Do you want it?

[Paul]

I know it's all moot until we know the details, but, in principle, how do you feel about this new deal? DT has laid out some pretty compelling arguments on the other thread (might merge them, if everyone agrees) that chime with my immense unease at letting non-Reds take over our club. Others seem to be salivating at the prospect of all that lovely lolly. So, are you in or are you out? I say we need to keep LFC Red.

[tokyojoe]

In. From what I've heard so far, it seems OK.

[7dalglish]

I'd like to know more about the deal before voting. I think it's best to keep an open mind at this point.

[Brownie]

In principle I just can't shake the feeling that it's 'wrong', however i'd be lying beyond belief if I said I didn't believe it was necessary.

 

If we are going to compete with the likes of Chelsea, then we need to progress and this is the only way I can see us doing that.

 

Yes there are important questions that need to be asked and answered, and yes there are bound to be things which are far from perfect.

 

I'm also perversely excited as well; i'm just feeling a strange mixture of emotions at the moment.

[Paul]

I'd like to know more about the deal before voting. I think it's best to keep an open mind at this point.

 

I agree, but surely you can vote in principle? Are you happy for non-Reds to own us just because they're laden with loot?

[RedKnight]

I'm bricking it. I feel we'll become the very thing we swore to destroy.*

 

 

 

 

 

*That is so pretentious it should be on a flag.

[wiiksie]

Im not sure how I feel about all of this, but I know I agree 100% with DT's comment of it affecting the relationship between club and supporter. If this deal goes through and the club feels even more of an 'entertainment franchise' than before, then I'll ask myself 'what am I supporting?'...

[Paul]

In principle I just can't shake the feeling that it's 'wrong', however i'd be lying beyond belief if I said I didn't believe it was necessary.

 

If we are going to compete with the likes of Chelsea, then we need to progress and this is the only way I can see us doing that.

 

Yes there are important questions that need to be asked and answered, and yes there are bound to be things which are far from perfect.

 

I'm also perversely excited as well; i'm just feeling a strange mixture of emotions at the moment.

 

I'd be lying if I said the idea of seriously competing for players and the title wasn't appealling on some level. However, I just don't like the idea of what we'd be. I want LFC to stay Red.

[Rashid]

In principle I just can't shake the feeling that it's 'wrong', however i'd be lying beyond belief if I said I didn't believe it was necessary.

 

If we are going to compete with the likes of Chelsea, then we need to progress and this is the only way I can see us doing that.

 

Yes there are important questions that need to be asked and answered, and yes there are bound to be things which are far from perfect.

 

I'm also perversely excited as well; i'm just feeling a strange mixture of emotions at the moment.

 

Why have you said no Brownie? When that read as a YES (reluctantly)...?

[RedKnight]

But he's the 5th richest man in the world. Dubai is the sports capital of the universe. They shoot horses don't they?

[Michael Howard]

Someone - i think it was Paul posted the "would you rather win the title with wealthy owner's money or be in division 1". I think it comes down to that. No one wants us to be football's equivalent of "Loadsamoney" and I don't think we will be. Someone cited Barca. Let's be Barca not Cheslea. I just posted this on Kopite's thread:

 

David Moores is a bit of an idiosyncratic chairman with his "i used to stand on the kop" background. But he is not the typical chairman under the Moores reign. When the Moores family bought in all those years ago were they really that different from the Maktoum's today? Wasn't the club just a millionaire's plaything then? Over time they proved themselves honourable custodians of the club. The world is a much much smaller place nowadays. Is it that different really ? Only time will tell - but that applies whoever buys the club. I am heartened by the example of their involvement with British horse racing. I am watching with a mix of anxiety and excitement. The times they are a changing.

 

and Paul keep's saying how can we have none reds owning the club. The Moores weren't reds when they got involved were they ?

[Paul]

Why have you said no Brownie? When that read as a YES (reluctantly)...?

 

Rash, I never doubted for one second that you'd be leading the salivating charge up the hill towards the cash, but have you even stopped to think about this for one second? Did you even consider that our values and traditions could be under threat, or don't they mean anything to you at all?

[Eldrich]

In principle I just can't shake the feeling that it's 'wrong', however i'd be lying beyond belief if I said I didn't believe it was necessary.

 

We were saying the same thing ten years ago about the Mancs when they were selling everything with their name on and we were saying that we hoped that we never went down that route. Look at the LFC megastore today with their LFC lampshades etc and some would say it was necessary to keep up in the modern game.

 

All of this buyout talk is to quote Agent Smith 'The sound of inevitability' and there is nothing that we can do about it

[Paul]

Someone - i think it was Paul posted the "would you rather win the title with wealthy owner's money or be in division 1". I think it comes down to that. No one wants us to be football's equivalent of "Loadsamoney" and I don't think we will be. Someone cited Barca. Let's be Barca not Cheslea. I just posted this on Kopite's thread:

 

David Moores is a bit of an idiosyncratic chairman with his "i used to stand on the kop" background. But he is not the typical chairman under the Moores reign. When the Moores family bought in all those years ago were they really that different from the Maktoum's today? Wasn't the club just a millionaire's plaything then? Over time they proved themselves honourable custodians of the club. The world is a much much smaller place nowadays. Is it that different really ? Only time will tell - but that applies whoever buys the club. I am heartened by the example of their involvement with British horse racing. I am watching with a mix of anxiety and excitement. The times they are a changing.

 

I'd love us to be owned along the Barca model. It's the ultimate method for staying in touch with your roots. That's not what's heading our way though - unless they're planning to just give it all to the fans after they've coughed up.

[King Emlyn]

I've voted yes, i have got doubts and DT makes some excellant points but i can only be honest and say that i'd rather we had the takeover than we didn't.....but i have got doubts.

[Dirk]

I don't know. Will we become Chelsea or Man Utd or will we be allowed to harvest our traditions? It's about distinguishing between sentimental bullshit for the sake of modernising and distinguishing between not modernising for the sake of our values, there is a difference. I'm not getting caught out by all that sentimental shite about nights of past glories but I am bothered about the potential for us to become soulless and further exploited.

 

However, selling out to a foreign investor doesn't mean that we have to become soulless; anybody who has been to Anfield recently will know that it is already happening without a foreign investor. I don't want our principles stolen from us for the sake of a rich man's investment but the notion that we're currently a club of soul, community and spirit is absolute bollocks, in my opinion. The atmosphere at Anfield is dead, the ticketing is a joke, the club was sold down the river years ago, long before foreign investors, it happened because of Sky and all-seater stadia.

 

That's not to say we're not different to other clubs and that we don't have different traditions compared to other clubs because we do but they were diluted a long time ago. In short, it depends on the aims and objectives of the investment company and as I don't know that, I don't know.

[Paul]

I've voted yes, i have got doubts and DT makes some excellant points but i can only be honest and say that i'd rather we had the takeover than we didn't.....but i have got doubts.

 

You've surprised me there, mate. Your posts are filled with the old values of the club. Why would you rather we were taken over? Is it simply the chance to truly compete for the title?

[wiiksie]

I've voted yes, i have got doubts and DT makes some excellant points but i can only be honest and say that i'd rather we had the takeover than we didn't.....but i have got doubts.

Forgetting how the season is turning out so far, most of us in August were drooling over our £25 million additions to the squad, and how we were the most likely to challenge chelsea this year.

 

Therefore Im not sure we do need the takeover, if you go with the idea that it comes at a huge 'cost'.

[Carradona]

I don't know. Will we become Chelsea or Man Utd or will we be allowed to harvest our traditions? It's about distinguishing between sentimental bullshit for the sake of modernising and distinguishing between not modernising for the sake of our values, there is a difference. I'm not getting caught out by all that sentimental shite about nights of past glories but I am bothered about the potential for us to become soulless and further exploited.

 

However, selling out to a foreign investor doesn't mean that we have to become soulless; anybody who has been to Anfield recently will know that it is already happening without a foreign investor. I don't want our principles stolen from us for the sake of a rich man's investment but the notion that we're currently a club of soul, community and spirit is absolute bollocks, in my opinion. The atmosphere at Anfield is dead, the ticketing is a joke, the club was sold down the river years ago, long before foreign investors, it happened because of Sky and all-seater stadia.

 

That's not to say we're not different to other clubs and that we don't have different traditions compared to other clubs because we do but they were diluted a long time ago. In short, it depends on the aims and objectives of the investment company and as I don't know that, I don't know.

 

I would think more Chelsea because Glazier has major debts.

[Guest Raddy]

i think people are getting carried away. moores and parry have worked their socks off trying to find the right deal and i think they have. the big reason these guys are interested in us is because of all the things that a lot of fans are fearful of losing - history, traditons, etc.

 

this is no chelsea scenario. these guys are serious investors. all it will mean, hopefully, is that we can build the stadium and pay that extra for players in the current market that, quite frankly, a club of our stature should be buying.

[Uncle_Meat]

yeh but no but yeh but no but yeh but no but.....

 

 

Looks like I picked the wrong time to stop sniffing glue..

 

[Guest Raddy]

You've surprised me there, mate. Your posts are filled with the old values of the club. Why would you rather we were taken over? Is it simply the chance to truly compete for the title?

 

no offence, your heart is probably in the right place, but it's this sentimental, one-eyed, romantic delusion that is holding us back.

 

i really don't see why we can't be incredibly rich and still keep our values. it's not like we are paupers now is it, or owned by gypos.

[Dirk]

I would think more Chelsea because Glazier has major debts.

 

I wasn't implying on a financial level but on the level at which they hold themselves and behave.

[tokyojoe]

We do need the money. When even a tinpot club like the barcodes are getting 50,000 plus every home game, questions need to be asked. The mancs are getting 30,000 more than us every home game.

 

I have a feeling that this has been done properly. We are one of the most (if not the most) financially stable clubs on the planet.

 

The mancs are upto their eyeballs in debt, and have a history of being financially incompetent. The chavs have one benefactor who could disappear overnight. (either voluntarily or at the hands of the Kremlin).

 

From a pure business point of view, and certainly as far as the football world goes, LFC are a bloody good investment. We won't get screwed, there's no sense.

[WeAreTheBest]

i think people are getting carried away. moores and parry have worked their socks off trying to find the right deal and i think they have. the big reason these guys are interested in us are all the things that a of fans are fearful of losing - history, traditons, etc.

 

 

Good point, I trust Moores and Parry so trust this deal until the new people do something to show me otherwise. That might be naive or whatever but thats my take so far.

 

I dont buy all this souless, we wont be red anymore stuff, thats over dramatic stuff in my eyes. Where is the line drawn anyway? Is David Moores taking our "soul" away by giving the go ahead for a move to a new stadium? Is he taking our soul away by doing up part of Anfield with his own money? There isnt a line or rulebook so its all bollocks in my opinion, football is changing and its easy to blame new owners but half the time its the fault of shite like Soccer AM, Sky and other things.