Barclays Capital Appointed to Find a Purchaser for the Club

[zigackly]

The whole thing hinges on finding an investor capable of stumping up half a billion on the barrel. Can't do that and you're going nowhere fast.

[Mathewbet1]

At last, light appears at the end of the Liverpool tunnel. Royal Bank of Scotland will back a six-month refinancing package in the summer but only to push ahead the sale of the club. Yet another investment bank — Barclays Capital — has been appointed to look for buyers. Reports said that it is impressed by, among other things, progress on the construction of a fine new stadium. Really? I think I might buy a lottery ticket next week in the hope of impressing Barclays with my vast wealth.

 

There is no stadium in Stanley Park. Anyone who attended the match against Benfica on Thursday knows that there is not even a single red brick on the site. There is planning permission tucked away in the Anfield vaults; that’s all.

 

So whatever Barclays’ prospective buyers agree to pay — and the weekend talk suddenly restored Liverpool’s worth to the £500 million that the more determined of the Dubai bidders deemed slightly excessive in early 2007 — will have to be topped up with £300 million for a home grand enough to allow the club to compete more fairly with their London and Manchester rivals.

 

Only if the Dubai lot, headed by Sheikh Mohammed, come back on the scene is there likely to be much cause for rejoicing. Liverpool will never be fit for the Champions League again until that stadium is rising in the park and the scale of finance the project requires would appear to rule out inhabitants of the real world, or Merseyside equivalents of the Red Knights (they could be dubbed Crimson Counts).

Related Links

 

* Liverpool vow to invest windfall on pitch

 

* Merseyside rivals forced to confront home truths

 

* Renaissance on Continent makes refreshing change

 

There is, however, an interesting coincidence here. Amanda Staveley, the City high-flier who was said to have received a £20 million fee for arranging Barclays’ bailout by the Abu Dhabi royal family last year, had earlier helped the Dubai bidders for Liverpool and was also involved in the Abu Dhabi takeover of Manchester City. So, if I were a Liverpool fan, I’d be feeling cautiously optimistic.

 

If, on the other hand, my name were Hicks or Gillett, I’d be marvelling at how the system had come to my rescue. What possesses banks to get so heavily involved in football when there is serious and much bigger business out there? I suppose executives find it glamorous and publicity-generating. If only they were using their own money — rather than your savings and mine.

 

Things were so simple in the days before David Moores came to the conclusion that big-time football had outgrown his fortune and sold out. No wonder Uefa realised, however belatedly, that something had to be done about the pressures on ownership.

 

Still at Anfield, though, you can experience unforgettable nights, such as Thursday. It was like a rebirth: ethereal. So dazzling that you floated out and peered through a gap in the fence round the adjacent building-site — just in case the new stadium had suddenly materialised.

 

Mawhinney leaves food for thought in his wake

 

Lord Mawhinney’s parting words seemed especially resonant on the day a bankrupt club reached the FA Cup Final.

 

The newly retired Football League chairman, on whose watch the idea of open and honest governance became almost fashionable, published a letter gently pleading with clubs to keep an eye on the moral dimension of their business.

 

In particular, Mawhinney asked them — and I hope the Premier League’s 20 had received a copy — to consider whether the concept of “football debts”, which provides for fellow clubs to take precedence in the event of financial failure, is fair to the rest of society, including the taxpayer and those who supply ambulance services.

 

He also drew attention, in more diplomatic language than I should have done, to the inadequacy of the nine-point penalty imposed on Portsmouth under Premier League regulations for entering administration.

 

This rule has always appeared daft. True, in this case it all but ended Portsmouth’s fight against relegation — but what if the failed club had been in sixth place? What if it had been Liverpool, say, and Barclays had not come to the rescue of the club’s owners, who were then unable to meet their finance deadline this summer, prompting the financiers to decide to cut their losses?

 

Let’s make a credible supposition that Rafael Benítez’s team had finished fifth, a point behind Manchester City, and won the Europa League. The nine-point penalty wouldn’t touch them.

 

It would leave them still in the Premier League next season, out of the Champions League but in the Europa League — where they are now.

 

The penalty for defaulters should be relegation whether they are a Portsmouth or a Liverpool and, because Mawhinney appears to be the only prominent figure in the game with a brain clear and robust enough to recognise it, he will be missed.

 

As a leaving gift to him, the Leagues should club together and put all their common sense into a couple of rule changes along the lines he suggests.

 

This summer. Early this summer, before any sense of shame the game may feel over Portsmouth’s untimely betrayal of the taxpayer wears off.

 

Raising toast to a piece of vintage claret It is a rare footballer indeed who brings to the game a new technique but, after Johan Cruyff with his turn and Cristiano Ronaldo with the twice-swerving free kick that began to bamboozle goalkeepers the season before last, watch out for Graham Alexander.

 

The veteran Burnley captain has a penalty that team-mates who practise with him consider unsaveable. It is struck with the outside of the right foot and flies like a toe-poke, curving just inside the goalkeeper’s left-hand post.

 

Twice Hull City succumbed to it at the KC Stadium on Saturday and perhaps the only way a keeper could counteract it would be to stand two yards left of centre when the kick is taken, which would, of course, give Alexander the easier, more natural, option of stroking the ball to his adversary’s right.

 

The only other advice to Burnley’s opponents would be to avoid fouls in the penalty area. But people in football sometimes take a while to catch on, as is emphasised by the reluctance of defenders to put the ball out for a corner rather than a throw when playing against Stoke City and Rory Delap.

 

In case young people believe that Delap is also an inventor, by the way, he merely follows in a line featuring, among others, Dave Challinor, late of Tranmere Rovers, and Vinnie Jones. Alexander is an original. The good news for goalkeepers is that he will be 39 in October.

 

Wembley turf no stage for the little magicians

 

If Barcelona can manage another 12 months of the divine football displayed on both their turf and Real Madrid’s over the past few days, they could be heading for yet another Champions League final next year. Do you like the sound of that? So do I.

 

But remember where the 2011 final is to take place. Should Lionel Messi, Xavi Hernández and Andrés Iniesta and company be made to play at Wembley? Of course not.

 

To order the little magicians to perform on such a pitch would be like asking the world’s finest orchestra to perform in a rowdy nightclub. It would insult Barcelona and how they strive to play the game

[Carra_is_legend]

I don't get you at all mate. You don't have to walk in the door with the stadium money in cash. Why should it be counted in the purchase price? You don't even have to build the fucker if you've removed the purchase debt from the club, it just means you will struggle to keep up in terms of the playing squad.

 

You're probably right that we wouldn't get naming rights straight off and some interest would have to be paid in the three years, but at the same time you don't borrow the whole lot up front, you draw it down as you need it surely? If you're willing and able to invest wisely in the squad then you might not even get too badly hurt on the pitch while it's being built.

 

The MASSIVE fuck off stumbling block is the purchase debt on the club. Get rid of the interest payments on that and you're laughing.

 

I'm not including the stadium cost in the purchase price. I merely answered why anyone would need £900m - £1bn (own money or borrowed money, I'm just talking about total investment needed) to make us self sustaining and competitive in the long term (and hence increase club's value).

 

To make us self sustaining and competitive in the long term, we need a stadium. Of course you don't have to build it but I'm only talking under an assumption that a new owner will want to make us self sustaining and increase the value of the club and that the stadium will form a integral part of that plan.

 

And yes, of course we can borrow in installments, say 1/3rd of the money every year for 3 years.

 

All I'm saying is, again assuming the new owner will see the importance of a new stadium, whether own money or borrowed money, he will have to look at the £350m stadium cost as an "investment". Along with £350m-£450m buying cost.

[Carra_is_legend]

The whole thing hinges on finding an investor capable of stumping up half a billion on the barrel. Can't do that and you're going nowhere fast.

 

Pretty much.

 

We basically need a rich sugar daddy.

[zigackly]

Pretty much.

 

We basically need a rich sugar daddy.

 

Or a cash rich long term investor who likes footie. They can still walk away in ten years with a decent return on their investment. Doesn't have to be an Abramovich.

[redsfan]

Genuine question that has come to my mind- Say for example all this is just a load of shit and the yanks have no intention to sell, why would Broughton risk his reputation and come on board knowing this information. I know nothing of him but reading in business and finance he is highly regarded, why join the black hole that is our boardroom with 2 dickheads of owners knowing their actual intentions, unless what we read in the press about them having enough is true?

 

I don't the answer to this. Obviously wouldnt put anything past both cancers.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Is this basically what is going on.

 

If the cunts havent paid the £100 mill by July,instead of RBS having a fire sale,they are giving them till January to find a buyer.

 

So what ever happens them two will be gone in January?

[The Acolyte]

Genuine question that has come to my mind- Say for example all this is just a load of shit and the yanks have no intention to sell, why would Broughton risk his reputation and come on board knowing this information. I know nothing of him but reading in business and finance he is highly regarded, why join the black hole that is our boardroom with 2 dickheads of owners knowing their actual intentions, unless what we read in the press about them having enough is true?

 

I don't the answer to this. Obviously wouldnt put anything past both cancers.

 

Seems to me that these two spare ones fancy that they can either:

A) Pull the wool over this Broughtons eyes and have him fighting their corner for them for the banks and putting a new and trusted face on the club to get the investment in.

 

or

 

B) They are genuine about wanting to sell and want someone of high regard to attract serious bidders.

 

Any road its all being done for their own good so excuse if I side with option A!

[bonesman]

sorry, ive not read through the thread,

 

just wanted to get something straight, broughtons appointment effectively breaks up that little veto clause thing hicks and gillette have ?

cos thats what ssn just reported..

 

Another thing, d'you think it would be far fetched to think that this whole broughton thing had been orchestrated by the middle east, after all they are major share holders in barclays, gillette already nearly sold his half only for that veto to quash it..

 

what dyou think, fiction ?

[bonesman]

sorry, ive not read through the thread,

 

just wanted to get something straight, broughtons appointment effectively breaks up that little veto clause thing hicks and gillette have ?

cos thats what ssn just reported..

 

Another thing, d'you think it would be far fetched to think that this whole broughton thing had been orchestrated by the middle east, after all they are major share holders in barclays, gillette already nearly sold his half only for that veto to quash it..

 

what dyou think, fiction ?

 

3 potential buyers in for the club, 1 from india, 2 from the middle east i think, just reported on ssn..

ssn reports..

 

could it Be for real this time, please ?

[col06]

3 potential buyers in for the club, 1 from india, 2 from the middle east i think, just reported on ssn..

ssn reports..

 

could it Be for real this time, please ?

 

I saw that too I wouldn't get your hopes up mate

[murphy]

Anuone who is excited by this is deluded

[Horus]

Anuone who is excited by this is deluded

 

Go on, take a piss...............

 

[bonesman]

I saw that too I wouldn't get your hopes up mate

 

i know :) but its more the veto thing that interests me..

[Redzawi]

3 potential buyers in for the club, 1 from india, 2 from the middle east i think, just reported on ssn..

ssn reports..

 

could it Be for real this time, please ?

 

no one from middle east have interested until now , if there is any intention to buy liverpool by arabian businessman or company , it will be a huge subject here for middle east media

[Chinandeler Bong]

Concession speeches are never easy and, as he explained that the Champions League was now virtually a lost cause, Rafael Benitez's voice was hoarse and cracked. His mood was not made any easier by a Danish journalist's attempts to quiz him on the life and times of Daniel Agger while he was doing it.

 

In the wake of a strangely low-key goalless draw against Fulham in the Anfield sunshine, the Liverpool manager's thoughts would have turned to the lost glory rather than the lost revenue that failure to qualify for the Champions League entails – anything up to £45m.

 

But it will have a significant impact on the sale of the club and in deciding Benitez's own future. Although Liverpool's owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, have appointed Barclays Capital and will appoint a new chairman, Martin Broughton from British Airways, to oversee the sale of the club, they have been told that they are now unlikely to get £500m for Liverpool and the eventual figure may be closer to £400m.

 

"The impact of not being in the Champions League is enormous – it is around £30m off the bottom line, more if you get to the later stages," said Professor Chris Brady, the dean of the BPP Business School, who specialises in football finance.

 

"It is absolutely prime non-commercial revenue and you get it in hard cash. I was hearing this morning that they [Hicks and Gillett] were valuing the club at £600m. I would suggest that is unrealistic by £100m and the price could come down further than that. If you take over a club not in the Champions League, you might need to spend anything up to £100m to get them back up there. The club still needs a new stadium that would cost around £350m. The total investment needed to take over Liverpool and run it properly would be £900m to £1bn."

 

At the weekend, Benitez, who was still publicly confident about re-qualification for the Champions League, suggested that Liverpool needed a minimum investment of £60m on at least three players to regain their competitive edge. The relationship between the size of a club's wage bill and success is a well-known correlation and Liverpool's is only the fifth biggest in the Premier League. Benitez alleged that Peter Crouch was able to substantially increase his salary by moving to Tottenham and any takeover would have to come with an implicit understanding that this wage bill would have to rise.

 

The club's bankers, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia, have now all but agreed to give Hicks and Gillett another six months to pay back £100m of the £237m they have borrowed against the club, a sum that was due to be repaid in July.

 

However, although many on the Kop would welcome the departure of the owners, any takeover would put Benitez's job in peril – and not just because billionaire owners like Roman Abramovich at Chelsea and Abu Dhabi United at Manchester City showed themselves all too ready to dispense with the managers they inherited. Yesterday, Liverpool's vice-captain, Jamie Carragher, pointed out that if they do fail to qualify for the Champions League, the principal reason would be the club's away form, which he compared to that of Wolverhampton Wanderers. That is ultimately Benitez's responsibility.

 

"One of the chief reasons for not getting rid of Benitez is that you would have to pay up the majority of a five-year contract," said Professor Brady. "Giving him and his backroom staff a £10-15m pay-off might be a substantial obstacle to the current owners. But if you have paid £500m for Liverpool and may have to invest another £500m, then paying off Rafa Benitez suddenly becomes peanuts."

 

With a price tag of between £400-500m and a need for substantial investment in a stadium that has more than 120 fewer corporate boxes than the Emirates Stadium, Broughton and Barclays may find the Far East the likeliest place to find a buyer.

 

"The Liverpool brand there is bigger there than anywhere else in the world," said Professor Brady. "If you land at Bangkok Airport, the first thing they ask if they know you are English is about Liverpool. It would probably appeal to a consortium rather than a single investor. Dubai International Capital [the consortium beaten to ownership of Liverpool by Hicks and Gillett in 2007] may be interested now that the Americans are offering total control.

 

"But there is still money to be made in the Premier League, not so much by running a club but by selling it on." Three years ago, Hicks and Gillett paid £174m for the club, which had a debt of £44m. If they sell for £500m, they will still make a profit of £30m – not a bad return for three years' work, even with all that bad feeling from the Kop.

 

Torres struggling to be fit for Madrid return

 

Fernando Torres is struggling to be fit for what would be an emotional return to Atletico Madrid in the semi-finals of the Europa League. The striker spent yesterday in Barcelona in the care of surgeon Ramon Gugat, who examined the knee injury that has plagued him throughout the season.

 

Liverpool said in a statement that Torres "will continue to receive treatment over the next few days – with the injury being reassessed later this week."

 

Torres, who missed the goalless draw with Fulham, is unlikely to be risked in Monday's encounter with West Ham at Anfield but his manager, Rafael Benitez, would hope to start him at Torres's former home, the Vicente Calderon, on 22 April.

 

Tim Rich

 

Why Hicks and Gillett are banking on Barclays

 

Q. What is Barclays Capital's involvement with Liverpool?

 

A. Tom Hicks and George Gillett last week called in Barclays Capital, the investment banking arm of Barclays, to help them sell off the club. BarCap offers a range of services to corporate clients including merger and acquisition (M&A) advisory. The American owners have failed to secure a cash injection of £100m from a minority investor, and are now prepared to listen to offers for the entire club. BarCap has been brought in to advise the owners and seek out potential bidders. It will then manage the process as it develops.

 

Q. What does this mean for the club?

 

A. The appointment is a sign that the US owners are stepping up their plans to sell the club. The Americans called in BarCap after their existing advisers – Rothschild and Merrill Lynch – failed to find a buyer. BarCap has built up its M&A teams in Europe and North America. It has also recently hired some heavy-hitting bankers in Asia whose contacts books could prove crucial if, as some insiders believe, there is significant interest from the region.

 

Q. Why bring in Martin Broughton?

 

A. Broughton is currently the chairman of British Airways, and has been brought in as independent chairman of Liverpool to lend the club credibility among potential investors. This marks another strand to its strategy to knock the business into shape to attract buyers. The existing management structure, including managing director Christian Purslow who is well respected, will remain in place to help facilitate the sale. Purslow has been instrumental in building Liverpool's presence in Asia.

 

Q. Why the urgency?

 

A. Hicks and Gillett are struggling to refinance their £237m debts, and although it seems Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia will offer six months' breathing space, the financial situation needs to be sorted out.

 

Q. Has BarCap taken on the debt?

 

A. No. It remains with RBS and Wachovia. However, BarCap has significant debt market operations, and could provide financing services if crucial to securing a deal.

 

Q. Where does this leave Benitez?

 

A. Weakened. While new owners often keep executives, the managers don't last long. Roman Abramovich quickly lost patience with Claudio Ranieri at Chelsea, and Sheikh Mansour sacked Mark Hughes at Manchester City. While the £15m termination fee is seen as prohibitive, should a buyer pay hundreds of millions for the club, they would be unlikely to baulk at the extra cost.

 

Q. What are the benefits of buying Liverpool?

 

A. The club is a global brand name, and such assets don't come up for sale that often. The club has also signed lucrative sponsorship deals with Standard Chartered and Adidas.

 

Nick Clark, Business Reporter

 

Failure in race for fourth could cost Liverpool £100m - Premier League, Football - The Independent

[col06]

Liverpool owners asked by Royal Bank of Scotland to relinquish control

 

The Royal Bank of Scotland is to increase its control at Liverpool having insisted on the appointment of an independent chairman, Martin Broughton of British Airways, as part of its latest refinancing offer to the club's co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

 

Hicks and Gillett are expected to confirm within the next 48 hours their intention to sell Liverpool eventually, with an announcement that Barclays Capital has replaced Rothschild and Merrill Lynch as the bank searching for new investors. The appointment of Broughton as the chairman is due to be ratified by the Americans this week, signalling increased influence in the Anfield boardroom by the largely government-owned RBS.

 

The deal represents a six-month extension to Hicks and Gillett's existing arrangement with the bank and affords the Americans added time to find an investor willing to meet their £500m asking price for the club. It also reduces the threat of a "fire-sale" of key assets such as Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard this summer should the co-owners fail to repay £100m of their £237m debt before July, as was stipulated in their last refinancing agreement.

 

The failure of Hicks and Gillett to secure investment is the latest in a catalogue of unfulfilled promises by Liverpool's unpopular co-chairmen, who have had a fractured business relationship and have both been badly affected by the global economic crisis. The proposed appointment of Broughton, therefore, is an attempt to break the state of paralysis over major decisions within the Anfield boardroom and gives Liverpool's lenders greater assurance over the co-owners' efforts to sell. Liverpool last night declined to comment on Broughton being an RBS appointment.

 

The former chairman of British American Tobacco, the British Horseracing Board and current deputy president of the CBI will work alongside Liverpool's managing director Christian Purslow in the search for new investment. Several parties have expressed interest in Liverpool, who need to reduce their debt before work on the stalled but critical stadium project can commence, but only one, The Rhone Group, has submitted an official offer since Purslow's global hunt for possible investors began last year. The deadline on their proposed offer of £110m for a 40% stake in Liverpool passed last Monday.

 

Hicks and Gillett are believed to be close to finalising the refinancing extension with the RBS, although what funds will then be left available to manager Rafael Benítez for spending on new players this summer is uncertain. Reports of an alternative, three-year refinancing deal with Barclays Bank have been denied by officials at Anfield and sources close to the Americans.

 

Liverpool look increasingly likely to miss out on the revenue streams from the Champions League next season after falling six points behind fourth-placed Manchester City following Sunday's goalless home draw against Fulham. Their vice-captain, Jamie Carragher, is adamant, however, that Liverpool can withstand the impact of a season outside the European elite, a feeling shared by Anfield officials.

 

"People forget that there have been times when we haven't played in the Champions League," Carragher said. "We missed out under [Gérard] Houllier at Bradford on the last day [in 1999-2000], and we had to win the trophy to get into the Champions League in the current manager's first season.

 

"It's nothing new if we don't get there. People are saying that if we miss out, then that'll be it for us, as though we'd never get there again. That's just nonsense. If we can't get there we'll battle on next year. We can't be as bad as we have been this season, so I'm sure we will be getting back in the Champions League next season. The Champions League is a big thing, you want to play in it and the revenue it generates is important for the club. But the way people are talking, you'd think if we don't get in this season, we'll never get in it again. Who knows what the future holds? But we're a massive club and I'm sure we'll get back into the Champions League."

 

Liverpool's concerns over the fitness of Torres have increased after scans on the extent of the striker's latest knee injury proved inconclusive. The Spain international underwent an assessment in Barcelona yesterday and is to remain in Spain for further treatment. He received treatment and will continue to do so over the next few days, with the injury being reassessed later this week," the club confirmed.

 

Liverpool owners asked by Royal Bank of Scotland to relinquish control | Football | The Guardian

[RedinSweden]

Good quotes there from Carra. If any players want to leave because we haven't qualified, then they can go as far as I'm concerned. We will be back in it next year.

 

As for all the finance stuff, i understand very little, but I am a little more optimistic. Brougton being brought in short term certainly does seem to point to an exit stategy. Fingers crossed. If missing out on the CL means less money for G and H then it is not so bad after all.

[stringvest]

The other thing John is if Hicks and Gillett are planning on staying around long term like Tony Evans says then why appoint BarCap in the first place and get Broughton on a short term loan.

 

They could have just stayed with Merrill Lynch and Rothschild.

 

All of this at cost which they can not afford.

 

They are also taking a back seat and making changes at boardroom level to appear better for potential investors/buyers.

 

I doubt very much they are doing all this just to make it look like they are trying to sell the club just to satisfy RBS.

 

Can Hicks/Gillett afford to still own us in 12 months time without Champions League income and the cost of refinancing.

 

All of this and City able to cement their position in the top four meaning investment in the playing staff is needed to get back into the Champions League places.

 

To continue to own Liverpool Hicks and Gillett need third party investment and it seems this is never going to happen.

 

RBS have forced their hands on this. H&G have decided that after investigating the possibility of a £100M loan with another provider in order to meet the RBS demand, the interest rates would be prohibitive and the loan not serviceable in the current circumstances.

 

The extension of the debt schedule by RBS is entirely contingent upon them committing to sell 100% on an agreed reserve price. The reason BarCap are involved is that BarCap believe this reserve is eminently achievable in the current market.

[RedinSweden]

RBS have forced their hands on this. H&G have decided that after investigating the possibility of a £100M loan with another provider in order to meet the RBS demand, the interest rates would be prohibitive and the loan not serviceable in the current circumstances.

 

The extension of the debt schedule by RBS is entirely contingent upon them committing to sell 100% on an agreed reserve price. The reason BarCap are involved is that BarCap believe this reserve is eminently achievable in the current market.

 

I like this take on it. There certainly seems to be plenty of people with a better knowledge of these things than me drawing this conclusion. I was concerned a bit ago that we would just go for anyone that would take us, but to be honest, i find it really hard to imagine a worse ownership situation than the one we have now. Ideally we will get someone in who can set Liverpool up to run as a business. i don't want hundreds of millions splurged by some gazillionaire on their favourite players, just someone who can get s on an even keel and hopefully not become a focal point.

 

Failing that, just anybody who isn't a total and utter fucking cunt would do.

[spider-neil]

with the extention it ensures the top stars wont be sold but at the same time unless we are bought within the nextfour months it ensures we are going to get a similar transfer window to the last one, i.e. sell to buy. if man city go all out to consolidate their position it will take a herculean to get back into the top four.

[Whelan]

How could there have been a 'fire sale'?

 

Parasites "We need to sell you Nando to pay our debts"

 

Nando "No, I'm not going, I don't want to go and you can't make me"

 

Parasites "Pleeeeeeeaaaasse"

[kopite1989]

Does anyone else think that bringing in Broughton Is stupid? He's been chairman of BA a company that has lost money for nearly 8 years now ( whilst he was calling the shots) and you only have to turn on the news to see the mess he has left them in.... So why did we give him a job? Frying pan and into the fire time! Just seems insaine... " hey you fucked up your company, come to us and see how we fucked up ours!"

[Guest davelfc]

How could there have been a 'fire sale'?

 

Parasites "We need to sell you Nando to pay our debts"

 

Nando "No, I'm not going, I don't want to go and you can't make me"

 

Parasites "Pleeeeeeeaaaasse"

 

Easy, fire Rafa and get a yes man in.

 

New Manager: You're not in my plans Nando, I'm not going to play you and you're up for sale.

[spider-neil]

I like this take on it. There certainly seems to be plenty of people with a better knowledge of these things than me drawing this conclusion. I was concerned a bit ago that we would just go for anyone that would take us, but to be honest, i find it really hard to imagine a worse ownership situation than the one we have now. Ideally we will get someone in who can set Liverpool up to run as a business. i don't want hundreds of millions splurged by some gazillionaire on their favourite players, just someone who can get s on an even keel and hopefully not become a focal point.

 

Failing that, just anybody who isn't a total and utter fucking cunt would do.

 

that's what I want as well,

debt removed

investment in the team in the short term

the stadium built

 

after that we should do it ourselves and when uefa's rule comes in (spending based on turnover) we'll HAVE to do it ourselves