Spooky

I very much doubt DIC would 'fall for' a trick like that. If they did get into this 50-50 with Hicks I can see them withholding investment, letting the club stagnate and forcing Hicks to sell out rather than put money in so he can take money out. The most likely scenario would be they insist he matches their input and when he defaults they can try and oust him. I can imagine press reports about how 'one shareholder (DIC) are ready to buy Kaka (or whoever) but the other (Hicks) is holding the move up by not putting his money in'. That would serve to turn the fans against him even more and make DIC look like the ones who want to do great things but are being stopped by their co-shareholder.

A post on RAWK from someone who was there seems to suggest that Hicks Jnr was there with 7 or 8 other Americans enjoying a pint - i.e trying out the local hostelry rather than specifically going in there to speak to fans. They seemed to have got there well before the fans turned up for their post-match imbibing session. Quite possibly, therefore, he was only there to check out the local while he was in the country and not there to talk to fans or explain things or make friends with us or any of the other stuff that is so terrifying some posters here :)

Not sure I can stand much more of this up and down, good rumour, bad rumour shite.

Same here mate but there's a guy on RAWK, an all round Hicks cheerleader from Texas (I suspect many know who I mean ;) ) who's pretty much shown that over there the game-goers just take it on the chin without complaining. Whether our actions have had any effect or not on any potential sale, we should be proud that we didn't just sit and take it.

No on what 'I've read', mostly last time round. Of course they may have been lying their heads off so do note I said 'possibility', which is also not an 'assertion'.

That's not true; in particular while a few individuals mouth off online about hicks there's not a hint of 'rebellion' among game-goers over there.

Agreed. But I think there's a higher possibility that DIC would understand the need for a greater initial investment to help bridge the gulf between us and our main rivals. After that I expect future spending to come from growth, sales and turnover with occasional injections when needed.

As did we :whistle: ;)

he says 'not him' in his post so on this occasion it ain't Gerrard

The imminence of this imminent immanence is imminent ;)

Bizarre bit of shit from a normally reasonable writer; perhaps Beasley's been ghost writing him this week?

:biggrin:

Can't disagree. There was a time, maybe, when I would have welcomed Mourhinio but not any more. Winning the title with him in charge would feel somehow hollow

;)

The fact that Bascombe's last few pieces have read so differently from previous ones can't help but make me wonder if he actually wrote them or if he wrote them as they appeared. Chrisb if that really is you, come clean; are your gutter rag editors changing your words to suit their depraved style? Just admit it if so; we won't hold it against you; everyone has to make a living... PM me if you don't want to reply here

Actually I for one was only misquoting a Monty Python Sketch; just a bit of failed humour. No offence intended :whoops:

Rule One mate, No Abbos!!! :yes:

oh for fuck's sake :wallbutt:

Yeah you'd have thought they'd give him at least one more to show significant improvement, considering the fallout they've seen occur from G&H's anti-Rafa actions. I think most fans would agree that if he hasn't shown significant improvement after one more stable season (i.e none of this crap going on) then replacing him if a good candidate was available would be understandable - not ideal but understandable. Personally I'd like to see him have a few more years in the role because I think he can yet do great things with us league-wise, with the right backing, but I would reluctantly understand if five seasons of poor performance in the league was deemed enough.

Actually i don't think any plans are in place to pay off the capital debt. As far as I understand it the only financial arrangements made so far will be for debt servicing, which is normal for this kind of project. From the off teh Yanks' plans have been to buy the club with debt, build a stadium with debt and then sell it on in the medium term, netting a huge profit but not having to worry about the capital at all; let that be the next sucker's problem

Done. When are the results available?

That 5 Live report is very encouraging

Actually no, it suggests they'd rather spend funds on the team and players rather than give the yanks a bigger profit. They're not a charity; they'll have earmarked a certain amount to spend on the team; wouldn't you rather more of that was spent on the team and players rather than to buy the club off of the current owners?

Some one posted this on another forum. It's from the Independent in Dec 2006, when DIC were still the frontrunners. It suggests they would have done things differently to the yanks Don't know if any of this would still apply now but you can't help be hopeful...

But Moores and Parry didn't reject DIC. DIC walked away from the table. If they'd stayed, Moores may still have gone with DIC, esp if they'd increased their offer slightly