US duo pledge Benitez backing

[Dirk]

US duo pledge Benitez backing

 

Mar 16 2007

 

by Chris Bascombe, Liverpool Echo

 

 

Rafael Benitez

 

GEORGE GILLETT and Tom Hicks have moved swiftly to reassure Rafa Benitez of their intentions at Anfield following the manager’s request for a meeting with the new owners.

 

Benitez was contacted by the American duo shortly after airing his desire to hear more detail about their plans for the future of the club.

 

With interest from Real Madrid in the Liverpool manager a genuine concern, both Gillett and Hicks have shown they’re aware of the importance of forming a flourishing, working relationship with the Spanish boss.

 

Clearly it’s early days for Gillett and Hicks as they assess the future and await the conclusion of the formalities of their full purchase of the club – which is now unconditionally agreed.

 

But with Benitez eager to know how much he’ll have to spend this summer, as well as their broader plans to improve numerous areas of the club, the exchange of correspondence this week could be interpreted as an important first step.

 

Benitez told the ECHO today he anticipates he’ll be in more regular contact with both Gillett and Hicks now they’ve secured the number of shares required to buy Liverpool.

 

“I’ve been in contact with the new owners by e-mail over the last two days and they answered very quickly,” said Benitez. “I know they will be here for the Arsenal game.

 

"I will not meet them face to face before then, but we are in contact and we can progress from this. This is important because we need to know the situation so we can continue our plans for the future.”

 

This apparent delay in the exchange of correspondence could have been a consequence of little more than a series of misunderstandings.

 

The American pair are still concluding the formalities of their takeover so, technically, haven’t yet bought the club.

 

They wanted to keep a deliberately low profile when they attended the Barcelona match last week when their presence wasn’t confirmed until the day of the game.

 

Hicks and Gillett were given a tour of Melwood while Benitez gave his press conference at Anfield on the eve of the game, and then the owners-in-waiting didn’t have an opportunity to meet the manager after the match on Tuesday.

 

Benitez was hoping an opportunity to talk to the owners would have presented itself during that time, but as Hicks and Gillett still hadn’t secured their 75% threshold of shares then, they were effectively attending the Champions League game as guests.

 

After their unfortunate experience with the Dubai group, who had a higher profile presence at a number of home games where they met Benitez, Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher, Liverpool were keen to ensure all the technicalities were complete before Gillett and Hicks were seen to be taking a hands-on role.

 

 

By the next time they come to Merseyside on March 31, they’ll be in full control of the club and won’t have to be discreet during their visit.

 

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_headline=us-duo-pledge-benitez-backing%26method=full%26objectid=18763663%26page=2%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

[oxtailsoup]

This apparent delay in the exchange of correspondence could have been a consequence of little more than a series of misunderstandings.

 

That is so unusual. As Rashid would say 'Sack Parry'.

[kopitegaz]

That is so unusual. As Rashid would say 'Sack Parry'.

 

Several times, over a 45 page thread.

[theghost]

Several times, over a 45 page thread.

 

Under three different names

[Lapskaus]

and he would be right to say so, the man is a clown.

 

"It makes perfect common sense. We don't want to steam ahead into something which might prevent expansion in the future."

These are now the words of rick parry, the same man who planned a stadium that could not be expanded.

[sh#t waffle]

and he would be right to say so, the man is a clown.

 

"It makes perfect common sense. We don't want to steam ahead into something which might prevent expansion in the future."

These are now the words of rick parry, the same man who planned a stadium that could not be expanded.

 

Rick Parry: clown, architect, cunt.

[JER]

I always think of this picture

 

 

 

Could have been so much worse

[Cardie]

"It makes perfect common sense. We don't want to steam ahead into something which might prevent expansion in the future."

These are now the words of rick parry, the same man who planned a stadium that could not be expanded.

 

We planned a stadium according to financial restrictions and restrictions that allowed us grants towards development.

 

Those restrictions have now been lifted because our financial position has changed.

 

Can't see any problems with what he's said.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

I agree with this stance - now we've got much more money to put into this we might as well see just how good we can make the new stadium.

[getofmeland]

Well Simple Why build a stadium which is going to be outdated by the time its built... we need 70,000 with room for expansion if needed....

[Lapskaus]

We planned a stadium according to financial restrictions and restrictions that allowed us grants towards development.

 

Those restrictions have now been lifted because our financial position has changed.

 

Can't see any problems with what he's said.

 

Do you really think that building a stadium that would be possible to expand would be so much more expensive ? Your taking the piss arent you?

[Cardie]

Do you really think that building a stadium that would be possible to expand would be so much more expensive ? Your taking the piss arent you?

 

Yes.

 

It appears alot was riding on the various grants to help us along and the plans as they stand were the best we could get that met the criteria to satisfy those who would give us those grants.

 

Now we have access to more funding and we're not as reliant on outside help so can afford to re-design the stadium.

[Lapskaus]

ok, we just simply disagree on this, which is fair enough.

I still think it was madness to plan a stadium that couldnt be expanded though. It would be like admitting that we didnt think we would have any more success and attract more people in 10 years' time

[RedPower]

Yes.

 

It appears alot was riding on the various grants to help us along and the plans as they stand were the best we could get that met the criteria to satisfy those who would give us those grants.

 

Now we have access to more funding and we're not as reliant on outside help so can afford to re-design the stadium.

 

The public grants are for regeneration of the surrounding area, not for stadium construction. We've had all sorts of trouble with the NWDA over this as at one point we wanted to use grant money to pay some of the cost of the underground carpark and soundproofing of the ground.

 

The only reason we are going ahead with the stadium project is because investment has arrived – Moores himself has stated on several occasions that he lacks the wherewithal to see this thing through so has decided to sell up. I’ve also heard Parry state that without investment there would be no new stadium, hence his globe-trotting exploits in search of the wonga. The only alternative would be to use bank loans, (although I'm struggling to see much difference between that and what we've ended up with) and I don’t know if Moores had a back up plan of going down the loan route if new investment hadn’t materialised, bearing in mind that there are deadlines associated with the public grants – if the deadlines are not met then the Club would have to pay for the regeneration, and also bearing in mind that no regeneration component equals no new stadium.

 

So, given that no investment equals no new stadium, and new investment equals a new stadium, it’s reasonable to assume that when planning the stadium, funding a stadium of extendible nature would be feasible (assuming that such a stadium doesn’t add a ridiculous amount to the overall cost) because, hey presto, the funds would be there, otherwise it won’t be getting built at all.

 

The key here is discovering the difference in monetary terms between building (and designing) an extendible stadium and a non-extendible stadium. It's interesting to note that when all the plans came out, Parry stated that the Club wanted to build a 70,000 seater ground, but felt the cost of an approx £130 mil was prohibitive compared to the initially 55,000 and then 61,000 seater ground of £80 mil. I don't recall Parry ever mentioning that building a smaller capacity ground with the capability of future expansion would be prohibitive.

 

I'm assuming that permanently capping the capacity at 61,000 was not necessary in order to obtain planning permission.

[Cardie]

The stadium was going ahead with or without investment, we didn't invest that much money in the idea on the off chance an investor would show up and bail us out.

[theboyreilly]

That's true,we had to ensure that we would re-generate the area as one of the promises we had to make to get planning permission.....

[Lapskaus]

ok, valid points, but still, wasnt rick wrong when he planned a non-expandable stadium?

[Cardie]

ok, valid points, but still, wasnt rick wrong when he planned a non-expandable stadium?

 

Not if he was working within strict guidelines both financially and imposed by the various parties.

 

We had to work within a certain sized footprint, Anfield couldn't be expanded because we couldn't increase the footprint of the existing stadium. If planning permission and the grants were dependant on us complying with those restrictions then there is little we could do.

[Red Nick]

I believe Rafa will get all the financial backing he wants however what he probably wont get is a Houllier style 3 year plan, he will get the players he wants but I get the feeling that the owners will rightly say we've given you the backing now you deliver. This could be the reason he is trying to do the best for himself whilst he is in a position of strength but the new owners have made it very clear the want to win.

[bobhorse]

I read a little piece in the Mail on Sunday that in 2005/06 Liverpool made 32m through the gates at Anfield

 

Arsenal made 38m for the first 6 months in there new home.

 

Now you can see why they are looking to up the capacity.

It is said that they will have to pay 21m a season, to cover the borrowing used to buy the club.

I would think that figure, would be a little over double what we would have paid, on the debts we had prior to the takeover.

So it seems they will have to find around 12m a season to cover the cost of buying the club (if you include the money they paid anyway)

Now seeing as the new TV deal, doubles the amount of money we get, that means that there will be at least 10m more in income, after paying the interest, for buying the club.

And that is based on Anfield as is.

Also the figures allow for a transfer budget this year and then 10m+ the normal spend available year on year so around 25-30m

 

Then you will have to find the money for the new Ground around 180m plus the grants

now both Kit and shirt sponsorship deals will be up at that time and there is talk of rights to name the stadium being sold

 

add to that the fact that capacity will almost double and so to will income

 

That means in my simple way of thinking, after paying for everything, club, new ground etc.

They will have around 40m more in income than they have now, including the cost of the interest on the loans and that isn’t including any merchandising, price increases, which will make that figure even larger and that doesn’t include using the stadium for summer concerts etc.

 

That money can either be put towards new players or paid in bonuses to the board or both

 

nice work if you can get it

 

I should have bought the club myself