Liverpool FC Forum

puroresu wrote:So another example of Moore's and Parry not seeing what was done in the past by the new owner. 

They are to blame for this mess

peewee wrote:i think i will start a poll, who is more hated, hicks or peewee?

And as always, you will come second 

radun5 wrote:

peewee wrote:i think i will start a poll, who is more hated, hicks or peewee?

And as always, you will come second 

Ciggy wrote:

Ace Ventura wrote:Has anyone got the link/story about the brazilian club that Hicks bought, promised the stadium to...never delivered and then fooked off ?
Or am i imagining that 

Tom Hicks left a legacy of furious fans, broken promises and legal wrangling after his first attempt to crack football fell apart, it has been claimed.

The Texan tycoon's firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst bought into Brazilian giants Corinthians in 1999 in a bid to tap in to the lucrative South American market.
Just as at Liverpool, they promised a state-of-the-art stadium - but were soon left facing a fans' backlash. And when Hicks's company struggled to make the venture profitable, they pulled out after just three years.

Hicks and co-owner George Gillett revealed a £350million re-financing deal for Liverpool last week which means work can commence on the club's new 70,000-seat stadium. But a source close to Hicks said: "The company invested heavily in South America throughout the 1990s and the deal with Corinthians was part of that.

"But the funds they set up did not return money for their investors and it went downhill completely after 9/11.

"Hicks, Muse lost a great deal of money on the investment and it was large factor in Tom 'retiring' from that company."

Through its subsidiary PanAmerican Sports Teams, Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst invested more than £40m in Corinthians in the first year of what was supposedly a 10-year partnership alone.

The deal was part of a project to invest in Brazilian football and broadcast it all over Latin America on the Hicks-owned TV station PSN. The cash injection fired Corinthians to victory in the 2000 World Club Cup and even gave the club the funds to sign Brazil stars Dida and Luizao.

But the new regime infuriated fans when they started selling off star players the following summer and announced plans to change Corinthians' famous black-and-white kit.

One Brazilian source said: "The Americans came into Corinthians with a lot of money but did not understand the way football works. They brought in a strong team of advisers to administer the club but the way they did things was very American, in the crudest sense. The model they wanted does not function here. Things had to be done their way.
"I can understand why Liverpool fans are angry with Hicks - but perhaps they should ask why their football industry has come to such a point that he was able to buy the club."
Hicks announced on Friday a £350m refinancing plan which strengthened his grip on Anfield despite fury from fans over a perceived lack of backing for boss Rafa Benitez. The deal loads £105m worth of debt on to the club, including £60m for work on the much-delayed new stadium.
But Corinthians fans never saw the 45,000-seat ground on the outskirts of Sao Paulo which Hicks, Muse promised them in 1999. Brazilian pundit Paulo Vinicius Coelho said: "They promised a new ground and it never arrived."
Even though Hicks, Muse pulled out of the club in 2003 after a row with a local partner over funding, it was not until December 28 2007 that the legal wrangling between the company and Corinthians finally ended

Thanks lynds, i knew i wasnt losing the plot 

Ciggy wrote:Fernando Torres future under threat as banks keep watchful eye on Liverpool

Oliver Kay

Liverpool must repay £31.5 million to banking institutions in little more than a year or risk having to sell Fernando Torres and Ryan Babel.

The Times has learnt that Liverpool borrowed the money to sign Torres, the Spain forward who has scored 30 goals this season and has already become a firm favourite on the Kop, from Atlético Madrid last summer. The club then refinanced that debt on January 25, at the same time as they secured a £350 million refinancing package.

Liverpool entered into an 18-month loan agreement with interest of 9 per cent — £2.8 million a year — with a letter of credit to pay back the £31.5 million at the end of the period.

Should Liverpool be unable to pay back or refinance the loan, banks could force the sale of Torres and Babel, who was also included in the smaller refinancing package.

It is unusual for Barclays Premier League clubs to buy players in this way. Deals are normally funded using television income. Liverpool have to pay £30 million a year in interest payments on the £350 million loan, the terms of which end in July 2009. There was no official comment from the club last night.

The revelations came on a day when the turmoil at Anfield reached a nadir after Tom Hicks attempted to strengthen his grip on the club during an interview in which he demonised his enemies inside and outside Anfield. However, the Liverpool co-owner has only six weeks to raise the funds he needs if he is to achieve his goal of buying the club outright.

Having continued his assault on Rick Parry by calling his tenure as chief executive “a disaster”, Hicks admitted that his joint-ownership venture with George Gillett Jr had proved unworkable, but he is looking for the funds that would help him to buy Gillett’s 50 per cent stake and to “fix the entire financial structure of the club” while overseeing the construction of a new 70,000-capacity stadium in Stanley Park.

Gillett responded last night with a strongly worded statement in which he accused his co-owner of destabilising the club. “I am saddened at this latest outburst from Tom Hicks,” he said. “If Tom wanted a serious discussion on the issues to help the club move forward, he should bring his views to the board.

“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. He knows that Rick Parry has my support and that airing his comments in this way will not change my position.

“Tom needs to understand that I will not sell my shares to him.”

Hicks was typically bullish about his prospects of raising the money — or, perhaps more realistically, finding the financial backing — but while he continues to explore his options with Merrill Lynch, his latest financial adviser, the clock is ticking.

Hicks has denied rumours in the City that he is under pressure to refinance his Hicks Sports Group, which holds his stakes in various sports franchises in the United States, but a deadline is looming to buy Gillett’s stake, which is the subject of a rival bid from Dubai International Capital (DIC), the private-equity investment arm of the Dubai Government.

Under the terms of their takeover 14 months ago, Hicks has pre-emption rights on Gillett’s stake in Liverpool and vice versa. That option is understood to expire 90 days after he was informed of DIC’s £200 million offer to Gillett, which was made on February 27. That period would expire on May 27, six days after the Champions League final in Moscow.

Hicks, though, maintains that he will be in charge of Liverpool for the long term, which would be bad news for Parry. “What has happened under Rick has been a disaster,” Hicks told Sky Sports News. “We have fallen so far behind the other clubs. We have still got the top brand in the world of football, but that’s no good if you don’t know how to commercialise it. Rick needs to resign. You have to be able to work with the manager and Rick has proved he can’t do that.”

Parry, who responded with a rigorous defence of his record, will not resign and is under no pressure to do so, given that only two of the club’s six directors want him to go.

Hicks said that, if he succeeds in buying Liverpool outright, he will offer Benítez a one-year extension to his contract, which expires in 2010, but, despite his newfound alliance with the manager, he remains unpopular with supporters.

peewee wrote:on a serious note mate hicks has stated he is here for the long term and the points i have been trying to make is to give him support while he is here, where is the benefit of protesting when he isnt going anywhere, it pointless

isn't that what a large proportion of the french said when the nazis invaded?

andy_g wrote:

peewee wrote:on a serious note mate hicks has stated he is here for the long term and the points i have been trying to make is to give him support while he is here, where is the benefit of protesting when he isnt going anywhere, it pointless

isn't that what a large proportion of the french said when the nazis invaded?

andy_g wrote:

peewee wrote:on a serious note mate hicks has stated he is here for the long term and the points i have been trying to make is to give him support while he is here, where is the benefit of protesting when he isnt going anywhere, it pointless

isn't that what a large proportion of the french said when the nazis invaded?

andy_g wrote:

peewee wrote:on a serious note mate hicks has stated he is here for the long term and the points i have been trying to make is to give him support while he is here, where is the benefit of protesting when he isnt going anywhere, it pointless

isn't that what a large proportion of the french said when the nazis invaded?

peewee wrote:

Ace Ventura wrote:Has anyone got the link/story about the brazilian club that Hicks bought, promised the stadium to...never delivered and then fooked off ?
Or am i imagining that 

never heard of that

Shocking.   And you wonder why a geography teacher from Canada has a better grasp on the severity of the situation than you do.  Let me paint a simple picture for you, Peewee, and then I'll go back to ignoring your drivel:

What happens at board level has and will continue to influence what happens on the pitch.  Ergo, solving the board room problems (which are massive) completely and utterly overshadows everything else when it comes to Liverpool Football Club.  Hicks must go, Gillett must go and Parry must go in that order.  Once those exits have been orchestrated the minor problems on the pitch can be effectively addressed.

Judge wrote:

andy_g wrote:

peewee wrote:on a serious note mate hicks has stated he is here for the long term and the points i have been trying to make is to give him support while he is here, where is the benefit of protesting when he isnt going anywhere, it pointless

isn't that what a large proportion of the french said when the nazis invaded?

that has to be tongue in cheek andy

nazis invading france had far more reaching problems than that at football club