Normal Service will be Resumed

Well, logically, he should be fired before the end of the season...

jlb21 wrote:

Well, logically, he should be fired before the end of the season...

I believe logic was seen sneeking out of the back door at Anfield recently, close on the heels of dignity.

I am not fully convinced that DIC are ready to walk away just yet.

Well I have to admit I feel a complete fool.

There I was worrying we had some serious problems at Anfield to deal with.

I have just read Tom Hicks latest press release and it seems I was completely mistaken.

There are no problems with the new stadium, there is no problem with money being made available for Rafa to buy players, we are not going to be sold to DIC. Rafa is not going to be sacked in fact he could get a new contract.

I think if he had said we were going to win the Prem this season I would have to accept that is true as well.

football365
BENITEZ BACKED BY REDS CO-OWNER
Posted 28/01/08 07:01EmailPrintSave



Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks insists manager Rafael Benitez's job is safe for the remaining two years of his contract at the very least.

The Spaniard's position has been the subject of much speculation in recent weeks after Hicks admitted he and fellow American co-owner George Gillett had held discussions with former Germany coach Jurgen Klinsmann as an "insurance policy" after their relationship became strained.

Performances on the pitch have been lacklustre in recent weeks, with the Reds lying sixth in the Premier League, two points behind fourth-placed Merseyside rivals Everton in the race for Champions League qualification.

Hicks, however, is building bridges with Benitez after talks with the Spanish coach last month.

"Rafa has a contract for two more years. He will be here for at least the length of it and hopefully longer than that," said Hicks.

"He has our full support. Rafa has shown his strong intent to do the right thing with us about the club.

"He has been a gentleman and we have had much better communication. He has my total backing. I have made that very clear."

Benitez also seemed to be struggling at one stage to reach agreement with the owners over the club's transfer strategy in the January window, but Hicks insists the manager has the board's full support to pursue whomever he sees fit.

Asked if he would endorse a proposal from Benitez to sign Argentinian midfielder Javier Mascherano, Hicks told BBC Radio 5 Live's Sportsweek programme: "Absolutely. We have never turned down Rafa's request for money for any player he has asked for.

"We have funded his transfer request in January and are already having conversations about things in the summer."

On reports of a fall-out with Gillett, Hicks added: "George and I get along fine. Sometimes we do not agree but that is what business partners are all about."

Hicks has revealed he held talks with Dubai International Capital - but only about the company becoming a "minor investor" in the club.

DIC rejected the opportunity and Hicks insists that is the end of the matter.

Hicks and Gillett are now focusing on taking Liverpool forward after completing their £350million refinancing package.

Of that, £105million will be debt tied to the club - £60million to kick-start the building of a new stadium and £45million for future transfers.

While Hicks said that there was never any intention to sell the club to DIC, he said: "I did talk to them about a 10-15% participation but that was months ago.

"We gave them a valuation as a minority investor but they thought the price was too high. We have had no conversations since then.

"We would have used that capital towards the new stadium but we will find other ways.

"We have the capital. I have put in a lot of money and we will put in more if need be. I am very excited about the future of the club."

We have 45millions for transfers.But, for how many time???

Dubai bid to divide Liverpool FC’s American ownersFeb 2 2008




EXCLUSIVE by Ian Doyle & David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post




DUBAI-BASED consortium DIC was last night set to join forces with Liverpool FC co-owner George Gillett in a bid to buy out his partner Tom Hicks.

Events could move forward within a matter of days, with figures close to the club anxious to see a rapid conclusion to what is seen as a damaging distraction at a crucial time in the season.

Relations between Gillett and Hicks are at an all time low, with Gillett remaining silent, but understood to be privately furious with his partner’s unsanctioned public statements over club affairs.

Gillett originally brokered the deal to buy Liverpool, but was forced to bring the significantly wealthier Hicks on board to be able to afford the buy-out.


Now, with the first anniversary of the takeover looming next week, relations have soured between the two men to such a degree that Gillett’s son Foster, who moved to Liverpool to represent the Americans and work alongside club chief executive Rick Parry, returned to the US 3½ weeks ago, and has not been seen at the club since.


The Daily Post understands that Foster Gillett and his wife have no plans to return to the city, despite having recently bought a £1m home in Woolton. The final twist of the knife for George Gillett came when Hicks went public last month with their approach in November to Jurgen Klinsmann as a possible replacement for beleaguered manager Rafael Benitez.


DIC (Dubai International Capital), led by Sameer Al Ansari whose £4,500 a share offer for Liverpool last year was trumped when Hicks helped Gillett to bankroll a successful £5,000 a share offer, are known to be keen to test the resolution of the Americans with a new offer.


Hicks has stated repeatedly that he has no intention of selling in the short term. It is believed he sees the potential to sell the club for well over £1bn in 2012, if the 70,000 seater stadium plan is delivered.


But Gillett is equally determined to hang on to his interest in the club, seeing the whole takeover as his deal, with Hicks merely providing the financial clout to make it happen.


With relations between the pair at such a low ebb, insiders doubt whether both of them can remain as co-owners. The Dubai proposal would allow Gillett to carry forward his plans, while allowing Hicks an exit-strategy with a healthy profit on his 12 months investment.


One source close to the negotiations told the Daily Post last night: “Discussions are still ongoing with DIC. They would be happy to take Hicks out and work with Gillett, or they would be happy to take both of them out.


“But DIC doesn’t want to pay Hicks a huge premium. The key is to get a deal done within days rather than weeks.


“All this has been a huge distraction at the club. Hicks insists on valuing the club at £1bn because he includes the valuation after the stadium is in place, yet it is not even built and doesn’t even have planning permission for the 70,000 seats.”


Hicks has matched Gillett’s £20m personal investment in the club following last week’s £350m refinancing deal, and is likely to be offered double that sum by the Dubai consortium to walk away.


No-one for DIC was available to comment last night while Mr Gillett’s office declined to discuss the matter.


Liverpool FC had no comment to make on the issue.


But a spokesman for Tom Hicks told the Daily Post he remained determined to stay at Liverpool FC.


He said: “As we have said previously and repeatedly, Liverpool Football Club is not for sale.


“Mr Hicks has been very clear in terms of the club not being for sale and that has not changed in any way, shape or form.”

A ce propos, Hicks et Gillet sont à 50/50 dans la société qui a acheté LFC ou Hicks, étant apparamment le plus riche, a-t-il une part prépondérante ?

A priori, c'est du 50 - 50.

Fortress Anfield on shaky groundFeb 4 2008


Tom Hicks and George Gillett took control of Liverpool FC a year ago this week. Andy Kelly begins the Daily Post’s special three-day report into the American takeover at Anfield

By Andy Kelly, Liverpool Daily Post





A RECORD seventh Champions League final, another legendary semi-final victory over Chelsea, the arrival of a £20m striker and the unveiling of plans for a 70,000 seat new stadium.

Had you offered all these things to any Liverpool FC fan on February 6, 2007, as Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett completed their takeover of the club, they would probably have bitten your hand off.

Remarkably though, all those things have happened in the last year at Anfield – but the first anniversary approaches with demonstrations demanding the removal of the owners.

The empty seats next to Rick Parry and David Moores in the Anfield directors’ box, presumably left deliberately clear, speak volumes not just about the absence of the co-owners but the current absence of leadership at the club.


How have we gone from the welcoming banners for uncles Tom and George to the chants of “Get out of our club” and “Liverpool Football Club is in the wrong hands” which have been so prevalent in recent weeks?


How has Tom Hicks gone from the billionaire with the big bank balance to being labelled by some of the Kop faithful as the “liar” with a big head in just 12 months?


The demonstrations may have switched to post-match to ensure support for the team is not affected, but the thousands who stayed behind on Saturday made it clear the criticisms are not going away.


How have we gone from talk of the club’s future being secured for the next 30 years to the possibility of another sale, this time to Dubai International Capital, and possibly within days?


The answer lies in broken promises, whether real or perceived, and a fair amount of bad luck along the way.


As a city, Liverpool has a history of warmly welcoming needy new arrivals. The difference when Tom Hicks and George Gillett came to town was that here were two men who did not need help but could provide it.


They had, it was hoped, the financial muscle and marketing prowess which would finally allow Liverpool to challenge the riches of Manchester United and Chelsea, returning the club to the summit of English football.


Importantly, they did not have the negative human rights perceptions of then Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, now ensconced at Manchester City, who had been courted previously.


They had also promised not to load the club with debt, as Malcolm Glazer had at Old Trafford, prompting those gleeful chants of “USA, USA” from the Liverpool supporters which seem a lifetime ago now.


Fans were even prepared to turn a blind eye to Tom Hicks’s supposed close friendship with President George Bush, a significant sacrifice for some.


There was ready acceptance of the £220m deal quite simply because the club badly needed a change. Insiders describe the Moores era at the club as one of unbelievable inertia, where “getting things done was unbelievably difficult.”


An all too frequent summing up of his stewardship was that his method of keeping The Liverpool Way going was to do nothing.


AT THE famous Anfield press conference to announce the deal, both Hicks and Gillett said almost all the right things, though perhaps the lapse into “franchise” speak sparked the alarm bells for some even then.


Gillett, 69, said: “Our main priority is winning, then passion, respect for tradition, and legacy.”


“We didn’t come over here to be the guys to milk the franchise,” said Hicks, 61. “It is not just about money. If I just wanted to make money there are other things I could do.”


Yet milking the franchise and failing to respect that tradition are the two charges most laid against the Americans today.


FINANCE


While the initial deal did indeed not put debt on the club, it was so short-term as to need renegotiating last month.


The new £350m deal with Royal Bank of Scotland and Wichovia puts £105m of debt directly on Liverpool FC, with £60m committed for the first stage of work on the new stadium and the rest for transfers and normal capital workings.


Some, though not all, accept that as legitimate, but it is the part of the debt placed on Kop Football Holdings, the company formed by the Americans to run the club, which is most controversial.


A spokesman for Hicks recently made it clear that the asset itself – ie, Liverpool Football Club – will be expected to “service” that debt of almost £200m, though with Gillett and Hicks on standby if the club fails to produce the necessary profits. Essentially, the club pays for the loan used to buy the club.


It should not come as any huge surprise. As early as last March, Daily Post business editor Bill Gleeson warned of possible repayments of around £21m a year, perhaps by the club paying its first ever dividend to the new shareholders. With refinancing, those estimates have jumped to around the £30m mark.


It is now clear the only thing which prevented the whole debt coming onto the club at this stage was the stubborn refusal of both chief executive Rick Parry and former owner David Moores to sanction it. Both are members of the Kop Holdings board (along with Hicks and Gillett, and sons Foster and Tommy).


The Daily Post has learned that bankers demanded an agreement from all six board members on the refinancing deal, allowing Parry and Moores the opportunity to block it.


Removing them from the board at this stage would have been viewed as too antagonistic, so the compromise was agreed.


Rick Parry’s letter to season ticket holders last February saying “the club is in very safe hands” is suddenly ringing distinctly hollow for many.


It is not quite Glazer, but it is a mini-Glazer and the natives are not just restless, but rebellious. A new fans group, Sons of Shankly, intends to boycott club merchandise as part of a campaign to hit the owners where it most hurts. Others, led by the University of Liverpool’s Rogan Taylor have launched a radical plan to buy the club with a one member, one share, one vote proposal which seeks 100,000 investors at £5,000 each. Both could be overtaken if the DIC bid materialises as expected, though some in the Anfield hierarchy believe fans are clinging to an option they know little about.


“The question you should ask fans is what details they know of the DIC bid? The reality is most know hardly anything and are grasping that option because of the anti-American feeling,” said one senior figure.

rafa la bamba wrote:

A ce propos, Hicks et Gillet sont à 50/50 dans la société qui a acheté LFC ou Hicks, étant apparamment le plus riche, a-t-il une part prépondérante ?

It's a straight 50/50 deal my personal feeling is that despite all Hicks statements that he will not sell, he will.

He is just trying to drive up the price to maximise his profit but he knows staying in charge now given the complete breakdown of trust between not just the fans and himself but Gillett and himself and also Parry and Moores and himself means to continue would not be a good business decision.

LFC INSIGHT: How Liverpool FC ended up in American handsFeb 5 2008

by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post


Liverpool FC spent years scouring the world for investment before the arrival of Tom Hicks and George Gillett a year ago this week. On day two of a three-day special report, David Bartlett looks at how the deal was done

IT IS often assumed that members of the Moores family (by their annual inclusion in the Sunday Times Rich List) have an endless supply of cash.

There is no doubt that David Moores, former Liverpool FC chairman and nephew of the late Sir John Moores, is a wealthy man.

And while he certainly did not drain the club of money, Moores’s Littlewoods-accrued fortune was not enough to allow the level of investment needed in his beloved football club to give it Chelsea of Manchester United-style wealth.

And so it was that in March 2004, Liverpool FC hired finan-cial advisors Hawkpoint Partners to start a world-wide search for investors.


The search would take Moores and club chief executive Rick Parry to all four corners of the globe, sometimes to embarrassing effect. At an early stage of dealing with former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who now owns Manchester City, the pair went to Thailand with Keith Clayton, a club director and Moores’s accountant.


They were invited into one room to talk, and then into the next and unwittingly found themselves in a most unwanted press conference.


Talks with Shinawatra stalled in summer, 2004, with a sigh of relief from many fans far from enamoured with his human rights record.


Robert Kraft, who owns American Football team the New England Patriots, was also courted while multi-millionaire Liverpool FC shareholder Steve Morgan was keen to take a controlling interest.


Club officials first met George Gillett, now co-owner with Tom Hicks, in August, 2006, after the club had been chasing the investment group of the Dubai government, Dubai International Capital (DIC), for about two years.


“He was not taken terribly seriously at that stage, but those who met him thought he was a nice man,” a source told the Daily Post.


In the autumn of 2006, frustra-ted with the prevarication of DIC in making an offer for the club, Parry and Moores travelled to Montreal, Canada where Gillett showed the pair his ice hockey team the Montreal Canadiens.


A source said the pair were impressed but continued dialogue with DIC.


On December 6, 2006, Moores decided to go with DIC and the company was named preferred bidder.


The parties agreed to a period of exclusivity which ended on January 19, 2007.


IT IS clear, though, that Gillett did not give up at that stage, and Companies House records show that Kop Football Limited, the holding company through which he and Hicks own the club, was incorporated on December 18, 2006.


The DIC offer on the table was to buy at £4,500 a share, but a source said that club officials became frustrated with the company’s “dithering” over carrying out due diligence.


A DIC briefing paper was leaked which detailed an “exit strategy” and their intention to sell the club at a profit in the future. When this was revealed and faxed to Rick Parry from the Daily Post and Echo building, the tide had gone against the company, said the source.


According to a source there was a secret meeting at the Marriott Hotel at Canary Wharf, London where Gillett came in with an offer of £5,000.


“George was running the deal, but he didn't have the money, so he brought Tom Hicks in,” said the source.


DIC had withdrawn from the process and on January 30, 2007, the club board met and agreed to accept Hicks and Gillett’s offer.


Moores, who owned 51.5%, made almost £90m, Granada (or ITV Productions) pocketed around £18m, Radio City founder Terry Smith made £1.5m, former director Noel White £1m, and Steve Morgan about £8.7m.


Rick Parry was also paid a £500,000 completion bonus on top of his £500,000 salary.


Hicks and Gillett paid £174.1m for the club’s 34,800 shares, and also took on £44.8m of debt.


The controversial £350m refinancing package concluded last month – which has so angered fans – paid off the initial loan used to buy the club but loads both Kop Holdings and Liverpool FC with debt. It did, however, see Hicks and Gillett dip into their own pockets for the first time, with a joint investment of around £40m.


“Paradoxically about 70% of what they have done is good,” said a source. “What they have got dis- astrously and consistently wrong is the public presentation of it.”


First there was the new sta-dium, unveiled last summer with great fanfare but sent back to the drawing board in December.


Then there was Hicks’s public admission that Jurgen Klinsmann had been lined up as a possible replacement for manager Rafael Benitez. And then the refinancing package that included £105m of debt on the club’s books.


“Now there is a huge chasm between the owners and the fans,” said a source. “They just don’t understand The Liverpool Way.


“We have different standards and expectations to other clubs – and rightly so.”


davidbartlett


LFC ONE YEAR ONE: The stockbroker's view by Neil Blankstone


A LOT has transpired in the 12 months since Messrs Hicks & Gillett took over LFC.


Dubai International Capital (DIC) was in the driving seat in November 2006, having secured an agreement in principal with the majority shareholder David Moores to takeover the club.


Then, at the “11th hour” George Gillett finally found a business partner, Tom Hicks, enabling them to table the same offer as DIC.


David Moores felt morally obliged to consider not only the other shareholders but also the supporters and as a result requested of DIC 24 hours to consider matters.


DIC felt this had broken the agreement and walked away from David Moores (but not LFC!) leaving only the American offer on the table.


With the costs of the proposed new stadium development rising almost daily, a deal was quickly struck, the Americans taking full control by April 2007.


Initially, the deal was not structured in the same way as the Glazer takeover of Manchester United ie loading the club with debt.


It was recognised that a refinancing of the loans taken out to cover the initial transaction and the whole of the clubs financial base would be reorganised within a fairly short space of time.


A well-documented deal has been struck with banks Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia that appears to have been split in three parts:


£105m of debt directly onto Liverpool’s books


£185m by KOP Football Limited


£60m of personal guarantees by Hicks and Gillett.


All of this was negotiated at the height of turmoil in the world’s financial markets and whilst the exact terms of the deal are not known, one of the reasons it probably took until the last minute to complete the refinancing is the volatility in market rates.


It would also appear that David Moores and Rick Parry, who remain on the board of the Kop Holding Company, had concerns as to the placing of too much debt on the club’s balance sheet.


The banks appear to have insisted on total agreement at board level, hence the structure of the loans.


Is the debt serviceable? In the last 12 months two significant television deals have been completed.


Domestically, although Sky lost its exclusive rights the rights still exceeded the previous deal. Probably more importantly, the International rights to Premier League games saw the same price achieved as the last round of domestic rights.


That alone means an even greater audience will now be reached adding to the potential for increased marketing activity.


LFC has also launched its TV channel on the Setanta Sports network, whilst an overhaul of its website has seen the number of visitors increase materially.


The team is also expected to continue to challenge for the game’s top honours. Qualifying for the European Champions League is important (preferably reaching the last 16 as a minimum – anything beyond that being a substantial bonus), but missing out twice in a five-year period would not be a complete disaster (although two consecutive years would put a strain on cash flow).


All of this, however, means that even an annual interest bill reported at £30m per annum should be manageable.


There is also the matter of the new stadium. The merchandising of LFC through the new mediums needs to be undertaken alongside this.


An extra 20,000-25,000 people attending 18 league matches a season would generate additional £10.8m- £13.5m revenue per season.


Add Champions League matches to that and you can see the difference.


Meanwhile, the rumour mill continues in full swing that Liverpool may be subject to a further change in ownership.


As stated above DIC did not walk away from LFC and it would appear that Tom Hicks did offer them a 15% stake.


It his partnership with George Gillett that is most under scrutiny and as always it then comes down to valuation.


With the extra revenue and despite much work to be done with regard to the new stadium, as well as the increased debt, it is clear that LFC is worth more today than it was 12 months ago.

résumé?
je parle pas super anglais.
désolé.

richard_the_second wrote:

résumé?
je parle pas super anglais.
désolé.

Desoler mais c'est un article sur 3 jours qui parle du histoire de Hicks et Gillet et comment ils ont devenu proprietaires d'Anfield.

C'est en peu trop long pour en resumer mais bon courage pour le troisieme piece demain

Why Tom Hicks and George Gillett got it so wrongFeb 6 2008


On the anniversary of the sale of Liverpool FC to Tom Hicks and George Gillett, chief football writer Ian Doyle looks at how their arrival has played out on the pitch

by Ian Doyle, Liverpool Daily Post




‘AS ALWAYS, I am focused on training and coaching my team.”

It may not be quite up there with some of the fabled utterances of his predecessors, but few phrases can have set in motion such a sequence of events as the one Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez repeated over and over again during his weekly pre-match Press briefing in late November.

Those words alerted the public for the first time to the simmering discontent that had been brewing between the Spaniard and the club’s co-owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks over future transfer strategy.

It pushed Benitez to the brink of being jettisoned from Anfield and led a Liverpool fanbase suspicious of the American duo’s motives to draw up battle lines and side with the Spaniard.


That continuing support for Benitez and intolerance of Gillett and Hicks has manifested itself in different ways, from a rallying march outside Anfield, banners, chants and stay-behind protests inside the stadium to the formation of a fan group aimed at purchasing the club.


Of course, the reason behind Benitez’s ire in November was the discovery Gillett and Hicks had met Jurgen Klinsmann earlier in the week to discuss a proposal to become the next Liverpool manager.


It was a time when the team, although unbeaten in the Premier League and through to the quarter-finals of the Carling Cup, had left themselves needing to win their final two Champions League group games to guarantee progress to the lucrative knockout stages.


Approaching Klinsmann as an “insurance policy” was nothing new. Clubs, Liverpool included, do it all the time. But what they don’t do is allow the information to leak so readily and then come out and publicly admit another party had been approached, as Hicks did last month.


In the event, Liverpool beat Porto and then won 4-0 in Marseille to qualify from their Champions League group, the latter victory coming just days before Hicks and Gillett met with Benitez to discuss their “misunderstanding”.


Hicks later intimated Benitez would have been sacked had Liverpool been eliminated.


SO, compare and contrast that stance with the effect of the high-profile American takeover of another heavyweight North West club.


Within months of the Glazers taking control at Manchester United in the summer of 2005, the Old Trafford side crashed out of the Champions League at the group stage.


It was the first time United had suffered such failure in a decade and led to calls for manager Sir Alex Ferguson to be axed.


The Glazers, however, didn’t flinch, and instead bankrolled an unprecedented spending spree which helped United win the Premier League last year and remain handily placed to do the same again this season.


The arrival of Gillett and Hicks at Anfield had promised similar financial support for Benitez.


Indeed, Gillett himself said: “If Rafa said he wanted to buy ‘Snoogy Doogy’ we would back him.”


That came in the wake of Benitez’s blast after the Champions League final defeat to AC Milan in May, in which the manager fumed at the lack of urgency with which Liverpool were moving in the market.


It’s been a common gripe for Benitez and the crux of his issues with the American owners, the manager often bemoaning their failure to understand the complex machinations of the transfer window.


In mitigation, while Hicks and Gillett have a wide sporting portfolio, their knowledge of English football – let alone the running of a Premier League club – was pretty much zero when they assumed control. Therefore, much of their subsequent actions have been informed by advice largely from inside Anfield itself. When they have got the cheque book out – although it later transpired to be somebody else’s – Hicks and Gillett have given Benitez unprecedented backing.


WHILE Snoogy Doogy remains elsewhere, more than £40m was spent last summer with the centrepiece the club record arrival of Fernando Torres.


A further £6m was splashed out on Martin Skrtel last month – a sign, according to Hicks, of the continued support for Benitez’s tenure – while Liverpool will tie up a £17m deal for Javier Mascherano this week.


More than £20m has been recouped in sales, with further expensive departures expected at the end of the season.


But despite the new signings, Liverpool have again failed to marry their Champions League exploits with a sustained tilt at the Premier League title.


While Benitez must take his share of the blame for that, the off-field uncertainty engendered by the arrival and subsequent actions of Gillett and in particular Hicks have not helped.


Liverpool were unbeaten and within touching distance of the league leaders before the infamous summit with Klinsmann. Since then, Benitez’s side have won just five league games and surrendered the final Champions League qualification place to, of all teams, Everton.


Benitez, though, appears to have ridden the storm – at least for now – and, with Liverpool retaining an interest in the FA Cup and Champions League and well placed to take back fourth place with 14 league games remaining, something can yet be salvaged from the season.


But having undermined Benitez by going public with the Klinsmann revelations, it is likely the uneasy truce that currently persists between the manager and Gillett and Hicks will be tested to the limit once the summer transfer window opens in June.


That’s assuming all three are still at Liverpool. However, given the rate of change at Anfield during the last 12 months, it seems highly unlikely.

LIVERPOOL fans have delivered a devastating verdict on American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett to mark their first year in charge.

A snapshot poll carried out online yesterday by the Liverpool Daily Post invited fans to rate the performance of Gillett and Hicks individually on a scale of one to 10.

The vast majority – 82% – scored Hicks, who has regularly spoken in public over the past few months, as one out of 10.

Fans were more generous to Gillett, whose silence in recent weeks has led to expectations that he will move to end his partnership with Hicks. 33% rated Gillett’s performance as one out of 10, although 56% rated his first year as worthy of two, three, four or five out of ten.

One participant, referring to why he had scored Gillett so low, said: “While I, like many others have no idea what has been going on behind the scenes I feel let down that he has not done more to end this situation and take Hicks with him.”

Another said: “He looks a bit more genuine than Hicks, but has totally been overshadowed by Hicks. Can’t fully criticise him yet, but looks like he lacks the backbone he would need as an owner, especially to square up to Hicks.”


Our survey also suggests fans are becoming increasingly concerned with Rafa Benitez’s peformance as manager. A quarter rated his season as worthy of a seven out of 10, but of all those surveyed, 66% said the score they’d chosen was lower than it would have been at the end of last season.


Some fans appear to have concerns about the ongoing protests against the Americans – a third said they feared it could be a cause of recent poor match performances.


And while 85% backed the idea of the fans buying the club, just 14% believed it would actually happen

Mike Chapple’s personal view of 12 months with the Americans

“I DON’T think I’ve ever felt so depressed about LFC.”

Not my words this week. They are those of a fellow Red, journalist and mate who knows more about the machinations at Anfield – yet still not enough to understand where we’ll end up in this fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.

His emotions are shared by thousands of Reds who thought the cavalry had arrived – but now feel like they’ve been scalped by the Apaches.

Hindsight, of course, can be a wonderful thing.

Even so, Tom Hicks and George Gillett’s “well howdy folks” introduction tallied with promises of debt wipeout and a new stadium, always seemed way too good to be true.


The warning signs were there at the signing-up press conference 365 days ago.


The new owners mixed the words “respect” “history” and “legacy” with business expressions “quality brand” and “sporting franchise” when talking about our club.


But despite the indecision over the plans and funding for the new stadium off the field plus Rafa’s perplexing rotation system on it, the alarm bells only started to tinkle for fans on November 22.


This was Ground Zero as far as we were concerned.


It when we began to understand that the Americans – or as they were to become nicknamed, The Borrowers – had no truck with “history”.


The deal from now on was that chief executive Rick Parry was to undermine the manager’s role and oversee the transfers.


And hence the unforgiveable subterfuge of The Borrowers approaching Jurgen Klinsmann behind Benitez’s back. Their excuse of it being a pragmatic insurance policy may be acceptable in the corporate American boardroom but not at Liverpool where fans, however naively, have become used to the manager deserving a little more respect.


The consolation for some is that we still have Rafa.


But for how much longer? The Reds are miles off the Premiership pace and with Benitez’s refusal to accept the need to play his strongest team we will continue to be so.


Sadly, you can’t blame the Yanks for that

Red Watch contributor Larry Moran looks back on an infuriating year

WHO would have thought 12 months ago that Liverpool Football Club would be in the position it is in now?

When George Gillett and Tom Hicks appeared on the scene last year we all watched their original press conference and they seemed to be the right people to take over our beloved football club.

Liverpool fans were all fully aware that major investment was needed if we were not going to be left behind our major rivals. The investment saga had been dragging on for years and the proposed new stadium existed only as an artist’s impression.

As “George and Tom” met the world’s press, they were keen to tell everyone that “they wanted what we, the fans wanted”, that they were “only custodians of this great club”. That they felt “privileged to be here”, etc etc. That this was “not a Glazer-style takeover”, i.e. no debts would be placed on the club.

We all thought that, at last, here was the major investment we needed to take us forward, to enable the stadium to be built, to make the step change required to move us to another level.


A year has passed and what has the reality been?


No building work on Stanley Park, in fact the stadium plans have been scaled down. The manager’s job has been placed under threat and a prospective – and highly unsuitable – candidate interviewed. Worse still the club is now laden with huge debt, with repayments of up to £30m per annum required.


Promises have not been kept and we still have to find the money to build the new stadium. We are now a club in turmoil. Performances on the pitch have suffered.


A season that we all thought may see us finally make a serious challenge for the Premiership title has descended into a scrap for fourth place.


There are chants against the owners and demonstrations at Anfield, even resulting in discord on the Kop itself.


It’s fair to say that the club has lost its way both on and off the field. Our rivals are revelling in our discomfort. We seem to be in serious danger of losing our identity.


Groups like Reclaim The Kop (RTK) had already taken it upon themselves to try and revitalise the now quieter, all-seated Kop.


Now another group has emerged to do battle with our new owners, the Sons Of Shankly (SOS). Many fans are looking to Dubai International Capital (DIC) to come in and rescue us.


The only three letter abbreviation I am interested in is LFC to be honest, but it shows the depth of feeling the supporters have.


Now another highly interesting idea has appeared. Rogan Taylor’s “Share Liverpool FC” concept may offer 100,000 supporters an opportunity to buy the club outright.


If Gillett and Hicks really have the best interests of Liverpool Football Club at heart, they should end this damaging farce now.

Très intéressante cette série d'articles :
Elle résume assez bien la présidence de D. Moores (" An all too frequent summing up of his stewardship was that his method of keeping The Liverpool Way going was to do nothing ") et rappelle que tant D. Moores que R. Parry avaient un intérêt financier à cette opération de rachat.

Je comprends moins le fonctionnement de la société Kop limited, la société fondée par H et G pour racheter le club :

- Moores et Parry, qui sont au "board" de cette société aux côtés d'H et G et de leurs fistons, ont-ils un réel pouvoir de blocage ?
Les banques semblaient demander l'unanimité du board pour l'affectation des dettes. En droit anglais, est-ce une obligation légale ?

- Quand Kop Limited s'endette pour 185 M£, comme rembourse-t-elle les annuités autrement que par le versement de dividendes de son seul actif, ie, LFC ?
Dans ce cas, à part pour l'affichage, quelle est la différence entre les dettes directement mises à la charge de LFC (105 M£) et celles de Kop Lt (185 M£) ?

- Enfin, je me demande si, lors de la vente, D. Moores pouvait exiger juridiquement de la part des acheteurs une part minimale de fonds propres investis.
Une fois les sommes versées, l'origine des fonds n'est qu'une promesse de l'acheteur qui n'engage que celui qui la croit...

rafa la bamba wrote:

- Enfin, je me demande si, lors de la vente, D. Moores pouvait exiger juridiquement de la part des acheteurs une part minimale de fonds propres investis.
Une fois les sommes versées, l'origine des fonds n'est qu'une promesse de l'acheteur qui n'engage que celui qui la croit...

Contractuellement, il faut montrer les preuves de cet engagement lors d'une séance exceptionnelle. Par contre, et c'est là le problème, il y a x facteurs qui permettent aux acheteurs par la suite de revenir sur ces garanties. Je pense donc que Chapi & Chapo ont profité (peut-être est-ce légitime sur le fond) de la crise financière aux States pour revenir sur leurs engagements et emprunter plutôt que de lâcher leur oseille.

Le problème dans cette histoire, c'est, je pense, que l'on peut contrôler que l'investisseur possède les fonds, mais pas qu'il va s'en servir pour l'investissement.

Kilkenny wrote:

Le problème dans cette histoire, c'est, je pense, que l'on peut contrôler que l'investisseur possède les fonds, mais pas qu'il va s'en servir pour l'investissement.

C'est vrai aussi et c'est là qu'on voit le "pouvoir" très très relatif du board. En gros c'est: "on se moque de votre avis et de vos conseils mais venez prendre un café avec nous si ça vous dit"

rafa la bamba wrote:

Très intéressante cette série d'articles :
Elle résume assez bien la présidence de D. Moores (" An all too frequent summing up of his stewardship was that his method of keeping The Liverpool Way going was to do nothing ") et rappelle que tant D. Moores que R. Parry avaient un intérêt financier à cette opération de rachat.

Je comprends moins le fonctionnement de la société Kop limited, la société fondée par H et G pour racheter le club :

- Moores et Parry, qui sont au "board" de cette société aux côtés d'H et G et de leurs fistons, ont-ils un réel pouvoir de blocage ?
Les banques semblaient demander l'unanimité du board pour l'affectation des dettes. En droit anglais, est-ce une obligation légale ?

- Quand Kop Limited s'endette pour 185 M£, comme rembourse-t-elle les annuités autrement que par le versement de dividendes de son seul actif, ie, LFC ?
Dans ce cas, à part pour l'affichage, quelle est la différence entre les dettes directement mises à la charge de LFC (105 M£) et celles de Kop Lt (185 M£) ?

- Enfin, je me demande si, lors de la vente, D. Moores pouvait exiger juridiquement de la part des acheteurs une part minimale de fonds propres investis.
Une fois les sommes versées, l'origine des fonds n'est qu'une promesse de l'acheteur qui n'engage que celui qui la croit...

I believe the crux of the matter is in how the original takeover was structured. It is very difficult to know exactly how the original deal was done but because certain phrases have been used with regard to Liverpool FC being used to repay the debt, the only way this would be legally possible is if LFC had become legally a subsidiary of KOP Holdings Ltd. For this to have happened it would have had to taken place at the time of the original takover. As there is no way of seeing into the affairs of KOP Holdings Ltd it is hard to tell. There is a suspicion that some form of offshore holding vehicle possibly in the Cayman Islands may have been used.

Difficult to say for sure though, what is sure is that one company cannot legally give it's profits to another without paying tax on them. The way the debt is being talked about is that the debt would reduce LFC's profits. This would only be possible if LFC was in fact a subsidiary of KOP Holding Ltd and also that the responsibilty for the debt (excluding the fact that the debt is secured against a mixture of LFC, Kop Ltd and Personal guarantees by the owners) is that of LFC.

Liverpool to change hands again as American owners cash in
EXCLUSIVE
By Martin Lipton Chief Football Writer 14/02/2008

Liverpool are poised to change hands again - by the middle of next month - as the club's US owners close in on a double-your-money offer from Dubai.

Despite denials from Tom Hicks and George Gillett, Mirror Sport understands that an outline agreement to transfer ownership of the Anfield giants to Dubai International Capital is in the pipeline.

Sources in New York have confirmed that a £460million deal with DIC - the Dubai government's financial arm and headed by Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum - is now on the verge of conclusion. Anfield fans will rejoice at the news that the two Americans' ill-starred reign is ending after a series of protests in recent weeks over their treatment of boss Rafa Benitez.

Supporters have demanded a sale to DIC, who were jilted at the end of 2006 when the Liverpool board wrongly believed the deal with the Americans would safeguard the interests of the club. Hicks is expected to stay as part of the new club directorate in the immediate aftermath of the sale.

The effective sale price is nowhere near the ambitious £1billion valuation Mirror Sport exclusively revealed was put on the club by Hicks in November. He and Gillett paid just £219m to take control of Liverpool from David Moores a year ago.

One insider said: "These talks are still ongoing. Tom and George want to make sure they get the right price for giving up the club."

Despite leaving Liverpool with a £350m debt, they will be able to walk away having made a substantial profit.

Liverpool had been on a collision courseFeb 18 2008

by David Prentice, Liverpool Echo


WHAT an awful, unholy, unparalleled mess. Brave Barnsley were the FA Cup’s darlings this weekend, and deservedly so.

But, at risk of sounding churlish, the Tykes have been the beneficiaries of a car crash which has been waiting to happen.

For two months now, Liverpool have been hurtling down the fast lane with three-men grappling for the steering wheel.

They’ve had bumps, scrapes and narrowly missed major catastrophes along the way – but on Saturday they finally veered into oncoming traffic, and it wasn’t a pretty sight.

The patience of the resolutely faithful Anfield crowd finally snapped.

This time there were boos – and they were clearly directed at the Liverpool players responsible for yet another wretched home result.


But in true Anfield tradition, the responsibility here has to be collective.


Because there are so many things wrong at the club right now it’s difficult to know where to start.


Ever since the American owners started plotting behind the manager’s back, the club has had a man with a persecution complex pulling the strings, a man making decisions he might not otherwise have made.


The owners themselves are divided on which way the club should go.


Rafa Benitez now has the support of Tom Hicks, just weeks after Hicks courted Jurgen Klinsmann for the job.


George Gillett is nowhere to be seen, while David Moores and Rick Parry have had to turn themselves from horrified bystanders into agents trying to curb the worst excesses of the owners.


Everywhere you look there are divisions, fractures and splits.


And if you want evidence that the shambles is transmitting itself to the players, it was there in abundance on Saturday – on and off the pitch.


On the pitch the reluctance to take responsibility in front of goal was marked.


And off it, no-one wanted to be tarred by association with such a car crash of a result – the admirable Steven Gerrard excepted.


Alvaro Arbeloa had to be physically shoved down the running track by Benitez to warm up, and even then started his jog with his hands in his pockets!


And then there is the team selection.


Squad rotation only works when you have a quality squad.


Liverpool’s is simply not good enough.


Take Gerrard and Fernando Torres out of the line-up and the goal side’s attacking threat is reduced to all the menace of Wayne Sleep coming at you with a feather duster.


But it is between the sticks where the lack of strength in depth is most marked.


Liverpool is a club of great goalkeepers – Scott, Clemence, Grobbelaar, Reina. Heavens, even the club’s telegraphic address used to be ‘Goalkeeer.’


Charles Itandje’s name will never feature in the same sentence as that illustrious quartet.


He is simply not good enough for a club of Liverpool’s stature.


That much was evident when neighbours Everton gave him a trial last summer – and moved him on in favour of the marginally more reliable Steffan Wessels.


Fingers were pointed at the German when Everton were dumped out of the FA Cup by Oldham.


On Saturday Itandje should have done better with both Barnsley goals, particularly Foster’s flying header which passed straight through him.


In cup ties, moments like these are pivotal.


So is it really necessary to ‘rest’ a goalkeeper – especially one as influential as Pepe Reina?


Answers on a postcard please to R Benitez, Melwood.


The only positive to come out of Saturday’s disaster is that attention instantly shifts to another cup challenge, one that Liverpool’s first choice team will endeavour to win.


A Liverpool with Reina, Gerrard, Mascherano and Torres in it is an infinitely better proposition than one featuring replacements not up to the task of replacing them.


It says it all that Reds fans are now craving saviours bearing the initials DIC.


Barnsley may be a watershed in Liverpool’s modern history; it may be another signpost on the road to hell.


Right now, no-one knows just where this is going to end.