapevine. I might read something here in the comments, or elsewhere. I’m not so arrogant to assume that I’m right, or to assume that I’m right because a few friends and I might think the same. But I’m persuaded best when I’m told something fairly calmly and rationally.

    I know there are a lot of people lurking in the background reading what’s written here, probably a little worried about speaking out, but nonetheless reading and taking on board what they read. I’m sure they take more on board from the posts that are written calmly. But it’s a hard subject to be calm about.

    I’ve no intention of picking an agenda and then making everything fit with it. I’ve no intention of picking one “side” and then excluding all others. Whatever you might think the best option is, I seriously don’t think that any amount of complaining or protesting now will make a difference. Well actually that’s not true, but the amount of complaining needed would be far more disruptive to our season than anything the owners could dream of, and there’s no guarantee it would work.

    If there’s finance to be had, then it’s not going to be decided on the number of banners in the Kop, or the length of a protest after the game. That’s not to say protests are wrong, because those protests were vital. It showed our current owners and any potential new owners exactly what we felt about what we’d heard. It was a sign of real intent. But it’s not really going to be taken into account by anyone considering handing over cash or otherwise in return for a stake at Anfield.

    So yes, we need to stop arguing amongst ourselves, and get back to discussions again. There are far too many of us to ever be able to agree on everything. But if we can all take a deep breath before reacting (me included) then I think we’ll achieve much more.

    As I was writing this I noticed a load of notifications come up that comments had been posted, so I hope it’s not out of context now.

  5. This whole fiasco is like something akin to watergate!

    Hicks is a manipulative son of a b*tch, as is Gillett. As for Parry, will we ever know what his influence has been in respect of the way Rafa was treated earlier in the season? Things are coming to a head and there are enough people out there (like us) interested in finding out answers. The media are like a pack of wolves so Im pretty sure it will soon be laid bare.

    Who knows if DIC would be better than Hicks as sole owners but they cannot be any worse can they? I for one am willing to give them a chance and would welcome them.

    Would any of us be comfortable with Hicks being the main man? Anyone who hasnt done their homework before a venture is a poor businessman. Hicks did not do his homework regarding the club, the sport, the market and certainly not the way LFC fans would react to the appalling behaviour and a lack of understanding demonstrated by those in power.

    There is only one certainty right now – the team are progressing, we have some truly amazing players – the best team in years…. and the reason for that is Rafa. I am sh*t scared that he will say enough is enough and take over at Barca or Real in the summer.

    We CANNOT afford to let that happen. Above all else Rafa MUST stay and the team must continue to evolve. I would be sad to see David Moores relationship with the club end in a sour way but we simply need to lose the dead wood and retain the proven quality that we do have.

  6. Jofrad, I think you’re right to view Hicks’s latest move as a sign of desperation. After all, if Hicks was making any headway at all in his attempts to raise the money to buy out Gillett then he would simply wait until this was done and then fire Parry himself. Hicks must view this outcome as virtually impossible to have resorted to what he is now doing. This confirms the impression that financiers are giving Hicks the thumbs down pretty much across the board.

    However the apparent desperation in Hicks’s tactics doesn’t mean he won’t do enormous damage and confuse a lot of honest fans (and maybe even Rafa himself) into thinking that Parry must be the main problem and must walk the plank. This is what I mean about fighting the constant stream of disinformation that Hicks and his peopole are trying to put out. I don’t particularly rate Parry and I’m sure DIC could do better but I am no doubt that until Hicks is gone Parry’s presence on the Board is a godsend in protecting the Club and its day to day running.

  7. Anfielder, I’ll not reply in detail to your latest comment, but I resent the suggestions that my views are based on something more sinister than my piecing together of everything I get access to.

    I may well be wrong, but if I am it’s not through anything you and certain others have implied. Think about what you are implying.

    Hicks, Gillett and Parry have all got motives for lying or for for half-truths and deceit. Hicks and Gillett’s motives for lying are pretty obvious, no point repeating them. Parry’s motives – or let’s say possible motives so there’s no misunderstanding – could range from genuinely caring about the club, through defending his reputation, to seeing some kind of bonus or promise of job security. Even Rafa has motives to lie – again let’s say possible motives – such as caring about the club, caring that his kids get to stay at the same school, looking for a new contract and a bonus, defending his reputation and so on.

    But what reason have I got to write my opinions when I know that what I am writing is false? That is what annoys me. I’m not getting paid to disagree with people! I’m not on commission for every fan I’ve converted. Yet that’s what I get accused of.

    By all means disagree with my opinions and my interpretations but please, lay off the accusations and insinuations that I am in some way writing against the majority of opinion because I’m part of a plot or something.

    For the record, I’ve no idea what to think at the moment having had little time to consider the events of the past few days in any real detail. But I don’t even know if the events of the past few days make a great deal of difference or really tell us much that we didn’t know.

  8. Jim, this is not about plots or fifth columnists or whatever but about a mismatch of logic. Take that last response as an instance. Texas-dawg has never pulled any punches about himself he found the site during a speculative surf saw the anti Hicks posts thought they were excessive so posted a few of his own.

    His premise is simple – Hicks just wants to own a great sports team he’s not that concerned about the fans concerns. Gillett is a greedy, whining crybaby who will be gone soon. That “soon” by the way seems to be a tad elastic!

    Anyway, Texas-dawg doesn’t pretend to be a fan of the club or to be well up on the history or jargon of football. He’s as close as you can can get to a dis-interested observer. Yet above you laud his approach as calm and rational! What else could it be? The real concerns of lifelong fans of the club, you say, betray anger! Well there’s a surprise.

  9. Jim and others….
    You can count me among those in the background who don’t post here very often. My head is spinning right now after all the reading I have been doing. I think its important for ALL of us to realize that almost everyone on this site has a common goal. The best interests of LFC.
    I see talk here about the Hicks camp, the Gillett camp, the DIC camp. I for one, am not in any of them. DIC simply because we don’t know what they are going to do although there’s a high probability that it’ll be better than the mess we are currently in!
    There’s another camp out there called the Benitez camp. He is the only person I trust and want at Liverpool in the long term. For the first time in the past few months I am worried that Rafa might just think he has had enough and decide to leave. We would lose one of the best managers out there and also a change of managers would obviously set us back a few years.
    I appreciate the time all of you spend posting here but arguments and counter arguments in support of/against any of the owners will not get us anything. So a request for everyone involved. Please calm down!
    I hope and pray that this mess sorts out itself. I can’t even join you guys in your protests but I did cancel my e-season ticket and put off a merchandise purchase that I was planning 🙂 Thats my tiny contribution to all the good work all of you are doing.

  10. Again, great post Jim.

    You must feel like you have alot of people on your back about comments but your right, generating this type of debate is what makes this site unique

  11. Jim, you don’t deserve to be personally vilified although I’m enjoying the tooing and froing between your views and those of the majority.

    The reason why I’m concerned with your articles is that your accentuating the positives of Hicks and minimising the impact of Gillet, DIC,Parry,and others. It takes away the balance that you were renowned for. But to be fair your articles are still a compelling read.

  12. I appreciate that this may be a particularly naive way of looking at things, but aren’t the DIC vs yanks arguments the same as they always were.

    LFC either becomes a rich man’s play thing, with loads of cash, but with the dangers implicit in the changing whims of one man. OR its driven by a yank who knows nothing of football, but does know something about stadium building, and who wants to make alot of money.

    Nothing that has happened since has altered this basic scenario. Sure we’ve learnt that Hicks really doesn’t know anything about football politics, but it does appear that he really wants to keep the club, and that means he really does think he can make us more successful (make more money).

    My main concern is why Hicks hasn’t already bought out Gillett? And that Hicks’ never say die approach to owning LFC will end up with Hicks having to load more debt on the club.

    I do agree with Jofrad and anfielder, that broad room mayhem may be Hicks’ last shot at LFC.

    Great website Jim

  13. Apologies in advance as I meander my way to my final point…

    I remember so clearly watching the television coverage of the announcement last February that Gillett and Hicks were to be the new owners of Liverpool Football Club. They stood on the pitch, all smiles, with their scarves and their kit, and their press conference was full of all the right words about respect and club history. And as I saw them standing together, the thought popped into my mind: what will happen when they can’t stand the sight of one other?

    Now, I’m no fortuneteller so I can’t claim to have exclusive access to this speculation. As experienced businessmen, surely they would have considered the necessity of building into their partnership agreement some legal contingencies for dissolution of the shared ownership agreement. That is, something that would lay out in detail how to cope with the breakup, well beyond the rumoured right of refusal clause for buying each other’s shares.

    If they didn’t (which is mind boggling for alleged corporate kingpins), and the tug-of-war over the ownership of the club is genuinely at a standstill, I’ve yet to come to a satisfactory understanding of what all the lies, posturing, counter-lies, counter-posturing and plain ol’ vindictiveness is in aid of. Most Liverpool fans already view Hicks as the villain (myself included) while acknowledging that Gillett is just as duplicitous (I thought Anfielder’s point about the value of concentrating our attention on Hicks, as once he goes Gillett will follow, was spot on). So how will Hicks’s public humiliation of Parry go any distance to him securing the financial support to buy the club (this is putting aside for a moment the act of vengeance against Parry), especially when Gillett has already publicly stated that he won’t sell to him (surely Gillett would not have acknowledged it so publicly if he wanted the option to change his mind)? How will Gillett going on Canadian radio and announcing that fans’ emails to him insist that Hicks is the bad guy gain him any leverage when it’s obvious he can’t buy the club on his own? Sway of public opinion is one thing, but it counts for little when that opinion ultimately cannot determine who will make it to the podium in the ownership battle.

    Acknowledging that supporters’ opinions on the degree to which G&H are both bad guys won’t have sway over the duo’s financial capabilities to launch a claim to sole ownership, i ask again…which of them has anything to gain in terms of increasing their own viability of becoming the sole owner by indulging in these very public spats?

  14. Great post, and continued debate, Jim.

    a quote from one of your ‘replies’:
    “If his (Hicks) plans have a chance of working, will we throw a spanner in the works anyway, just to prove ourselves right?”
    probably….worringly…

    my thoughts;
    Parry must go.
    Gillett stayed quiet letting hicks take ALL of the blame.
    He either wants Hicks to sell to him at a lower price or force Hicks to sell to that ‘oh-so-godly, wonderful, pot-of-golf-at-the-end-of-a-rainbow, DIC……whereby he will take a directors role…..
    I have more time for Hicks than either Gillett or Parry.

    Oh, and RAFA MUST STAY…..

  15. Anfielder and John Steele, Brilliant posts as per usual. But I am afraid you are wasted on this website. Jim Boardman is no longer interested in facts or history. All he cares about is pushing the Hicks agenda down our throats. How he can’t see that he is being totally manipulated I’ll never know.

    Jim, I think you are far too caught up in the nitty gritty to see the big picture. You need to forget all the quotes and press leaks etc. Now that you’ve done that – look at the situation with untainted eyes.

    The club is in absolute turmoil. The owners have no money and have no interest in spending their own money. Lifelong Liverpool supporters in Rick Parry and David Moores are being destroyed via the press. The owners have gone behind Rafa’s back.

    The owners have not built the stadium nor will they. (Have you noticed in Hicks statements latetly that he is now concentrating on the commercial end to make money where as previously it was all about the stadium.) And the club is £350m in debt.

    And the reason is Hicks and Gillette. No excuses they are in control nobody else.

    Now we have one that wants out but the other is determine to hang on and in doing so bring down the club and everyone associated with it. They need to go. No if, no buts, this isn’t about them its about us – we are the fans and we are the club. We are the only permenant fixture and we are being treated like assets to be sweated for our hard earned wages. I for one was so proud to support a club that always put the fans first. This is no longer what Liverpool is about. And it is sickening to watch us squabble.

    We need a change and I for one support the Share Liverpool FC campaign to the hilt. These are the people who will give us an out. We need to plead to Hicks and Gillette. They will not sell to themselves, they will not sell to DIC but how can they dare not sell to us – the fans. We are the passion behind the club.

    So, Jim I would plead to you step away from Hicks as he will eventually bring you down and start promoting us ,the fans, and what we can achieve. Reclaim our club!

  16. Postscript: has anyone else thought how genuinely strange it is that while 99% of genuine fans posting on this site acknowledge that both Gillett and Hicks need to be evicted from the LFC boardroom, only Hicks has his lackeys on here playing cheerleader for him as sole owner? That lack of balanced consideration alone makes the questionable integrity of their postings stick out like a blue shirt at the Kop end.

  17. Julie,
    And the lack of support for Gillett as sole owner speaks volumes about those who view him as part of some conspiracy.

  18. Well said Stephen, Jofrad, Anfielder and John Steele.

    Jim, for God’s sake will you sort it out because your pieces have become embarrassing to read lately. You can’t seriously expect to write such inflammatory, one sided pieces and then when other people object to this accuse them all of not being open-minded to your point of view.

    Whatever Parry’s past shortcomings are I don’t believe he has it in for Rafa and even if he did attend a meeting 5 months ago with Hicks, Gillett and Klinsman then so what ??? Surely this would have been done on Hicks and Gillett’s instructions. They are his bosses so they had every right to require his attendance as CEO and to expect the meeting to be kept absolutely confidential. Its very clear from Parry’s recent comments that he finds working for the two Americans distasteful (and maybe this is one of the reasons why) but this would not entitle him to breach his duty of confidentiality to them by going and informing Rafa of what Hicks and Gillett were up to. I just do not understand your thinking on this at all.

    I seriously hope Rafa does not allow himself to used as a tool by Hicks in this whole ghastly affair because I strongly suspect he in the only weapon Hicks has got left.

    I hear Hicks is going to make another public statement in the next couple of days. I hope everyone (including Rafa) has their bullshit detectors switched on because there is no telling what this arsehole will say or do next to try and cause trouble.

  19. John, Dawg isn’t the only one who seems to have been able to post without anger. Anyway, if he’s as disinterested as you say then fair enough, he’s not going to get angry. Maybe he sees posting here as a bit of fun, winding up a few people for a laugh. Let’s face it, if that was his aim then he’s got easy prey! I actually can’t remember for sure without going back but I never saw him as an out-and-out Liverpool fan, even though we do have a decent following in the States, but something seemed to drive him to be in full-on defence of Hicks. Some even said he worked for Hicks, or that he was Hicks.
    So if Dawg’s calmness comes from him being so detached does that now make it alright for everyone to be so abusive and so presumptuous about other people’s motives? Thankfully, some of our supporters are still able to put forward the same views that Hicks is bad for the club without stooping to such levels. If anyone can persuade me, and others floating in space with countless conflicting thoughts running through their heads, then it’s the rational ones.
    To be honest I can handle the personal abuse and accusations, because despite taking a lot of it to heart I know most rational folk who don’t agree with me can argue without the abuse and accusations. In the end I’ll ignore the abusive posts, because it’s taking up too much time to try and engage with such folk. They certainly don’t encourage me to think again about my views, not one of the abusive posters has done that for me. Which is a shame because somewhere in the middle of that anger will be some good and valid points that might have done the same thing for me as I explained happened when I heard that Echo story about fan-representation.
    I also think I need to find time to get that forum set up properly, then we can maybe start to see some smileys, because I think some of the angry posts might have been less angry than they sounded. (Smileys do work here by the way, sometimes – you just have to put the colons and brackets in by yourself. 😉 )
    I just saw your earlier post, about whistle-blowing. Calling Rick Parry’s secretary’s good faith into question? You know quite well that this wasn’t my point. You know quite well that my point was that – unless he wants to blame his secretary – Parry has quite some explaining to do if, as our most senior executive, he can’t be contacted for a whole working day. I don’t believe that he didn’t know about the letter’s contents until late in the day. But nobody’s going to go checking the phone records on his office phone and his mobile phone, so unless somebody at the FA or wherever else in London he was all day will lets anything slip then he’s probably got away with it anyway. I can’t prove it, but it’s to my way of thinking too far-fetched not to be true. Do you need proof to believe that Sky found out about the letter from a “fans group”? Let’s face it, with all the back-stabbing and double-dealing going on around the club it wouldn’t be difficult to do, and I could add a long list of ways it might be done, but they sound as far-fetched as Parry going a whole working day without checking in with his secretary, or getting a tip-off from his friend David Moores, or even from Foster Gillett.
    I keep saying this, but the double standards used to defend Parry and others are probably going to do the campaign against Hicks more harm than good. I’m not the only person who might suddenly find themselves stopping for a moment to ask just what it is that justifies these double standards.
    For what it’s worth, re your “from the Echo we get more reinvention of history” comment, read what you’ve written again and compare it to what was actually said in the Echo. Here’s the link – http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/04/14/jurgen-klinsmann-liverpool-fc-officials-met-him-twice-100252-20761246/
    You said of claims Gillett had been the leader of the Klinsmann moves that this wasn’t true because “Now we find that Hicks was the one to hold the in depth one-on-one session with Klinsmann at his home and further that he has been seeking Klinsmanns’ input on LFC team issues since.” It doesn’t say that in the Echo. The sad thing is that I honestly thought I’d missed something when I read that. I thought the Echo had told us something new, plus confirmed something reported elsewhere (NOTW) hopefully with some quotes. You said Hicks was the one holding the in-depth session. The Echo says they were both there. The Echo doesn’t even mention any contact between Hicks and Klinsmann since, yet you say Hicks has been seeking his “input on LFC team issues since”. Why John? Why lie about, or exaggerate, what you’ve read? How can you call Hicks for his lies when you’re capable of doing much the same yourself? I don’t know about other people but the more I see examples like this the more I start to question what people who are against Hicks are saying. If you made a genuine mistake then that’s fine, I understand, but making false claims to prove your point just damages your point.
    Singh (Chicago) – Thanks for posting that, I think there’s a good chance you’re spot on.
    MR – I think the impression of accentuating the positives of one over the other comes from having to (in my view) so often correct what I think has been wrongly assumed. John’s post above is a case in point. I’m not defending Hicks by pointing out how John’s claim of what the Echo said is untrue. If someone had said something about DIC or Gillett or anyone else that caught my attention in that it sounded like I’d missed something important, I’d have done the same! But let’s be honest, I wouldn’t have had to – somebody else would have been straight on it.
    Julie – One point from what you’ve posted applies to all of them, certainly from the day Gillett went on Toronto radio until this afternoon’s Klinsmann story version XIV – WHY? WHY? I can’t work out the need for it at all. In fact DIC will be laughing their socks off – after months of their own PR-driven interference they now stand back and watch the fireworks. It might not influence the ultimate destination of the ownership of the club, but it will make their job easier at the end of it all. Nobody needs ask if their jobs are safe, and that might even include Rafa if some people’s views start to grow. (Please don’t take that as anything from me about Rafa, just some fans seems to be questioning his role in the most recent developments.)
    Modus – Thanks for that. I think if Parry does get a job with DIC in control we’d have to ask him just how important LFC’s future was compared to his own. But if that is Parry’s motivation, wouldn’t Hicks have been better giving him a legally binding undertaking that should he take control he would give Parry an extended contract in a role to be decided, for the same rate of pay as now? Surely it would have been easier. (Before someone says it, yes, maybe he’s already tried that!)
    Stephen – Why am I being manipulated? I seem to spend far too much time responding to arguments that start with attacks on me personally. Maybe I’m reading too much into what people are saying. I’m more than prepared to listen, in fact I thought there was something to help me see more of what the majority are saying when I read John’s post above, until I checked it.
    Can I respond to what you’ve said without it being considered that someone’s pulling my strings?
    Rick Parry and David Moores may well be lifelong Liverpool supporters, but their right to immunity isn’t automatic on that basis alone. Moores is guilty most of all of only trusting Parry. Parry has a lot of explaining to do one way or other. The only real debate on that is when will it be the right time for him to explain? If his explanations don’t wash, then he should fall on his sword, if not now then on the day of whatever takeover finally takes place. And that’s not to say his explanations won’t wash – they might. But I’m struggling to see how. I’ve no idea how possible it would be legally or even if they’d want it, but Moores should on the day of the new takeover hand his life presidency over to someone like Kenny Dalglish. Just my view.
    From what you’ve said about the stadium can I just say this. The plans are back in for approval, and that’s a fact you can check up on yourself via the city council. Approval is expected (if it’s given) next month (I believe). There’s then a period of 90 days where the work can’t commence (I believe). So we’re talking August for building work to start. I could be wrong, but I think saying they won’t build the stadium is a red herring. In fact I’d go a step further and say that if they couldn’t build it, they’d have already cleared off by now.
    The club was £298m in debt on the day of the takeover, as approved by Moores and Parry. How could they let that happen? We’d gone so long waiting for investment, why did they rush it? Or more to the point, can they justify it to us now so we can understand why it was ok then but not now? I know that Hicks could write 20 pages on why it’s ok. I know Gillett could write 20 pages on why it’s ok. But I want to know from Moores and Parry why it was ok. To be honest, that explanation probably needs to come along with the rest of the explaining they need to do on the day of the next takeover.
    The ShareLiverpoolFC is the basis of a very good idea. But given how angry people feel now and how little (compared to the target) has been pledged it needs to be rethought I think. I’d like to see it take a stake in the club based on whatever share it can get hold of. Obviously legal protections would need to be built in, but it really should try and get in now. In fact, someone might correct me here, our value is going to keep going up for the time being, so buying 5% or 10% now is going to be cheaper than buying 5% or 10% in two years. Rogan and the rest should be approaching Hicks, Gillett and DIC with firm proposals now, not later. I’m not saying there aren’t potential issues with this, but what’s the harm in opening a dialogue now?
    I don’t know quite what you mean by “step away from Hicks” but I keep saying this. We can’t stop him from taking over. No matter what we want, it’s out of our hands now. What will you do if he takes over? Will you carry on calling for his head until eventually he closes his office door? At the moment I think he would listen. That might be all he does. Listen. Maybe one day he’ll like an idea he hears. Maybe at the beginning he’ll be all ears, and it’ll be a good time to get more out of him! And of course, the flipside is, maybe he’ll only pretend to listen. But if he is as thick-skinned as everyone claims, as unconcerned about criticism as everyone claims, then too much abuse and he’ll close that office door for good.
    I think what we can achieve as fans is to stop assuming and start asking. Instead of saying, “You can’t build the stadium” why don’t we ask “How can you build the stadium?” Instead of saying, “You can’t afford to buy us” why not ask “How can you afford to buy us?” And so on. Instead of being ignored, will we be heard? Will some of the questions be answered? Can we then go away and check the plausibility of what’s been said? I’d say we’ve far more chance if we do that.

  20. “Why lie about, or exaggerate what you’ve read. ”

    This is what I read:

    “The Echo today learned that Liverpool co-owner TOM HICKS held two meetings with Jurgen Klinsman with a view to the german replacing Rafael Benitez as manager. The first meeting was held in New York at which he was joined by co-owner George Gillette, chief executive Rick Parry and other members of the Liverpool Board. The second was held at Hicks’ holiday home in California during Thanksgiving weekend when Parry was not present” (My capitals for emphasis).

    I resent being called a liar Jim and that quote does not say Gillette was at the second meeting. He was most likely at his home for the holiday weekend. Nor can the presence of Gillett be assumed as you have claimed. The quote only says Parry was not at the second meeting so by your logic? we are to assume all the other unnamed members of the Board were present the second time? We both know it has not been suggested that Moores or the two sons were present so I have fair grounds for my statement.

  21. Jim, we need to stick to the facts here. I never said Moores and Parry weren’t responsible for letting in H&G. We are where we are but that doesn’t mean we have to have slagging matches between our owners in the press slagging off people who live and breath this club. Do you think Hicks and Gillett stay awake at night worrying about us (fans) and the club??

    The club is a mess. – All agreed. Good. So what do we want – more of the same? Be that H&G or Hicks on his own. Gillett will never take over. Thats our options in the more of the same category. Those two options make me sick and there is no evidence (facts) to suggest that they will be good for the club.

    Or do we wanr a complete change?

    If we don’t fight for our club now we may not get an opportunity in the future. So I’m going to fight – now. I will never ever accept H&G in any form.

    Therefore, what are our options – DIC or Share Liverpool FC.

    I guarantee you if either H or G came out and said they would sell their stake to Share Liverpool FC we would raise the money with in weeks – as once it is seen as a viable option the money would pour in.

    If this is not an option then DIC are definitely a preferred option to the status quo. They are not in it for a quick buck a la H&G. Status is what they seek and therefore will be prepared to spend.

    The stadium issue is a huge thing. We have been promised time and time again a new stadium. Many plans have been approved and nothing has been built so I don’t see how new plans being submitted means anything. Hicks has said work will begin in November!! We need to deal in facts here. 60 days we were told 15 months ago. Explain that?? Plus, Arsenal had huge problems getting a loan to build their stadium – at the peak of the lending boom. How are H&G going to organise another £350m loan to build it. They definitely won’t be getting it from Wachovia! It may be self financing but there is also another £350m loan that needs servicing and in the current climate I can’t see many banks looking favourably on that.

    One question that I would like you to comment on. Do you believe Hicks when he says Liverpool FC will have totally paid off the £700m (my best estimate) in loans by 2011?? Or is he trying to manipulate the fans!!

  22. Jim, pardon me for pointing out the obvious but your pieces are full of personal attacks and commentary (which in my humble opinion is often over the top) on Parry, Moores, & DIC among others. You are quite happy to think and write the worst about lifelong Liverpool supporters on the flimsiest of basis but seem unable to find a bad word to say about Hicks, Texas Dawg, Modus Operandi (and God knows how many other people Hicks has got working on this sight). Pardon us all if this seems just a tad hypocritical and suspicious.

    The truth is that, by any objective standard, your comments and arguments are neither fair nor balanced and they have met head on by a number of insightful posts. However still you persist with the arrogant assumption that we’re all brainwashed and that you and your Texan friends are the only ones with open minds. The only thing that seems obvious is your desire to help Hicks achieve full ownership of the Club. The argument set out in your last paragraph above is basically the same one used by those who collaborated with the Nazis during the War and is basically a tacit justification as to why you’re being so submissive towards Hicks (which of course in itself contradicts your contention that you’re being even handed). You may genuinely believe submission to the likes of Hicks is the right view to take but so did the collaborators. That didn’t make them right and it didn’t make those who argued against them wrong either.

  23. Jim, John Steele has been a very good contributor to this forum and calling him a liar is out of order.

  24. If Rafa sits down with Parry and there’s some clear the air talks
    between them. Then what?

  25. Good call Stephen. For a man who seems to have a very thin skin Jim sure doesn’t mind dishing out the abuse to others.

  26. Edward, what is there to clear up between Rafa and Parry ?? I think Leanne’s post sums up the situation perfectly. Parry attended a meeting that happened 5 months ago with Hicks, Gillett & Klinsman on the instructions of Hicks and Gillett. The problem here is Hicks and Gillett. The air at the Club will never be clear as long as they are still around. Why should Parry have to apologize for doing what his job required him to do 5 months ago ??

  27. Before that though there was apparently an uneasy truce between them. No doubt to do with transfers.

  28. Again have been reading all this with a mixture of fascination and increasing concern. Jim – are you OK? You are coming to conclusions I just can’t follow logically, and your continued accusations towards people telling “lies” is still there – without any credible foundation. You’re now even accusing genuinely concerned posters on this site.

    Yes Parry has been an ineffective CEO and I think he should go. But Hicks is every bit as bad, if not worse because he is very effective – an effective profiteer and bully who cares not one jot for LFC or anyone who loves this club.

  29. In summary, and I doubt anyone can agrue otherwise convincingly:

    Moores=Irresponsible
    Parry=Incompetent
    Gillett=Devious
    Hicks=Scandalous

    Rafa+Fans=Liverpool

    (Stolen from RAWK but agree with the senitment)

  30. Hicks in sole ownership or effective control is not a recipe for an end to this turmoil. Positions are too entrenched. If this comes about and both Rick Parry and David Moores are estranged from the club they have served for so long but are still established via residence in the area then they will not be dissuaded from giving their side of the matter without pulling any punches.

    The vaunted good results effect will not have time to kick in, even if you believe it to be true, until two or three seasons have passed but certainly not before we have the uncertainty which will surround the refinancing negotiations due next year. And who is to say we can radically improve our position on Man U and Chelsea in that time frame. I expect us to be outspent by both this close season.

    Then we have Rafa. I cannot say whether he has been convinced that Hicks is a safe “custodian” for him to complete his rebuilding of the club. I have noted that Rafa is a political animal himself and has ably managed to keep himself aloof from most of the flak and got the job done in spite of his owners. You can be sure that with his experience at Valencia and his ability to demonstrate he is au fait with the twists and turns he will be very cautious and circumspect about support from Tok Hicks. Rafa will know that Doug Melvin was fired by him after two bad seasons. Rafa will also know that this January the media were reporting nthat he would have a strong case for constructive dismissal over the Klinsmann talks and maybe some of the Hicks rapprochement came from this.

    I have no doubt there will be fans who prefer a quiet life who will give up their positions as long as Rafa seems placated but there will be very many more who will even intensify their opposition, hence more turmoil and a wider schism in the fanbase.

    All in all there will be plenty to keep the flames stoked for the next season or two should Hicks or Gillett for that matter prevail. What the club so desperately needs is a fresh start as soon as is possible so that we can unite and put the sorry mess behind us and recapture some of our reputation.

    These gentlemen, Tom Hicks in particular since he seems to be the obstacle to a complete departure from the past , need to sit quietly and reflect on what is best for Liverpool football Club, then exit with all the grace they can muster and put the episode down to experience. Whatever doubts there are about who comes in does not detract one iota from that simple fact.

  31. Edward the long drawn out saga re Masch’s transfer was not because of Parry……………It was because of Hicks’s reluctance to release any more of the RBS loan monies. Maybe we’re not giving Parry enough credit here for managing what must be an extraordinarily difficult last 15 months. Clearly Hicks has been looking to chop Parry and Moores for sometime and their role in getting most of the RBS debt lumped on the holding company instead of directly onto the Club was probably the last straw for Hicks. Whatever their past errors of judgment I give Moores and Parry credit for standing firm on this.

    I may be wrong about this but I get the feeling Parry would be willing to stand down if only he felt confident the Club would be in the right hands. Obviously Parry does not believe this would be the case with Hicks and few sane people would disagree with this.

    It seems to me unlikely that DIC would want to retain Parry if they came in but I can’t see any logical reason why Parry and Rafa can’t work together for the immediate future on transfers (while the ownership issue is resolved) provided the money is available but with Hicks carrying on the way he is the availability of funds may not be a safe assumption. Indeed it may be that Hicks is intending to try and exploit the situation further by refusing to release funds for transfers unless Parry and Moores are removed and Hicks’s team are appointed. Hicks’s current 50% shareholding does not give him the right to demand “regime change” like this of course but since when has this ever been a problem for Hicks. This would also give Hicks a convenient excuse to avoid any further transfer spending which we know he enjoys about as much as root canal surgery.

    This theory is just speculation of course but don’t anyone drop dead from shock if it turns into reality over the next couple of months.

  32. Ellery I said the same myself regarding Moores and Parry in a post up there at 5:38p.m..

    & as far as I can figure out Parry with his knowledge of the premiership rules was very much involved in the original signing of Mascherano.

    It’s the transfer of Skrtel that I’m unclear about. I think that signing was the key to our season, because of what happened to Agger. It gave us options in defence as we saw against Arsenal. I’d just like to know that Parry was 100% behind Rafa on that one.

  33. Now, with the backdrop of all this animosity towards the Hicks, and given the significance of this week, which we’re no doubt all thinking of already, why would Hicks want to take Wednesday of all days, supposedly, to give an interview to Sky Sports??

    Everyday the man inches further and further away from we understand to be the history of our great club. Can someone tell him that there’s more to life than money.

  34. I’m not going to get drawn into more arguments tonight, I don’t think it’s helping anyone. I stand by what I said, I just wish it hadn’t come to that.

    I think my focus needs to go back to writing articles rather than spending almost all my time on the site writing replies to comments. I feel like I need to reply to every comment but no sooner have I written one reply there’s another one waiting and it’s taking a lot of time.

    Certainly if anyone from any camp wanted me to stop writing articles they’ve found a way. Just in case anyone’s looking in and thinking that’s the way to do it!

    I think it’s fair play to criticise others for similar (or worse) than what they criticise me for. I don’t like some of the accusations I’ve had against me, it’s extremely demoralising when I’m trying to write what I make of issues in good faith. It’s disappointing from anyone, but from some of those making the accusations it’s extremely disappointing.

    You can be far more critical of me on here than you could on any other site, where you’d possibly find yourself banned or at least your comments censored. I don’t currently have anything in place to force people to register to leave their views. I don’t hold comments back for moderation, other than when the software kicks in to do it for a first post from that user, or if their post contains URLs, or if the software gets confused. As soon as I see comments in the queue for moderation I put them on, no matter how bad they might be.

    I need to have a think how best to deal with comments going forward, I recall in the middle of a storm a few days back when I had a headache I was getting demands to reply to comments and when I mentioned the headache I even got abuse for that. I got accused of some more nonsense for my secret reasons for buying the Echo! I think those who made those comments, and others, know who they are and if they’re still proud of that, given time to calm down, then it takes away all my respect for them. I was disgusted to be honest.

    I also asked people that if there really were any burning issues that I’d missed due to the sheer volume of comments that they drop me a line. Not one person did.

  35. Do you know what Jim forget about. If you are going to be like that then I shall no longer be part taking in this forum. Unbelievable attitude – using silly arguements to avoid engaging in debate!

    How can you listen to yourself talking about censorship – give us a bloody break. Independent my arse.

    I think this site is a lost cause if you are going to turn it into a platform for you to preach your views without allowing critical comment. Its a real shame as I really enjoyed your insightful articles prior to your conversion to all things Hicks.

    Best of luck winning people over to your point of view.

  36. Jofrad I was very concerned when I read this article in the Mirror but it seems to be contradicted by what all the other broadsheets are saying today. They say Benitez was shocked to find out that Hicks was still in liaison with Klinsman after having been led to believe originally that Gillett was the one with the closer links to Klinsman. In any case the general message seems to be that Rafa does not trust either of the Americans now and just wants the ownership situation to be resolved so that he doesn’t have to put up with this bullshit. The papers are also saying that Parry is happy to sit down with Rafa and clarify that he was only at the meeting with Klinsman on the orders of Hicks and Gillett.

    Apparently Hicks had a separate meeting with Klinsman and has maintained subsequent contact with him which Rafa did not know about. If Rafa was being fooled by any promises from Hicks hopefully this cold shower will help him realize what kind of man he is really dealing with.

  37. I agree, there is nothing new in the papers today, presumably there is some restraint due to the Hillsborough anniversary.

    I have been trying, in vain I might add, to work out why the various parties have taken the approach of airing their opinions in public particularly given there will be little long term benefit.

    I personally think that any potential employer/financier/ business partner will have real reservations on someone who is prepared to go about their dealings in such a publicised manner. Hicks, in particular is doing himself no favours by picking fights in public particularly if he wants sole ownership of the club.

    Most of us have stated at some point that Gillett does not have the ability to remain involved in LFC for the long term. I seriously doubt that he (or Hicks for that matter) would sell his share in part to anyone, as the value of the remainder of shareholder would diminsh, in terms of decision making ability.

    To coin a legal phrase, the sooner the parties negiotate a Clean Break Order the better, preferably with Rafa still in charge with an extended contract and competitive transfer budget.

  38. “His premise is simple – Hicks just wants to own a great sports team he’s not that concerned about the fans concerns. Gillett is a greedy, whining crybaby who will be gone soon. That “soon” by the way seems to be a tad elastic!”

    Deals like this aren’t completed overnight. By “soon”, I mean over the next few weeks to few months. Basically, before next season.

    “Anyway, Texas-dawg doesn’t pretend to be a fan of the club or to be well up on the history or jargon of football. He’s as close as you can can get to a dis-interested observer. Yet above you laud his approach as calm and rational! What else could it be? The real concerns of lifelong fans of the club, you say, betray anger! Well there’s a surprise.”

    Correct, John. I haven’t claimed to be a Liverpool fan (other than wanting the team to win because of a friendship), and I’ve also said that I admire the passion fans like you have for their team. But my “disinterest” in the team is actually an advantage here (as far as getting to the truth of the matter). Passion for the team has caused you and others to completely shut off any consideration of the possibility of a situation you don’t want. That situation will prove to be reality though.

  39. Thanks for the link, Jofrad.

    So it appears Rafa wants Parry gone. The long-term interested owner wants that too. The short-term investment owner wanting to sell is close friends with Parry.

    It’s becoming a lot clearer which owner is with Rafa and which owner is against him.

  40. It has been reported once again today in the business section of the Irish Times that JP McManus and John Magner are looking over the possibility of buying into the club.

    Maybe they plan to work alongside their horse racing friend in the Sheik.

    To be honest it doesnt feel right to be even discussing this today

  41. Nice try Dawg…………….but I don’t think anyone is really in the mood to swallow your bullshit today …………………which really makes it just like every other day

  42. Could we not have one day where the bitching stops. Try to remember what day it is.

Comments are closed.