The Financial Situation

[Hermes]

We won't win the league with skint owners mate.

 

I didn't say we would. But if we did 95% of fans wouldn't care how we did it.

 

Incidentally, the most "in debt" club won it last season.

[Rashid]

I didn't say we would. But if we did 95% of fans wouldn't care how we did it.

 

Incidentally, the most "in debt" club won it last season.

 

The most in debt club has the best manager and several players worth over £20M who have won it only 3 years before - they then spent another £50M this season.

[Hermes]

The most in debt club has the best manager and several players worth over £20M who have won it only 3 years before - they then spent another £50M this season.

 

What does that have to do with the owners? The yanks have been slagged off on here for weeks for what the papers say they are going to do and 95% of people on here here have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. So far they have not done any of it.

 

I said from the outset that I'd judge them on what they'd do not what they say. Some people on here need to consider how they drooled over them when they took over, based purely on a press conference.

 

Gullible? you betcha.

[Rashid]

What does that have to do with the owners? The yanks have been slagged off on here for weeks for what the papers say they are going to do and 95% of people on here here have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. So far they have not done any of it.

 

I said from the outset that I'd judge them on what they'd do not what they say. Some people on here need to consider how they drooled over them when they took over, based purely on a press conference.

 

Gullible? you betcha.

 

Have the yanks backtracked on the stadium design?

 

Have the backtracked on their promise not to put the purchase debt on us?

[Hermes]

Have the yanks backtracked on the stadium design?

 

Have the backtracked on their promise not to put the purchase debt on us?

 

I don't remember them agreeing to pay £450m for a stadium, do you?

[Rashid]

I don't remember them agreeing to pay £450m for a stadium, do you?

 

I remember them submitting plans for approval for a mega stadium only to later shit themselves. You left out the purchase debt Hermes.

[George Costanza]

I'm pissed off with the Yanks. I honestly think they are a joke and are here to exploit the club BUT there is fuck all we can do about it so stop fucking moaning. They'll sack rafa and despite the protests etc things will carry on regardless.

 

The whole debacle has become tiresome and boring.

[Hermes]

I remember them submitting plans for approval for a mega stadium only to later shit themselves. You left out the purchase debt Hermes.

 

You'd rather the money was spent on the stadium than the team? if yes, you need to delete the myriad of posts where you've advocated the signing of every player ever to appear on Youtube.

[Rashid]

What are you on about?

[bobhorse]

What does that have to do with the owners? The yanks have been slagged off on here for weeks for what the papers say they are going to do and 95% of people on here here have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. So far they have not done any of it.

 

I said from the outset that I'd judge them on what they'd do not what they say. Some people on here need to consider how they drooled over them when they took over, based purely on a press conference.

 

Gullible? you betcha.

 

 

So They havnt tried to restructure the debt against the club which they said they wouldnt do ?

 

So they are now indeed building the Stadium they revealed to a fanfare of trumpets ?

 

 

The Yanks have been slagged off on here because they have promised 3 things

 

1 Not to saddle the club with debt ( trying to borrow against the club )

2 Build a new stadium as they revealed (now saying the plans they revealed are to expensive and need scaling back )

3 Back the manager with a whole lot of these as they put it (net spend of around 20m is no more than we spent before

 

Add to that a public fall out with the manager regarding signings and i dont think they have had half as much stick as is due to them.

Agreed they may spend big in this window but i would always think that that would be to please the natives so to speak and not through choice

 

I was always in favour of DCI the reason was that they would have had the money to see there plans through and even if they got out at a latter date the club would be in a much better position at that point

 

but its all pie in the sky now we have these to and we have to hope that they deliver at least one promise

[Hermes]

What are you on about?

 

They agreed to fund a stadium costing around £200m when they bought the club. Which do you want, scrap the stadium and spend the money on players or put the club in debt and spend on both?

 

Simple choice, but they have to make it not the Utopians who post on here.

[Hermes]

Add to that a public fall out with the manager regarding signings

 

That was the doing of one man and one man only - Rafa.

[isr]

That was the doing of one man and one man only - Rafa.

 

Wait a minute. Rafa may have been the reason why this went public - but he didn't cause the problem in the first place. The problem was there, and real - before it all became everyone's back page news. The owners were hamstringing the manager - and wouldn't let him do what was necessary to keep the squad in tip-top shape - EVEN ON A SHOESTRING BUDGET (which is what Rafa was working on for his Jan dealings).

 

Rafa just let it come to the surface.

 

Hermes, are so seriously obtuse that you can't see whats happening here? Its all well and good to take newspaper stories with a pinch of salt - particularly footy ones - but I think you're taking this attitude to the extreme.

[Redexile]

That was the doing of one man and one man only - Rafa.

Rafa didn't help himself but Bob makes several valid points which you chose to overlook. I agree wholeheartedly about the media but it's clear that they have already backtracked on certain promises made.

[philyhamann]

That was the doing of one man and one man only - Rafa.

 

:wallbutt:

[Hermes]

Rafa didn't help himself but Bob makes several valid points which you chose to overlook. I agree wholeheartedly about the media but it's clear that they have already backtracked on certain promises made.

 

List them.

[Rashid]

List them.

 

• We will buy Snooogy Dogg if that's what Rafa wants. - That summer Rafa missed out on Malouda and other wingers and ended up spending a NET fugure that is probably less than what we should given we are a huge club that had just reached a CL final.
   
  
• Flashing $100 bills on TV as if we were going to be in for Ronaldhino - now pleading poverty.
   
  
• "Our pruchase is not like Glazer, our purchase costs will not be going on the club." - Only for Tillis their advisor to confirm that they will be doing just that.
   
  
• "Here we have a stadium that is unique and one the fans deserve" - Summer 2007
   
  
• "The Stadium will not be the one we showed you in the summer" - December 2007
  

[Redzion]

Liverpool FC owners pledge: We will not sell club

Dec 26 2007 by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post

 

 

LIVERPOOL FC owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have told friends they have no “interest whatsoever” in selling their shares in the club.

 

They made their stance plain to friends and business associates after it was reported at the weekend that Dubai International Capital, who were bid rivals at the time Hicks and Gillett bought the club, were poised to take over because the Americans were allegedly having problems re-financing the debt taken out to buy Liverpool.

 

Last night, a source familiar with the situation said the report, which also claimed Rafael Benitez had been given until the end of the season before he was fired, was “utter nonsense”.

 

The source said that, early next month,Hicks and Gillett hoped to refinance the debt when they bought Liverpool in February.

 

They are also going to finalise their stadium design choice “between two world-class alternatives” before Saturday, January 12, said the source.

 

It comes after Hicks and Gillett were forced to scrap a futuristic stadium design because costs had soared.

 

The pair are also playing down the reported rise in stadium costs. It had been reported that the cost of the stadium had risen to £450m from £300m.

 

The source said stadium project costs crept up from a low £300m figure to mid-£300m number. It was only after that the owners told the architects to “value engineer” the scheme back down to the £300m mark. Last night, a source told the Daily Post: “Hicks and Gillett expect to close their new financ- ing in early January, and to finalise their stadium design choice between two world-class alternatives before January 12.Š

 

“They have no interest whatsoever in selling any shares, and Rafa and the owners have smoothed over a minor miscom- munication that the media blew way out of proportion.”

 

Dallas architects HKS, who were behind the spec- tacular proposals revealed in July, have been told to make their plan cheaper and probably less impres- sive. That stadium had the capacity to be expanded to 76,000.

 

And Manchester-based AFL, which was behind a previous proposal rejected by Hicks and Gillett because it was “obsolete”, was told to improve on its scheme for Stanley Park.

 

Both revised plans would have a capacity of around 70,000.

 

It is understood Hicks and Gillett are expected to re-finance the £220m loan used to buy the club.

 

The new £350m loan with the Royal Bank of Scotland would include £60m to get work on the new stadium started and £25m to cover the cost of last summer’s signings.

 

Despite this, stadium plans are apparently proceeding according to a revised schedule (that would see the new ground open in time for the 2011/12 season) in terms of the planning, design and initial construction.

[Rashid]

I sincerely hope we are not lumbered with these two hedge fund loving clowns.

[Hermes]

• We will buy Snooogy Dogg if that's what Rafa wants. - That summer Rafa missed out on Malouda and other wingers and ended up spending a NET fugure that is probably less than what we should given we are a huge club that had just reached a CL final. biggest spending spree in the the clubs history in the only transfer window since they arrived.
  
• Flashing $100 bills on TV as if we were going to be in for Ronaldhino - now pleading poverty. Where have they pleaded poverty?
   
  
• "Our pruchase is not like Glazer, our purchase costs will not be going on the club." - Only for Tillis their advisor to confirm that they will be doing just that. Because of the stadium which they thought they were funding at £200m, I asked you the other day whether you wanted the stadium at £450m at the expense of signings or going into debt for a stadium and continue funding the team. I'm still waiting for your answer
   
  
• "Here we have a stadium that is unique and one the fans deserve" - Summer 2007 They are still building one are they not?
  
• "The Stadium will not be the one we showed you in the summer" - December 2007 It won't be

 

Typical of your fantasy posts Rash, a mish mash of half truths and tabloid speculation. Show me a quote that they have gone back on. One will do.

[Redexile]

List them.

 

The redesign of the stadium is a backtrack for a starter. Please dont give me the story about 200mil they new they were in for at least 300 mill.

 

Waving the money around on TV before Athens like he was a multi multi millionaire. I am guessing ,after the players we sold are taken into account ,we didn't spend much more than we normally do.

 

Putting all the debt back onto the club after agreeing not to. What they are trying to do maybe fine for them and all of these maybe minor points but for me they betrayed alot of trust.

[Captain]

Typical of your fantasy posts Rash, a mish mash of half truths and tabloid speculation. Show me a quote that they have gone back on. One will do.

 

It seems the stadium they presented in the summer will not be built after all. What we will end up with eventually is anyone's guess, but it will not be what they presented us with.

[Hermes]

It seems the stadium they presented in the summer will not be built after all. What we will end up with eventually is anyone's guess, but it will not be what they presented us with.

 

Seems? as I said there is nothing that they have promised which is proved to have not been delivered yet.

 

They've only been here 10 months, one transfer window.

[Captain]

Seems? as I said there is nothing that they have promised which is proved to have not been delivered yet.

 

Eh, the club itself has said it won't be the stadium they presented in the summer, but a cheaper version. Make of it what you will.

[m0e]

Liverpool FC owners pledge: We will not sell club

 

Dec 26 2007 by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post

New owners George Gillett (left) and Tom Hicks at Anfield

 

New owners George Gillett (left) and Tom Hicks at Anfield (158)

 

LIVERPOOL FC owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have told friends they have no “interest whatsoever” in selling their shares in the club.

 

They made their stance plain to friends and business associates after it was reported at the weekend that Dubai International Capital, who were bid rivals at the time Hicks and Gillett bought the club, were poised to take over because the Americans were allegedly having problems re-financing the debt taken out to buy Liverpool.

 

Last night, a source familiar with the situation said the report, which also claimed Rafael Benitez had been given until the end of the season before he was fired, was “utter nonsense”.

 

The source said that, early next month,Hicks and Gillett hoped to refinance the debt when they bought Liverpool in February.

 

They are also going to finalise their stadium design choice “between two world-class alternatives” before Saturday, January 12, said the source.

 

It comes after Hicks and Gillett were forced to scrap a futuristic stadium design because costs had soared.

 

The pair are also playing down the reported rise in stadium costs. It had been reported that the cost of the stadium had risen to £450m from £300m.

 

The source said stadium project costs crept up from a low £300m figure to mid-£300m number. It was only after that the owners told the architects to “value engineer” the scheme back down to the £300m mark. Last night, a source told the Daily Post: “Hicks and Gillett expect to close their new financ- ing in early January, and to finalise their stadium design choice between two world-class alternatives before January 12.Š

 

“They have no interest whatsoever in selling any shares, and Rafa and the owners have smoothed over a minor miscom- munication that the media blew way out of proportion.”

 

Dallas architects HKS, who were behind the spec- tacular proposals revealed in July, have been told to make their plan cheaper and probably less impres- sive. That stadium had the capacity to be expanded to 76,000.

 

And Manchester-based AFL, which was behind a previous proposal rejected by Hicks and Gillett because it was “obsolete”, was told to improve on its scheme for Stanley Park.

 

Both revised plans would have a capacity of around 70,000.

 

It is understood Hicks and Gillett are expected to re-finance the £220m loan used to buy the club.

 

The new £350m loan with the Royal Bank of Scotland would include £60m to get work on the new stadium started and £25m to cover the cost of last summer’s signings.

 

Despite this, stadium plans are apparently proceeding according to a revised schedule (that would see the new ground open in time for the 2011/12 season) in terms of the planning, design and initial construction.

 

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2007/12/26/liverpool-fc-owners-pledge-we-will-not-sell-club-64375-20286468/