RedPower

Hahaha Here’s your statement again: “When I listened to the press conference and heard it I was pleased the initial purchase was made with no debt but not for 1 minute did I believe that would always be the case” I’ll substitute ‘debt’ with your supposed definition of debt – ‘Glazier-style high-risk hedge fund debt’ “When I listened to the press conference and heard it I was pleased the initial purchase was made with no Glazier-style high-risk hedge fund debt but not for 1 minute did I believe that would always be the case” What is "but not for 1 minute did I believe that would always be the case" referring to? There is no fucking way you can, in the context of that statement, say it's referring to straight forward, lower risk type debt.

You did; then you tried to wriggle out of your statement by 'clarifying' that you meant 'Glazier style debt', a clarification which, despite your further gibberish, implied that you expected 'Glazier style debt' to be placed on the Club at a later date. Either you meant: A. That you were pleased the Club was not purchased with Glazier style debt, but believed Glazier style debt would be placed on the Club at a later date. Or B. That you were pleased the Club was not purchased with any 'general' (straight forward, non high risk loans etc) debt, but you believed the 'general' (and i'm referring specifically to the debt incurred by the purchase of the Club) debt would be placed on the Club at a later date. You can't refer to the same thing twice in a statement, and attribute different meanings each time. "When I listened to the press conference and heard it I was pleased the initial purchase was made with no debt but not for 1 minute did I believe that would always be the case."

He has different definitions of 'debt' that he can handily refer to when the situation arises.

What a lot of people find annoying, including me, is the situation where the actual purchase of the Club is being funded by the Club itself. I've got no qualms in principle with the Club taking on debt to finance a stadium, but placing an additional amount of around £200 million onto the Club's books - which will be serviced by taking money out of the Club, money which could have been used on other things - just seems like taking the piss.

Eh? Actually there are several options: Option 1 Buy the Club, without initially putting any debt used for the purchase onto the Club. Option 2 Buy the Club and put any debt used for the purchase onto the Club straight away. This option is split into 2 sub-options: - Option 2a The debt used to buy the Club is made up of Glazier-style high-risk hedge funds. - Option 2b The debt used to buy the Club is made up of a straight forward loan.

Hhmm, so when you said: "When I listened to the press conference and heard it I was pleased the initial purchase was made with no debt but not for 1 minute did I believe that would always be the case". You actually meant: "When I listened to the press conference and heard it I was pleased the initial purchase was made with no debt that was structured in the same high risk way as the Glaziers' but not for 1 minute did I believe that would always be the case." Is that accurate? If it is, then the final part of your statement: "When I listened to the press conference and heard it I was pleased the initial purchase was made with no debt but not for 1 minute did I believe that would always be the case." implies that at a later date you fully expect the debt - the Glazier style debt you were pleased about not being placed on the Club in the first place - to be placed on the Club. One other question, if Hicks & Gillett had bought the club with debt placed on the Club from the very start, but this was a straight forward loan, and not the high-risk stuff the Glaziers used, and the Club is obviously on the hook to service this debt, would that still have been OK with you?

Exactly. I think I must have missed the explaination, though.

Why were you pleased when you heard the initial purchase was made with no debt?

Even so, it still seems a bit on the low side. If we take what Bascombe has said at face value, not agreeing a fixed deal with Mascher himself has cost us an extra £4 million. So, it would have been £13 million over 5 years, which is £2.6 million per year. Let's pretend Mascher would get a 'paultry' £1 million per year, leaving the balance of £1.6 million per year going to MSI, giving a total 'transfer fee' of £8 million. Still seems way, way low, even with the poor showing at the Hammers. All unfounded speculation of course. :lol:

Yeah it does seem on the low side, considering the 'presumed wisdom' had a hefty transfer fee of around £17 million going to MSI, with Mascher's wages to be paid on top of that. Maybe the deal is all money goes to Mascher, from which he pays a cut to MSI every year. Still seems way, way low, though. Like a loan deal? Could be.

Is this £17 million inclusive of an actual transfer fee? If so, and the deal is £17 million all-in then that's tremendous value. It would seem a bit too good to be true though.

I suppose we can expect a usual cheery article on this from Bascombe, informing us that Rafa’s suitcases are already packed and the only thing that can stop him trundling out the door would be Hicks and Gillett swinging by with a fistful of dollars.

General chat and false hopes from the new owners? During these general chats, did Hicks & Gillett announce that they would be paying for the stadium with their own cash? If people post themselves into tizzy by wildly speculating like schoolkids about signing stacks of players for £20million a pop then that's their own affair.

What information lead most people to believe this?

Refinancing the loan used to buy the Club (and associated costs) by putting it onto the Club is clearly taking the piss and goes against what Gillett said at the initial press conference, but I don’t think anybody was under the impression that Hicks & Gillett would be financing the stadium using their own cash, and I don’t recall Hicks & Gillett announcing that they would. If we’re loaded with £500 million of debt, I’d say £300 million - for the stadium -would be justified, with £200 million – the cost of purchase + associated costs – not justified.

My Uncle always says that he could have been a footballer, and claims that he had a trial for Liverpool schoolboys arranged, but he went collecting bommy wood instead. :lol:

I think I read it in the Echo. I only remember this particular aspect because it seemed so unusual - "Yep, you can have our player on loan, but only if you don't attempt to sign him permanantly.....".

I seem to remember reading at the time, that the loan was allowed on the basis that Villa wouldn't attempt to make the signing permanent. :dunno:

:D That's what we said at the time.

Let's hope his improved display today instills confidence for the future.

I'm revising my opinion to 3/10.

Riise isn't the best, but a weakness a left back is way down the list of priorities that need to be sorted. He's not exactly costing us a shed load of goals every game.

How good is Dirk? Not very. Utterly infuriating. 4/10.

When the cunts get twatted they are usually pretty fair and reasonable (towards us) about it, which is not exactly the reaction I want, so the more controversy and 'highway robbery' the better.

Near the end of his career, I heard Hansen say on two occassions that he was going into coaching: once on Granada's Kick Off Programme; and once on Ian St John's World of Football - a radio programme St John used to host on Radio City on a Sunday Morning. Then, shortly after Dalglish resigned, Hansen announced his retirement and stated he had no intention of going into coaching/management, surfacing the following season as a BBC pundit.