Boardroom unrest - all media articles in here...

[zigackly]

More evidence that Hicks and Gillett are complete fucking cunts. As if any were needed. Some people have been going around saying they must be ok because they bought players as well. Assume Tommy Mascherano and Skrtel are in the same situation.

[Randy Marsh]

Tom Hicks fails to convince at Liverpool - Football News - Telegraph

Tom Hicks fails to convince at Liverpool
By Jim White
Last Updated: 1:49am BST 18/04/2008


The cosy fire-side setting; the cow-eyes flicking wistful glances at the interviewer; the self-pitying litany of complaint about a cruel, abusive partner: it was all oddly familiar.

It became obvious during Tom Hicks' television interview yesterday that if this is the way he presents himself to the media, the Liverpool co-owner clearly wants to be regarded as the 'Princess Diana of sport'. Or as he would put it, the 'Princess Diana of sports brand franchise development'.


Media mis-management: Tom Hicks has dragged Liverpool into the limelight for all the wrong reasons
The only real surprise about the profile of Merseyside's Mr Unpopular that ran in continuous loop on Sky Sports News, was that Hicks did not insist on being interviewed by Martin Bashir, whose gently lobbed questions would allow him to reveal himself not as any old asset stripper but as the 'People's Asset Stripper and Corporate Raider'.

Just five days ahead of Liverpool's crucial match with Chelsea, the man who has reversed his gargantuan sub-prime into the country's most decorated football club was given ample platform to reveal his priorities. Never mind the Champions League, it was his personal agenda that Hicks wanted aired, principally his desire to shovel all the blame for Liverpool's management crisis at the feet of the club's CEO, Rick Parry.

Football fans' forum
If you knew nothing about the situation at Liverpool - if, for instance, you knew as little about it as Hicks knows about football ("I didn't even know who this guy Jurgen Klinsmann was," he spluttered at one point) - then the Texan with the comedy comb-over and the complex dentistry might have come across as the wounded innocent. He might have emerged as a guy who simply wants Liverpool to do well (albeit not so much in the Premier League as in the FTSE 100).

As he watched Liverpool's 3-1 victory over Blackburn on satellite television thousands of miles from Anfield, he might have come across as a typical fan. But you only needed a cursory glance between the lines to see the true nature of the beast.

Here was Hicks, the man who had saddled Liverpool with an overdraft the size of Northern Rock in the first place, talking about how anxious he is to rid the club of debt. Here was the man who claims others are undermining Rafael Benitez, boasting that he might in future consider giving the manager a year's extension to his contract provided things went well on the pitch. Here was a man who claims to have the traditions of Liverpool at heart, saying "a football club is a football club. It is a club. But it is also something that has to grow."


In the PR battle of Anfield Road, his is the first shot across the bows. It may not be the last we hear from the characters in football's least attractive soap opera.

"You fear this is going to rumble on and on," said former Liverpool full-back Alan Kennedy when asked to comment about this 'Sky Sports News World Exclusive'. Rumble on and on? With Sky Sports News on hand that is not a fear. It is a certainty.

[Jose Jones]

Originally Posted by zigackly

More evidence that Hicks and Gillett are complete fucking cunts. As if any were needed. Some people have been going around saying they must be ok because they bought players as well. Assume Tommy Mascherano and Skrtel are in the same situation.

Aye. Hicks is a deliberate cunt, Gillett is a stupid cunt, Parry's a slow cunt and Moores is an ignorant cunt.
It's starting to look more and more like we need the banks to not lend Hicks the money to buy out Gillett, DIC to get his shares and then lever Hicks out the way.
Whether DIC will go for the 50% after what they've said recently about waiting for the two owners to sort themselves out looks doubtful. Even if they do, the chances of Hicks first working with DIC, then second selling his stake to them look extremely doubtful. In short I reckon we're fucked. Fucked by cunts.

[OnizukaEikichi]

sigh what a shitty time we had since those 2 cunts took over.

[OnizukaEikichi]

princess diana lol...

[Sinos]

Oliver Kay has obviously been briefed by Square1 consulting who've highlighted the debt as Thicks weak spot and he has gleefully done a number on him. What's clever about it is that he's managed to turn abstract concept of this debt into something we understand like losing our beloved Fernando. This then keeps the debt in focus as the number 1 issue so Hicks then has to keep talking about it and shows him up as the skint despot that he is and subtley portrays DIC as the good guys . So stop panicking and see it for what it is. Though that shouldn't stop us from using against the nasty fucker.

[ReddOrDedd]

YouTube - Tom Hicks - Parry Reign a Disaster

Watch it (if you can bear it). I think my favourite bit is the end: "Tom Hicks is a popular figure in Dallas."

Errrr, WHAT????

Brilliant journalism there, Sly.

[andyfm]

Originally Posted by Sinos

Oliver Kay has obviously been briefed by Square1 consulting who've highlighted the debt as Thicks weak spot and he has gleefully done a number on him. What's clever about it is that he's managed to turn abstract concept of this debt into something we understand like losing our beloved Fernando. This then keeps the debt in focus as the number 1 issue so Hicks then has to keep talking about it and shows him up as the skint despot that he is and subtley portrays DIC as the good guys . So stop panicking and see it for what it is. Though that shouldn't stop us from using against the nasty fucker.

I'll only panic if Hicks takes over. The PR war is truly underway.

[Ian Sea]

Hopefully a big deal will be made of this and all those half wit supporters of ours who think Hicks and Gillett have used their own money to buy players will see what is really going on.

[Sponky]

Shocking! Is there no end to there Cuntishness.

[ManxRed]

Originally Posted by Sinos

Oliver Kay has obviously been briefed by Square1 consulting who've highlighted the debt as Thicks weak spot and he has gleefully done a number on him. What's clever about it is that he's managed to turn abstract concept of this debt into something we understand like losing our beloved Fernando. This then keeps the debt in focus as the number 1 issue so Hicks then has to keep talking about it and shows him up as the skint despot that he is and subtley portrays DIC as the good guys . So stop panicking and see it for what it is. Though that shouldn't stop us from using against the nasty fucker.

Good point - well made

[Dirk]

If you don't keep up the repayments on your mortgage then your house might be repossessed. Stunning piece of journalism by Olly Kay.

[spider-neil]

Oily seems to think there IS a 90 day clause after a partner is given first refusal.

[Soleilrouge]

Hicks has done some service by exposing Parry publicly. The reality is our club has under-achieved under Moores and Parry. Moores also sold the club down the swanny for an extra stg 8million in his own bank account and then moans about the behaviour of the current owners - he is the most pathetic figure in all of this. The present crisis is about who blinks first - Gillette or Hicks. Either scenario is better than the current stand-off. The good news is there is too much money involved for the stand-off to last much longer. The bad news is it could mess up our transfer activity if it goes into the summer. However, it will resolve itself soon.

[navbasi]

Originally Posted by Rashid

My Telegraph contact who knows Staveley told me that Parry will survive this as new owners will want someone to hold hands with the future CEO for a while. No lie. The guys a twat and a survivor. I reckon he will walk away though.

Does that mean Ayre goes as well. He'll get some pay off as he's only been in the job for 6 months or so..

[navbasi]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Oily seems to think there IS a 90 day clause after a partner is given first refusal.

The fact Hicks didn't mention it in his interview yesterday would suggest there is a clause, otherwise I'm sure he would have made that point clear to all.

The end is nigh to all this as Gillette has stated he will not sell to Hicks, Hicks has stated he will never be involved in another 50/50 deal.. all roads lead to DIC.

[lifetime fan]

Originally Posted by andyfm

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.

It'll be interesting if TB mentions this 90 day deadline this afternoon in his peice and if it's actually fact.

It could be one of the reasons why DIC went so public when withdrawing from negotiations with the fat Texan but still said they were waiting for the Yanks to finalise their 'divore' before coming backk nowing they only had to wait 90 days.

This re-financing deal was mentioned on 5 Live last night and I don't think enough fans are aware that Hicks needs money for all his sports franchises.

Whats to stop him taking a massive loan against all his teams, spending the money on the Rangers and Stars and let us pay the interest?

By the sound of it RBS are no longer involved in the financial side of things so the protests should be aomed at Myrell Lynch.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Oily seems to think there IS a 90 day clause after a partner is given first refusal.

It is confusing the fuck out of me. If Hicks comes with an offer (that matches DIC's offer) for Gillett within 90 days, how can Gillett refuse to sell him ?

[RedinSweden]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

It is confusing the fuck out of me. If Hicks comes with an offer (that matches DIC's offer) for Gillett within 90 days, how can Gillett refuse to sell him ?

I am a bit confused too. He said in the interview that Gillett doesn't have to sell to him. Is the 90 days thing a veto then or some such?

[navbasi]

RBS 'prepares fundraising plan'

Britain's second largest bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, is expected to ask shareholders for up to £12bn of extra cash to improve its financial position.

Several newspapers are reporting that RBS will raise the funds by selling shares to existing investors.

The global credit crunch has meant banks worldwide are keen to shore up their capital positions - and it is thought others may follow RBS's move.

RBS, owner of NatWest, Ulster Bank and insurer Direct Line, has not commented.

In a statement, it would only confirm that it would give a trading update next week as planned. The update is due ahead of its annual meeting on Wednesday.

Analysts stressed that this was not something that should worry people with accounts at any RBS banks.

"This is not a customer issue, it's a shareholder issue," said Justin Urquhart Stewart from Seven Investment Management.

Takeover move

RBS shares fell 2.4% in late trading on Thursday as rumours of a rights issue began to circulate and fell by another 1.2% in morning trading on Friday.

Cash reserves at RBS were stretched by its leading role in last year's takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro.

"Banks have to retain a certain cushion of cash relative to the amount of risk on their balance sheet," said Alex Potter, banking analyst at Collins Stewart.

"Having spent the best part of 70bn euros ($111bn; £56bn) last year on the biggest bank in Holland, they now have the smallest cushion relative to risk on their balance sheet of any bank in Europe."

Other banks

R