The Plot Thickens

[StevieH]

:wallbutt:

 

I thought it was a £1m bonus. Half a million is not so bad.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

See for yourself mate... this list doesn't include Cisse...

 

++ / LFChistory.net -- Past Present Future[/quote

 

 

I always use this site and like I said £151 666 00. Take away what he has got back leaves us with £20 mill a season he spends.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Since May last year Rafa has spent £51.5M and recouped £33.2M. A net spend of £18.3M this includes the £17M you insist on accounting for. If you include the full 3 transfer windows his spend is only £23.3M.

 

Your figures just don't add Rash.

 

Since May last year it is £71 million Rafa has spent thats counting Januarys buys of the Chief and Ninja.

[Jorge Borge]

But Hicks, who is understood to be currently in regular email contact with Benitez, says it is 'categorically untrue' that he or his entourage have had any contact with Klinsmann since.

 

Why do they need to put that in? Benitez in 'I know if I ignore my employer's e-mails I'll get the sack' shocker.

 

Where did that article come from?

[bobhorse]

Just baffles me how they've made their money. Not talking to each other like a pair of kids. Proves that money doesn't always equal class.

 

That's if they have actually fallen out. I just can't believe two billionaires, and mature adults, would act this way in the public eye. Moores really knows how to pick them eh.

 

These are businessmen this isnt a case of like or dislike they really couldnt give a fuck but like a spoilt child they want it all and wont share and this is a battle of control and who ever comes out as the victor moves to the top of the business tree and the other is a big time loser and that has a massive impact on future deals for both

 

Gillet wants out the club cas he hasnt the funds or the means now to get those funds needed to turn the club into what they wanted to do with it

 

Hicks can see the Dollar signs that the club will return and that by having ownership of Liverpool he can keep afloat is other US sports empire through the resession that is hitting us and will last for the next 5 years at least

 

He cant get the money to buy Gillet out Gillet wont sell to him as DIC will offer him more for his half than they will Hicks for his half as they know once they have that half Hicks will see is shares fall in value as he wont be able to sell to anyone but DIC

 

so he will do everything he can to stop this and that is why we have this mess at the moment but as the deadline closes in he will be forced to bite the bullet and agree to sell or be a massive loser in 12 months or 18 months time

 

but both men will shake hands and say hello once this deal is over it wont be personal its business

 

Oh and it Fucking stinks

[bobhorse]

Look anyone who is trying to make out that Rafa has spent more than Fergie is a fool

 

Teves 30m

Hardgreves

Anderson

Nanni

Carrick

 

That is 5 players this season all costing over 17m and that is before you go back and start adding your Rio's and your Rooney's i could go on but its like flogging a dead horse i know one thing for certain regardless of who spent what if Rafa had the money available that United or Chelsea had spent and those clubs had had to work with his budget he would have won the Prem every season IMHO they haven't had to sell before they could buy

[rebel23]

Just got this off YNWA some fans are starting to believe Hicks already.

 

it's a disgrace... the PR is working

[spider-neil]

it's a disgrace... the PR is working

 

I think its more of a desparation for this to be over, if hicks were to take full charge not a hell of a lot would have changed the loan will still have to be refinanced later paving the way for renewed dic bid (the dic as much said so when they pulled out), if the dual ownership drags into the summer I can see us missing a lot of our targets.

[philyhamann]

Hicks is a liar, its just hard to pull him up on his recent stuff now he has a PR company doing everything.

[dave u]

and all this stuff in the press about Rafa being ready to walk unless Parry goes and they give him money to spend this summer isn't fucking helping either. Some people will be prepared to tolerate Hicks because it means Rafa stays. It's being spun now that the reason Hicks wants Parry out is because it's what Rafa wants, and because Hicks will do whatever it takes to keep Rafa.

 

Bullshit. He wants Parry out because it gives him more boardroom control if he can get Ian Ayre in as his replacement. If that happens, it goes from 4-2 against, to 3-3.

 

Sorry, but this is way, way bigger than Rafa Benitez. It's not about whether we can challenge for the league next season, it's about the long term future of the club.

[fivetimes]

It doesnt matter today.

[spider-neil]

and all this stuff in the press about Rafa being ready to walk unless Parry goes and they give him money to spend this summer isn't fucking helping either. Some people will be prepared to tolerate Hicks because it means Rafa stays. It's being spun now that the reason Hicks wants Parry out is because it's what Rafa wants, and because Hicks will do whatever it takes to keep Rafa.

 

Bullshit. He wants Parry out because it gives him more boardroom control if he can get Ian Ayre in as his replacement. If that happens, it goes from 4-2 against, to 3-3.

 

Sorry, but this is way, way bigger than Rafa Benitez. It's not about whether we can challenge for the league next season, it's about the long term future of the club.

 

okay dave, how is this stalemate going to end? hicks isn't willing to sell so forget that, the dic have pulled out of talks until the two owners come to a better understanding that leaves us with?

 

the way I see it hicks can keep vetoing(sp) everyone that bids for gilletts shares forcing him to sell to hicks if gillett is that desparate to get out.

without being a doom monger the only way I see hicks getting forced is out when the loan is up for refinace again and that is a year off, so what of rafa in that time? what about the summer transfer window? the winter transfer window?

 

can someone please show me a way out of this because I've thought long and hard and I just can't see it.

[Rashid]

and all this stuff in the press about Rafa being ready to walk unless Parry goes and they give him money to spend this summer isn't fucking helping either. Some people will be prepared to tolerate Hicks because it means Rafa stays. It's being spun now that the reason Hicks wants Parry out is because it's what Rafa wants, and because Hicks will do whatever it takes to keep Rafa.

 

Bullshit. He wants Parry out because it gives him more boardroom control if he can get Ian Ayre in as his replacement. If that happens, it goes from 4-2 against, to 3-3.

 

Sorry, but this is way, way bigger than Rafa Benitez. It's not about whether we can challenge for the league next season, it's about the long term future of the club.

 

I think Rafa should come out and say he doesn't support anybody and he is just concentrating on the team. He needs to distance himself from Hicks.

[Anny Road]

I think they should all shut the fuck up.

[Carra_is_legend]

Rashid, yesterday you criticised Rafa for saying things publicly - now you want him to do the same?

 

Rafa should shut up and get on with his job. No quotes about himself or the owners or the CEO. Just shut the fuck up and get on with his job of coaching the team. We have couple of massive games coming up.

[silverlining]

I think Rafa should come out and say he doesn't support anybody and he is just concentrating on the team. He needs to distance himself from Hicks.

 

It would be nice if everyone did shut up for a while, but I can sort of understand why Benitez *might* feel the need to at least try and get someone on his side - that's human nature.

 

How lonely is he going to be if he distances himself from everyone?

[Mr T]

and all this stuff in the press about Rafa being ready to walk unless Parry goes and they give him money to spend this summer isn't fucking helping either. Some people will be prepared to tolerate Hicks because it means Rafa stays. It's being spun now that the reason Hicks wants Parry out is because it's what Rafa wants, and because Hicks will do whatever it takes to keep Rafa.

 

Bullshit. He wants Parry out because it gives him more boardroom control if he can get Ian Ayre in as his replacement. If that happens, it goes from 4-2 against, to 3-3.

 

Sorry, but this is way, way bigger than Rafa Benitez. It's not about whether we can challenge for the league next season, it's about the long term future of the club.

 

Agree with this. I'm one of Rafa's big fans on here but he needs to be smarter with how he behaves, preferably keeping his head down whilst maintaining his support for Hicks. Cut out all this public gesturing though.

The only long term resolution I can imagine is if Gillett and Parry soften towards Rafa. They need to smarten up and realise that they will lose if they go up against the manager. Particularly Parry who is not liked at all by Liverpool fans.

 

If the ultimate goal is to get rid of the Americans and egos are put to one side Parry must understand that Rafa is his biggest ally. Will he do that though? Everything the man does to me suggests he is looking after himself first and foremost. Rafa is probably the same, but Rafa is good at his job. Parry is negligent at his.

[RedKnight]

and all this stuff in the press about Rafa being ready to walk unless Parry goes and they give him money to spend this summer isn't fucking helping either. Some people will be prepared to tolerate Hicks because it means Rafa stays. It's being spun now that the reason Hicks wants Parry out is because it's what Rafa wants, and because Hicks will do whatever it takes to keep Rafa.

 

Bullshit. He wants Parry out because it gives him more boardroom control if he can get Ian Ayre in as his replacement. If that happens, it goes from 4-2 against, to 3-3.

 

Sorry, but this is way, way bigger than Rafa Benitez. It's not about whether we can challenge for the league next season, it's about the long term future of the club.

 

The Game is spot on.

[The Acolyte]

can someone please show me a way out of this because I've thought long and hard and I just can't see it.

 

Got this off scouse lad on RAWK, where he got it fromis a mystery.

 

found this elsewhere

 

Just found this on wiki. It would explain why Hicks asked Parry to resign knowing full well that Gillett would block him. Also explains Hicks comments about 'the record being clear' if Gillett refused to back him in sacking Parry:

 

Deadlock provision

 

A deadlock provision, or deadlock resolution clause, is a contractual clause or series of clauses in a shareholders' agreement or other form of joint venture agreement which determines how disagreements on key issues are to be resolved in relation to the management of the enterprise.

 

Deadlock provisions vary enormously between different countries and with respect to different types of transactions. However, characteristically the format of the provision will be as follows:

 

1. Certain "key matters" will be designated as matters upon which deadlocks can arise. These will usually be fairly fundamental matters relating to the management and control of the business.

2. The provisions will then indicate if a "key matter" is raised at a certain number of consecutive meetings (occasionally just one meeting, but more often two or three) of the board of directors or other management organ of the business, a deadlock is said to have arisen.

3. The two parties may then be asked to summarise their differences in writing, and ordinarily senior personnel on either side will meet to try and find an amicable resolution to the deadlock. The provisions may require that a mediator may or shall be involved.

4. If the parties fail to find an amicable solution, then the termination provisions will normally operate.

 

The main focus of most deadlock provisions are the termination provisions. The principle underlying them is that a successful business enterprise should not be destroyed solely because the two partners are unable to agree on a core issue; the value of the business as a going concern should be preserved, and a fair way should be found to allow one party to bow out with fair recompense for giving up their share in the venture.

 

There are as many different types of termination provisions as the ingenuity of lawyers can create. However, a number of specific types of termination provisions have come to be used fairly regularly in commercial transactions where the parties are of equal standing in the venture, and have acquired characteristically descriptive names.

 

* Russian roulette. A draconian solution to a deadlock, a Russian roulette provision requires one of the two deadlocked parties to serve a notice on the other party, and the serving party will name an all-cash price at which it values a half interest in the business. The party receiving the notice then has the option to either buy the other party out, or sell out to the other party, at that price.

* Texas shoot-out. Another dramatic solution to a deadlock, a Texan shoot-out involves each party sending a sealed all-cash bid to an umpire stating the price at which they are willing to buy out the other party. The sealed bids are opened together, and the highest sealed bid "wins", and that bidder must then buy (and the "loser" must sell) the other half share in the business.

* Dutch auction. A variation on the Texan shoot-out (and slightly different from the traditional Dutch auction), the parties send in sealed bids indicating the minimum price that they would be prepared to sell their half share for. Whichever sealed bid is the higher "wins" and that bidder then buys the "loser's" share at the price indicated in the loser's sealed bid.

* Multi-choice procedure. A softer option, when the parties do not wish to commit themselves to a more dramatic termination procedure, the deadlock can often provide for a series of options, one of which the parties must agree on, if the deadlock cannot be resolved. The benefit of an open textured clause like this is that, when faced with the draconian consequences of the next step, the parties are thought to be better able to compromise. The downside is that if the parties are truly at loggerheads, it usually requires a third party adjudicator (often an arbitrator) to impose one of the options upon them.

* Cooling-off/Mediation. Not strictly a termination provision at all, many deadlock provisions 'end' by providing that the parties shall mediate until a solution is found (sometimes providing that if they cannot mediate out, the mediator will make a determination of reasonableness, which can then have knock-on effects under the contract). Whilst sounding like a 'soft' option, such clauses often represent the judgment of Solomon, as if the parties are unable to mediate the dispute out, then usually the enterprise will be dissolved.

* Deterrence approach. Often the termination clause in deadlock provisions provides a punitive element for the party initiating the deadlock procedure. In those clauses, a deadlock is only said to arise when one party serves a notice on the other indicating that a deadlock has arisen (instead of a failure to resolve on a key matter at a certain number of meetings). The provisions will then provide for the determination of the "fair market value" of a half share in the business, usually by having it valued by an expert or auditor (or sometimes both in consultation). Once the valuation is made, the party who served the notice must either (a) buy all the other party's share in the business at 125% of the fair price, or (b) sell its share to the other party at 75% of the fair price. The downside to such clauses is that deadlocks rarely get resolved, and can lead to the business being paralysed by indecision.

[ratcatcher]

Got this off scouse lad on RAWK, where he got it fromis a mystery.

 

found this elsewhere

 

Just found this on wiki. It would explain why Hicks asked Parry to resign knowing full well that Gillett would block him. Also explains Hicks comments about 'the record being clear' if Gillett refused to back him in sacking Parry:

 

Deadlock provision

 

A deadlock provision, or deadlock resolution clause, is a contractual clause or series of clauses in a shareholders' agreement or other form of joint venture agreement which determines how disagreements on key issues are to be resolved in relation to the management of the enterprise.

 

Deadlock provisions vary enormously between different countries and with respect to different types of transactions. However, characteristically the format of the provision will be as follows:

 

1. Certain "key matters" will be designated as matters upon which deadlocks can arise. These will usually be fairly fundamental matters relating to the management and control of the business.

2. The provisions will then indicate if a "key matter" is raised at a certain number of consecutive meetings (occasionally just one meeting, but more often two or three) of the board of directors or other management organ of the business, a deadlock is said to have arisen.

3. The two parties may then be asked to summarise their differences in writing, and ordinarily senior personnel on either side will meet to try and find an amicable resolution to the deadlock. The provisions may require that a mediator may or shall be involved.

4. If the parties fail to find an amicable solution, then the termination provisions will normally operate.

 

The main focus of most deadlock provisions are the termination provisions. The principle underlying them is that a successful business enterprise should not be destroyed solely because the two partners are unable to agree on a core issue; the value of the business as a going concern should be preserved, and a fair way should be found to allow one party to bow out with fair recompense for giving up their share in the venture.

 

There are as many different types of termination provisions as the ingenuity of lawyers can create. However, a number of specific types of termination provisions have come to be used fairly regularly in commercial transactions where the parties are of equal standing in the venture, and have acquired characteristically descriptive names.

 

* Russian roulette. A draconian solution to a deadlock, a Russian roulette provision requires one of the two deadlocked parties to serve a notice on the other party, and the serving party will name an all-cash price at which it values a half interest in the business. The party receiving the notice then has the option to either buy the other party out, or sell out to the other party, at that price.

* Texas shoot-out. Another dramatic solution to a deadlock, a Texan shoot-out involves each party sending a sealed all-cash bid to an umpire stating the price at which they are willing to buy out the other party. The sealed bids are opened together, and the highest sealed bid "wins", and that bidder must then buy (and the "loser" must sell) the other half share in the business.

* Dutch auction. A variation on the Texan shoot-out (and slightly different from the traditional Dutch auction), the parties send in sealed bids indicating the minimum price that they would be prepared to sell their half share for. Whichever sealed bid is the higher "wins" and that bidder then buys the "loser's" share at the price indicated in the loser's sealed bid.

* Multi-choice procedure. A softer option, when the parties do not wish to commit themselves to a more dramatic termination procedure, the deadlock can often provide for a series of options, one of which the parties must agree on, if the deadlock cannot be resolved. The benefit of an open textured clause like this is that, when faced with the draconian consequences of the next step, the parties are thought to be better able to compromise. The downside is that if the parties are truly at loggerheads, it usually requires a third party adjudicator (often an arbitrator) to impose one of the options upon them.

* Cooling-off/Mediation. Not strictly a termination provision at all, many deadlock provisions 'end' by providing that the parties shall mediate until a solution is found (sometimes providing that if they cannot mediate out, the mediator will make a determination of reasonableness, which can then have knock-on effects under the contract). Whilst sounding like a 'soft' option, such clauses often represent the judgment of Solomon, as if the parties are unable to mediate the dispute out, then usually the enterprise will be dissolved.

* Deterrence approach. Often the termination clause in deadlock provisions provides a punitive element for the party initiating the deadlock procedure. In those clauses, a deadlock is only said to arise when one party serves a notice on the other indicating that a deadlock has arisen (instead of a failure to resolve on a key matter at a certain number of meetings). The provisions will then provide for the determination of the "fair market value" of a half share in the business, usually by having it valued by an expert or auditor (or sometimes both in consultation). Once the valuation is made, the party who served the notice must either (a) buy all the other party's share in the business at 125% of the fair price, or (b) sell its share to the other party at 75% of the fair price. The downside to such clauses is that deadlocks rarely get resolved, and can lead to the business being paralysed by indecision.

 

Jesus wept! That's really starting to do my head in, now.

 

I can understand Benitez's frustration at the latest klinsman news but seriously, one or two people have got to just keep their heads down and not get imbroiled with this shit. PLEASE!!

[bobhorse]

Its business that is all.

 

As fans we cant see it as such but these people purly see it as such, it will all be over soon.

 

As i have said it had to come to such a public display in order for the sale to go through with neither losing face

 

Dont worry these people are all working together for the same purpose even though it may seem that they are at each others throat

 

wont go past June with these two in charge

[The Acolyte]

I didn't type it!

Just a cut and paste job from your friendly Acolyte.

 

I just want it to end as defelcting from all the good work done by the team.

It's also defelcting from the fact that they haven't moved an inch in building the new ground.