“Sick” Gillett invites DIC to distract.

George Gillett, high-and-mighty in his condemnation of Tom Hicks last week, has shown how hypocrisy works Colorado-style. It was Thursday evening in the UK when Gillett came forward with his views on the Hicks interviews that had aired throughout the day on Sky Sports News.

“Here we are, a few days away from a vital Champions League semi-final match and Tom has once again created turmoil with his public comments. Tom should stop.”

It was already a hypocritical statement to make by the owners of the Gillett-Evernham NASCAR outfit. Gillett had created turmoil of his own the month before when he came out of lengthy hiding to tell the world he could no longer work with Tom Hicks, that he’d received 2000 emails a day from fans telling him how much they hated Tom Hicks, and that he’d had death threats warning him not to sell to Tom Hicks. He’d done it just two-and-half days before a vital league match that Liverpool had to win to make sure Champions League qualification for next season was in their own hands. So he was a fine one to talk.

But tonight the news has come out that, if true, will trump any of his previous actions.

According to the Press Association, the Canadiens’ owner has invited the leveraged-buy-out investment arm of Dubai Holdings, Dubai International Capital, to Anfield tomorrow night. Better known as DIC, they failed to exercise an exclusive right to buy the club in January last year for a little over £200m including debt, reportedly on principle, but are now trying to spend over twice that amount, with reports ranging from £400m-£550m as the price they will pay.

Tom Hicks was criticised for not coming to Anfield for the second leg Champions League quarter final against Arsenal, and although his son Tom Jnr was there on his behalf the Texan was attacked by many for the perception he’d put his Rangers baseball team first. Yet George Gillett’s presence was seen as somehow a positive.

When reports over the weekend filtered out saying Hicks would attend tomorrow night’s clash with Chelsea, there was more criticism of Hicks, because his presence would be disruptive. If he doesn’t attend he doesn’t care, if he does attend he doesn’t care. It’s hypocritical and distracts from the real issues fans have with his ownership, not all of which are of his doing.

The PA report says Gillett “has invited senior officials from Dubai International Capital to be his guests at Anfield on Tuesday for the Champions League semi-final showdown with Chelsea.”

For the second time in recent months, Gillett has pulled a sicky:”Although Gillett himself will not be able to attend the match because of illness, his party – including son Foster, a fellow director – will be there in force to welcome DIC’s representatives.”

The report was by Paul Walker, one-time alleged striker-off of Peter Crouch goals, who wrote: “It is a remarkable move by Gillett…” Remarkable is an understatement.

Walker wrote: “It is believed that DIC’s chief negotiator Amanda Staveley will be among Gillett’s party, along with Liverpool fan and DIC chief executive Samir Al-Ansari.”

Staveley has been talking to Gillett for some time, with reports in March claiming Rick Parry had also attended meetings in her office, but she seems to jump the gone somewhat. Prior to a meeting between representatives of Hicks and DIC in Dubai, she said: “All parties have now reached agreement, Tom Hicks knows that in the long run we will be 100 per cent owners of the club but we are prepared to play a waiting game.” But all parties quite clearly had not reached agreement. So why say they had?

Walker’s report also said: “”Hicks could also be there, although significantly his spokesmen in the UK have been unable to confirm the Dallas billionaire’s movements. Hicks had made it clear at the weekend that he intended to be at Anfield for the first leg of the Champions League semi-final – but there are now doubts that he would want to be in the same director’s box as DIC.” Whose doubts? Whoever tipped PA off over this perhaps? In fact it could be argued that Gillett has so far been the one avoiding certain people in the directors’ box.

Walker also repeated the latest rumour doing the rounds via the hands of DIC: “The problem over Hicks’ alleged veto of any Gillett sale is likely to be challenged in court before the summer.” Why would Gillett be prepared to see LFC’s name dragged through the mud so publicly. What is it that is really stopping him from selling to Hicks?

If this stunt of inviting al-Ansari and Staveley to the match is true then Gillett has made it clear his first concern is getting that profit from DIC, his second concern is getting one over on his enemy Tom Hicks. Any possibility that he cares about LFC is growing slimmer by the second. Yet some fans will still buy that as his reason for a refusal to sell to Hicks.

Bearing in mind that a large amount of the significant criticism of Hicks can also be levelled at Gillett, and in many cases should be levelled at Gillett instead of Hicks, it’s difficult to see exactly why Gillett can say his decision not to sell to Hicks is somehow out of love for the club.

DIC continue to be blindly accepted by many fans purely on the basis that somehow they can’t be worse than Hicks. Some fans actually believe DIC will definitely buy the club without using loans or other debt. DIC changed the wording on their website last year to hide the use of the words “leveraged buy outs” (LBO) when describing how they make their investments. They bought Tussauds for £800m in 2005, selling 80% of it for a £200m profit just two years later.

Has Gillett got the guts to come out in the open and explain exactly why he won’t sell to Hicks? And will that tell us why it is acceptable to invite such trouble to the ground on such an important night?

Although Tom Hicks was criticised for not being at that Arsenal match, many fans were hoping he would change his mind and not attend tomorrow night just to ensure Rafa’s men could play without distraction. But Hicks is hardly likely to miss the game now, and the most important match of the season so far will become a side-show.

Hicks has been criticised for attacking Parry on issues most fans agree with. The timing of the letter was attacked for being just after a big Champions League win. Hicks was criticised for his Sky interview, with it broadcast five days before this Champions League match.

All those who condemned him for his timing should also now condemn DIC and Gillett for theirs. Especially if, despite the players so far showing brilliant drive not to be distracted, Liverpool lose the game.

154 thoughts on ““Sick” Gillett invites DIC to distract.”

  1. Tom Hicks got his PR firm to confirm Liverpool Football Club will be paying the interest on the loan he took out to make himself richer.

    We were looking for investors with the financial capabilities to increase our transfer budget from the off, a long-term plan that would see us ultimately become self-sufficient, but in the early stages would see us working from that initial injection of capital.

    Unfortunately the two people who bought our club were financially incapable of doing that. They had to borrow heavily to buy the shares from the previous holder, and despite their boasts of clearing Liverpool’s debt, which was around £45m before their involvement, all they’d done was shuffled it into a different place. They borrowed nearly £300m when they took the club over, and that’s now increased to £350m.

    The owners, Hicks and Gillett, technically don’t own Liverpool FC. They own the holding company, which in turn owns Liverpool FC. The £245m debt the holding company now has is secured on the owners and their assets, but that security would only be required if the holding company was incapable of making the payments on the loan.

    That’s £30m in all that the club has to find each year the debt is at this level. And let’s face it, the debt’s not going to decrease in any short space of time.

    So faced with a shortfall in the holding company’s requirements, the owners would seek to use the club’s assets to pay that interest. They may consider selling a stake in the club to another investor, although if the club’s in such a precarious financial position most investors would steer clear for the sort of price the owners would be asking. There’s very little else that can be sold – except players.

    And this is where the club starts to decline further and further. Even if we qualify for the Champions League, we’re already using up £30m of our annual income on interest payments to cover the owners’ own investment. That’s before we start borrowing the £300m+ required for the new stadium. We’ll simply be unable to afford high-quality player purchases by the time we’ve paid off that year’s debt interest. The teams above and below us will have the funds to buy, and their squads will improve accordingly. Ours will at best stagnate, until the year comes where we do drop out of the Champions League places.

    And if we are out of the Champions League places, we lose a potential £25m. The holding company finds that after we’ve paid our wage bill, paid instalments on past transfers and spent what we need to spend for the day-to-day running of the club, we can’t pay them their interest. And to the holding company there’s only one way to achieve that. Goodbye Fernando Torres, goodbye Pepe Reina, Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano, Steven Gerrard – it doesn’t matter, who. Just as long as that interest payment is made.

    And now, not only have we failed to get our squad up to the standards of our rivals, not only have we failed to at least keep the gap between us and our rivals the same, not only have we failed to at least keep our own squad as strong as it was, we’ve actually had to weaken our squad.

    Under these owners the club is in a mess, the future of the club is on a tightrope.

    We’re gambling on Champions League qualification, and even then on relative success in the Champions League. Without it, we are in serious danger of following the same path Leeds followed. And don’t for one moment think “it can’t happen to us”, because it can.

    And the chances are that Hicks and Gillett will have ridden off into the sunset long before it gets to the Leeds stage – they’ll transfer the debt onto the club’s assets, pay off their own loans and disappear. Their gamble is weighted in such a way that if they win, they get rich, but if they lose, they just don’t get any richer. They don’t lose. The only losers are Liverpool Football Club and its supporters.

    Dubai International Capital are said to still be in negotiations with Hicks and Gillett to get the club out of their hands. Even though the finance deal went through, it doesn’t mean DIC won’t buy. And there’s no saying that DIC will still please Liverpool supporters all the time. But it’s almost impossible that they could be any worse.

    Nice summary I would suggest!! What do you think Jim – they are your words before you’re conversion despite the fact that nothing has changed.

  2. Gillett couldn’t work with Rafa so he goes behind his back and talks to Jurgen Klinsmann. Klinsmann is unproven but he might have worked. I disagreed with that because I like Rafa.

    Gillett couldn’t work with Hicks so he goes behind his back and talks to DIC. DIC are unproven but they might work. I agree with that because I don’t like Hicks.

    Confusing isn’t it?

  3. Jim – Hicks may be a viable option, but so also must then Gillette and Hicks, and so must also Share Liverpool, and so must also David Moores. But the point is who is going to be best for the club in the long run. I personally believe that DIC will be the best owners by a country mile. I do not believe that Gillette is a lovely fluffy bundle of joy, but DIC are not stupid they would not go to the match without knowing that they are very close to clinching the deal. This scenario looks like the deal is being closed and us the fans are getting let in on it but by bit. The next thing will be DIC making statements about what they will do when they own the club, then DIC will buy out Gillette and then their will be a flurry of activity between Hick and DIC then DIC will own the Club outright.

  4. Spot on Anthony.
    Deputy Dawg, Gillett won’t sell to Hicks because its not in the best long term interests of the club. It may be viewed as hilarious in Texas but it happens to be true. Gillett will sell to DIC the deal is done.

  5. Thanks Steven – thought it sounded familiar! Ok, let’s have a go at picking it apart…

    Tom Hicks got his PR firm to confirm Liverpool Football Club will be paying the interest on the loan he took out to make himself richer.

    Nothing has changed there. We should have seen that from the off. DIC will also be taking out loans to make DIC richer. Any last minute bidder coming in now would too. This was all obvious from the very beginning, most people were just too blind to see.

    We were looking for investors with the financial capabilities to increase our transfer budget from the off, a long-term plan that would see us ultimately become self-sufficient, but in the early stages would see us working from that initial injection of capital.

    That’s what I thought we’d gone for. That’s what I thought Parry and Moores thought we’d gone for – after all, they’d got access to all the figures and expensive advisors to help them to ensure that was the case hadn’t they? But it seems that “capital” can actually include “borrowed money”. To this day I still can’t see why we needed “investors” to do this. More ammo for those moaning at me – but it’s not Hicks’ fault that we, our board and our shareholders didn’t spot this then. It was never hidden.

    Unfortunately the two people who bought our club were financially incapable of doing that. They had to borrow heavily to buy the shares from the previous holder, and despite their boasts of clearing Liverpool’s debt, which was around £45m before their involvement, all they’d done was shuffled it into a different place. They borrowed nearly £300m when they took the club over, and that’s now increased to £350m.

    It’s true. That’s all they’d done. Moved the debt and made it bigger. As they said they would. Whether it’s a nice thing to do or not, it’s not something that was actually hidden, certainly not from financial people. So why are we crying about it now really? I’d actually not realised at the time of writing this just what had and hadn’t been promised. I trusted others whose word I thought was true. Turns out they’d not checked either. Stupid of me. And stupid of others who still cling on to what others tell them without actually going to check.

    The owners, Hicks and Gillett, technically don’t own Liverpool FC. They own the holding company, which in turn owns Liverpool FC. The £245m debt the holding company now has is secured on the owners and their assets, but that security would only be required if the holding company was incapable of making the payments on the loan.

    True. nothing to add or take away from that.

    That’s £30m in all that the club has to find each year the debt is at this level. And let’s face it, the debt’s not going to decrease in any short space of time.

    Where did I get that £30m figure from? The wrong place, clearly. It’s higher than the true figure. Even somebody who had an interest in telling me it was £30m rather than any less evaded the question when I asked if that was the true figure. Piecing together other bits of information I’d say it’s no more than £25m. Which is still a lot money.

    So faced with a shortfall in the holding company’s requirements, the owners would seek to use the club’s assets to pay that interest. They may consider selling a stake in the club to another investor, although if the club’s in such a precarious financial position most investors would steer clear for the sort of price the owners would be asking. There’s very little else that can be sold – except players.

    Still pretty much true, as it would be for DIC of course if their “holding company” didn’t get the dividends it needed to pay off whatever their debt costs were. Either owner would first look to inject further funds from elsewhere though. This period from now until the stadium’s extra income comes in is a transitional one, and both owners have contingencies in place should it not quite go to plan on the field. (Cynics will now laugh, of course.)

    And this is where the club starts to decline further and further. Even if we qualify for the Champions League, we’re already using up £30m of our annual income on interest payments to cover the owners’ own investment. That’s before we start borrowing the £300m+ required for the new stadium. We’ll simply be unable to afford high-quality player purchases by the time we’ve paid off that year’s debt interest. The teams above and below us will have the funds to buy, and their squads will improve accordingly. Ours will at best stagnate, until the year comes where we do drop out of the Champions League places.

    New stadium – red herring. The costs of that will be tied into the stadium itself, naming rights will cover the costs eventually, and DIC will fund the stadium in the same way. I didn’t know this at the time.

    It’s not £30m, but c£25m is still a lot, so where will the money come from? And remember, DIC are also going to be borrowing some of their purchase price if their plans under “Project Oslo” remain the same now.

    I’m unsure how he can find money to function when the margins seem so tight – unless the margins aren’t actually so tight. A lot of the club’s costs in 2007 went on the takeover, plus a lot of money, rigthly or wrongly, went on stadium plans. TV money will be going up, and commercial ideas will be able to get moving. Is that enough to make a difference? I’ve no idea.

    But would Hicks really stick around if the margins were that tight? Doesn’t stand up really.

    And if we are out of the Champions League places, we lose a potential £25m. The holding company finds that after we’ve paid our wage bill, paid instalments on past transfers and spent what we need to spend for the day-to-day running of the club, we can’t pay them their interest. And to the holding company there’s only one way to achieve that. Goodbye Fernando Torres, goodbye Pepe Reina, Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano, Steven Gerrard – it doesn’t matter, who. Just as long as that interest payment is made.

    GG couldn’t have found other ways to fund the interest. Can TH if there’s a bad season? Again, we have to ask if he’d be so stupid as to go for such a high-risk strategy where CL qualification means we do a Leeds. At some point between today and 14 months ago he must have looked at what happened to Leeds.

    And now, not only have we failed to get our squad up to the standards of our rivals, not only have we failed to at least keep the gap between us and our rivals the same, not only have we failed to at least keep our own squad as strong as it was, we’ve actually had to weaken our squad.

    I think I can only have been referring to weakening it when compared to MUFC and CFC and so on.

    Is it possible Hicks now knows how the transfer system works? Has that been factored into his plans? You’d hope so on both counts.

    Under these owners the club is in a mess, the future of the club is on a tightrope.

    We’re gambling on Champions League qualification, and even then on relative success in the Champions League. Without it, we are in serious danger of following the same path Leeds followed. And don’t for one moment think “it can’t happen to us”, because it can.

    If it was down to GG and his pitiful financial state then I’d be as worried as I was then. Given the never-ending prophecies of Hicks’ impending financial doom have so far all proved false I’m starting to think he is in a position to fund any shortfall until the club is meeting its revenue targets.

    Because when it meets its revenue targets, £25m will not be a worry like it is now.

    And the chances are that Hicks and Gillett will have ridden off into the sunset long before it gets to the Leeds stage – they’ll transfer the debt onto the club’s assets, pay off their own loans and disappear. Their gamble is weighted in such a way that if they win, they get rich, but if they lose, they just don’t get any richer. They don’t lose. The only losers are Liverpool Football Club and its supporters.

    GIllett’s horse is tied up ready to go already. But someone pointed out after that article that they might not be able to transfer the debt over quite so easily. The club might not even have enough assets. What is LFC actually worth today in real terms? The valuation Gillett and co want from DIC reflects the real terms + potential.

    If Hicks has the ability to see us through any bad years between now and the new stadium – I said IF – then there is far less to worry about than I thought. And seeing as most of my fears about Hicks’ financial state were based on scaremongering put out by his “enemy” then I don’t think we can say it’s impossible he can do it.

    Dubai International Capital are said to still be in negotiations with Hicks and Gillett to get the club out of their hands. Even though the finance deal went through, it doesn’t mean DIC won’t buy. And there’s no saying that DIC will still please Liverpool supporters all the time. But it’s almost impossible that they could be any worse.

    They certainly can’t be any worse than two owners who don’t agree, one of whom has no way of increasing his investment at all, and in fact needs to get out because he can’t even afford what he’s got.

    50-50 Hicks-DIC is probably better than 50-50 Hicks-Gillett, but barely.

    This was clearly from just after the refinancing deal went through, the height of the scaremongering, when I know I was hearing some frightening information, not just from the papers either.

    Most of the scaremongering I’ve since found to be either made-up, against Gillett rather than Hicks, or exaggerated.

    The “ashes to ashes” moment made me stop believing all that stuff and to actually go and check it.

  6. Frankly, it just is getting embarrassing now as an LFC supporter to read the deluded comments of a one-time legendary poster as Jim Boardman in the ownership saga of our club. Hopefully this will be sorted out soon and we will all get to some level of rationality!! There is no worst and sad thing than true LFC fans bickering about the havoc created by others and each trying to leverage their considerate opinions.

    To pierre (belgium),
    I never intended to insult Jim by any means using foul language; ‘Dung’ as you refer to it. I was comparing Jim to ‘Dunk’, who owns another ‘not-so-free’ website “Koptalk”. There is a whole section on this website about how evil that site is by prying gullible fans into paying decent money to join (see ‘Kptalk exposed”). For me, it is no different to stealing money from fans than being paid to write biased drivel (in my opinion and I believe the majority of LFC fans) in favor of probably the most reviled character in the history of our club.

    I once tremendously enjoyed visiting this website as it always stated that it is 100% unofficial and independent. Discussions and posts were at one time truly 100% unofficial and independent. A lot of fans will be put off by the comments coming from here nowadays!!!

  7. Anthony – if we knew the truth about each option, the full truth without any bull or propaganda, we could see how viable each one was. We could maybe put them in order of preference. Maybe rule one or two out or at least show how bad it would be under each one.

    I’ve never said that DIC won’t be “best”. I’ve asked how we know. And I’ve asked if Hicks really isn’t an option.

    We can’t have what’s best. We can have what we’re given, like it or not. If that’s still the best then we’re lucky.

    We can all dream, and maybe that’s what’s happening when people assume DIC will be this wonderful saviour of the club, George Gillett getting an award for his hand in the rescue, Rick Parry and David Moores a pardon for turning round their earlier errors!

    DIC want 100%. Hicks is standing in their way. Firstly he’s standing in their way of getting 50%, then he’ll stand in their way of getting the rest. Claims of planned dirty tricks after they have 50% might be true, but there were claims two months ago that the veto would be challenged there and then. Now it’s being turned into the veto will be challenged if Hicks doesn’t honour it at the end of its time limit. Those goalposts keep moving. And who’s to say Hicks doesn’t have dirty tricks of his own?

    There still remains a doubt that DIC would enter into this deal as 50-50 partners. No matter what they might say.

    Jofrad. Why do you honestly think Gillett would put the “best long term interests of the club” first? According to the latest claims, the amount being offered for the whole club is £400m, of which £350m is for the debt. So it’s £25m each for Gillett and Hicks, if it’s sold. £25m?

    LFC are making something like £50m – £75m a year less – that’s per year than the other top sides in Europe. Potentially they’ve got more than enough leeway to make far more than £35m a year profit every year more than now.

    And DIC expect Hicks to take £25m as a one-off now and be happy?

    Fantasyland? Who?

    And it’s not just that, the gap between us and those above us, that can be closed and so bring us more money in. TV money’s going up too, so we’ve a hell of a lot of potential to make far more money than we do now. £25m, for years of that?

    If Hicks is as money-oriented as people make out it’s no wonder he’s holding back from such a small amount compared to what he sees the club’s value as being.

    Gillett must be gutted to be missing out on this money, but he knows he stands to lose quite a bit if he doesn’t walk now. His choice seems to be to stay and try and make a go of it with Hicks, or to sell and take that £25m profit. I wonder, assuming that figure is true, if he’d take £30m from Hicks or would he knock it back? If DIC are offering him a percentage of future turnover, what’s to stop Hicks doing the same? Everybody pretty much agrees that Gillett can’t afford to buy Hicks out, let alone persuade him.

    DIC must be gutted too. They could have been onto this for at least £200m less last year had they not dithered during exclusivity, then walked when realising others were being spoken to. And if they now see they can make a fortune but still be liked, it’s too late for them to assume that’s enough. If Hicks finds the money – and with those potential figures ahead of the club it’s not that hard to see investors considering it – then Hicks can stop DIC buying.

    Hicks must be chuckling away to himself if he knows he has got the money. If he’s not then he must be gutted too.

    DIC know that if Tom Hicks has got the full means behind him to buy GG’s half that there is little they can do.

  8. Ash,
    you’ve hit the nail on the head concerning the anger that any fan of the club should be feeling about the way we’ve been f**ked around and relegated to the position of cheerleaders in a corporate power game between a bunch of suits.

    We better get answers.

  9. “Deputy Dawg, Gillett won’t sell to Hicks because its not in the best long term interests of the club. It may be viewed as hilarious in Texas but it happens to be true. Gillett will sell to DIC the deal is done.”

    Duly noted, Jofrad. Let’s see which of us proves to be correct.

  10. Deputy Dawg,
    Well well well I agree with you !
    Now lets concentrate on beating Chelsea.

  11. Read what I said Jim,
    IN MY OPINION Gillette is a reasonable man who realises he’s made a mistake and wants to rectify the situation in the best long term interests of the club WHILST OBVIOUSLY SAFEGUARDING HIS OWN INTERESTS. And just for the record I think Gillett is embarassed by the mess his co wonership has caused in particular his role in introducing Hicks to the club.
    Now as the Dawg says “Let’s see which of us proves to be correct.”

  12. just one question Jim
    How much did Hicks pay you to write this piece of shit, and the two or three before it.
    Just shows everybody has their price.
    I am so disgusted with you Jim and I hope you are with yourself after one of the biggest sell outs in Internet history

  13. Ash, maybe I’ve misunderstood you but some things to get clear….

    You’re entitled to your opinion as much as we all are.

    “There is no worst and sad thing than true LFC fans bickering about the havoc created by others and each trying to leverage their considerate opinions.”

    That’s true. I’ve seen a hell of a lot of damage already, especially to friendships. I find it shocking that people can’t see that in the many different views out there one theme is common. We all care for the club. To hate each other because we have a different opinion is wrong.

    If DIC get in, and Parry gets kept on in some capacity, what then? There’ll be battles between those who say he should have gone, and those who say he deserves a second chance, and more wars.

    The hate is breaking our club. Not DIC. Not Hicks. Not Gillett. Not Parry. Not Moores. Hate.

    Hate is driving some to embellish their reasons for wanting a certain outcome.

    Hate is driving some to make obscene accusations against fellow supporters.

    Hate could even see us in trouble with UEFA if any of it goes further than the singing-and-banners style of protests.

    It’s easy now to just jump on the anti-Hicks pro-DIC bandwagon, but that’s only part of the issue isn’t it? How long until our own fans are fighting each other with fists?

    We’re relying on too many lies and far too much hate to form our opinions and we are going to suffer for it.

    I was comparing Jim to ‘Dunk’, who owns another ‘not-so-free’ website “Koptalk”. There is a whole section on this website about how evil that site is by prying gullible fans into paying decent money to join (see ‘Kptalk exposed”). For me, it is no different to stealing money from fans than being paid to write biased drivel (in my opinion and I believe the majority of LFC fans) in favor of probably the most reviled character in the history of our club.

    1. There is no “whole section” on this website about him, but there’s a link to the “Koptalk Exposed” site you mention. Perhaps that’s what you meant to say, but it sounds like you’re saying it’s part of this site.

    2. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but I am not being paid to write a certain way! I am not getting a cheque with a little wink asking me to be positive or negative to one or other in this mess. I’m writing what I think. It’s probably knocked the hits down considerably for this site since I have recently spent more time replying to comments than writing something that will hit News Now or Google News. But don’t let that stop you throwing out accusations like that, after all I’m sure everything you do in life is scrutinised under a microscope.

    To then compare me to someone who spent years making a living out of The Sun, out of fake share schemes, censoring anyone who pointed out his insider people had contradicted themselves, by all accounts collecting money in the name of a disabled member of his own family without actually ever intending to give it to her – well, if that’s how you see it then there’s little point me talking to you.

    You must lead an odd life if you compare anyone you disagree with to the most hated figures you can think of.

    What paper do you read?

    I once tremendously enjoyed visiting this website as it always stated that it is 100% unofficial and independent. Discussions and posts were at one time truly 100% unofficial and independent. A lot of fans will be put off by the comments coming from here nowadays!!!

    Which kind of cancels out your idea that somehow what I’m writing is making more money for me than if I followed the herd. Doesn’t it?

    The “unofficial” means I won’t be repeating what the official website says, unless I agree with the official website. That might be a sarcy comment about Riise’s shooting or a serious question about ticket prices. I love the club, but I’m not the club. The “independent” means this site is not part of some wider network. Other sites are – for example sites under the “footy mad” banner. I don’t have a site sponsor for example, telling me that they’ll pay me x amount of money in return for the avoidance of certain issues.

    If it wasn’t “unofficial” I’d be ignoring the ownership issue by and large, and probably writing articles alternately favouring whoever told me to write the latest one. If it wasn’t “independent” I’d probably be booking a fortnight’s holiday about now and asking someone else to fill in, because it’s getting to be less and less fun all the time, more of a downer than it should be given what game we have tonight. I’d probably also be told not to keep writing anything that goes against what others are saying, because it’s hurting the hit count.

    Ash – you don’t like the bickering you say. Well there’s nothing more certain to bring bickering than to make unfounded allegations against those you bicker with.

    Someone asked me earlier if I was up for tonight’s match. I was quite disappointed with my own answer.

    But really, I shouldn’t be. I’ve accepted that Hicks or DIC will own us, and hope is the best I can do that it’s not both at the same time.

  14. Echoing the comments above mine – stuff this…

    Come on Red men!

    Predictions?

  15. Jim,

    I do agree with you…the nature of accusations have become personal. I too have been critical of the slant you have recently adopted in your posts/responses.

    Anyway….COME ON YOUR REDS. SHOW THE CHAVS THAT WE ARE THE TOP DOGS IN EUROPE. I think 1-0 to 2-0 to LFC!!

  16. I did mean ” Come on you reds!!! sorry for the typo.

    p.s. Jim, my gut feeling keeps telling me your confidence in your sources must have taken a severe battering…I just wondered when this happened to explain the pendulum swing in your opinions.

  17. I’m always pessimistic before a great night, but somehow today I feel we are going to win big. 3-0 is my intuition. C’mon the reds!

  18. fairplay where it is due…may be I have been too strong with my words and I apologise for it. I just have not been able to comprehend your complete change of focus from Hicks to Gillete to DIC over time. I have very much always been a lurker. I felt obliged this time to comment on your posts because of the complete u-turn in your posts but anyway, I apologise for my insensitive comments . Emotions in this troubled period of time are running high for numerous people, I guess, and things are said, which shouldn’t be. I appreciate that everyone is free to voice their own opinions and it is just for people to accept what they say

    Anyway I anticipate and truly hope for a full DIC takeover. In my opinion, paying over £200m more for something is a sign of commitment. Hicks also does my head in…I felt physically sick watching his interview. Does he really believe that the fans are so thick and cannot see through his show?

    What paper do you read?
    I do understand the connotation of your question. No, it do not read that rag and even though I am not a scouser, let alone english, I do appreciate the good and bad times of our club.
    In response to one of your points, may be it is my english but I do not believe I said that you were the most reviled character in the history of our club. I was referring to Hicks!

    do hope this stuff is sorted out an we can concentrate on the important matter, of football. I used to enjoy these periods at the end of the season when we would speculate on who we are signing. But the matter of fact is that this whole ownership issue is just such a painful distraction. Does me head in!

    Anyway, enough of my drivel and rants…

    3-1 to the reds!!!!

  19. Good article Jim

    I have dealt with DIC before here in the investment markets. Ruthless and calculating. Look at their use of the daily telegraph to pitch BOTH of the americans against each other. They have been excellent at manipulating the two owners into a battle.

    Stavely has been on record at least 5 times now as saying its days from being done. Errrm unless im missing something shes been wrong 5 times……

    I’m not saying the Yanks are right either. But by the way if DIC are the right partner then why the hell did Moores go with the Yanks in the first place, why did Parry a trained lawyer let them have an agreement that allowed them to burden the club with debt.

    Liverpool fans are being treated like mugs and being played like a 12 string guitar by everyone here. Protest against the Yanks, protest just against Hicks, Vote for DIC, get rid of Parry, frankly Im fed up of reading such a load of nonsense.

    Lets start right at the start. Liverpool FC needed new owners, why ?? Because Moores and Parry had failed massively in their attempts to take the club forward either commercialy or on the pitch.

    We had a crumbling stadium with poor facilities and a lack of communication with the fans. So Moores realising hes coming under mounting pressure decides to sell and pockets £80m + let me just run that by you again £80m + he didnt offer to leave any in or contribute any to the new stadium.

    He trys to sell it to an american and an arab….the Arab is in the driving seat but he thinks they wont do right by the club (or so he says) talk of leaked memos claiming they want to fatten up the club then sell it off…so he gets the Yank back in but guess what , the Yank cant come up with the dosh……..Let me run that by you again the guy he is talking to cant come up with the money….. so the Yank runs off and finds somebody to bail him out in the deal…enter Mr Tom Hicks. The deal is on the table and Hicks is in the game.

    Our good friend Mr Parry is running this process, the so called long time fan and custodian of our club. A trained lawyer and advisor to the selling Chairman. He advises a sale to “THE YANKS” one of them being the guy who COULDNT COME UP WITH THE MONEY”

    He advises AGAINST DIC and Moores goes with this advice…..

    Lets pause for a moment:

    1. Whats the real reason for not going with DIC, because Moores has only come out and said he is devastated by what is happening he hasnt once stood up and told THE TRUTH about why not DIC last year. I suspect thats because he doesnt want us to know what their game is.

    2. Why has Parry been shit free in this process. He was the one who advised and put together the whole mess as well as the mess we were in at the start.

    3. What happened next.

    I tell you what happened next. Gillett and Hicks rode into town and started trying to see what they had bought. Meantime Parry and Moores were acting like nothing had changed. Same seat in the Directors box for Moores, same bonuses for Parry. They must have thought it was bloody Christmas !!

    Then it would seem that Gillett and Hicks hit two problems. 1 they have never worked together before and guess what ….they are both different… you dont make shed loads of money by listening to other people, they both have egos and clash big time.

    Also and I read this in the press around the financing. The reason that most financial analysts believe that the debt was placed on the club was because Gillett couldnt stump up the money…….no shit ! This was the guy Moores was already telling 3 months earlier YOU DONT HAVE THE MONEY…..the same guy he sold to…

    Meantime we just happen to be in the Champions League final and other distractions. Rafa becomes frustrated with working conditions claiming that Parry is screwing up transfer deals. He vents his speen by having a go at the owners and lo and behold they dont like it… not used to being told what to do no doubt…….

    Lets pause again for breath:

    1. He is annoyed because of Parrys poor service
    2. He tells the owners but they do nothing
    3. He goes to war in the press about it all

    Then the turmoil starts big time….why ….. I tell you why because Gillett and his son who is by this time camped out at Melwood dont have the balls to deal with Parry so Rafa becomes more and more frustrated and tells them hes not happy and guess what young Foster goes crying to daddy…..dad dad the big spanish man shouted at me….

    Lo and behold Klinsmann gate and the rest you know………………………………………………

    Heres were I am…

    Parry is the cancer of this club….. Moores is pathetic and culpable …. a fan but not a business man and he by using Parry has screwed it up big time.

    Parry is at the root of it all. It doesnt matter if its Hicks, Gillett, DIC or anyone else if Parry is involved we are doomed to fail.

    I say get the Yanks to either sort a deal out themselves and show us what they promised. Or clear off and let somebody else have a go… Id prefer that isnt DIC because they are only focused on what they can get out of it and Stavely was previously quoted as saying she wanted Mourinhio

    Stop listening to the propoganda that the Echo the Post and Radio City are peddling they are all being played like puppets by the moores family, Parry and Terry Smith all boardroomites of LFC and all still got a grip on the local media. They are a disgrace because they are doing whats best for them not for our club…

    You’ll Never Walk Alone…….we will be if this carrys on, we are being pulled apart by the efforts of Parry and Moores and DIC are loving every minute of it….. all its doing is positioning them as the good guys….are we really that stupid.

  20. “Heres were I am…

    Parry is the cancer of this club….. Moores is pathetic and culpable …. a fan but not a business man and he by using Parry has screwed it up big time.

    Parry is at the root of it all. It doesnt matter if its Hicks, Gillett, DIC or anyone else if Parry is involved we are doomed to fail.”

    Great post, Mike.

  21. Mike Roland – You may correct me if I am wrong but Rick Parry is an accountant not a lawyer. Their are various rumours going around that David Moores accepted the bid of DIC but as shareholders ITV had a right to look at the other bids on the table. DIC actually walked away from the deal so in the end it made no difference who RP reccomended to DM because Gillette and Hicks where the only people left wanting to buy.

    On another point do you honestly believe that it would be in LFC’s best interests to have Tom Hicks owning 100% of the club, because if he did then he would have stump up the money to buy out Gillette and also need to find the money to fund a stadium. DIC would have far more room for manouvering than Hicks. The DIC option is a million times better than the Hicks option.

  22. Just seen a picture of Amanda Staveley in tonights Echo. Just have to say that she isn’t as good looking as I thought she would be. I heard that she was a socialite so I started getting images in my head of Zara Philips and Tara Palma Thompkinson. So I thought that she was going to be a upper class girl who looks like she knows how to have a good time. I feel quite let down.

  23. Hicks ignores warning
    TeleText, UK – 35 minutes ago
    Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has gone against police advice not to attend tonight’s Champions League semi-final first leg against Chelsea at Anfield. …

    Oh what a idi………sorry hero.

  24. “Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has gone against police advice not to attend tonight’s Champions League semi-final first leg against Chelsea at Anfield. …

    Oh what a idi………sorry hero.”

    Sounds like a determined owner.

  25. I agree with you all the way Jim.
    Cracking Article…

    There’s so much tension in this room…..forget the owners for a second…forget all about them…

    Have we improved on last year? as a team? a squad?
    I think so.

    Right, you can vent again now.

  26. “Have we improved on last year? as a team? a squad?
    I think so.”

    And that gets to the point I made recently, MO, about the rhetoric from many being wildly disproportionate with the facts of the situation.

    Most of the anti-Hicks stuff is based on unprovable speculation about the future, not the present.

  27. Livepool Side:

    Reina, Arbeloa, Aurelio, Carragher, Skrtel, Mascherano, Alonso, Gerrard, Babel, Kuyt, Torres. Subs: Itandje, Hyypia, Riise, Pennant, Lucas, Crouch, Benayoun.

  28. “How did you come to support LFC?”

    I’m a friend of the Hicks family.

    “Will you be watching the match, Or will you be stuck in work?”

    I will be watching at a bar near my office. I was actually supposed to be at the game but had to cancel my trip last week due to an unexpected event. 🙁

  29. Jofrad, you’ll be happy to know that Hicks is safely inside Anfield, an hour before the start of the game. 🙂

  30. So you don’t actually support the club you just have a vested interest in the club by the way of a freindship, and I suppose that you only heard of LFC about 18 months ago.

    By the way won’t your boss get pretty pissed off with you going out on the lash while your supposed to be in work?

  31. “So you don’t actually support the club you just have a vested interest in the club by the way of a freindship”

    Basically. I’ve said before I don’t claim to be the fan of the club that others here are and I’m cognizant of this fact.

    “and I suppose that you only heard of LFC about 18 months ago.”

    Obviously, being a sports fan, I’ve long known about LFC, but I don’t claim to be an expert on the club or sport. If you’ll read back through my posts here, they have mainly just been the correction of some basic errors about Hicks’s past involving American sports and teams I do know more about than many here.

    “By the way won’t your boss get pretty pissed off with you going out on the lash while your supposed to be in work?”

    No. I have a pretty good work situation. 🙂

  32. “Texas_Dawg // Apr 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm
    “Heres were I am…

    Parry is the cancer of this club….. Moores is pathetic and culpable …. a fan but not a business man and he by using Parry has screwed it up big time.

    Parry is at the root of it all. It doesnt matter if its Hicks, Gillett, DIC or anyone else if Parry is involved we are doomed to fail.” ”

    Dawg – David Moores owned the club in a manner that all the clubs in the English league where owned at one point. The fact that LFC had fallen behind the other clubs is not down to David Moores not being a business man, but is more a case of he didn’t want to enter into the cut-throat world of the modern world of club ownership. He was happy to run the club in an amateur capacity which is what he was doing, but when it became clear that LFC where going to suffer if LFC didn’t realise its full commercial potential he chose to sell the club to someone who was prepared to enter that world. I personally think that David Moores didn’t need to take LFC on because his family have got a very successful business, and he is a very wealthy man and probably he is also a man who is very content with his lot.

  33. “Sick” Gillett invites DIC to distract. ??

    “Gillett had been planning to also attend the first leg, but he didn’t travel to northern England on doctors’ advice.”

    So much for a website giving a balanced view . Perhaps he should have ignored professional advice a la Hicks or perhaps another reason he wants to sell.

  34. “Perhaps he should have ignored professional advice a la Hicks or perhaps another reason he wants to sell.”

    Indeed.

  35. I really used to admire your writing Jim but unfortunately you are now nothing more than Hicks very own Lord Haw Haw. You attack Gillett and DIC, but conveniently Ignore the fact that Hicks attended the match last nite against Police advice, Gillet at least stayed away.
    So Gillett is ‘Sick’ for inviting, Sameer Al Ansari, a liverpool supporting DIC official, to attend a game ?
    Wow, congratulations you have become a red top journalist Jim, well done.
    Did you tell Tommy junior to hold up his scarf during YNWA as is our tradition? Shame you did’nt help his dad learn the words to our anthem properly.

  36. Kingjari,

    I don’t mind being criticised by people who have opposite views to me, slightly different views to me, whatever. I can even cope with abuse to an extent, although often times it makes the one dishing out the abuse look worse.

    It annoys me if they criticise me using words I never said or twisting what I said, but I often feel anyone doing that does it because they care about the club and genuinely mis-read what I’d written, or that they did it on purpose and don’t really matter. No point trying to persuade someone who’s willing to do that deliberately.

    But having a go at me for not including something in an article because it hadn’t yet happened is pushing it a bit for me to be honest!

    This was written on Monday night – the police stuff was reported on Tuesday. My crystal ball’s out of guarantee now too, so I can’t even send it back. Damn!

    Also, where did the police actually say “Stay away”?

    The headline said it: “Police tell Liverpool FC American owners: Stay away

    Apr 22 2008 by Luke Traynor, Liverpool Echo

    The opening paragraph claimed it too: LIVERPOOL FC co-owner Tom Hicks is to defy police advice to be at Anfield tonight.

    The American businessman was warned it might not be safe for him to attend the Champions League semi-final clash against Chelsea.

    And But the ECHO can reveal Hicks and George Gillett were urged by Merseyside police not to attend the match.

    So who told them this? And was Gillett safe the previous time against Arsenal, but not this time, or did he defy police advice himself then?

    And why didn’t GG go last night? He was down to come, then he didn’t, claiming illness. Or something else according to this article: “The advice was also given to George Gillett, but he is unable to come to Anfield because of other commitments. Probably just this article getting it wrong, but what are we to believe these days?

    An unnamed person said discussions about safety had been had, but didn’t say if it was with the police or if the advice was actually, literally, not to come: “A source close to Tom Hicks said: “There was a discussion that was relevant to both Tom and George about the difficulties about them attending.

    “But Mr Hicks decided he wanted to be at Anfield and is looking forward to the game.”

    And the police said they’d advised about it, but wouldn’t talk about an individual: A Merseyside Police spokesman said: “We can confirm that advice has been given to Liverpool Football club regarding the attendance of the club’s owners, however we are not in a position to discuss any individual’s safety.

    “As with any other football event, the safety of those attending has been reviewed.

    “Merseyside Police has deployed the appropriate number of police officers alongside stewards to tonight’s match.”

    Don’t get me wrong, we can all read things wrong, read into something a fact that isn’t there, but it sounds to me that “STAY AWAY!” is an exaggeration of what was really said.

    But to be honest, have we really sunk to such depths?

    Death threats, spitting, now this.

    Anyway, onto the parts of the article that weren’t in need of a sixth sense…

    Gillett was reported as being sick, or ill, or unwell, or off-colour, or poorly. Hence the headline. Bit of a double meaning too. But he was also wrong to invite DIC. Especially Amanda Staveley, who hasn’t even got that excuse you and others use of being a long-term Red.

    Jofrad: Where was that quote from about doctor’s advice?

  37. Jim,
    fair enough I accept your point that the article was written previously, to information about the police advice being released. apologies
    But the tone of your articles HAVE changed of late, you attack parry, gillett and DIC while attempting to paper over or explain away Hicks own numerous faults.
    I read your explanation for your change of stance, but it just does’nt wash. Your an inteligent guy and usually a good and well balanced writer……sadly not anymore though.

    Who are these mysterious
    ‘contacts’ that have made you suddenly so pro-hicks and anti-gillett/DIC/Parry ?, are you in contact with Hicks or Tommy Jr ?.

    I noticed you did’nt report on the SOS dig in stanley park, where they satirically drew attention to the fact that after over 400 days work has yet to begin on the new stadium.
    Nor do you report the small matter of the encouraging meeting that took place on tuesday between representatives of DIC lead by Amanda Stavely and representatives from the Spirit of Shankly.
    Why not Jim, these are things Liverpool fans should be made aware of don’t you agree ??

    I don’t want Hicks or Gillett at our club, what I do want is balanced articles from a writer I had a lot of respect for.

    YNWA

Comments are closed.