Ask any Liverpool fan's opinion about Tom Hicks and the chances are you'll be greeted by a tirade of rasping criticism. But is this entirely fair? A closer examination of the whole Tom Hicks saga reveals that he may not be the ogre he's portrayed as by fans and groups like 'Spirit of Shankly'. According to Liverpool-Kop's new writer John Wallen, it's time to consider giving Hicks a second chance.
The present controversy over the ownership of LFC is really quite mind-bending. First fans were happy with the American owners, believing that a new era of high investment into the club was just beginning.
However, after the volte-face over the too expensive stadium, the highly publicised argument with Rafa, the tete-a-tete with Klinsmann and the putting of debt directly onto the club in the refinancing of the loan they used to buy the club, most fans now want them out.
Demonstrations continue inside the ground on a regular basis and “SOS” or “Spirit of Shankly” have even recruited the great man's grand-daughter as a vocal supporter of their “Americans Out!” policy.
Meanwhile, pie-in-the-sky plans are developed for the supporters to buy the club. If this was such a good idea, why didn't they do it when Moores was selling a year or so ago? They could have got it a lot cheaper than is possible now. In fact, Hicks' valuation of the club at around a billion dollars effectively scuppers this plan.
The necessary pledge has already risen from five thousand pounds to eight thousand pounds a person and, as we all know, the promise of money is different to the giving of money.
This plan is, quite frankly, a non starter and supporters who are thinking of pledging (in some cases) their life's savings, should be aware that the whole business is almost sure to end in bitterness and recrimination.
DIC: Friend or Foe?
What about DIC then? Lots of supporters seem to be putting their faith in this Dubai based company and their smart talking go-between Amanda Staveley who, bizzarely enough, used to be Prince Andrew's girlfriend.
The truth is that this mega-company has acted very strangely during the last year. We now hear that they are prepared to pay the world for Liverpool Football Club, yet just a year ago they backed down in the face of the Gillet-Hicks offer, declaring that they weren't prepared to pay over the odds for the club.
Now they are happy to value the club at five hundred million pounds! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that their behavior has been more than weird. Anyone who knows a little about the way Arab companies do business will feel concern about the inconsistencies in the DIC position.
Perhaps Sameer really is a fan, but he will have to go to the Sheikhs every time a big decision is needed. As Hicks said when pulling out of the recent talks, DIC involvement would mean control by committee: interminable delays in getting the money needed—for players in particular.
Furthermore, this deeply conservative organization is said to want Rafa out and their own man in place as a condition of their involvement. Surely, this is unacceptable to most fans?
A second chance for Tom Hicks?
What then, about the one remaining possibility? Should everyone give Tom Hicks a second chance?
No-one is going to suggest that Hicks has made it easy on himself. He was drafted in at the last minute by George Gillet to give his own bid for the club credibility.
Since that time, Hicks has succeeded in alienating both his business partner and the Liverpool fans. However, the picture changes somewhat if we look at it in a more step by step manner.
First of all, Hicks knew little about “soccer” when he first joined the partnership. In particular, he knew little about English soccer. He didn't realise just how important the team is to so many Liverpudlians. Hicks assumed that soccer in Britain was much like sport in the US: no more than an entertaining family activity for the weekend.
It would seem that Hicks is now aware of his mistake in this regard and even wants to see some of his US franchises acquire the kind of fervent support that Liverpool has.
Of course, Hicks also knows that he has bought into a great brand. Liverpool FC is the most successful team in England and the name itself brings back memories of the mop topped foursome who conquered America not so many moons ago (even though John, Paul, George and Ringo were actually Evertonians!).
Hicks is a businessman and he knows that Liverpool will make money. In order to facilitate this process, he needs to spend money himself in the shorter term. We will take a look at this in a moment—but let's first finish off looking at Hicks' gaffes to date.
Most importantly, he and Gillet argued with Rafa Benitez. This was not a good move, but you can also see his point of view. At the time, Rafa seemed to have blown success in both the Premier League and success in Europe, in spite of the acquisition of Torres, Babel and Benayoun in the summer.
Nevertheless, he was still asking for another 18 million pounds for Mascherano who was tied up with the club until the end of the year anyway. Perhaps in the circumstances, we can forgive Hicks for telling Rafa that the club needed to wait a bit before making the Argentinean's deal permanent.
As for the heated words that were exchanged around this time, Rafa was as much to blame as Hicks; particularly insensitive was his apparent belief that he could only get the Americans to act by speaking out against them publicly.
Rafa was naive in this regard and no large company would allow its public relations to be handled in that way. It is perfectly possible that Hicks did genuinely believe Rafa might leave the club in the lurch around that time and, for this reason alone, joined Gillet in sounding out Jurgen Klinsmann for the job.
As I understand it, the whole thing was totally conditional. The Americans didn't say to Klinsmann “Do you want a job?”, but “Would you consider taking a job in certain circumstances?”.
There is a world of difference between these two propositions and the second action might not be considered unreasonable given the situation at the time.
Financial issues
There is also the fact that Hicks and Gillet have used the club to guarantee the loan they've taken out recently and also revised their too costly plans regarding the new stadium.
The first point to make here is that Hicks cannot predict the state of the global financial market. There has been a downturn and this has made the old stadium plans unviable. As for putting debt on the club, this has only been done through the subsidiary company “Kop Holdings” and only to the tune of 105 million pounds.
Again, financial realities can change earlier plans and we are all well aware of that from our own lives. Perhaps then, Hicks' actions don't quite suggest the ogre that SOS and others have portrayed? Are there, in these circumstances, other less well publicised factors which might suggest that Hicks has not done a wholly bad job for the club?
Firstly, Hicks has got a company to design and present a new stadium design which is very similar to the original and better than the earlier plans. In my opinion, Hicks' credibility depends on either building this stadium or selling out.
If he has any problems in raising the capital surely he will sell up rather than see his investment deteriorate in value.
Secondly, Hicks has backed Rafa in the transfer market. I don't think Moores and Parry would have sanctioned the signing of Torres for more than twenty million pounds, whatever finance had been raised by the selling of other players. Since the summer, Skrtel has also been signed.
Furthermore, Hicks seems to have accepted that he made a mistake in publicly arguing with Rafa. Now he sends congratulatory emails and has even sanctioned the 18 million pound signing of Mascherano.
Surely, these are the actions of an owner who trusts his manager and is determined to see the worth of his assets increase?
Torres has been a sensation and I'm sure that Hicks appreciates the probability that the removal of Rafa would result in a mass exodus of the Spanish contingent from Anfield—and no-one, including Hicks, is ready to say goodbye to Fernando Torres just yet.
Hicks + DIC: A recipe for disaster?
Finally, what about the DIC angle? Would they be better owners than Hicks? There is certainly no clear reason to make that assumption. Hicks is right in believing that the figure-heads like Sameer and Amanda Staveley are only the front men and women for the real decision makers who would need to OK every detail.
Anyone who has done business in the Middle East knows that there are often long and totally avoidable delays while go-betweens wait for decisions from Sheikhs who are often too busy enjoying themselves to pay a lot of attention to business decisions.
Eventually, a terse refusal might arrive—or perhaps the delay itself will result in a lost opportunity. Either way, fans should open their eyes and realize that DIC is just like Hicks and only wants to make money out of Liverpool FC.
I should finish by saying that I am not an unconditional supporter of Tom Hicks. However, I feel he can deliver the things that Liverpool FC most needs: a new stadium, money for transfers and a quick decision making process.
We should give him the chance to get on with doing his job.
The present controversy over the ownership of LFC is really quite mind-bending. First fans were happy with the American owners, believing that a new era of high investment into the club was just beginning.
However, after the volte-face over the too expensive stadium, the highly publicised argument with Rafa, the tete-a-tete with Klinsmann and the putting of debt directly onto the club in the refinancing of the loan they used to buy the club, most fans now want them out.
Demonstrations continue inside the ground on a regular basis and “SOS” or “Spirit of Shankly” have even recruited the great man's grand-daughter as a vocal supporter of their “Americans Out!” policy.
Meanwhile, pie-in-the-sky plans are developed for the supporters to buy the club. If this was such a good idea, why didn't they do it when Moores was selling a year or so ago? They could have got it a lot cheaper than is possible now. In fact, Hicks' valuation of the club at around a billion dollars effectively scuppers this plan.
The necessary pledge has already risen from five thousand pounds to eight thousand pounds a person and, as we all know, the promise of money is different to the giving of money.
This plan is, quite frankly, a non starter and supporters who are thinking of pledging (in some cases) their life's savings, should be aware that the whole business is almost sure to end in bitterness and recrimination.
DIC: Friend or Foe?
What about DIC then? Lots of supporters seem to be putting their faith in this Dubai based company and their smart talking go-between Amanda Staveley who, bizzarely enough, used to be Prince Andrew's girlfriend.
The truth is that this mega-company has acted very strangely during the last year. We now hear that they are prepared to pay the world for Liverpool Football Club, yet just a year ago they backed down in the face of the Gillet-Hicks offer, declaring that they weren't prepared to pay over the odds for the club.
Now they are happy to value the club at five hundred million pounds! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that their behavior has been more than weird. Anyone who knows a little about the way Arab companies do business will feel concern about the inconsistencies in the DIC position.
Perhaps Sameer really is a fan, but he will have to go to the Sheikhs every time a big decision is needed. As Hicks said when pulling out of the recent talks, DIC involvement would mean control by committee: interminable delays in getting the money needed—for players in particular.
Furthermore, this deeply conservative organization is said to want Rafa out and their own man in place as a condition of their involvement. Surely, this is unacceptable to most fans?
A second chance for Tom Hicks?
What then, about the one remaining possibility? Should everyone give Tom Hicks a second chance?
No-one is going to suggest that Hicks has made it easy on himself. He was drafted in at the last minute by George Gillet to give his own bid for the club credibility.
Since that time, Hicks has succeeded in alienating both his business partner and the Liverpool fans. However, the picture changes somewhat if we look at it in a more step by step manner.
First of all, Hicks knew little about “soccer” when he first joined the partnership. In particular, he knew little about English soccer. He didn't realise just how important the team is to so many Liverpudlians. Hicks assumed that soccer in Britain was much like sport in the US: no more than an entertaining family activity for the weekend.
It would seem that Hicks is now aware of his mistake in this regard and even wants to see some of his US franchises acquire the kind of fervent support that Liverpool has.
Of course, Hicks also knows that he has bought into a great brand. Liverpool FC is the most successful team in England and the name itself brings back memories of the mop topped foursome who conquered America not so many moons ago (even though John, Paul, George and Ringo were actually Evertonians!).
Hicks is a businessman and he knows that Liverpool will make money. In order to facilitate this process, he needs to spend money himself in the shorter term. We will take a look at this in a moment—but let's first finish off looking at Hicks' gaffes to date.
Most importantly, he and Gillet argued with Rafa Benitez. This was not a good move, but you can also see his point of view. At the time, Rafa seemed to have blown success in both the Premier League and success in Europe, in spite of the acquisition of Torres, Babel and Benayoun in the summer.
Nevertheless, he was still asking for another 18 million pounds for Mascherano who was tied up with the club until the end of the year anyway. Perhaps in the circumstances, we can forgive Hicks for telling Rafa that the club needed to wait a bit before making the Argentinean's deal permanent.
As for the heated words that were exchanged around this time, Rafa was as much to blame as Hicks; particularly insensitive was his apparent belief that he could only get the Americans to act by speaking out against them publicly.
Rafa was naive in this regard and no large company would allow its public relations to be handled in that way. It is perfectly possible that Hicks did genuinely believe Rafa might leave the club in the lurch around that time and, for this reason alone, joined Gillet in sounding out Jurgen Klinsmann for the job.
As I understand it, the whole thing was totally conditional. The Americans didn't say to Klinsmann “Do you want a job?”, but “Would you consider taking a job in certain circumstances?”.
There is a world of difference between these two propositions and the second action might not be considered unreasonable given the situation at the time.
Financial issues
There is also the fact that Hicks and Gillet have used the club to guarantee the loan they've taken out recently and also revised their too costly plans regarding the new stadium.
The first point to make here is that Hicks cannot predict the state of the global financial market. There has been a downturn and this has made the old stadium plans unviable. As for putting debt on the club, this has only been done through the subsidiary company “Kop Holdings” and only to the tune of 105 million pounds.
Again, financial realities can change earlier plans and we are all well aware of that from our own lives. Perhaps then, Hicks' actions don't quite suggest the ogre that SOS and others have portrayed? Are there, in these circumstances, other less well publicised factors which might suggest that Hicks has not done a wholly bad job for the club?
Firstly, Hicks has got a company to design and present a new stadium design which is very similar to the original and better than the earlier plans. In my opinion, Hicks' credibility depends on either building this stadium or selling out.
If he has any problems in raising the capital surely he will sell up rather than see his investment deteriorate in value.
Secondly, Hicks has backed Rafa in the transfer market. I don't think Moores and Parry would have sanctioned the signing of Torres for more than twenty million pounds, whatever finance had been raised by the selling of other players. Since the summer, Skrtel has also been signed.
Furthermore, Hicks seems to have accepted that he made a mistake in publicly arguing with Rafa. Now he sends congratulatory emails and has even sanctioned the 18 million pound signing of Mascherano.
Surely, these are the actions of an owner who trusts his manager and is determined to see the worth of his assets increase?
Torres has been a sensation and I'm sure that Hicks appreciates the probability that the removal of Rafa would result in a mass exodus of the Spanish contingent from Anfield—and no-one, including Hicks, is ready to say goodbye to Fernando Torres just yet.
Hicks + DIC: A recipe for disaster?
Finally, what about the DIC angle? Would they be better owners than Hicks? There is certainly no clear reason to make that assumption. Hicks is right in believing that the figure-heads like Sameer and Amanda Staveley are only the front men and women for the real decision makers who would need to OK every detail.
Anyone who has done business in the Middle East knows that there are often long and totally avoidable delays while go-betweens wait for decisions from Sheikhs who are often too busy enjoying themselves to pay a lot of attention to business decisions.
Eventually, a terse refusal might arrive—or perhaps the delay itself will result in a lost opportunity. Either way, fans should open their eyes and realize that DIC is just like Hicks and only wants to make money out of Liverpool FC.
I should finish by saying that I am not an unconditional supporter of Tom Hicks. However, I feel he can deliver the things that Liverpool FC most needs: a new stadium, money for transfers and a quick decision making process.
We should give him the chance to get on with doing his job.
12 Comments - Disagree? Add your comment!:
NO
I agree completely. There is so much hysteria over the hicks affair that people cannot see the wood for the trees. he has actually done some good - signing torres and mascherano is proof of that. yes, he was wrong over the who rafa situation, but rafa was equally to blame. no one likes new leadership, especially when after so many years the club ends up in the hands of foreign owners. we shouldn't allow xenophobia to cloud our judgement as fans though...
Wow, really are you a liverpool fan? first off hicks made many promises when he took over NO debt on the club its all on the club if kop holdings cant pay its the club who pays ie selling assets gerrard torres etc.He promised a stadium still not a shovel in the ground.
The likes of torres masch were bought by the bank not with one penny of hicks money!
The reason the fans group only came in lately is because anyone who cares in anyway for LFC can see that we are going the way of leeds united because of these americans and something must be done.Why didnt DIC buy before? - because moores got more for his shares with the americans and said dic took to long on due dilagance.hardly a crime when your buying a club! Its obvious you really dont have a clue with statments like they would probably be too busy enjoying themselves to make decisions, are you serious?
your points are without research and for shock value.The article is laughable.
You are so right John."
I agree on this point entirely, H&G did indeed make a promise of no debt, that much is true, but that was before a serious collapse of the US stock market!
Tom Hicks intentions for this club are grand, he aims to take liverpool into the upper echelons of footballs rich list, this is going to take longer than he initially anticipated, but his aims are still the same.
The finacial package that the pair took out was not rushed overnight, careful consideration was taken before they committed to anything (3 months).
Tom Hicks was at every game during the recent Dr Pepper Dallas Cup, in which our under 19s triumphed, he took an active interest in the lads and made sure he personally congratulated the boys after every game! Hardly the actions of someone who "doesnt care".
The old saying "all good things come to those who wait" comes to mind, and im increasingly finding similaritys between many reds fans and those of the jordy persuasion! Impatience is not a redeeming quality.
To summarise, i think the guy needs time, once the US Financial situation has settled, i believe we will start to see progress and in the meantime we need to give him the benefit of the doubt!
Well, there's been an interesting development today in the Hicks saga. It seems he's sent Rick Parry a letter asking for his resignation! I think most LFC fans will be behind Hicks on this. It would appear that Gillet is chummy with Parry and was incensed by Benitez' "insubordination" (so Gillet wants to keep Parry and sack Rafa!). In the letter, Hicks accused Parry of being slow in acting as go-between between Rafa and himself, plus of bamboozling Liverpool fans about ticket allocation for the Athens final--two things most supporters would also criticise Parry for, as well! Naturally, Parry is refusing to resign, relying on Gillet's good will to get him through. In any case, it is clear that there is no future for Parry at Anfield under Hicks.
I'm sorry john but i disagree totally with you. This just seems like more schoolyard politics for me.
Parry hasnt shown biased towards Gillet, what hes done is acknowledge the shareholder that has a much greater understanding of what liverpool football club is all about. Gillett hasnt been spouting his mouth off, left, right and center, hes taken the more old school liverpool approach and remained dignified and has refused to get envolved in a public brawl.
If he was incensed with Rafa for his public outbursts, he is not alone! I was myself, i thought it was immature and he hardly lead by example.
With regard to the final tickets, that was in part due to the lack of organisation in Greece, where they didnt know thier arse from thier elbow.
Rick Parry has been a loyal servant to LFC and is one of the most sought after men in England, regarded as one of the most savvy and intelligent Chiefs in the Prem, to get rid of him would be short sighted and why?
Because if Hes not going to be my friend, youre not having him either! Childish and immature, Hicks needs to get a grip and stop acting rashly.
I appreciate what you say RU. The present fiasco has the potential to turn into a genuine civil war with Liverpool fans divided in their loyalties. On further deliberation, I feel it was a mistake by Hicks to do this publicly and, with the majority of the board backing Parry, it was finally no more than a publicity stunt. The timing was, once again, horrible.
The most pressing problem, as far as I can see, is that Rafa is at loggerheads with Parry (the letter makes that plain) and Gillet is also said to have been the more incensed of the two owners at Rafa's insubordination. Apparently, it was mostly his idea to speak with Klinsmann who he knows personally. Now if Parry and Gillet win this present confrontation I can easily see Rafa being forced out: too many bitter things have been said to simply "forgive and forget". Personaly, I feel Rafa has built a very good tean during his 4 years and, with Torres' goals there is a good chance of the PL soon. However, if Rafa is forced out, most of the Spaniards will leave and a new rebuilding exercise begin. Personally, I am more interested in the team on the pitch than the back room situation, so if I must support Hicks in order to ensure Rafa's continuance at the club, then so be it.
In conclusion, I'd just like to add that Parry's record is hardly a golden one. Hicks was right to appoint a commercial manager, Ian Ayres, as the worldwide appeal of the club has not been exploited by Parry. Finally, the present mess is the legacy of Parry and Moore's earlier decision to sell to the Americans.
An interesting development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.
You make a few good points john i admit. Not sure if youre aware of this, but its something ive heard from a source within the club (honestly).
Apparently when Hicks placed Ian Ayres in charge of the commercial side of things, he did so with a 2 sided agenda. Ayres was placed in that role, not just to improve liverpools commercial situation but to be Hicks eyes and ears on the ground. What happened in the lead up to the request for parrys resignation was apparently this;
Ian Ayres has apparently been doing a lot of bad mouthing about Mr Gillett. Gillett got wind of this and decided to pay him a visit on Tuesday afternoon with parry in tow. He called ayres and said "Ian theres a few things we need to discuss" and ayres apparent reply was "I cant im booked up for today". Gillett was there within 15 minutes and basically said to the guy, who the hell are you to tell me youre booked up, i pay your wages lad and if i want to see you i will.
He then questioned the guy as to what exactly hed been telling hicks about him, and after a good roasting from gillett, ayres was on the phone to Hicks reporting on how hed just been "roughed up" by the pair. Within 24hrs Hicks had asked for Parrys resignation.
Well thats what apparently happened in the lead up to the request for parrys head :) thought you may find that interesting.
BTW my source is the Director of a sub-contractor at anfield, but i wont mention names :)
The latest media speculation would seem to suggest that DIC has an unwritten agreement with Gillet, and is simply waiting for the expiry of the agreement that gives priority rights to the other partner in the event of any wish to sell. This would certainly explain Gillet's unequivocal assertion that he will never sell to Hicks: he is simply biding his time until DIC take the shares off his hands.
If all this is true, then it seriously reflects on Hicks' business acumen. In March he could have brokered a deal that gave him 51% of Liverpool shares and effectively put him in charge. He scuppered that deal and, a couple of months later, has to watch Gillet sell all 50% of his stake to DIC (instead of 49% as agreed previously).
Is there something we don't know about this, or is Hicks simply a bone head?
I think I might have the explanation to this. The ability to veto the other partner's sale is in place until the end of May. However, after that, if one partner wishes to sell, the other will still have the first right to buy. Only if he can't, or doesn't want to, buy the shares will a sale to a third party go ahead. This would explain Hicks' frantic search for capital before Gillet states his intention to sell to DIC in 6 weeks.
Post a Comment