Is the Times Newspaper a credible source of information?

[StevieH]

We have gone from 'China to Buy Liverpool' to 'Chinese on the verge of walking out on Liverpool takeover deal' in the space of 2 weeks.

 

We know that the interest on the loans are £2.5m per week, so why are the Times still claiming that the debt is still £237 million?

 

Are the Times a reliable source or are they merely carrying out the PR for Kenny Huang and David Bick?

[llego]

Lets ask Bamba! He'll know!

[Delmar]

We have gone from 'China to Buy Liverpool' to 'Chinese on the verge of walking out on Liverpool takeover deal' in the space of 2 weeks.

 

It may have happened that way, or it may be spin, who knows.

 

We know that the interest on the loans are £2.5m per week, so why are the Times still claiming that the debt is still £237 million?

 

I don't know anyway. The fees increasing the debt discussed in other places seem to me based on some kind of penalty clause. I doubt that anyone except the real insiders know the exact details.

 

Are the Times a reliable source or are they merely carrying out the PR for Kenny Huang and David Bick?

 

The first paragraph, if it is spin, would help Huang. However, how would putting the debt figures too low help him? I would have thought the opposite.

[Coro]

More so than the NOTW or the Mirror and the rest of those red tops.

[milky]

More so than the NOTW or the Mirror and the rest of those red tops.

 

So's the Beano to be fair.

[zigackly]

We know that the interest on the loans are £2.5m per week, so why are the Times still claiming that the debt is still £237 million?

 

I understood RBS have been saying they will pursue the current owners for the penalty charges, not add them to the debt. Could that not represent the discrepancy in the Times figure?

[Barrington Womble]

to be honest I have found the times embarrassing for some time. Some of the articles Tony Evans did in a bid to support Rafa were a joke. Then he's spent the whole summer spinning agenda driven stories on talksport that i never noticed him have the balls to put in print. Then we've had the last 3 weeks.

 

Certainly where Evans is concerned he is coming across as he knew he would be on the outside of the club if Rafa went - he did all he could to protect his source of easy news stories, then has followed it on with quite a strange campaign since, in the hope he might end up on the inside as part of the takeover. He might have been better employed to take an objective line instead of running an advertising campaign.

 

Someone has said in this thread it's better than the NOTW - from recent evidence it is really depressing to say it is clearly isn't. The fucking Sunday S*n is showing it provides more credible stories than the times. I find that one of the most depressing things ever.

[rome 84]

We have gone from 'China to Buy Liverpool' to 'Chinese on the verge of walking out on Liverpool takeover deal' in the space of 2 weeks.

 

We know that the interest on the loans are £2.5m per week, so why are the Times still claiming that the debt is still £237 million?

 

Are the Times a reliable source or are they merely carrying out the PR for Kenny Huang and David Bick?

 

You've got a point there Stevie. Everyone knows it's impossible to have a deal in place that would see you buy something if it's accepted and then for you to walk away if it isn't. I mean, how stupid were those 'Steven Gerrard to join Chelsea' stories that were followed within 24 hours by 'Steven Gerrard to stay at Liverpool'. Funnily enough, the Echo, the Guardian and a number of other papers said the Chinese government were behind the bid to buy Liverpool and the News of the World said 'Huang will buy Liverpool' so you'll have to give me more detail about what your exact problem is with The Times so I can either defend it or accept it as valid. By the way there is no 2.5 million interest on the loans each week, the 2.5 million is in penalty fees and that's been covered in the paper.

[Juan Galonso]

No, no and no again. They can't even get the current debt figure right for a start. 262m due to rise to 282m by the end of Aug.

 

Evan's bosses should be hauling him over the coals for this latest fuck-up. The Talksport stuff in the summer after Rafa left was so transparent and agenda-driven for reasons mentioned above by Barry Wom.

 

Tony Barrett has done the right thing by distancing himself from all of this Evans/Bick/Huang love in over the past couple of weeks.

 

Instead of the fantasist plastering this non-story over his front page a fortnight ago he would have better been acting on the recent revelations about the Yanks trying to refinance and the debt being worse than we all thought it was.

[rome 84]

John, whatever you think of Tony Evans you've got a good mate who can tell you the way newspapers work and he'll tell you the football editor doesn't decide which story goes on the front page. The fact that Tony was on holiday when that story appeared will tell you he had no input in any editorial decisions about that either. That story came from the business desk and he only got involved cos he'd broken the initial Huang story.

[coop]

Personally i think the Times have covered the story pretty well and people are just getting frustrated because we thought the deal was going ahead backed by CIC and now it Huang is letting it be known that he is thinking of walking away.

 

I can not understand the way some people will slam Tony Evans and question his motives when to me he has always come across as a genuine Liverpool fan who like every single journo out there has got things wrong from time to time.

[hamstrung]

I don't suppose we'll know who is credible/not until things reach a conclusion, will we?

 

This will presumably just become a thread for sniping about Tony Evans, much like the tedious Bascombe threads.

[Whelan]

I don't suppose we'll know who is credible/not until things reach a conclusion, will we?

 

This will presumably just become a thread for sniping about Tony Evans, much like the tedious Bascombe threads.

 

Nope, this is completely different to Bascombe, completely.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Whelan

[Juan Galonso]

John, whatever you think of Tony Evans you've got a good mate who can tell you the way newspapers work and he'll tell you the football editor doesn't decide which story goes on the front page. The fact that Tony was on holiday when that story appeared will tell you he had no input in any editorial decisions about that either. That story came from the business desk and he only got involved cos he'd broken the initial Huang story.

 

Isn't it a shame that the likes of SOS and RobboHuyton can't take heed of your admittedly correct point though Tony about how newspapers work.

[Vim Fuego]

Nope, this is completely different to Bascombe, completely.

Everyone should know by now that Bascombe doesn't get anything wrong ever, any mistakes are the fault of those pesky sub editors messing up his latest masterpiece.

[rome 84]

Isn't it a shame that the likes of SOS and RobboHuyton can't take heed of your admittedly correct point though Tony about how newspapers work.

 

Again mate, you're totally entitled to your opinion. I just don't see what attacking one Liverpool supporting journalist who may or may not get things wrong to defend another Liverpool supporting journalist who may or may not get things wrong achieves. This is undoubtedly the most complex situation any of us have ever been in. We're used to dealing with controversy over penalties not being given, teams playing shite, great goals being scored and players being signed and sold but for the last couple of years we've been thrown into the world of high finance and debt because of what Liverpool Football Club has become. All the Liverpool supporting journalists in the media want the same thing - for the club to be in the hands of owners who will look after it properly and allow us all to fall back in love with it again. We may write different stories, have different views and sometimes we might even disagree on what is actually going on, but the motive never changes. From my admittedly limited knowledge of the situation, Tony's coverage of the Huang bid has been factually accurate from the day that he broke the story. If anyone can tell me otherwise I'll be happy to stand corrected.

[Juan Galonso]

Everyone should know by now that Bascombe doesn't get anything wrong ever, any mistakes are the fault of those pesky sub editors messing up his latest masterpiece.

 

Chris B will probably be the first to admit he has had stuff wrong in the past like any journalist I am sure even Tony will admit he has gotten things wrong as well but when Chris B breaks stories two consecutive weeks running and they more or less get swept under the carpet because of who he is and his stance on the ex-manager and who he writes for the likes of SOS to ignore that information is unforgiveable. They have a duty to their members to act in the best interest of the club and it's members. They didn't again on this occasion. They ignored solid information that could be vital to what happens to us in the long run because they are too concerned about meeting a mans people who hasn't even bought us.

[Barrington Womble]

Personally i think the Times have covered the story pretty well and people are just getting frustrated because we thought the deal was going ahead backed by CIC and now it Huang is letting it be known that he is thinking of walking away.

 

I can not understand the way some people will slam Tony Evans and question his motives when to me he has always come across as a genuine Liverpool fan who like every single journo out there has got things wrong from time to time.

 

That rather depends on your view of the Huang bid. He came across as a cowboy with no money from day 1 imo and the Times articles wreaked of the times doing the PR work on behalf of huang. I am not frustrated because Huang has walked away, I never felt he was a credible bidder, but I find it frustrating the times have gone SO BIG with this story that I really did have to question what the times were playing at - you like to think the times is bigger than that, it's the type of games you expect to play with NOTW.

[Jim MM]

So what do you reckon now Tony, is Huang really prepared to walk away or is this a negotiation tactic? And if it is a tactic will it work?

[rome 84]

Barry, I've got concerns about everyone who wants to buy Liverpool but there's no doubt that Huang's bid is seen as credible by both Barcap and the RBS. Only yesterday the RBS confirmed he'd proven his funding. That makes him a big story whether we think he's the right man for the club or not.

[Whelan]

That rather depends on your view of the Huang bid. He came across as a cowboy with no money from day 1 imo and the Times articles wreaked of the times doing the PR work on behalf of huang. I am not frustrated because Huang has walked away, I never felt he was a credible bidder, but I find it frustrating the times have gone SO BIG with this story that I really did have to question what the times were playing at.

 

He came accross as a cowboy to you Barry! And that is the root of the problem, he hasn't come accross as a cowboy to me, so I am viewing any articles on him from a different perspective.

 

It is the same situation with Rafa, I wanted him to stay so I naturally took more notice of Journalist and articles that supported my view, and dismissed journalists and articles that criticised him, and I tried to rationalise every decision, when, it was simply a case of wanting something that I agreed with to be true!

 

If you don't like Tony Evans don't read him, it was the same advice given out by Juan Galonso on the Bascome thread, and it is as valid for Tony Evans.

[rome 84]

It seems like a tactic to me Jim but maybe there's more to this than meets the eye. I suppose in the fullness of time we'll all know. I just wish it was all over with and we could go back to talking about stuff like Skrtel's new contract and Ngog's ability to fill in for Torres more than we discuss debt and finance.

[Royal Family]

Barry, I've got concerns about everyone who wants to buy Liverpool but there's no doubt that Huang's bid is seen as credible by both Barcap and the RBS. Only yesterday the RBS confirmed he'd proven his funding. That makes him a big story whether we think he's the right man for the club or not.

 

Thanks for coming on here to clarify things and remind us that nothing is ever black and white! Appreciated. Just one small point - even your own newspaper reports that RBS has said that his funding is 'there or thereabouts', which strikes me as not being quite the same as 'proving' it? You can see why there is scepticism about the bid still and these latest reports only fuel that?

 

Just for context, I think some of the frustration with Tony Evans has come from a view that he was too close to the former manager and allowed his frustrations to get the better of him with some of the unfounded and unhelpful speculation (and scaremongering about being obliged to sell Torres for £25m, which was a sum that only he ever mentioned) over the summer. But, ultimately, it's a side issue!

[Carra_is_legend]

No newspaper is credible in my opinion. They all add 2+2 and arrive at 5.

 

You put Tony B in the spot and he will point to Tony Evans. You put Tony E in the spot and he will point to Helen.

 

Their headline couple of weeks ago looks more and more embarassing now and they are just coming up with more to cover themselves.

 

CHINA DOESN'T BUY LIVERPOOL

[Barrington Womble]

Barry, I've got concerns about everyone who wants to buy Liverpool but there's no doubt that Huang's bid is seen as credible by both Barcap and the RBS. Only yesterday the RBS confirmed he'd proven his funding. That makes him a big story whether we think he's the right man for the club or not.

 

When did RBS do that? I saw some bullshit "a source says", "there or there abouts", which being someone who works in non-retail banks, tells me it's not worth shit. Either he's put up or he hasn't. The fact they've thrown in a "there abouts" shows he hasn't done anything of the sort - and he certainly hadn't as of Sunday as Purslow legally wouldn't have been able to say nobody had provided proof of funding.

 

So let's give Huang the benefit of the doubt, let's say since Sunday he has provided proof of funds. It raises some other interesting questions.

 

1. If he has only provided proof of funds in the last 72 hours, why is he forcing the deal now. If he was that keen to complete he would have moved much faster. It reminds me very much of Hicks and Gillet and DIC combined. Forcing deadlines on the one hand (as DIC) and forcing a overly quick resolution on the other (as C&A).

 

2. When Evans and Powers ran the story that Huang would buy the club and it was backed by CIC, if Huang is a credible bidder, why is he providing that kind of information to newpapers 2 weeks before he provides it to the board and Barcap? Did the Times not consider that as suspicious, especially considering broughtons line about things not being done through the press?

 

It wreaks of conman - would the times not think the same? IMO, the times have chosen to back a jockey in the hope of getting future stories.