Normal Service will be Resumed

Liverpool FC are behaving more like a puppet on strings at this moment in time , with it seems every passing day the Press being the puppet masters in pulling the strings and watching as the club and all the characters associated with the club dance to their tune.

So how did we get into this mess? And probably more importantly how do we get the hell out of it?

Rafa got us into this situation when he went public about matters that he should not have. Now we have the revelation that the owners looked at the possibility of lining up a replacement manager for Rafa. The only surprise for me in this storyline would be if they had not been! Lining up a replacement was a sensible course of action given the messages Rafa was "Publicly" sending out. For if Rafa had walked out or continued with his childish behaviour we would have badly needed a replacement.

More to the point for me though is the second part of the question I posed at the beiginning of this post. How do we get out of the mess we find ourself in?

Now my understanding is that the go between in the relationship with Rafa and the owners is Rick Parry. It would appear to me that our chief executive has not being doing his job to perhaps the best of his ability? I would go further and say that if his performance as CEO whilst Moores was Chairman had been better that we would not perhaps have been looking for new owners?

Now I neither condone the behaviour of Rafa nor some of the statements accredited to our new owners. I can understand that the financial situation has worsened since they bought the club. But I am not convinced that Rick Parry has been doing the club any favours during this time. Perhaps the time has come for the club to part company with him and his services. Or is the reality of the situation that Mr Parry has profited from the fall out between Manager and Owners to the extent that he has succeeded in making his own position more secure?

If we take the statements from Rafa and the new owners at face value that all of the differences that surfaced so publicly are now well and truly behind them, then they must recognise the need for all parties concerned (Rick Parry included) to publicy show solidarity and bring to an end the press rumour mill grinding out one negative after another about the club on a daily basis.

If this does not happen and happen quickly then the only alternatives would be for either the manager or the ownership of the club changing. I do not want to see the club torn apart by the press aided by the inabilty of the parties invloved i.e. Rafa, the owners, and Rick Parry to take the appropriate action.

Since writing this initial post I have heard there is rumour in Liverpool that Parry preferred the option of the american takeover because he would have lost his job if the DIC bid had succeeded.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that when all things are considered, i.e.

The team not really making progress under Rafa in fact I believe we are going backwards and he has had over 3 years and spent nearly £150,000.,000

Parry sems to be more comcerned with hiw own future than that of the club.

Then add to that the fact the americans do not really seem to have an idea as to how a Premiership club should be run combined with a lack of funds.

It might be best if DIC are still interested and a price can be agreed that they then having effectively got rid of the americans they get rid of both Parry and Benitez and start with a clean slate.

La situation financière aux EU devenant de plus en lus préocupante, je n'imagine pas H and G trouver une solution satisfaisante pour eux.
Je suis persuadé que Dubaï reste à l'affût; et si c'est le cas; Parry qui a voté pour les américains, ne pourra pas rester en place.

From The TimesJanuary 16, 2008 Martin Samuel

Hope in your heart? Not when axe falls on Rafael Benitez

As revolutions go, the one conducted by Captain Valentine Strasser in Sierra Leone in 1992 was pretty damn funky. After he seized control from the 23-year dictatorship of the All People Congress led by Major General Joseph Momoh, Strasser intended to make the disco classic Ain’t No Stopping Us Now by McFadden and Whitehead the new national anthem.

You do that sort of thing when you are 25 and the youngest head of state in the world. It’s a bit like getting your best mate to be your deputy, which Strasser did, too. The regime lasted about four years. Strasser’s party, the National Provisional Ruling Council, proved no more adept at dealing with guerrillas from the Revolutionary United Front than the previous government and large swaths of the country, including the crucial diamond reserves, fell into enemy hands.

Strasser also developed a penchant for executing opponents – 26 of them after trial – and even though he was deposed more than a decade ago, many, including Amnesty International, want him brought to justice for alleged crimes ranging from torture to arbitrary killing. He is relatively harmless now and has more recently been found living back home with his mum. He recently claimed to have been beaten up outside a London Tube station in a racially motivated attack.

What unfolded at Liverpool these past three years has not, of course, been a revolution but a Rafalution, yet has followed much the same path. It was launched to a trumpet blast of unshakeable optimism, looked at first to have swept away the canker of a failing old regime and is surely destined to end in chaos, with blood up the walls.

Related Links
Kop and Gerrard boost Benitez
Liverpool’s lurch from champions of Europe to Hicksville, USA, is another chapter in the book called “How Not to Run a Football Club”, which started off as a slender paperback but must now stretch to the size of a full set of Encyclopaedia Britannica. It contains volumes on Leicester City, Coventry City, both Sheffield clubs, large stretches of Wales, East Anglia, South London, Kent and the South Coast, plus dear old Newcastle United, Leeds United and what remains of Luton Town. Liverpool is a tentative addition, but under the present ownership it will surely one day get a sizeable entry of its own.

The departure of Rafael BenÍtez appears no longer a matter of if, but when, his only hope of survival being that the owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, beat him to the door. And if BenÍtez goes, the club goes with him. Not the name or the history; there will still be a Liverpool Football Club and they will still play in red at Anfield, in the short term at least. But the philosophy that has defined the past four seasons, the way the club has been managed, the squad that has been constructed, the methods on which a fifth European Cup win, and almost a sixth, were built, would all have to be redesigned.

Liverpool are showing what can happen if the Arsène Wenger battle plan is allowed to go off at halfcock. It is a mess and it could set the club back years.

The board at Arsenal has had two brilliant ideas in the past 12 years. The first was to appoint Wenger, the second to empower him for far longer than the average managerial lifespan. If a man is being allowed to restructure a club from the foundations up, it’s always sensible to bow to his vision, otherwise what is the point?

The key to success at Arsenal was that, having given Wenger a form of executive power that far exceeded his status as an employee, the directors did not fear that he would abuse his freedom. Wenger tore down what Arsenal was and created something new based on his philosophies. Had he been blocked at any turn it could have been disastrous. At the height of his revolution when his captain was French and all his best players were French, Manchester Untied remained in the ascendancy and there were occasional rumours that Englishmen at Arsenal felt neglected or ostracised, there must have been a small temptation to reclaim some control. There would surely have been whispers in the boardroom, fledgeling conspiracies to curtail his transfer policy, his vision of a cosmopolitan academy, to return Arsenal to its preFrancophile traditions.

If there was, it was never realised. To oppose Wenger would be to risk losing him and the directors sensibly accepted that this could precipitate a departure of half the first-team squad and the destruction of all the club had become. So the board continued to back the manager as he restructured the training ground and even allowed him a measure of control over the new stadium, although he met them halfway by agreeing to it in the first place.

And now the vision nears completion. The first team at Arsenal is still a melting pot of nationalities, but the next generation of Arsenal youth players are exciting and largely home-grown. It has taken more than a decade and even when Wenger leaves, his values will endure. It will be expected that Arsenal retain a level of creative flair; players who possess that talent will be appreciated there. He has changed the culture of a football club; more importantly, he was encouraged to do so.

A catastrophe is brewing at Liverpool because the club, having given BenÍtez his head for the best part of four seasons, is about to switch riders midway through the race. If BenÍtez is forced out now, he takes modern Liverpool with him and leaves a crumbling shell. He is the glue that keeps the club together and, without him, it will have to be rebuilt.

He has been permitted to turn Liverpool into a Spanish colony that without him will not make sense. Just as Arsenal’s squad owed its shape and character to Wenger, so a number of significant players at Liverpool would be lost without BenÍtez. Take Javier Mascherano. Does anybody seriously believe that after the laughable way he was treated at West Ham United, he would have remained a second longer in Premier League football had it not been for a coach who could communicate in his mother tongue?

A natural parting of the ways is looming and it begins the moment BenÍtez hits the road. The biggest clubs in Spain would certainly make Fernando Torres a target as well as just about any of BenÍtez’s imports from his homeland, not least Xabi Alonso, José Manuel Reina and Álvaro Arbeloa. The nucleus of Liverpool’s first team would be under threat because BenÍtez had been allowed to exercise his personality so thoroughly.

Hicks and Gillett have to appreciate what is at stake. It could be argued that the equally mesmeric José Mourinho left Chelsea and the ship sailed on, but Mourinho’s personnel were not as plainly rooted in national identity. He imported two defenders from Portugal, Paulo Ferreira and Ricardo Carvalho, one of whom was not always in his best team. His backroom staff were loyalists, but his assistant coach was a longstanding club servant, Steve Clarke.

Mourinho’s greatest influence was on the pitch, with his pattern of play. For all his pride in his native land, the red and green of Portugal never flew over Stamford Bridge. BenÍtez is different. He has placed Liverpool under Spanish influence, the way Wenger made Arsenal a French club according to players such as Tony Adams, and that is increasingly the modern way.

It is not just the first team at Liverpool that has been overhauled by BenÍtez. His head of scouting, Eduardo Macia, has worked hard at attracting 20 or so of the best young players from abroad to Liverpool’s academy, a mid-range investment that it was hoped would insulate the club against stagnation while the new ground was developed.

What will happen to that plan if its mastermind departs? Indeed, what was going to happen had Hicks got his man in Jürgen Klinsmann? Liverpool were still unbeaten in the Premier League when Liverpool’s owner made contact, yet would he have let the Germans take over this Spanish resort, just as an Iberian culture under BenÍtez had replaced the French influence of Gérard Houllier (in his first season, much of the dead wood removed by BenÍtez consisted of French or French-speaking players introduced by Houllier but barely used), each change beginning with the wholesale rejection of the last.

Every managerial alteration brings upheaval – Roy Hodgson at Fulham is struggling to get to grips with the weaknesses caused by the transfer policies of Lawrie Sanchez – but to lose the vital presence in a revolution as substantial as that taking place at Anfield is to risk a directionless mess.

With clubs such as Manchester City and Aston Villa at last finding their feet under capable managers in Sven-Göran Eriksson and Martin O’Neill, to have their club’s rationale inviting comparison with the military juntas of Sierra Leone is something that Liverpool’s owners can ill-afford.

It now seems even the americans have fallen out with each other.

Owners' dispute eclipses Liverpool's new deal
By David Bond Daily Telegraph





Liverpool's American owners are edging closer to clinching a breakthrough refinancing deal with banks despite growing tensions between the club's joint chairmen Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

Liverpool homepage | Football fans' forum
Telegraph TV: Premier League highlights
According to City sources, a £350 million deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland and American investment bank Wachovia could be announced early next week. It is understood lawyers for both sides are now working through the fine print of the funding package which, if confirmed, will come six weeks before an existing one-year loan used to finance the American takeover expires. Once concluded the Americans hope the deal will restore a sense of calm to Anfield after a period of extraordinary instability.

advertisementBut the Daily Telegraph has learned that there remains deep uncertainty about the relationship between Hicks and Gillett, the two US sports entrepreneurs who bought Liverpool in a £220 million deal last February. And even if the refinancing deal is confirmed, insiders are worried about how much longer the partnership will last.

Gillett is deeply unhappy with his joint owner following his explosive remarks in which he confirmed hat the pair had approached former Germany coach Jurgen Klinsmann about taking over from Rafa Benitez. Gillett has been seriously unsettled by the reaction.

He is understood to be all the more irritated as the Hicks gaffe came despite assurances from the Texan billionaire that he would stay silent until the club's future was more secure.

Gillett has also been reluctant to press ahead with the refinancing plans, fearing that the new structure will load too much debt on to the club's balance sheet. It is also known that Gillett, the less wealthy of the two men, has been struggling to meet the banks' demands to put up £75 million each of cash and personal guarantees.

At one stage the growing split threatened to plunge the club into a new takeover battle, just 12 months after the Americans squeezed out Dubai International Capital, the investment company of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

That remains a possibility, but any hopes DIC had of doing a deal with the Americans appeared to be fading.

DIC are understood to be prepared to bide their time, believing that the relationship between Hicks and Gillett could be beyond repair and that the refinancing will only be a short-term measure.

Under the terms of the deal, around half of the £350 million of debt is to be placed on to Liverpool's books, partly to finance the start of work on the new £400 million stadium at Stanley Park and to refinance £20 million of loans for new players. The move is a reversal of the vow the Americans gave when they took control not to copy the approach taken by the Glazer family at Manchester United.

The rest is to be secured against Liverpool's parent company Kop Holdings. Having blocked attempts to load all the debt on to the club last year, former chairman David Moores, who remains a director, and chief executive Rick Parry, are uneasy about how the borrowing will be serviced, with interest payments of £30 million a year.

Questions unanswered
How sound is the Hicks/Gillett relationship?
The Jurgen Klinsmann gaffe has placed extra strain on a partnership already cracking over the £350m refinancing.

How much of the £350m debt will be placed on the club?
About half, with the rest on parent company Kop Football - with interest of £30m a year.

What happens if Gillett decides to pull out of the bank deal?
He could look to bring in Dubai International Capital and try to force out Hicks.

Will DIC give up on their plans to own Liverpool?
No. They will bide their time but a quick deal is unlikely if Hicks strengthens his grip.

What does the bank deal mean for Rafa Benitez
It looks like a question of when, not if, the Spaniard leaves.

Having read a number of articles on the relationship between the americans it would seem that Hicks could be our worst nightmare if he decides to be difficult.

DIC to make bid for Liverpool FCJan 17 2008




EXCLUSIVE by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo




DUBAI International Capital is ready to make an offer for Tom Hicks’s stake in Liverpool FC.

The ECHO understands senior executives at the Dubai-based international investment company were given the go-ahead by Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum to launch a second bid to buy into Liverpool in a year.

An offer has been agreed in principle.

A source close to DIC today told the ECHO the bid would be for a half share in the club with the Arab consortium willing to enter into a dual ownership deal with George Gillett.



He said: “It is a very delicate situation but DIC has reignited its interest in Liverpool Football Club.


“The terms of the offer, which will be made to Tom Hicks, have been agreed and DIC are hopeful they will be finally be able to invest in Liverpool.


“The offer is now being written up and it should be only a matter of time before it is delivered to Hicks.”


Co-owners Hicks and Gillett are edging closer to clinching a refinancing deal.


But DIC are hoping to make a move before any deal is completed.


Hicks and Gillet enjoyed a honeymoon period after their acquisition of the Reds.


But recent revelations they talked to Jurgen Klinsmann about the possibility of replacing the hugely popular Rafa Benitez as manager have led to them falling out of favour with the Liverpool fans.


While the financial restructuring deal, which would give them the necessary collateral to fund the building of the long-awaited new stadium, remains incomplete, DIC believe a window of opportunity still remains open to them.


Whether Hicks is willing to sell is another matter entirely.


The Dallas-based multi-millionaire is on record saying he is not interested in selling his stake, even though there are tensions between himself and Gillett about the proposed refinancing deal.


In a recent interview with the ECHO Hicks said: “I just want to clear up with you that I am not selling any of my shares to anybody.


“I have no idea why anyone would think that. It was just rubbish.”


But with Sheikh Mohammed, one of the world’s richest men, now back on the scene Hicks looks likely to face some tough decisions in the days to come.


On the one hand a deal with DIC could present him with a sizeable return on his initial investment and an opportunity to walk away from the dual problems of securing the necessary loans to service their own debt, fund the new stadium and winning the fans over all over again.


But, on the other, there may be a reluctance to part with an asset which he fought so hard to acquire, one which he firmly believes can pay dividends in the long term.


Hicks insists financial restructuring could be complete within days, and if he is proven right it will make an immediate offer from DIC less likely.


The American pair have six weeks to secure a £350m loan that would refinance their original purchase of the club.


Hicks recently told the ECHO he hopes a deal can be signed off with the Royal Bank of Scotland and the US investment bank Wachovia by the middle of next week.


If, as expected, DIC follow up their interest with a firm bid the ownership of Liverpool FC could change for the second time in a year.


Club officials said today: “We do not comment on speculation.”

Anfield fans in fear as Liverpool's future is on knife edge
Jan 17 2008 EXCLUSIVE by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo

DURING an exhaustive search for investment in Liverpool Football Club Reds chief executive Rick Parry spoke of the need for any deal to be absolutely right.

“You can only sell the family silver once,” he famously remarked.

Today Liverpool are facing up to the previously unimaginable possibility of half of the family silver being sold for the second time in less than a year – if Tom Hicks is willing to sell.

DIC loom large on the Anfield horizon again.

After missing out to Hicks and George Gillett last time around Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum is understood to be ready to do everything in his power to ensure it does not happen again.

But despite being one of the richest men in the world Sheikh Mohammed does not use his immense wealth to pay over the odds for any business.

When he was beaten to the punch by Hicks and Gillett last February one of his most trusted aides told the world bluntly “we won’t overpay for assets”.

So, if a deal is to be struck, it must suit all parties.

DIC chief executive and self-confessed Liverpool fan Sameer Al Ansari intimated the investment vehicle’s interest in the club ended when Hicks and Gillett took control.

But in reality their interest has never really gone away.

In the autumn they entered into talks with Hicks and Gillett with a view to snapping up a minority share of between 10-20% - only for any potential deal to founder on the Americans’ £1bn valuation of the club.

Now they are looking at setting up a deal in which they would buy, at the very least, a 50% share in Liverpool.

A firm bid could be forthcoming within days.

It is undoubtedly decision time for Hicks and Gillett who thought they had seen off DIC’s interest once and for all when they paid £218.9m for Liverpool last February.

But since then plans to refinance their initial purchase and pay for the long-awaited new Anfield with a new loan running into hundreds of millions of pounds have been slowed down by the American credit crunch making borrowing money much more difficult than it was 12 months ago.

There has also been a reticence from honorary life president and former chairman David Moores and Parry to sign up to a refinancing package which will plunge the club into hundreds of millions of pounds of debt.

As progress has stalled DIC has stepped up its long-standing interest and it is now ready to pounce.

Their desire is understood to have been fuelled by speculation Moores is becoming increasingly minded he should have gone with DIC rather than Hicks and Gillett when both parties put forward rival bids last year.

The fact Liverpool fans displayed their displeasure with the way the club is being run by the American pair at Anfield on Tuesday night did not go unnoticed in Dubai.

Banners unfurled on the Kop during the FA Cup tie against Luton Town sent an SOS to DIC and there were several negative chants directed at Hicks and Gillett.

It could be that, like his fellow countryman, Man United owner Malcolm Glazer, Hicks is prepared to ride out any storm of controversy whipped up by unsettled fans.

But as a businessman of international repute, he will also be aware such naked negativity from his customers is not sustainable in the long term.

Liverpool’s very future is today on a knife edge.

The family silver could be up for grabs again.

Although it is still too early to tell whether it will eventually change hands, DIC are certainly ready to test the water.

Aims and assets of DIC

DUBAI International Capital (DIC) was established in October 2004 as the international investment arm of Dubai Holding.

The purpose of DIC is to create a return for its shareholder Dubai Holding and its ultimate shareholders, the ruling family of the Emirate of Dubai.

Its assets and investments include:

Travelodge – the UK budget hotel group was purchased in 2006 for £675m.

Mauser Group – the German industrial packaging company – one of the world’s leaders in its field – bought in June last year for 850m Euros.

A 3% stake in Sony acquired for $1.5bn.

A substantial stake in HSBC.

A 2% stake in German carmaker Daimler. which cost $1bn

A $1.25bn stake in the New York hedge fund Och

M'sieur l'marquis wrote:

Parry qui a voté pour les américains, ne pourra pas rester en place.

Certes, mais qui pour le remplacer?

Kilkenny wrote:

M'sieur l'marquis wrote:

Parry qui a voté pour les américains, ne pourra pas rester en place.

Certes, mais qui pour le remplacer?

I think just about anyone could do a better job than Parry has. I think he is largely responsible for us being in this situation.

C'est sur.Deja que Parry etait critiqué avant l'arrivée des americains,alors la...
Youknowwho:Do you know if the fans pepare some actions versus americans??(sorry for my english)?

youknowwho wrote:

Kilkenny wrote:

M'sieur l'marquis wrote:

Parry qui a voté pour les américains, ne pourra pas rester en place.

Certes, mais qui pour le remplacer?

I think just about anyone could do a better job than Parry has. I think he is largely responsible for us being in this situation.

Parry had done good things before that. For sure, he's maybe the biggest reponsible of that situation for having chosen H&G instead of D.I.C. But we don't know how would it be with Dubai guys(even if we may know it faster than that we imagined).
But if D.I.C arrive, they'kk probably fire him for not having chosen them last year. So, the question is still the same: Who to substitute him?

Tom Hicks: I won’t be selling LFC sharesJan 18 2008

by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post

LIVERPOOL FC co-owner Tom Hicks last night said any suggestion he was considering selling his share in the club was “categorically untrue”.

It followed renewed reports that Dubai International Capital (DIC), rival bidder at the time Hicks and George Gillett bought the club in February 2007, was about to make a move to buy out Hicks.

Yesterday, the Daily Post asked Hicks if he would be prepared to sell his shares if the price was right?

A spokesman for Hicks came back with an unequivocal answer: “Any suggestion that Messrs Hicks and Gillett are contemplating a sale of the club or any portion thereof to DIC or anyone else is categorically untrue.”



Last night, fans writing on forums appeared to welcome the involvement of DIC and said it showed there was a rift between the Americans – with many calling for Hicks to sell up.


This week, the Texan incurred the wrath of fans after admitting that he had met with Jurgen Klinsmann to discuss the possibility of the German taking over if Rafael Benitez were to leave the club.


Over the past few days, it has become clear that DIC never gave up hope of owning the club.


DIC chief executive and chairman Sameer al-Ansari, a lifelong Liverpool fan, is believed to be at the forefront of the new moves.


It was the 44-year-old Loughborough University-educated financier who was the prime mover in last January’s failed bid, working on behalf of the real power behind DIC, Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum.


A year ago, then-chairman David Moores changed his mind at the last minute with DIC expecting to clinch a deal, and opted instead to sell to the Americans.


But Al-Ansari has maintained close links with Liverpool, and in particular chief executive Rick Parry, and still attends matches regularly with members of his family.


Al-Ansari has also recently been linked with Sir Richard Branson’s move to take over Northern Rock.


Reports yesterday said a DIC offer towards Hicks was being prepared, but a spokesman for the company said: “We do not comment on market speculation or rumours.”


It also comes as Hicks and Gillett are in the process of trying to refinancing the £270m debt taken on when they acquired the club in February 2007.


The new £350m loan would include £60m to get work on the new stadium started and £25m to cover the cost of last summer’s signings.


Liverpool FC last night declined to comment.

redman75 wrote:

C'est sur.Deja que Parry etait critiqué avant l'arrivée des americains,alors la...
Youknowwho:Do you know if the fans pepare some actions versus americans??(sorry for my english)?

Parry's relationship with the fans has been steadily declining for some time now and the fans will probably never forgive him for his botched handling of the ticket allocation for the CL final in Athens.

I don't know of any planned actions by supporters group but I am probably not the best one to ask as I would be opposed to any public action by the fans. It has just never been the way of doing things at Liverpool and I am all for staying with that tradition.

Kilkenny wrote:

youknowwho wrote:

Kilkenny wrote:

M'sieur l'marquis wrote:

Parry qui a voté pour les américains, ne pourra pas rester en place.

Certes, mais qui pour le remplacer?

I think just about anyone could do a better job than Parry has. I think he is largely responsible for us being in this situation.

Parry had done good things before that. For sure, he's maybe the biggest reponsible of that situation for having chosen H&G instead of D.I.C. But we don't know how would it be with Dubai guys(even if we may know it faster than that we imagined).
But if D.I.C arrive, they'kk probably fire him for not having chosen them last year. So, the question is still the same: Who to substitute him?

I answered probably anybody and I meant it. As a CEO he has been abysmal in my opinion. If you think about it both the americans and DIC could see the unlocked potential in the club and both could see the need for the new stadium. So why couldn't Parry have brought on board suitable investors over his time as CEO without his now infamous statement when he sold the club to the amercains " You only get one chance at selling the family silver". I feel Moores was a fan of the club and not really a businessman, he relied on Parry for the business acumen. Big mistake. Parry is a football administrator and does not have the business brain needed to be CEO of LFC.

So the qualifications of the person needed to run LFC is someone who has the business acumen to maximise the profits of the business and grow the worldwide merchandising side of the buiness to allow us to have enough money to build a succesful side. It goes without saying that you have to be successful on the field to be successful off it.

At this moment in time we are neither.

Owners insist Liverpool are not for sale
By David Bond
Last Updated: 1:51am GMT 18/01/2008




Liverpool co-chairman Tom Hicks attempted to restore a sense of calm to the chaos engulfing Anfield last night as a spokesman for the Texan billionaire issued a strong denial that he or his partner, George Gillett Jnr, was preparing to sell the club.


The comments came after reports emerged claiming Dubai International Capital, the investment arm of the oil-rich state's royal family, were preparing to bid for Liverpool.

"Any suggestion that Messrs Hicks and Gillett are contemplating a sale of the club, or any portion thereof, to DIC or anyone else is categorically untrue," said Roy Winnick, a New York-based spokesman for Hicks.


Hicks is determined to drive through a plan to refinance around £270 million of debt by taking out a new £350 million loan with the Royal Bank of Scotland and America's fourth largest bank, Wachovia.

According to City sources, negotiations between the Americans and the banks remain on track with an announcement promised for early next week. But, significantly, Gillett maintained his dignified silence yesterday about a possible takeover or the refinancing.

The relationship between the two US sports tycoons has deteriorated in recent months following problems with the refinancing and an interview Hicks gave this week in which he confirmed an approach had been made to Jurgen Klinsmann to take over from Rafael Benitez as manager.

The success of the refinancing now depends on whether Gillett is able or willing to raise the £20 million in cash needed to secure the new loans, which are largely required to cover a one-year facility arranged with RBS last February to fund the Americans' £220 million takeover.

advertisementIt also hinges on whether Gillett is prepared to approve plans to load at least half of the new debt on to the club's balance sheet.

If Gillett approves the refinancing deal then the Americans will shore up their position on Merseyside. If he refuses, DIC will have their chance to launch a £350 million takeover bid.

Although DIC are understood to be working on a deal, City sources indicated last night that reports of them being ready to launch their bid were premature.

The instability around the club has already led to a major backlash against the Americans from supporters who are angry at their treatment of Benitez. Yesterday that anger spread to the dressing room as midfielder John Arne Riise broke ranks to tell a Norwegian newspaper: "Benitez has given this club many trophies. He deserves to be treated with more respect."

From The TimesJanuary 18, 2008

Power struggle rocks AnfieldJames Ducker

George Gillett Jr and Tom Hicks, the co-chairmen at Anfield, moved to reassure supporters last night that Liverpool would not be sold for the second time in less than a year.

However, serious questions remain over the future ownership of English football’s most successful club. Although the Americans are said to remain “fully committed” to Liverpool, it appears that Dubai International Capital (DIC) is prepared to back Gillett as he weighs up whether to make an offer to buy out the 50 per cent shareholding of his compatriot in the latest twist to the power struggle at Anfield.

If Gillett is bold enough to present such an offer to his partner — and there remain serious doubts that he will — the success of the move, unthinkable when they bought the club in February last year, would be dependent on Hicks agreeing to sell, although such a scenario was given short shrift last night.

A spokesman for the Americans said: “Any suggestion that Messrs Hicks and Gillett are contemplating a sale of the club or any portion thereof to DIC or anyone else is categorically untrue.”

Despite the desire of the joint owners to show a united front, Liverpool supporters remain anxious as the relationship between the pair is becoming increasingly strained. It could be pushed to breaking point if Gillett, who alone does not have the funds to acquire Hicks’s stake, pursues the opening afforded by DIC, the private-equity arm of the Arab state, which nearly bought the club last year.

Sources have indicated that there is only a slim chance of Gillett putting the offer to Hicks and that he may instead approve a controversial £350 million refinancing plan for a new stadium that is expected to be ratified early next week. But even then, it is hard to see how they can carry on working together beyond the short to medium term.

Gillett was furious with Hicks for admitting this week that Jürgen Klinsmann had been offered the chance to succeed Rafael Benítez as manager and, by showing a willingness to speak to DIC, he has hardly shown much confidence in his partner.

With the refinancing deal close to being agreed — Hicks wants to replace the £270 million Royal Bank of Scotland loan that they used to buy the club with a £350 million advance that will allow Liverpool to proceed with the construction of a 70,000- capacity stadium in Stanley Park — the window of opportunity for Gillett to manoeuvre is small. However, DIC, which was established in 2004 effectively as an investment vehicle for Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the world’s fifth-richest man, is unlikely to be permanently dissuaded in its attempts to buy into Liverpool if a deal cannot be struck.

DIC tried unsuccessfully to buy a portion of new shares in the club in November and has the backing of the majority of Liverpool supporters, who, upset about the Americans’ treatment of Benítez, made their feelings known during the 5-0 FA Cup third-round replay victory over Luton Town on Tuesday. A recent poll showed that 83 per cent of fans were in favour of DIC buying the club.

A change of ownership would not necessarily play into Benítez’s hands, however, as it has been mooted that DIC would favour appointing its own man. Similarly, Rick Parry, the chief executive, may also find himself between a rock and a hard place.

Like Gillett, Parry is uncomfortable with the refinancing package being proposed, but having given his backing to the Americans over DIC last year, he may find he has little support from the consortium, which had previously stated a desire to appoint its own chief executive.

Hicks gives Liverpool plenty to chew on
Given the way George Gillett and Tom Hicks took over at Liverpool, is it any wonder their tenure has already backfired?
Marina HydeJanuary 17, 2008 12:00 AM
In urban slang - and a hilariously bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie - the phrase "coyote ugly" refers to the business of waking after a drunken evening next to a suitor so hideous that one would rather chew one's arm off than wake him or her, much as some coyotes will gnaw off their paw if it is caught in a trap.

Who knows how the Liverpool chief executive, Rick Parry, is feeling this week after reading the Rafael Benítez-undermining comments of the club's co-owner Tom Hicks but it must be hoped he is pondering at least some sort of self-administered bite for the blithe manner in which he allowed the club to become bedfellows with the Texan and his partner, George Gillett.

Urging the fans to take it on trust that these men were "the right people", Parry and his departing chairman, David Moores, permitted Dubai International Capital's bid for Liverpool to be gazumped last year and the club was bought by two American businessmen who had set up a private limited company called "Kop", one of whom gushed that the atmosphere at Anfield was "like nothing I've ever heard or felt".

Mmm. Gillett is married but you get the feeling that on any notional first date he would claim Sex and the City was his favourite TV show and that he was all about the post-coital cuddle and chat.

It seems somehow fitting that Hicks is a huge George Bush supporter. The US president has never judged that the fact most of his coterie were draft dodgers should preclude them from running wars, and his runaway success with this strategy remains an inspiration to us all - certainly to the two men who know nothing about football who are running Liverpool and who this week even gave us their version of that central tenet of the Bush Doctrine: the pre-emptive strike. Jürgen Klinsmann was sounded out for the manager's job just in case, or for safety's sake or because Hicks' and Gillett's intelligence suggested Rafa possessed weapons of mass destruction. I forget the precise excuse but it was totally convincing.

Then again Hicks did once compare the manner in which he purchased Liverpool to the manner in which he purchased Weetabix. It is often said of businessmen who buy into a product in which other people have an emotional rather than monetary investment that, for all they care, they might as well be selling soap powder or dog food. Hicks does actually own a dog food factory in Argentina. Whether he is more attached to this commodity or to another flesh-based investment such as Fernando Torres is hard to say.

The thing that seems increasingly surprising, really, is that anyone is surprised at the manner in which the deal has backfired. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but there are plenty willing to stick their necks out and risk some foresight on how the vogue for foreign prospectors snapping up clubs will pan out.

Plucking two recent Premier League annexations from the air, I would hazard that the Glazer family's association with Manchester United will not end happily (many, notably the red rebels behind FC United of Manchester, would contend the damage has already been done); and that the Amnesty-condemned former Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, will not ultimately prove the saintly saviour of Manchester City that those willing to turn a blind eye to his human rights record might currently fancy him to be. Similarly Liverpool supporters might be hasty in breathing a sigh of relief even if a magic wand was waved and their club ended up owned instead by the investment arm of the Dubai government.

There is a school of thought that says there have always been owners who were somewhat unlikable and that this new breed of Abramoviches and Thaksins are no more unlikable than your Doug Ellises or your Kenneth Bateses. But maybe it is time to be slightly less credulous when strangers turn up promising the moon on a stick.

If Rick Parry is not embarrassed at how trusting he was, the rest of us should be doubly wary of even offering that old standby - the "cautious welcome" - to the next set of speculators who set their sights on a piece of English football. In fact, perhaps we should concur that it will end in tears at some unspecified point and set about laying in supplies for the inevitable heartbreak.

Will we? Of course not. The ability to convince oneself that the unlikely is possible is arguably the quintessential element of the football fan's psyche and the heart sinks just wondering who will be the next person for whom some club's supporters will have to suspend their disbelief.

Liverpool ponder move to buy out Hicks


Gillett considers a future without his co-owner

Americans fall out over plans for re-financing

Andy Hunter
Friday January 18, 2008
The Guardian


George Gillett is believed to have doubts about his involvement at Anfield with his fellow American. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA



Liverpool's co-owner George Gillett will spend the next few days deciding whether to support a plan to buy out his partner Tom Hicks or throw his weight behind a refinancing package that would strengthen Hicks's hold on the club.
Gillett and his co-chairman Hicks have almost finalised terms on a £350m loan that would allow them to repay money borrowed for their £218.9m takeover, repay loans acquired to sign players last summer and commence work on their revised plans for a new stadium. The deal, with the Royal Bank of Scotland and US investment firm Wachovia, could be completed early next week providing the two Americans sign the terms on offer.



After a period of instability unprecedented in Liverpool's recent history, Gillett is understood to have grave misgivings over his continued involvement with Hicks, the man he brought on board to secure the takeover last February but who has proved far from the silent partner he originally envisaged. A fresh dilemma for Gillett is that Dubai International Capital, the investment arm of the Dubai government, is now prepared to provide him with the financial backing to make an offer for Hicks's 50% stake in Liverpool.
DIC lost out in the pursuit of the former chairman David Moores' majority shareholding last February when its failure to meet agreed deadlines for the takeover enabled the Americans to succeed with a late and more lucrative bid. Though it withdrew acrimoniously from negotiations DIC has maintained its interest and, having baulked at a £150m asking price for a 15% stake last October, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum's investment company now hopes to capitalise on the disunity in the hierarchy.

DIC is willing to join forces with Gillett in an attempt to persuade Hicks to sell his interest in Liverpool for a substantial profit. A source confirmed yesterday that a deal has been drawn up in principle and will be presented to the Americans before they put their signatures to the £350m loan. "It is a very delicate situation but DIC has reignited its interest," said the source. "The terms of the offer, which will be made to Tom Hicks, have been agreed and DIC are hopeful they will be finally be able to invest in Liverpool."

Major obstacles remain in the way of DIC gaining a financial interest in Liverpool, however, not least Hicks's insistence that he has no intention of selling up. There is also doubt over Gillett's determination to attempt to oust his business partner by agreeing terms with DIC. Gillett and Hicks both have an option to purchase the other's stake in Liverpool, although the former would require backing from Dubai to achieve that goal.

Hicks, owner of the Texas Rangers baseball franchise and the Dallas Stars ice hockey team, created further problems for the American regime this week with the revelation that both he and Gillett, owner of the Montreal Canadiens ice hockey franchise, had approached Jürgen Klinsmann last November as "an insurance policy" against the possible departure of the Liverpool manager, Rafael Benítez.

What was an attempt by the Texan to draw a line under the uncertainty surrounding the future of Benítez has proved hugely embarrassing for Gillett, who is disturbed by the furious reaction among Liverpool supporters it provoked, but it is how much of the £350m loan should be placed on to the club's books that is the fundamental problem.

Both Moores, who became honorary life president of Liverpool under the terms of the takeover, and the chief executive, Rick Parry, have blocked attempts to load all of the debt on to the club amid concerns at annual interest payments of £30m. Under the terms of the loan it is anticipated half will be burdened on the club and the rest secured against Kop Holdings, Gillett and Hicks's parent company, although that still represents a U-turn on their promise to use their own funds and not to adopt the Glazers' handling of Manchester United. The Americans will still require a further £300m loan at a later date to complete work on a proposed new stadium.

Gillett could exert pressure on Hicks to sell next week by refusing to commit to the refinancing package. Should Gillett agree to the loan, and sources yesterday insisted that he remains undecided, then Hicks - the driving force behind the stadium and the biggest threat to Benítez - will be empowered in his plans to bring the development to fruition in 2011 when he can demand a higher price for his stake.

It would seem that Gillett only way of applying pressure on Hicks to sell his shares would be to refuse to sign the new financinging deal.

A dangerous ploy as this would 1 risk ownership of the club falling into the hands of RBS who hold a charge against the club for the exisiting loan used by Hicks and Gillett. And 2 would surely mean that if there is an already strained relationship between them this would surely destroy anything that remains.

the latest news on several sites in the UK is that DIC have bought out the Yanks and the team and Rafa were told before the Luton game, Rick Parry will leave the club and David Dein (ex Arsenal) will take over his role ?

nothing official but wait and see !

Ant wrote:

the latest news on several sites in the UK is that DIC have bought out the Yanks and the team and Rafa were told before the Luton game, Rick Parry will leave the club and David Dein (ex Arsenal) will take over his role ?

nothing official but wait and see !

If only this story could come true! I really don't know about the intentions of DIC in terms of management, recruitment and investment, but I am quite sure it couldn't be as bad as the situation we're in right now. Facts are that the Yanks lied from the beginning:

- They said they would build a stadium fit for the world's most legendary football club.
- They said they would never contemplate securitising their loans against the club.
- They said they'd back our manager.

For these reasons, among others, I would enjoy and be really relieved if they leaved.

Rupi wrote:

Ant wrote:

the latest news on several sites in the UK is that DIC have bought out the Yanks and the team and Rafa were told before the Luton game, Rick Parry will leave the club and David Dein (ex Arsenal) will take over his role ?

nothing official but wait and see !

If only this story could come true! I really don't know about the intentions of DIC in terms of management, recruitment and investment, but I am quite sure it couldn't be as bad as the situation we're in right now. Facts are that the Yanks lied from the beginning:

- They said they would build a stadium fit for the world's most legendary football club.
- They said they would never contemplate securitising their loans against the club.
- They said they'd back our manager.

For these reasons, among others, I would enjoy and be really relieved if they leaved.

Well lads, it seems that all this bad stuff will soon be behind us, and we'll at last be able to contretrate entirely in our aim on the pitch: win many trophies!!! (Well... I hope so...)

Ant wrote:

the latest news on several sites in the UK is that DIC have bought out the Yanks and the team and Rafa were told before the Luton game, Rick Parry will leave the club and David Dein (ex Arsenal) will take over his role ?

nothing official but wait and see !

Can you honestly see Dein an Arsenal man through and through running Liverpool Ant? I find this part of the rumour hard to believe. What is the source of the rumour Ant?

personally i dont see dein at anfield but he is close to DIC (they built the emirates stadium under his direction at arsenal) and he was involved with parry in the starting up of the premiership.

as i said this is info i saw on the web, notably :

http://www.anfieldred.co.uk/who-should-leave-the-owners-or-rafa#comment-12821

BREAKING NEWS

this afternoon so it needs to be taken lightly until some official info is released.

if dein does come then maybe wenger would aswell ?