Depends on what you define as 'shortly' Coop. After listening to Gillett's latest pack of lies I cant see anything happening on the stadium in the near future. I'd be amazed if anything happened in April.
To be fair Mick thats my biggest worry.
Without investment the stadium is not starting as these two wont put their own money in to start it.
The problem is they have been looking for investment since they first bought the club and have yet to find it.
They are currently following the LBO guide book which is to buy cheap, improve the company to its maximum then sell for a large profit.
The only way the profit required will be reached is by investment in the club and the stadium to be started.
This is where the big problem occurs because without investment the stadium does not start and as a result we see the team suffer as the belt needs to be tightened.
The debt level needs to fall to attract investors who are not prepared to pay the amount required by Gillett and Hicks.
A fine example for me would be the owners wanting £200m profit on the club (£100m each) then the lower the debt level then the lower the asking price.
The club is currently servicing the debts so in theory the owners can continue to let the club carry on as it is until investment is found or the financial market improves so they can then borrow the money for the stadium on terms that suit them.
Hicks sells Rangers, LFC still in limbo
Posted on January 24th, 2010 by Jim Boardman
Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has agreed the sale of Texas Rangers baseball franchise to a consortium headed by Chuck Greenberg and current Rangers president Nolan Ryan. Although Hicks will still retain a stake in the franchise he will no longer be on its board.
Hicks Sports Group announced on Saturday night that it had “reached a definitive agreement” to sell the MLB franchise to the Rangers Baseball Express, the Greenberg-Ryan investment group. Ryan ended his playing career at Texas Rangers and was described as a “legendary pitcher” in the announcement.
It has taken some time for the process to reach this stage. Hicks first said he was willing to sell a minority stake in the franchise in March last year, two months later admitting that he would now consider selling a majority stake. There is still some way to go before the sale goes through; Major League Baseball have to approve the deal as do some of the lenders that Hicks Sports Group have used. The statement also says that there is some “completion of financing” to do.
There was a 30-day period of exclusivity for the consortium to come to a deal, but having passed that deadline the negotiations continued and the deal went through. Hicks said: “Together, we have worked exhaustively since last month to attain this agreement. It’s a complex business deal that positions the franchise positively for the future.”
Another of the Hicks family’s investment interests, Ballpark Real Estate, will hand over 153 of the 195 acres of land it controls around the Rangers’ Ballpark stadium and the Dallas Cowboy’s stadium. This is being exchanged for “cash, notes, and an ownership position in the team”.
Greenberg will become Managing Partner and CEO of the new Rangers setup, With Ryan continuing as president. Other major investors in the new setup include billionaire Ray Davis (not of The Kinks) and the Simpson family (of Fort Worth not Springfield). Davis and Bob Simpson will become co-chairmen. Simpson was reportedly made $300m dollars richer last month when his XTO Energy merged with ExxonMobil.
For Hicks there’s a continuing role in the new organisation, but in what is said to be a more ceremonial or honorary role as Chairman Emeritus.
The amount of money involved has not been disclosed but speculation suggests the figure is somewhere between $500m and $570m (£310m and £350m) and enough to cover the Hicks Sports Group’s debts of around $525m. Hicks bought the Rangers for $250m in 1998.
Greenberg praised Hicks in the statement “Nolan and I greatly appreciate Tom Hicks’ willingness to work beyond the deadline to complete the deal and his support for passing the torch from the Hicks family to our group. His actions speak eloquently to his commitment to serve the best interests of Rangers fans and the community.”
Greenberg didn’t use the word ‘custodians’ to refer to the change of ownership but no doubt his words will be closely analysed by Rangers followers: “We are fortunate to be assuming the stewardship of a franchise poised for greatness. The tremendous foundation of talent that has been assembled on both the major and minor league levels, combined with our passionate commitment to achieve excellence in every facet of the organization’s operation, and the pent-up thirst for success we observe from our fans every day, creates the opportunity for the Rangers to become one of the great franchises in baseball.”
Meanwhile Hicks has also sold one of his holiday homes, a three-acre estate in the Aspen area of Colorado. The sale went through for $18.5m, below the original £20m asking price but still a massive return on the $1.03m he paid for it in 1995.
Described as consisting of “a main house and a guest house totalling 11,000 square feet” the properties were sold furnished. Hicks was reported to have said the sale was due to his family taking their vacations elsewhere in recent years. The property is about 100 miles away from the base of his fellow Reds co-owner George Gillett Jnr in Vail, Colorado. There was no love lost between the pair during a prolonged and public battle two years ago over ownership of Liverpool.
Hicks is still the owner of the Dallas Stars NHL side, but Gillett Jnr sold his stake in the Montreal Canadiens late last year. Meanwhile Liverpool’s financial troubles continue, and continue to be shrouded in secrecy.
The transfer budget has seemingly been withdrawn, Rafa Benítez having made a profit on transfers since the turn of last year and the new stadium, despite vague promises, is still to get underway.
A credible offer is believed to have been put to the club’s owners at the end of last season that would solve the problems with funding for the new stadium. This is believed to have been turned down flat by current LFC Managing Director Christian Purslow, with the impression given that he would be able to solve those problems himself.
Six months on – and with the club’s struggles on the field emphasising the financial difficulties they are under – there is still no sign of that funding and the club remains in limbo. Fans are still in the dark about what is really going on at the club behind the scenes. Is the club’s transfer spending being halted by the owners or by Purslow? Why not be honest about it? Where has the money gone, if it’s not gone on servicing the debt?
As both owners seem to be taking steps towards getting everything in order with their US interests, the man hired to sort out their Liverpool interest seems to be making very little progress. Worst of all, after billing himself as a lifelong Red, he doesn’t seem to be telling the supporters the open and honest truth about what is going on at the club.
A year’s worth of pay increases for a few players doesn’t explain why the annual transfer funding has dropped so dramatically. A simple explanation would have perhaps lessened the pressure on the manager. It would have been far better than shadowing him at press conferences, a move that made it look like there was a fear he might reveal something about what was really happening at the club.
Had that proposal for stadium funding been taken up in the close season, how much of a boost would it have been to the club and its supporters to finally see some progress on construction of the one thing that justified the club being sold in the first place?
Liverpool FC was sold so that it could afford a new stadium, a stadium that would bring in extra funds for new signings and help in the battle to get back on top of the league after all these years of missing out. Instead we sit here knowing that we’re now a selling club, hoping for the best with free transfers and wondering how long it will be before one of the big names is sold to help fund some replacements.
Clearly the club’s owners have been busy sorting out those North American interests, trying to take them out of limbo – now it’s time they got back to work on their interest here in England.
What I found interesting there Mick was the sale of land,if the article is accurate it stated the land deal was a separate issue.
I really think it was a case of 'sell us the land or we'll walk away from the deal' It certainly seems odd as I would have thought land prices were at a low point, so why sell now unless you really needed to ? It really does seem as though he's being held over a barrel here.
A chink of light at the end of the tunnel for us maybe ?
__________________
Originally posted by simonlfcgreen My mate knocked out a police horse we call him one punch Jarv he in jail now though.
What I found interesting there Mick was the sale of land,if the article is accurate it stated the land deal was a separate issue.
Like i put above mate Hicks wanted between $500-600m for the Texas Rangers alone but was told he was living in dreamland.
To get anywhere near that price he has had to include the land.
I think Hicks will more or less clear enough to pay off the debt he owed in the US but the advantage he now has is if he sells the Dallas Stars then he can make a profit on them.
Potentially bad news if it means he can now borrow to fund the stadium. I'm not sure why there's such a furore about getting it built anyway. We'll be suffocated by even more debt and in an even more perilous position, even with the extra money generated, which will just about pay off the interest. It's a vanity project, nothing more, and the fans will be squeezed to pay for it.
The new stadium is the big money spinner.
Loads of extra corporate seats plus extra fans in the stadium all add up to quite a few million.
Add to the fact we will offer the new stadium's naming rights up for grabs means that will knock many millions off the construction cost.
There was talk in the newspapers recently of us asking for and been confident of getting £250m naming rights for the new stadium and if you add that to the £100m Hicks and Gillett are asking for to someone to invest in the club you get the cost of the stadium without needing to take out another loan.
This is why the investment is important as it allows the stadium to get started and profit to be maximised.
I'd sooner stay at Anfield than have a stadium built by them two cunts.
So would i Mick but the only way that will happen is if we are taken over to be a rich mans plaything.
We generate enough to service the debt but then that is it, hardly anything left over to resemble a transfer budget.
The owners do not or willing to pump any of their own money in to the business as thats not how a LBO works.
Getting a new stadium built allows us to generate more cash via corporate events etc therefore making the club money allowing us to have money for transfers etc.
This is why under the current ownership and no stadium we will just carry on as we are at the moment.
like him or hate him, the only reason hicks is really selling the rangers is to solidify his position with liverpool.
while there is probably little profit in the overall sale for him, just the removal of the debt burden makes getting financing for the stadium that much easier.
in essence he was basically just cleaning up his credit score before going on to get his newest loan.
I for one do not think Hicks is in financial difficulties, I would like him to be, he may be suffering but everyone is.
Someone correct me here but he sells the Rangers and ground around the stadium. I think he still owns quite a bit of land around the stadium.
So he sells one team and owns another outright and some land around his old club.
Wake up the man is still wealthy, as much as we would like to think otherwise he still is a wealthy man.
__________________
Pepe Reina came up to me in the dressing room and he was very emotional. He said this wouldn't happen at any other football club.
I for one do not think Hicks is in financial difficulties, I would like him to be, he may be suffering but everyone is.
Someone correct me here but he sells the Rangers and ground around the stadium. I think he still owns quite a bit of land around the stadium.
So he sells one team and owns another outright and some land around his old club.
Wake up the man is still wealthy, as much as we would like to think otherwise he still is a wealthy man.
I could be wrong, but Hicks developed the land around the Rangers' stadium to be a sports specific area, and it has the Stars, and Cowboys new stadiums in it. He owns the stadium that the stars built.
Hicks is a world class parasite. He bought the land first, the stars and rangers second, and then built new stadiums for them ON HIS LAND, which he sold to the sports franchises with a lot of STATE money... for vastly inflated prices.
He also worked out the deal for the Cowboys' new stadium with their owners, which is one again done with majority of state money.
So, yes, he still owns loads of land around the stadia, and one of the stadiums on it.
The us states tend to let the tax payers fund the builds for these stadia... from my experiences in Arizona where the city of Glendale offered state/city money to help build the new stadia for the cardinals and coyotes... to draw them away from Tempe and Phoenix, respectively.
So would i Mick but the only way that will happen is if we are taken over to be a rich mans plaything.
We generate enough to service the debt but then that is it, hardly anything left over to resemble a transfer budget.
The owners do not or willing to pump any of their own money in to the business as thats not how a LBO works.
Getting a new stadium built allows us to generate more cash via corporate events etc therefore making the club money allowing us to have money for transfers etc.
This is why under the current ownership and no stadium we will just carry on as we are at the moment.
Any additional revenues created by a new Stadium will be eaten up by Stadium costs and Interest to pay these Cunts interest.
Hicks sells Rangers, LFC still in limbo
Posted on January 24th, 2010 by Jim Boardman
Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has agreed the sale of Texas Rangers baseball franchise to a consortium headed by Chuck Greenberg and current Rangers president Nolan Ryan. Although Hicks will still retain a stake in the franchise he will no longer be on its board.
Hicks Sports Group announced on Saturday night that it had “reached a definitive agreement” to sell the MLB franchise to the Rangers Baseball Express, the Greenberg-Ryan investment group. Ryan ended his playing career at Texas Rangers and was described as a “legendary pitcher” in the announcement.
It has taken some time for the process to reach this stage. Hicks first said he was willing to sell a minority stake in the franchise in March last year, two months later admitting that he would now consider selling a majority stake. There is still some way to go before the sale goes through; Major League Baseball have to approve the deal as do some of the lenders that Hicks Sports Group have used. The statement also says that there is some “completion of financing” to do.
There was a 30-day period of exclusivity for the consortium to come to a deal, but having passed that deadline the negotiations continued and the deal went through. Hicks said: “Together, we have worked exhaustively since last month to attain this agreement. It’s a complex business deal that positions the franchise positively for the future.”
Another of the Hicks family’s investment interests, Ballpark Real Estate, will hand over 153 of the 195 acres of land it controls around the Rangers’ Ballpark stadium and the Dallas Cowboy’s stadium. This is being exchanged for “cash, notes, and an ownership position in the team”.
Greenberg will become Managing Partner and CEO of the new Rangers setup, With Ryan continuing as president. Other major investors in the new setup include billionaire Ray Davis (not of The Kinks) and the Simpson family (of Fort Worth not Springfield). Davis and Bob Simpson will become co-chairmen. Simpson was reportedly made $300m dollars richer last month when his XTO Energy merged with ExxonMobil.
For Hicks there’s a continuing role in the new organisation, but in what is said to be a more ceremonial or honorary role as Chairman Emeritus.
The amount of money involved has not been disclosed but speculation suggests the figure is somewhere between $500m and $570m (£310m and £350m) and enough to cover the Hicks Sports Group’s debts of around $525m. Hicks bought the Rangers for $250m in 1998.
Greenberg praised Hicks in the statement “Nolan and I greatly appreciate Tom Hicks’ willingness to work beyond the deadline to complete the deal and his support for passing the torch from the Hicks family to our group. His actions speak eloquently to his commitment to serve the best interests of Rangers fans and the community.”
Greenberg didn’t use the word ‘custodians’ to refer to the change of ownership but no doubt his words will be closely analysed by Rangers followers: “We are fortunate to be assuming the stewardship of a franchise poised for greatness. The tremendous foundation of talent that has been assembled on both the major and minor league levels, combined with our passionate commitment to achieve excellence in every facet of the organization’s operation, and the pent-up thirst for success we observe from our fans every day, creates the opportunity for the Rangers to become one of the great franchises in baseball.”
Meanwhile Hicks has also sold one of his holiday homes, a three-acre estate in the Aspen area of Colorado. The sale went through for $18.5m, below the original £20m asking price but still a massive return on the $1.03m he paid for it in 1995.
Described as consisting of “a main house and a guest house totalling 11,000 square feet” the properties were sold furnished. Hicks was reported to have said the sale was due to his family taking their vacations elsewhere in recent years. The property is about 100 miles away from the base of his fellow Reds co-owner George Gillett Jnr in Vail, Colorado. There was no love lost between the pair during a prolonged and public battle two years ago over ownership of Liverpool.
Hicks is still the owner of the Dallas Stars NHL side, but Gillett Jnr sold his stake in the Montreal Canadiens late last year. Meanwhile Liverpool’s financial troubles continue, and continue to be shrouded in secrecy.
The transfer budget has seemingly been withdrawn, Rafa Benítez having made a profit on transfers since the turn of last year and the new stadium, despite vague promises, is still to get underway.
A credible offer is believed to have been put to the club’s owners at the end of last season that would solve the problems with funding for the new stadium. This is believed to have been turned down flat by current LFC Managing Director Christian Purslow, with the impression given that he would be able to solve those problems himself.
Six months on – and with the club’s struggles on the field emphasising the financial difficulties they are under – there is still no sign of that funding and the club remains in limbo. Fans are still in the dark about what is really going on at the club behind the scenes. Is the club’s transfer spending being halted by the owners or by Purslow? Why not be honest about it? Where has the money gone, if it’s not gone on servicing the debt?
As both owners seem to be taking steps towards getting everything in order with their US interests, the man hired to sort out their Liverpool interest seems to be making very little progress. Worst of all, after billing himself as a lifelong Red, he doesn’t seem to be telling the supporters the open and honest truth about what is going on at the club.
A year’s worth of pay increases for a few players doesn’t explain why the annual transfer funding has dropped so dramatically. A simple explanation would have perhaps lessened the pressure on the manager. It would have been far better than shadowing him at press conferences, a move that made it look like there was a fear he might reveal something about what was really happening at the club.
Had that proposal for stadium funding been taken up in the close season, how much of a boost would it have been to the club and its supporters to finally see some progress on construction of the one thing that justified the club being sold in the first place?
Liverpool FC was sold so that it could afford a new stadium, a stadium that would bring in extra funds for new signings and help in the battle to get back on top of the league after all these years of missing out. Instead we sit here knowing that we’re now a selling club, hoping for the best with free transfers and wondering how long it will be before one of the big names is sold to help fund some replacements.
Clearly the club’s owners have been busy sorting out those North American interests, trying to take them out of limbo – now it’s time they got back to work on their interest here in England.
like him or hate him, the only reason hicks is really selling the rangers is to solidify his position with liverpool.
while there is probably little profit in the overall sale for him, just the removal of the debt burden makes getting financing for the stadium that much easier.
in essence he was basically just cleaning up his credit score before going on to get his newest loan.
This is about how I see it.
I think what has happened with the Rangers will just solidify his position at Liverpool, unfortunately.
I think Gillett is more likely to leave, but I would bet that Hicks will be here for the long haul. Hope I'm wrong though.
good article there by Jim Boardman, shows what parasites they are and what a lying cunt Purslow is.
It tells us no such thing.
He may well be, but the fact that Bordman beleives that a deal may have been turned down tells us sod all.
If there was a deal, we have no idea whether it was a good deal or not. If the current mess brought to us by our owners holds any lessons it is surely not to take everything we see at face value. Many of us did in 2007, and look were we are now.
He may well be, but the fact that Bordman beleives that a deal may have been turned down tells us sod all.
If there was a deal, we have no idea whether it was a good deal or not. If the current mess brought to us by our owners holds any lessons it is surely not to take everything we see at face value. Many of us did in 2007, and look were we are now.
The stadium is paramount to the owners business plan and if there was a deal on the table to get it built then im sure they would consider it.
For it to have been turned down flat suggests that it wasn't a good deal or the owners feel they can get a better deal over time.
Jim Boardman is RealRed on here, and his info on who would lend them the money is from UEM.
Both refuse to say who. But seeing as there saying Purslow rejected it, means I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
Yup, Christian Purlsow, who has an absolutely concrete record on telling the 100% truth at all times.
Believe whatever you want Al, i'm not paticularly that arsed, and if mentioning me or RR is some attempt into goading me into saying something, then your wasting your time.
Do you really thing that Jim would have put that on his website, if he didn't have proof, given the threat of legal action thrown at him last year?
If indeed the mysterious would be stadium financier exists.
In that radio interview you posted the other day Gillett was asked the question if the markets were opening back up would they borrow the money to get the stadium built.
There was silence for a couple of seconds before Gillett went on a PR exercise telling us how important the stadium was etc.
It just seemed strange to me that he didn't just answer yes and responded like the politician he is.
Personally i think the club are planning on building the stadium but via investment and then a loan on future profits and naming rights like Arsenal have done.
Yup, Christian Purlsow, who has an absolutely concrete record on telling the 100% truth at all times.
Believe whatever you want Al, i'm not paticularly that arsed, and if mentioning me or RR is some attempt into goading me into saying something, then your wasting your time.
Do you really thing that Jim would have put that on his website, if he didn't have proof, given the threat of legal action thrown at him last year?
I don't give a fuck, his opinions on hicks and Gillett changes like the wind, If he wants to believe that somebody offered to build the stadium like you do, then thats up to you.
But you tell people they were offered the dough, yet dont say who. What the fuck do you want me to think?.
And If it is Purslow spreading that shit more fool you. If its not apologies, but seeing as you wont tell people who offered the money, then I'll file it under "bullshit"
I don't give a fuck, his opinions on hicks and Gillett changes like the wind, If he wants to believe that somebody offered to build the stadium like you do, then thats up to you.
But you tell people they were offered the dough, yet dont say who. What the fuck do you want me to think?.
And If it is Purslow spreading that shit more fool you. If its not apologies, but seeing as you wont tell people who offered the money, then I'll file it under "bullshit"
Think whatever you want Al
I was going to write an fairly long reply, but then I remembered that I dont actually have to justify anything to anyone, so I'll keep it short.
There is proof, people who can use the information effectively for the good of the club are aware, and I'm not going to jeopardise anything by posting it on a forum.
Or was I out of line by pointing out that Purslow was telling porkies about the new stadium?
