Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:25 pm

murphy0151 wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
murphy0151 wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
mungi wrote:considering its from the mirror, its most likely garbage

25th of October dinner with Balague and Dermot Gallagher in Maghull.
Believe what you will but Guillem admitted the following in a Q and A session.

The Americans are looking to get rid of Liverpool as quick as they can.

It must be true if he said so

See you have taken over Stu's position.
I didnt say it where true I meant it was said over a month ago.

December 1, 2007
Rift rumours persist after Rafael BenÍtez fails to get backing
Oliver Kay

Liverpool were quick yesterday to dampen speculation that Tom Hicks, one of their co-owners, was preparing to sell his 50 per cent stake in the club, but that is just about the only emphatic statement from Anfield over the course of a week in which Rafael BenÍtez has been given no reassurances about his position at the club.

BenÍtez claimed yesterday that he is now “happy” with the situation at Liverpool, having sought to put his spat with Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the co-chairmen, behind him. BenÍtez has had no contact from the owners since the e-mail from Hicks that so enraged him nine days ago, and there remains concern at the club that fundamental problems are being ignored.

Foster Gillett, son of George, was appointed in the summer as a “linkman” between BenÍtez and the owners, based at the club’s training ground, but he has had little or no contact with the manager since returning to Merseyside on Wednesday after four weeks away. Rick Parry, the chief executive, is the other potential go-between, but his working relationship with BenÍtez remains uneasy, despite what the manager described as a “positive” two-hour meeting last Monday.

In a statement yesterday, Parry declared that reports that Hicks was preparing to sell his 50 per cent share-holding were “complete rubbish”, while the Texan was said to be “angered” by the claim. But there have been no such unequivocal statements or denials from Anfield or from the United States in response to reports about BenÍtez’s position.

It is no secret that the working relationship between Hicks and Gillett is running far from smoothly, but the pair are close to confirming a £500 million refinancing package. That deal, however, will take the club hundreds of millions of pounds into debt, another source of deep concern for Liverpool’s supporters at a time when their faith in the supposed American dream is being tested to the limit.

What position is that ciggs?

I think Ciggy was meaning something like this

Although Stu always seemed to think it was more like this

by **zarababe** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:49 pm

Isn't it inetresting that the Pr.ck parry comes out with a statement on the Owners situation and nothing to support Rafa ?

If the Arabs are still interesetd bring'em in I say - this lost ain't covered themselves in glory over the past week !

by **tubby** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:58 pm

This is

, where is the massive investment. Dont tell me this is all they are willing to put in and that we have to sell to buy. Rafa sold quite a bit already to recoup cash from the Torres sale and now they wont fork out for Masch.

This isnt the smoothest 1st year in charge for them. How many other owners do you see making such statements to the media? Moores should have just :censored:

sold to DIC in the first place and not brought these cowboys into it

by **J*o*n*D*o*e** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:16 pm

hindsight is a wonderful thing, saying that i fail to see what some of you are getting so worked up about.

by **Bad Bob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:25 pm

bavlondon wrote:This is , where is the massive investment. Dont tell me this is all they are willing to put in and that we have to sell to buy. Rafa sold quite a bit already to recoup cash from the Torres sale and now they wont fork out for Masch.

This isnt the smoothest 1st year in charge for them. How many other owners do you see making such statements to the media? Moores should have just sold to DIC in the first place and not brought these cowboys into it

At the risk of being lynched, it might be worth pointing out that the Glazers didn't back Ferguson heavily in the transfer market until this past summer. Before then, players like Van Der Sar, Park, Vidic, Evra and Carrick were brought in for a fair penny but that money was often generated by the sale of players such as Van Nistleroy, P. Neville, Tim Howard, Kleberson and Mikel (Man U got 12 million in compensation from Chelsea). Perhaps expecting another Ambramovich was a bit naive.

by **murphy0151** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:57 pm

s@int wrote:
murphy0151 wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
murphy0151 wrote:
Ciggy wrote:
mungi wrote:considering its from the mirror, its most likely garbage

25th of October dinner with Balague and Dermot Gallagher in Maghull.
Believe what you will but Guillem admitted the following in a Q and A session.

The Americans are looking to get rid of Liverpool as quick as they can.

It must be true if he said so

See you have taken over Stu's position.
I didnt say it where true I meant it was said over a month ago.

December 1, 2007
Rift rumours persist after Rafael BenÍtez fails to get backing
Oliver Kay

Liverpool were quick yesterday to dampen speculation that Tom Hicks, one of their co-owners, was preparing to sell his 50 per cent stake in the club, but that is just about the only emphatic statement from Anfield over the course of a week in which Rafael BenÍtez has been given no reassurances about his position at the club.

BenÍtez claimed yesterday that he is now “happy” with the situation at Liverpool, having sought to put his spat with Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the co-chairmen, behind him. BenÍtez has had no contact from the owners since the e-mail from Hicks that so enraged him nine days ago, and there remains concern at the club that fundamental problems are being ignored.

Foster Gillett, son of George, was appointed in the summer as a “linkman” between BenÍtez and the owners, based at the club’s training ground, but he has had little or no contact with the manager since returning to Merseyside on Wednesday after four weeks away. Rick Parry, the chief executive, is the other potential go-between, but his working relationship with BenÍtez remains uneasy, despite what the manager described as a “positive” two-hour meeting last Monday.

In a statement yesterday, Parry declared that reports that Hicks was preparing to sell his 50 per cent share-holding were “complete rubbish”, while the Texan was said to be “angered” by the claim. But there have been no such unequivocal statements or denials from Anfield or from the United States in response to reports about BenÍtez’s position.

It is no secret that the working relationship between Hicks and Gillett is running far from smoothly, but the pair are close to confirming a £500 million refinancing package. That deal, however, will take the club hundreds of millions of pounds into debt, another source of deep concern for Liverpool’s supporters at a time when their faith in the supposed American dream is being tested to the limit.

What position is that ciggs?

I think Ciggy was meaning something like this

Although Stu always seemed to think it was more like this

Exellent picture. Arent I clever lol

by **tubby** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:36 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
bavlondon wrote:This is , where is the massive investment. Dont tell me this is all they are willing to put in and that we have to sell to buy. Rafa sold quite a bit already to recoup cash from the Torres sale and now they wont fork out for Masch.

This isnt the smoothest 1st year in charge for them. How many other owners do you see making such statements to the media? Moores should have just sold to DIC in the first place and not brought these cowboys into it

At the risk of being lynched, it might be worth pointing out that the Glazers didn't back Ferguson heavily in the transfer market until this past summer. Before then, players like Van Der Sar, Park, Vidic, Evra and Carrick were brought in for a fair penny but that money was often generated by the sale of players such as Van Nistleroy, P. Neville, Tim Howard, Kleberson and Mikel (Man U got 12 million in compensation from Chelsea). Perhaps expecting another Ambramovich was a bit naive.

So basicaly we should be patient and wait till next year then they will splash out? I dont think anyone was seriously expecting another Abramovich but Rafas already been turned down 4mil for Kaladze so what hope does that leave for securing Masch to a contract? Maybe im reading too much into this but the fact that this situation got to the point where parties were throwing slaps at each other via the media suggests that something serious was about to happen.

Its good that Rafa said its al been smoothed over for now but well see when they come over how healed the situation really is.

by **Bad Bob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:50 pm

bavlondon wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
bavlondon wrote:This is , where is the massive investment. Dont tell me this is all they are willing to put in and that we have to sell to buy. Rafa sold quite a bit already to recoup cash from the Torres sale and now they wont fork out for Masch.

This isnt the smoothest 1st year in charge for them. How many other owners do you see making such statements to the media? Moores should have just sold to DIC in the first place and not brought these cowboys into it

At the risk of being lynched, it might be worth pointing out that the Glazers didn't back Ferguson heavily in the transfer market until this past summer. Before then, players like Van Der Sar, Park, Vidic, Evra and Carrick were brought in for a fair penny but that money was often generated by the sale of players such as Van Nistleroy, P. Neville, Tim Howard, Kleberson and Mikel (Man U got 12 million in compensation from Chelsea). Perhaps expecting another Ambramovich was a bit naive.

So basicaly we should be patient and wait till next year then they will splash out? I dont think anyone was seriously expecting another Abramovich but Rafas already been turned down 4mil for Kaladze so what hope does that leave for securing Masch to a contract? Maybe im reading too much into this but the fact that this situation got to the point where parties were throwing slaps at each other via the media suggests that something serious was about to happen.

Its good that Rafa said its al been smoothed over for now but well see when they come over how healed the situation really is.

No question it was/is a serious enough situation given that it has been played out in the media. I'd also like to make clear that, while I question how Rafa went public with his frustrations, I am sympathetic to his frustrations. A pledge to stump up the cash for a proven player like Mascherano plus a promise that funds will be available to bring in CB cover this January should be what he gets from the Americans. Now, if some of the money for those bits of business needs to come through sales, fair enough, but dragging heels on the matter won't help here.

I raise the Glazer situation, though, to suggest that Hicks and Gillett might take a similar approach to transfers over the short term: minimal net outlay, with a majority of their funds going to financing the stadium (in the Glazers' case, they go to servicing the debt incurred during the initial purchase). If that's the case, then yes, we'll need to be prepared to sell in order to buy for a few transfer windows. My hope, though, is that they'll: 1) show faith in Rafa to handle the footballing decisions and 2) be prepared to top up the transfer kitty a little after all the sales proceeds come in so that we can realistically go after more players the calibre of Torres.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:12 pm

Graeme Souness called me and said Masch ain't worth the money.

He recommended we buy Joey Barton instead.

I said "Graeme.....what have you been smoking?"

Liverpool FC Forum

Hicks ready to sell share? - Dic to buy it.

Who is online