Boardroom unrest - all media articles in here...

[TK421]

Originally Posted by RedinSweden

Until then we are both right in a schrödingers cat kinda way.

I can handle that, but when "it" happens I will bump this thread, point and laugh at you, and neg your rep.

[Red Nick]

Tom Hicks: I'll buy out George Gillett to save Rafa Benitez' skin
By David Maddock 18/04/2008


(What's this?)Liverpool's crisis deepened last night, as both owners insisted the crippling stalemate that is destroying the club will continue.

Texan billionaire Tom Hicks gave an emotional interview yesterday, outlining his plans to buy out co-owner George Gillett and give manager Rafa Benitez a new contract.

Hicks says that the money will soon be in place to take a controlling interest in Anfield and that he will never sell his 50 per cent share. He will instead "make a very attractive offer" for his partner to sell out.

But Gillett immediately poured cold water on that idea by insisting that he will never sell to Hicks which effectively leaves the club rudderless. Both men have an equal 50 per cent stake in Liverpool and both have the power of veto over each other.

Advertisement
That means no decisions can be made over the club's future.

Benitez hoped to bring the situation to a head earlier in the week when he made clear his intention to walk out in the summer unless he gets the full backing of both men.

But even though Hicks has pledged his complete support, Gillett has instead put his weight behind chief executive Rick Parry, who has seen his relationship with the manager break down.

That leaves Liverpool in crisis with the manager looking certain to leave as the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona and AC Milan circle with interest.

Hicks has tried to avert that situation by asking for the removal of Parry and suggesting he buy out Gillett.

But last night his partner hit back: "Tom needs to understand that I will not sell my shares to him and that we need to find a way forward that is properly funded and truly in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club.

"I am saddened by this latest outburst from Tom Hicks. If Tom wanted a serious discussion on the issues to help the club move forward, he should bring his views to the board and not to Sky Sports.

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

But Hicks also remained defiant last night when he too insisted that he will not give up his 50 per cent stake. He argued that of the two Americans, only he had the financial clout to put Liverpool on an even keel.

Hicks went on the offensive yesterday claiming:

Parry's leadership has been a disaster that has seen Liverpool fall 10 years behind the other top Premier League clubs.

The new stadium should have been built four years ago.

Benitez has missed out on top players because of dithering by Parry.

The chief executive cannot work with the manager.

Gillett made an approach to his friend Jurgen Klinsmann about becoming manager.

His American partner doesn't support Benitez.

Gillett doesn't have the money to support ambitious plans at Anfield.

He claims he is ready to find a silent partner to take control of Liverpool, and if he does, then the American explained that he will back the Spanish coach fully by offering him a new contract.

"I'm working on the money to make Liverpool's finances more sound. I can't force George to accept but I can make him an attractive offer soon," he said.

"If I'm the majority owner I can put more capital in. I know of investors who want to be a minority investor with me.

"My goal is to take the debt off the club, except the normal working capital needs, and get the permanent financing in place for the stadium."

Hicks claimed that he fell out with Gillett because of plans to build a state-of-the-art 75,000-seat stadium that his business partner simply couldn't afford to finance.

And he claims that Gillett is only backing Parry because he is an ally against Benitez.

Hicks said: "If you look at what has happened under Rick's leadership it's been a disaster to fall so far behind other top clubs.

"The new stadium should have been built three or four years ago.

We've got the top brand in the world of football, we just don't know how to commercialise it."

Rafa Benitez Manager. Likes Hicks. Hates Gillett, doesn't like Parry.. or Klinsmann!!

Jurgen Klinsmann Interviewed about the Liverpool job. Likes, er, diving!

George Gillett 50 per cent owner. Hates Hicks, backs Parry and Rafa, loves Klinsmann

Rick Parry Chief executive. Hates Hicks, likes Gillett, difficult relationship with Rafa

Tom Hicks 50 per cent owner. Hates Gillett & Parry. Likes Rafa. Doesn't know who Klinsmann is

[Red Nick]

Does everyone else realise that this club could be paralised for most of next season?

For both men now its about winning the battle and not losing face whilst our beloved club is dragged through the dirt probably without Rafa as If I was Rafa and a job at Milan, Barca or Madrid came up Id be off even though I love LFC and I dont think anyone could blame him.

Hopefully he leaves us with number 6

[zigackly]

Hopefully he wins us number six and stays Nick, you arl pessimist.

[Red Nick]

Originally Posted by zigackly

Hopefully he wins us number six and stays Nick, you arl pessimist.

Pessisism and Realism quite close in this scenario

[zigackly]

You say potato, I say chips and curry sauce please.

[05 Milan]

Doesn't seem to me like Rafa is looking to leave. Quite the opposite, he seems to be digging his heels in. Him being sacked is a different scenario, which will cause mayhem.

[Brownie]

I don't think Rafa will walk away at all and I don't think he'll be sacked.

He won't be sacked because the Yanks won't agree on it, so it would be up to any prospective new owners to decide. IMO, taking into consideration how popular Rafa is with the fans, it would be suicidal of any new owners to sack him, so I think he's safe.

[RedinSweden]

Originally Posted by TK421

I can handle that, but when "it" happens I will bump this thread, point and laugh at you, and neg your rep.

I'll neg your fucking face off.

[G Richards]

Maddock was the most explicit I've seen from the press with regard to Rafa's departure this summer - unless he gets the backing of both owners. That's a bit puzzling to me, because both men do back him. The problem is not to do with backing Rafa. Granted, there was an issue before Christmas when things were not going so well, and the Klinsmann possiblity was (indiscretely) looked at; but that's now all old hat (apart from the new info about Parry's involvement, which rankled Rafa and further strained that relationship).

But both owners are behind Rafa, and that is not the issue.

The issue is the future ownership of the club. Gillett wants to sell his half to DIC. DIC want that and Hicks' half too. Hicks wants to stop Gillett selling. He's trying to raise the money to match the DIC deal. Gillett says that he won't sell to Hicks even if he does find the money in the 90 day period (by May 27th?)

If Hicks does not find the money, surely Gillett will sell to DIC. If Hicks does find the money to match the DIC offer, and thus Gillett has two willing buyers, presumably this will come down to lawyers and the courtroom, since the original terms of joint ownership clearly are not defined adequately and are open to interpretation.

Marry in haste, repent at leisure...

[Rashid]

Originally Posted by Brownie

I don't think Rafa will walk away at all and I don't think he'll be sacked.

He won't be sacked because the Yanks won't agree on it, so it would be up to any prospective new owners to decide. IMO, taking into consideration how popular Rafa is with the fans, it would be suicidal of any new owners to sack him, so I think he's safe.

Gillett has the power to sack Rafa whenever he wants as that will be a board decision, Hicks cannot veto it.

But Rafa is still here so that will tell you that he will stay.

[rebel23]

Gillett will sell to DIC, Rafa will get a new 4 year deal and transfer funds

that can be done through the board

the only problem is ol Tom, if he doesn't put in his share of funding for transfers or the stadium DIC may look to dilute his shareholding appropriately, i dont think that can be done through the board majority voting so it may end up in the court or some form of mediation where the court will side with DIC and reduce his equity thus making DIC majority owner, unless he fucks off quietely

[Red Nick]

Originally Posted by G Richards

Maddock was the most explicit I've seen from the press with regard to Rafa's departure this summer - unless he gets the backing of both owners. That's a bit puzzling to me, because both men do back him. The problem is not to do with backing Rafa. Granted, there was an issue before Christmas when things were not going so well, and the Klinsmann possiblity was (indiscretely) looked at; but that's now all old hat (apart from the new info about Parry's involvement, which rankled Rafa and further strained that relationship).

But both owners are behind Rafa, and that is not the issue.

The issue is the future ownership of the club. Gillett wants to sell his half to DIC. DIC want that and Hicks' half too. Hicks wants to stop Gillett selling. He's trying to raise the money to match the DIC deal. Gillett says that he won't sell to Hicks even if he does find the money in the 90 day period (by May 27th?)

If Hicks does not find the money, surely Gillett will sell to DIC. If Hicks does find the money to match the DIC offer, and thus Gillett has two willing buyers, presumably this will come down to lawyers and the courtroom, since the original terms of joint ownership clearly are not defined adequately and are open to interpretation.

Marry in haste, repent at leisure...

How you can say that when he openly supports Parry who cant possilbly work with Rafa is hard for me to understand

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Red Nick

How you can say that when he openly supports Parry who cant possilbly work with Rafa is hard for me to understand

Rafa is clever enough to understand why Gillett is supporting Parry. If Rafa doesn't like it and if he walks, so be it.

[zigackly]

Wouldn't normally do this, but I actually quite liked Robbo's article on the BBC today:

This is Angst-field
Liverpool
by Robbo Robson (U5722413) 17 April 2008

It’s time to praise Liverpool. Not the club, but the manager and the players.

It’s unthinkable that any other team under the circumstances could’ve got their way to a Champions League semi with the sort of shenanigans that’s going on off the pitch.

True, it’s down to two players mostly, but that doesn’t make it any less of an achievement.

At a time when fans and players were marking the anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy, Tom Hicks was busy sharpening his sword and preparing to dig it in to the ribs of anyone within stabbing distance.

This bloke says Rick Parry’s time as chief executive has been a disaster. Well, maybe, it hasn’t been too clever, but the biggest mistake he made was selling the club to America’s version of Cain and Abel.

Hicks is keen to put the skids under Parry – the Klinsmann meeting was set up by Rick apparently, and although he thought it was out of order, Hicks was there too, with his son Tom.

That tells you all you need to know doesn’t it? Tom Hicks has called his son Tom. Why do Yanks do that? All them American golfers called summat-summat the third. Like you’re not so much a person, just a sequel.

Hicks says if he bought Gillett out he’d put Rafa on a one-year extension straight away so he was around when the stadium was finally finished. One whole year, Tom? Taking your employment tips from the RFU, are you?

"Well done, Mr Ashton, would you like to keep your job for a whole year after getting a bunch of concrete-filled pillowcases to the World Cup Final?

"Good! That’ll give us plenty of time to undermine you by talking to other people behind your back. And then when we’ve done that we’ll sack you and offer you a rank alternative." That’s top management, isn’t it?

Hicks says Parry’s relationship with Rafa is fragile. Right. I suppose, though, if they went out for dinner, they might be able to string together a conversation, unlike, say, you and George.

You can see it now. "Could you ask Mr Hicks to pass me the salt?" "Could you tell Mr Gillett that the salt is in easy reach" etc, etc.

Do the two of them really think the public, and especially the Liverpool fans, are really going to believe anything they say when it’s all so obviously about two overgrown and unfortunately wealthy schoolboys having a playground spat?

It couldn’t be worse if Pari