The David Moores Letter

[Paco]

The important thing is that it's making headlines.

 

I turned on radio 1 this morning and I heard "Former Liverpool owner David Moores has called on the current owners to sell the club". Hundreds of thousands of other Liverpool fans would have heard the same as opposed to a few thousand drum bangers on the internet.

 

I don't know how many Liverpool fans read the times but it's sure to filter through to all national newspapers tomorrow so really there shouldn't be a Liverpool fan in the world who won't know about the growing protest against the yanks and hopefully thousands more will lend their voices to getting the them out.

[liver bird]

My point exactly. This is the business plan made for us.

 

Arsenal built their stadium when steel was cheap and can now sell off their properties from the old ground, making themselves self sustaining and paying off the debt. They'll be knocking out profits in 5 years.

 

We just got bought at the wrong time. Theres nothing more to it. Unless you're daft enough to think G & H have done all this just to ruin Liverpool. Any cunt that would have bought us back then would have threw loans on us, unless we got a Man City owner.

 

I do actually, hicks has a past history of fucking up sporting 'franchises' its not personal he just doesn't give a fuck, plays a high risk game at our expense, he never has any attention of building stadiums and being a responsible owner, its all about the money and the bluff, he got involved in us, corinthians and texas rangers and we all have the same thing in common, he basically lies about his intentions to build a new stadium so he can bump the selling price up....its not illegal but its completely shitty, if his stategy works he's quids in, if it doesn't the club goes bankrupt eg Texas Rangers, Corinthians and next us....he hasn't learnt his lessons becos basically theres no lessons to learn, he'll go off to another sports team and wait for that big killing to try and get someone/anyone to believe his blusters and hype and pays over the odds for the sports team, obviously thats if they are not in administration by then.

 

He has no intention of giving Liverpool up untill he gets his big killing and failing that we go into administration but its now looking likely (as if has done for while) that there is no buyer out there stupid enough to buy the club which means administration beckons...he will quite happily see us there, no problem at all. He hasn't got a conscience, a man who can let the only club he any feelings for go to the wall can withstand any pressure Liverpool fans throw at him.

 

Effectively David Moores coming out and saying this feels like the last nail in the coffin to me , the appointments of Purslow and Broughton brought a fresh wave of optimism amongst the ignorant that the club was doing well, everything is fine etc etc....its now obvious to see buyers are just not going to fall for it, they aren't the friendly face of LFC, the face of LFC is that big fat fucks Hicks NOONE IS GOING FALL FOR IT.

Edited May 26, 2010 by liver bird

[liver bird]

My point exactly. This is the business plan made for us.

 

Arsenal built their stadium when steel was cheap and can now sell off their properties from the old ground, making themselves self sustaining and paying off the debt. They'll be knocking out profits in 5 years.

 

We just got bought at the wrong time. Theres nothing more to it. Unless you're daft enough to think G & H have done all this just to ruin Liverpool. Any cunt that would have bought us back then would have threw loans on us, unless we got a Man City owner.

 

The price of steel is irrelevant when Hicks had no intention of ever building a new stadium, its not how he works.

[Kennys_spell]

He's thick as pig shit, he's not calculated and he wasn't after the money.

 

He's just a bad bad dickhead.

 

Seems to me that sort of description is just a cop out, it's like pleading insanity when up for Murder. A Last resort that will somehow take away the responsibility (if not the blame) for an action commited.

 

In this case Moores isn't mentally instable and DID know right from wrong. Being the Liverpool fan he is claiming to be and the love he professes to have for this club of ours. How can he now claim he didn't understand what selling to the leeches would mean?

 

He MUST have known this was wrong - I guess there were 8 Million reasons for him to ignore this doubt though.

 

Not having it.

[Soleilrouge]

At best gross incompetence.

 

'We had PWC and they checked with Rothchilds (who were representing George and Tom) and they provided assurances they were good for the money.'

 

Sweet divine fuck - that is the saddest and funniest thing I ever heard.

 

The other point here is that the money he pocketed coudl have been raised from a bank and used to build a stadium.

 

The net point is that a large chunk of the the money that was borrowed to buy the club could have been borrowed to build a stadium but insteads it is now in the former shareholders pockets.

 

Empty words.

 

This clubs needs less words and more action at all levels - and I'm including players in that.

[WaltonRed]

Doesn't go far enough for me.

 

It wrankles of excuse making.

 

Thanks for doing it though, I never thought I'd see the day.

[usernameunknown]

What a letdown that was then. Thought it might have been an apology and a call to arms, instead its a load of excuse making, a refusal to say sorry and trying to push a bit of blame onto the supporters.

[gkmacca]

Live Webchat with Tony Evans, Oliver Kay and Tony Barrett on at the moment...

 

TheGame - Times Online - WBLG: The Game webchat, with Tony Evans and Tony Barrett

 

Thanks for the link mate.

[HornsOfJericho]

The price of steel is irrelevant when Hicks had no intention of ever building a new stadium, its not how he works.

 

They obviously did.

[liver bird]

They obviously did.

 

No, they needed people to believe that

[stringvest]

I'm sure they did want to build the stadium - there would have been no point in buying the club if they didn't want to do that.

[HornsOfJericho]

If they had no intentions of building a stadium, then why did they bother to redo the plans?

 

Also, you can suck my big fat one if you think banks are going to loan hundreds of millions if there was no business plan to get it all back.

[HornsOfJericho]

 

Now that is utter bullshit and everything I said was right it would cost us £700m+ more if it goes up to 70,000.

That is 16x our turnover it's utterly unsustainable given that Utd are fucked with a debt that's only seven times their turnover.

 

I've no idea what you are on about.

[WaltonRed]

Having Parry as his CEO was his biggest mistake.

[liver bird]

I'm sure they did want to build the stadium - there would have been no point in buying the club if they didn't want to do that.

 

To make the club look more attractive for another buyer, to put on show its great potential they could realise if they bought it off him, thats why he drew up them pretty and expensive plans...remember them! not in a million years where they ever to see reality under him, biggest pisstake ever.

 

Ideally looking back on it now Hicks in particular would have liked to have come in, and sold on as fast as possible for loads of money, not worked out quite that way so now he has to blame recession and dig in till he dies , we eventually get sold or go into administration, theres some worrying quotes been released where has he has said he has lost money on the texas rangers so his need to make money from us is greater than ever, he is with us till the bitter end wherever that takes us.

[Dicko]

I've no idea what you are on about.

 

No I don't suppose you would given that you've compared us to Arsenal and said that could of been us when clearly it couldn't, as Arsenal are not paying back a purchase price on top of a new stadium which is what we'd have to do if it was ever built while these two morons are in charge. So let me make it simple as it stood:

The redesign of the HKS stadium cost £400m + £105m of debt placed on the club + the £250m that we are paying to Kop Holdings until these two fuckers go + the £100m extra we'll have to pay if it goes above 61,000.

 

Now perhaps you can see that there is no fucking comparison to Arsenal whatsoever, none at all and it had fuck all to do with the recession. Maybe you think it's coincidence that the banks started to get cold feet about the design round about the same time that H&G decided to put the purchase price on to the club.

[Graham Smith]

Looking at that webchat I'm sure Al and Mick might have something to say about being blamed for Moores actually delaying in coming "out" rather than being part of why he did.

 

It suggests that he was going to do an interview but we've ended up with his letter instead.

 

Leaking to the press can't have happened surely as that would obviously have spooked DM. Why would The Times say that? The Times should be asked who the alleged leak was to.

[Kennys_spell]

If they had no intentions of building a stadium, then why did they bother to redo the plans?

 

Also, you can suck my big fat one if you think banks are going to loan hundreds of millions if there was no business plan to get it all back.

 

Have you seen the line in the yearly accounts for "Stadium costs"?

 

I'd say that points at about 36 Million reasons why they would "redo the plans". They may have thought that the idea of building a big stadium to get more money in through the turnstiles was a good idea. It seems obvious to me though that they had no intention of putting their own money into this venture, there was no spirit of venture capitalism in their approach.

 

It was ALL Leverege purchases and promises to pay tomorrow.

 

THAT'S Not showing intent to build a stadium, that's an intention to take the profits of other peoples efforts.

[chauncey]

Is he going to apologise for giving Benitez a job?

 

 

Was this supposed to be funny? Take a day off you try-hard twat.

 

 

p.s. THANKS DM

[Dicko]

Just to make it clearer this is what we've been paying.

 

Liverpool's American owners have admitted for the first time that the football club will have to finance around £30 million in annual interest payments on new loans taken out to pay for their takeover of Anfield last February.

 

Despite announcing last Friday that only £105m of a new £350m refinancing package was at "club-level", a spokesman for co-chairman Tom Hicks admitted last night that the club would also be responsible for servicing the remaining £245m, which had been placed on the balance sheet of Liverpool's parent company Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd.

 

 

A spokesman from Financial Dynamics, the City PR company which represents Hicks, said: "The holding company debt is supported by the assets it acquired and should there ever be any shortfall in cash flow at the club or anywhere else in Kop in any given year, Kop's ownership, under the terms of the financing package, is prepared to fund whatever is required.

"The debt is being handled exactly as it is handled at the vast majority of professional sports teams."

 

The admission is significant because Liverpool's chief executive Rick Parry and former chairman David Moores, who remains a director, have resisted attempts by Hicks and his co-owner George Gillett Jr to transfer the £220m cost of last February's takeover on to the club's books.

 

They voted against the proposal at a board meeting last autumn and their continued opposition to the move was one of the key factors in slowing the new £350m deal with Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia, finally announced last week.

 

Under the terms of the new deal, Kop Football said £105m would be placed on the club, including £60m for the start of work on a new 71,000-seat stadium at Stanley Park and a further £45m to cover other club debts, including money for past and future player acquisitions.

 

The remaining £245m was split into two tranches; £60m of so-called existing debt which the Americans say they inherited at the time of their takeover, and £185m, which they say relates to the cost of acquiring their shares in the club.

 

Liverpool sources say they remain comfortable with the £8m-a-year interest fees which are likely to accompany the £105m club debt.

 

But Hicks's admission last night that the whole debt would have to be serviced by the "asset", namely Liverpool Football Club, appeared to confirm that cash flows from Anfield would have to cover the whole interest cost, likely to be in the region of £30m at current market interest rates of eight per cent.

 

There are fears among club insiders and fans that the annual interest costs will wipe out Liverpool's operating profits, which are expected to be in the region of £30m for the financial year ended June 2007, applying a further brake on manager Rafa Benitez's plans in the transfer market.

And you want to add on another £400m on top for a new stadium and say it's just like Arsenal's plans.

 

Fuck off. It's nothing like Arsenal.

[karl1987]

Rangers, Stars owner Hicks eager to exit pro sports

11:24 PM CDT on Tuesday, May 25, 2010

By GARY JACOBSON and BRENDAN CASE / The Dallas Morning News

 

Tom Hicks said he stands to lose "a couple hundred million" dollars on the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars, but he expects to make it up when he sells his stake in a leading English soccer team.

He also said he will be glad to exit the professional sports business.

"It's never been my primary business," he said in an interview Tuesday with The Dallas Morning News. "And it's a business I no longer want to pay the price to be in."

One thing he won't miss is the publicity that comes with owning pro sports teams, he said.

"It's a brutal invasion of privacy," he said.

Hicks is embroiled in a controversial sale of the Texas Rangers, and the outcome is far from certain.

The team filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday, saying it aimed to expedite a sale to an investor group headed by Pittsburgh attorney Chuck Greenberg and Rangers president Nolan Ryan.

The team also sought a speedy or "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which the sale could be done in July. That way, new owners could take control before the July 31 player trading deadline, a key on-field consideration as the first-place Rangers prepare to make a run for the playoffs.

Unpredictable outcome

But the outcome of the bankruptcy case is hard to predict.

In a Tuesday court filing, U.S. Trustee William Neary said the case should be treated as a traditional bankruptcy, not a prepackaged one. He said he would hold a meeting June 3 to form a creditors committee.

Traditional bankruptcies typically take months to resolve. Meanwhile, some creditors argue that Hicks' proposal doesn't give them enough money.

"What they did is going to cause a nuclear war here," said a person close to the creditor group. "Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan will have control of the team by the trade deadline. But it will be the trade deadline of 2020."

Last year, Hicks Sports Group, owner of the Rangers and Stars, defaulted on $525 million in loans. The bankruptcy proceedings that began Monday include only the Rangers, not HSG or the Stars.

The Rangers transaction could end up giving the lenders up to about $280 million, although estimates vary. Later, they also would stand to get money from a sale of the Stars.

In a statement Monday, Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig said he was prepared to submit the Greenberg-Ryan group to other baseball owners for their approval.

That's important because three-quarters of the owners must approve a sale, Hicks said.

"The creditors seriously misjudge how professional sports work," Hicks said. "It's a club. It's a club that 75 percent of the people have to decide they want to admit somebody into. It can't be forced to be sold to the highest bidder."

Creditors' objections

At a four-hour hearing Tuesday in Fort Worth before Judge Michael Lynn, creditors objected to the prepackaged plan and suggested they could force two Hicks Sports Group entities into separate involuntary bankruptcies. Lynn said both sides will present arguments on the team's reorganization plan June 15, and he set July 9 as a possible date by which the Rangers could emerge from bankruptcy.

The Greenberg-Ryan deal is valued at $575 million, the Rangers said, including the team, assumed liabilities and an accompanying land deal.

Under the bankruptcy plan, Hicks would receive some cash from the sale of the team – $5 million for funds he lent the Rangers a year ago.

The land deal is valued at about $75 million. That includes $5 million cash, a $53.1 million note, assumption of a $12.8 million obligation related to the Centerfield Office Building and a 1 percent equity stake in the new ownership group.

In addition, Hicks would receive game tickets, parking passes, the title of chairman emeritus for three years and "other rights customary to former owners in the sale of professional sports teams," according to court filings.

Liverpool FC sale

Hicks said Tuesday that his efforts to sell his other teams continue.

He said he expects to sell soccer team Liverpool FC in 12 to 18 months. He continued to say that the English Premier League team – one of the world's most valuable sports brands – could fetch "600 to 800" million pounds – or about $860 million to $1.15 billion at current exchange rates. Others place the value at significantly less.

Hicks and Colorado businessman George Gillett acquired the team in 2007 in a deal valued at nearly 220 million pounds, which at the time was worth about $430 million because the pound was stronger in relation to the dollar at the time.

The effort to sell the Stars is "quietly" progressing, Hicks said. Still, he added, "hockey has some issues," especially outside the Northeast and Canada. He said he could be a small minority partner with a group buying the Stars.

The Stars gave Hicks what he has described as his fondest moment as a team owner: the team's Stanley Cup victory in 1999.

Under his ownership, the Rangers won two division titles, the last in 1999. But they never won a league championship or World Series, despite high payrolls.

"I lost a lot of money," he said. "That was only because I wanted to win."

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram contributed to this report.

 

gjacobson@dallasnews.com;

[BPT]

Looking at that webchat I'm sure Al and Mick might have something to say about being blamed for Moores actually delaying in coming "out" rather than being part of why he did.

 

It suggests that he was going to do an interview but we've ended up with his letter instead.

 

Leaking to the press can't have happened surely as that would obviously have spooked DM. Why would The Times say that? The Times should be asked who the alleged leak was to.

 

Bascombe

[Graham Smith]

Bascombe

 

Rubbish, there's no way either Mick or Al would prejudice Moores coming out after all the hard work they did to get him out.

 

They'd know very well how it would look to people if they leaked stuff and it threatened Moores coming out at all with this sort of stuff.

 

Wouldn't make any sense for them to start leaking stuff to journalists on the NoTW either.

[Original202]

If he wants £600m-£800m then he'll be here for 12-18 years, nevermind 12-18 months.

 

Horrible fat headed fuck.

[Harry Squatter]

I don’t think that ATK & Dougie confronting him had anything to do with him delaying his action, the fact that he’s chosen to send a letter means he gets to portray himself as the good guy and go on about how the football world was changing and left him behind as an owner. The opening line of his letter tells you how he has no intention of apologising for making the worst decision in the history of LFC, in his mind he has not done a thing wrong, maybe a bid of bad judgement in hindsight at the very most. There’s no way he’d put himself in a position where he’d have to answer tough questions, possibly ones that he could not provide a truthful or reasonable answer. If no one had put him under pressure at all would he have ever spoke out?

 

With the pre-rehearsed “I’m a good guy who got taken in by these two men who said they were really nice chaps” it is all safe and doesn’t really answer any questions or tell us anything we want to know or didn’t already know. Why choose joint owners when it was proven that joint managers never worked previously?. At least you can get rid of managers easier.

 

He says that C&A should accept their limitations as owners but could have really let rip on them saying that they have constantly lied, could have said why he resigned from his life presidency role and whether he ever confronted them about why they put debt on the club or why the stadium was never built (or why it has cost about £40M and still nothing has happened, half of the £80M original cost when he looked into it). He’s had first hand knowledge of their shady dealings and could have really opened more people’s eyes even more as to what a pair of leeches they really are and what they are doing but just politely asks them to leave.

 

According to the letter the stadium and no debt were essential parts of the deal which have not been kept to, as he was life president why didn’t he say anything or confront them, if he did why did they lie and why was nothing done about it?. Why not show you were standing up for the club you claim to love? You were in a position to have at least some influence so why not do something?. More than likely you sat in the directors box saying nothing hoping that everything would sort itself out and hoping you wouldn’t get barred from Anfield.

 

I’m surprised it took him until 2004 to realise that the football world was changing and that he couldn’t cut it as an owner, by this time the Mancs had become European Champions, built a massive ground and were slowly creeping up on us with league wins. Yet it took Chelsea getting a new owner for him to take any action. If Real Madrid were 10 league titles ahead of Barcelona and Barca started winning everything do you think Real Madrid would sit back and do nothing for years and hope everything mends itself?

 

I suppose a lot of supporters must also wish they weren’t so hostile to us becoming like the Mancs and becoming more of a business. I remember in the 1990’s most of us would rather we remained the way we are than bring out 4 shirts a season, get a better sponsor than Carlsberg and put more executive boxes in Anfield. I think this type of attitude probably helped him think he was doing a good job and kept things the way they were until he had absolutely no choice but to do something.