Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by diego

  1. diego

    Rafa and Hicks an unlikely alliance ?

    But its alright for the guy who puts out these stories about the various alliances - namely Chris Bascombe - to make sure that he says and does whatever his bosses require. Chris is a good guy, but his judgments are not correct. He works for a newspaper which Rafa labelled as one of the two that are not trusted. He cannot get interviews with Rafa. Rafa has not been telling everybody that its a good idea if Hicks stays. He's refused to comment when asked for an opinion or when asked to influence supporters. He was heavily criticised for even alluding to problems in his press conference about training. Now he is simply reporting, when asked, if the owners have congratulated him and the team or recent wins.
  2. diego

    What reception will you give Owen?

    He should get what he deserves - polite acknowledgment in that he was once a LFC player, ridicule that his ego and greed led him to make such bad career moves, pity that he plays for Newcastle and frank acknowledgment that he has been no more than a journeyman even since he left the cocoon Houllier created for him where the team was designed to help him achieve the only thing he really cared about - his goal scoring totals, complete with penalties, or at least the 50% penalties he actually succeeded with.
  3. The Houllier article is about Houllier, not Gerrard. Its an attempt at self-glorification and self-justification. When Houllier arrived he was introduced to Gerrard as someone who was about to be brought into the first team. For Houllier to claim credit for his development is typical Houllier crap. The implication that Houllier then discovered and cured the cause of Gerrard's the physical problems is ridiculous, too. It was the medical staff who referred him to specialists in Europe. Its true that Houllier then filled Gerrard's head with all sorts of nonsense about being the world's best and becoming LFC manager. Houllier picked on Owen and Gerrard as his salvation. If he fashioned the team around these two he figured he would ride their coatails. He figured he would be seen as supporting local talent. Then he made Gerrard captain solely on the basis he was a local. Notice in his article how he relates all Owen and Gerrard successes as players at LFC and the national team to the time he was manager and how they both wanted to leave LFC when he did. When Houllier was only too quick to knife Robbie Fowler whenever he could he kept quiet about all the trouble Gerrard was getting into off the field. Owen's and Gerrard's attitudinal problems and inability to adapt to teamates are due in large part to Houllier's influence on them at a formative stage in their careers.
  4. diego

    Fernando Torres

    Comparisons with Owen would be even more favourable to Nando if he were allowed to take penalties as Owen was. Owen never scored 20 league goals - 19 being his highest even with penalties.
  5. diego

    Inter Milan after Gerrard?

    There's only one question - how much are they willing to pay?
  6. diego

    Set pieces

    Billy Liddle was the last really effective corner taker from the left and right. They would come in fast and high and then kind of hang - usually right in the centre. And that was when the balls were made of tough leather with prominent laces and as heavy as lead when sodden with mud and water.
  7. diego

    Dubai International Capital (DIC)

    He is not a business or economic analyst. He is a glorified reporter. His analysis is naive. That said, the only arguments for DIC are (a) goodwill from ownership of an international vehicle to strengthen the "Dubai brand": (b) after a start-up period of 5-6 years which would have negative cash flow, a sustained period of substantial positive cash-flow and the prospect of very large captial gains if the decision were made to dispose of the club.
  8. diego

    Dubai International Capital (DIC)

    Maddock is a whore who just re-writes the Liverpool Daily Post stuff.
  9. diego

    Chris Bascombe

    You don't know Bascombe so how come you are interpreting his motives? Your agenda is to beat the drum against Rafa whichever way you can. Bascombe has not been in touch with Carra or Steve. Whoever wrote that article, Bascombe or whoever, is just making it up like you are making up that you know Bascombe. Irrespective of current problems, Steve G's has never gotten over Houllier's dismissal and Rafa's arrival. He made life very difficult for Rafa with his flirting with Chlesea. He turned Chelsea down because he could not stand the heat from Liverpool supporters - which is hardly the ideal basis for his still being at LFC. He has an exaggerated idea of his "special place" at LFC. His head has been turned by H&G especially G and dreams of big American dollars. He has never supported Rafa and only began to admit the politics might be upsetting the team when he saw that the supporters were virtually 100% against the Yanks. I don't think LFC will win the league as long as Stevie G is captain. I'd let him stay if he behaves and if he learns to adjust to the other talents on the team. Otherwise I'd get shut of him this summer, use the money to bring in enthusiastic players who will play for the club as the manager dictates, without moaning and without needing exaggerated wages and promises that one day he will be manager. We don't want another Shearer.
  10. There was no need for Hicks to respond to the media reports today or ever. In fact he would have been better advised not to respond. Gillett has not responded nor DIC, nor Parry. The fact that he has responded demonstrates that the reports have touched a nerve - that he feels they will weaken him in someway and quickly - with Gillett or with the bankers - or that they will strengthen DIC's bargaining hand with Gillett. His response is almost meaningless. If he has not received an offer yet how does he know that he will not sell? If he has not already arranged new finance - and only three days ago he was saying on CNBC that it would be done last week - the last of several failed forecasts - then how does he know he will continue to be "co-owner"? If DIC do not brush aside this prelimianry defence, then they are not up to the fight . They already made a costly blunder by letting Hicks and Gillet in when DIC failed to make an offer after a very lengthy period of due diligence. While DIC was trying to line up minority equity partners, and were acting as if they already owned the club, Gillett and Hicks moved in swiftly and bought it from under their nose. NOTE The BBC did not say they had heard the "sick and tired" remark from the family member of one of the owners "last season" as some on here reported, but last November.
  11. How many times will the DIC 7-year exit plan have to be explained? Its annoying to see it continually misrepresented. It was not a statement of intent to exit. It was an investment analysis drawn up for potential investors showing them when they might expect a return large enough to justify an exit, if that is what they wanted. The more interesting question is why DIC was looking for investors even before they had made an offer to Moores and the other shareholders. Some might see it as a negative. I see it as a positive. They would still have control by limiting other shareholders to 35%. They would reduce their own equity investment. They would then be able to finance transfers as Moores used to do - by providing the club with loans. Everyone talks about Moores providing money from his own pocket. He didn't. He lent money and got back all his loans with interest when he sold out to H & G. I do not accept Rashid's explanation that DIC denied the existence of a 7 year investment plan - they simply said it did not represent their intention to exit in 7 years. And his statement that the plan was created by a rival consortium is just daft.
  12. I have just noticed that the BBC has changed their story. They now say DIC has prepared a bid of 350 NOT 500. 350 makes more sense to me although I still don't believe they have tipped off any journalists off the record. If the BBC has a source it may be someone who knows about the bid but is not part of DIC. 350 allows them to start negotiating. It might end up as a higher bid, though.
  13. While I agree that Gillett wanted to stay long term and was prepared to go through a learning curve and to be hands-off, that scenario has been ruined by Hicks. Gillett can recover if he becomes a minority partner with DIC, but there are unknown risks in that for him. And, in the end, he is in it for the money, too. And in investment there is a saying that its never wrong to take a profit. Gillett wanted to buy Villa and sussed out other teams before he made an offer for Liverpool. He might be better off taking his profit from DIC and making a play for another "soccer franchise" elsewhere.
  14. I don't believe that DIC would have informed anyone what price they were prepared to offer - even off the record. That is not the way this type of business is done and there is no advantage to DIC in so doing and considerable disadvantage. I also think the price of 500 is unrealistic. If they have decided to make an offer for 100%, at whatever price, it could be a good tactical move in order to get at least 50%. This approach does not depend on Gillett taking the initiative to offer to buy out Hicks with DIC financial backing. They both would need to consider the offer and do it together especially if the offer was for 100% and no less. In that context Gillett and Hicks are free to negotiate with each other. I guess their agreement gives each one of them first option to buy the shares of the other - which means at least matching the price being offered by a third party. Neither of them can afford to do that. So this would mean that both would be free to try to get DIC to accept their 50%.
  15. diego


    One of the original conditions of sale before was sold to H & G was that it would not be sold to a consortium. LFC wanted a single strong buyer. The DIC investment analysis that was leaked to the press showed that they were looking for equity partners. That's the memorandum where they showed how an investor could exit with a profit in 7 years if they wished. So the idea of working with equity partners was always part of the DIC approach. But LFC did not think their approach offended the no-consortium rule because DIC would have voting control. Gillet was rebuffed the first time around because he was not financially strong enough. He brought in Hicks only as a make-weight. The fact that they were only two instead of a larger number also got around the no-consortium rule, although the fact that neither of them had voting control offended the rule. If it is true that DIC will accept 50% then they are being consistent in being willing to work with equity partners (Gillett). But to be completely consistent with their original position and the no consortium principle, they need to gain voting control. Gillett may give them the control in exchange for the deal. He could sell them 10% to add to the 50% they buy from Hicks. Right from the very beginning Gillett has expressed admiration for DIC. He really needs them now if he is not to see his investment in LFC and his personal reputation go down the drain as a result of Hicks. Its also possible he simply can't stump up enough equity to secure loans. They could do it in other ways. They could buy 55% from Hicks and Gillett leaving them as minority partners. Or they could buy Hicks out and have a side deal with Gillett to restucutre a holding company to give them voting control. They could also have an option of first refusal should he ever want to sell, or an agreement to buy him out at an pre-agreed price in the future.