10/16/2010 09:17:00 pm

TOM HICKS Interview with Sky Sports: *FULL TRANSCRIPT*

After the sale of Liverpool to NESV, outgoing LFC owner Tom Hicks was interviewed by Sky Sports. I couldn't find a transcript of that interview anywhere so I thought I'd create one myself.

Interviewer - Bold text
Tom Hicks - Normal text

Tom, what is your reaction what happened today?

Shocked. I'm devastated. Frustrated. We're being very careful to follow the high court in England, make sure we're following the rules, but, very disappointed.

Disappointment is the main feeling in your mind?


It's hurt my family tremendously. This was a very valuable asset that swindled away from me in an epic swindle. I'm very angry about it.

How has this whole sale process impacted on you personally? We know how it's impacted on you in a business sense but how has it personally impacted you?

Well, my family members and I have been working very hard to solve the issue. I mean, we know there are better owners around the world that should own Liverpool football club than the Boston Red Sox group. We knew who they were; we were frustrated every time we'd have conversations with them.

We'd have people in our own organisations shave conversations with them, and somehow have those things not work out. Our desire was to have Liverpool in the hands of the proper next owner who would build the stadium, and make Liverpool the top club in the world that it deserves to be.

Is that what it was about for you, picking the right owner, because I think you said earlier this week, or I read a statement from you earlier this week, saying that you'd accepted now that the club would be sold? Was it about getting the right--

I accepted the club was going to be sold back in April; the only question was when. RBS wanted it done the day after, and there was no reason for that. Liverpool is a very healthy financially performing club, and covers its interest fine.

It has a little bit too much debt, no question, but we were going to fix that, and we were frustrated by others. And I think the right owner would've paid Gillet and Hicks a fair place, and would've had the resources to spend on players and to build the stadium.

You talked about the debt; has that been one of the millstones around the neck of the club--

Oh sure, well, it hasn't hurt the club at all - it's been a mill stone around the fans reaction to it. There's been so many inaccurate numbers around what our interest bill is. We've had plenty of operating income to cover our interest payments with a lot of room to spare.

We've invested - George and I have put in $270m into the club. We spent over 300 million dollars gross on players, about 150 million net on players, but you never hear that in the media; it always kind of disappears in all the noise and anger.

I accept the fact that something went wrong with my ability to communicate with the fans, and I'm saddened by it. I wish people had more accurate information. I've given you a fact sheet that contains all the accurate information from the last 4 years.

Can you understand the fans anger and the fan, what's the word, fear, if you like?


I really can't. I mean, I'm not a novice in the sports business, I've been in for almost 15 years, whether it's hock fans or baseball fans in the US, or football fans in Liverpool, what people want to do is win.

We had a bad year last year. I think Rafa lost the club; I think his leaders were angry with him about...stuff, and they didn't play as well as they have. We had some tough injuries, and we didn't finish at the top, but that's not the fault of the owners. We spent the money.


There was time when the feeling coming from the manager at the time, Rafa Benitez, that he was hand-tied, and a little but hamstrung. Was he wrong in saying that?


I read a very interesting article recently from Sir Alex Ferguson that said Raga had more money than any of the rest of you did, he bought bad players. Rafa never wanted to take accountability for his own results, he would blame the owners. Alex Ferguson doesn't do that at Manchester United; you never see other top managers do that; Arsene Wenger doesn't do that at Arsenal.

We look behind you here and we see the images of the proposed stadium that caused so much, I think, of the anger with the fans.

Spade in the ground in 60 days?

Absolutely.

George said that at the opening press conference because that was our plan. We had a design that had been done 10 years, and we thought we were going to build. We had the financing lined up to get it going in the first couple of months.

What we learned after closing is the-we hired the best sporting architectural firm in the world, who built the new Dallas cowboys stadium here, which is probably the finest stadium in the world; they built many others. They built the baseball stadium; the American Airlines centre; they told us those plans were obsolete, and they would not give Liverpool the ability to be a world class club.

So we started over, we got new plans and we spent over 30 million pounds developing this stadium. We had to start over on our planning permits. We got all that done; judicial review in the UK, and it all got finally done - not 4 years ago - it got done in the middle of September 2008, and I think it was within a day or two of when Lehmann brothers went bankrupt and the entire global financial meltdown started. So we lost our financing, but there's plenty of financing to build a stadium today, in today's world.

Do you think that is why the fans from the offset had this promise of 60 days, spade in the ground from George Gillett - do you think that was why the fans almost turned against very early on?

We presented the new stadium plans in August 2007. I was in Liverpool, and fans came up to the stadium, and we had big videos of the new designs. People liked them. I think what happened is the people who wanted to be angry with Hicks and Gillett for whatever reason, that's just one of the things they picked up on.

They kept talking about the old stadium design, but they didn't talk about what the reality was. We had a chance to build a world class stadium in Liverpool, and I hope, I hope the group that took the stadium today ends up building that stadium.


One of the other criticisms of the fans is there wasn't enough investment in players. You would argue that was wrong?.


We spent 300 million pounds on players. 150 million net are the ones we would sell. I think, I don't know, second highest in the league at the time, or third. It's one of the top amounts in all the English premier League. You never read about that in the media.

Is that disappointing for you because you believe you spent that amount of money. Is it about what happened on the pitch?

In the end I think it's all about how you do. When we finished second the year before, people weren't near as angry as they were this year. Liverpool fans are just unbelievably strong supporters - they want to win.

I heard to today - it was quite a frantic morning in Dallas, as I'm sure you know more than me. I heard today that you had the funds to pay back the RBS debt but you weren't allowed to do that. Can you explain what happened there?

I can't get into the details particularly, but I can confirm that yes, we did have the funds available to pay off RBS in its entirety, but between RBS and the Chairman, and the employees that conspired against us, they would not allow us to pay off their debt.

Are you able to understand why that?

I know exactly why - they had the ability to, but this was an organised conspiracy that went on over many months, and it consisted of the RBS, Martin Broughton, who wanted to have a good PR event in his life. He's a Chelsea fan, not even a Liverpool fan - he wanted to be seen as the guy who got rid of those Americans..so he sold it to another group of Americans!

How does that make you feel when you quite obviously feel there was, I think the words were 'epic swindle' by people who were essentially your employees. How does that happen; how does it make you feel.

We were paying them very high compensation, and they essentially conspired against us. They were people that I thought were friends; people I thought were loyal, and I was wrong.

Did you have buyers ready to take on this club? Was there more interest than what we've seen over the last few weeks?


Well, the process was continually frustrated by this chatter about financial distress coming out of RBS, so the interested buyers that we knew would be the right type of buyers for this club - look what's happened to Manchester City now with their new ownership - that's the kind of buyer we were trying to find for Liverpool, and those people were scared off by the distress chatter, and by the militant, organised internet terrorism campaigns that were directed against people that would get involved.

Were they out there do you feel?


I know they were.

As far as you yourself now, do you sit back and ponder what's happened? Do you look at yourself and think 'how did this happen'?


I just want the truth to come out in the English Courts. I wish-And I want the fans - they won't get to know Tom Hicks, but I want them to not think of Tom Hicks the way so many of them do right now because that's just tragic.

-------

Predictably, Hicks is getting abuse from fans left right and centre, but I refuse to jump on that bandwagon. Admittedly, some of what Hicks says seems a little embellished; however, whether fans like it or not, there is also alot of truth in some of his statements. Over the next few days, I will be examining each major statement and establishing (with proof, where possible) the real accuracy of his claims.

With any luck, I should also soon have a copy of the fact sheet Hicks refers to during the interview. When I do, I will post the contents on the site.

Cue all the usual 'you're on Hicks' payroll/You're Hicks' lackey' etc.

No - I simply prefer to keep emotion and personal feelings out of it, and look at things fairly and objectively. If people don't like that, tough luck.

NB. Any comments featuring personal abuse of Hicks will be deleted. Criticise by all means, but do so in the right way.


Jaimie Kanwar





REMINDER: COMMENT POLICY

This is a site for reasoned, adult discussion. ALL views are welcome, and if someone's football-related opinion doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what constitutes an LFC 'fan', then tough luck. Posts containing personal insults, belittlement, sniping, deliberate antagonism, etc will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. Attack the argument, not the person. Ultimately, it's simple: be as vehement and passionate as you like, but please remain civil at all times.Thank you.

108 Comments :

Nick said...

"<span>I simply prefer to keep emotion and personal feelings out of it"</span>

and that Jaimie, shows you aren't a fan.

Canuck said...

H & G definitely didn't help themselves and the burden of their debt hurt us badly in the transfer market.  But they became lightning rods for all the frustrations felt by  supporters, some of which had nothing to do with them.  We have had a hugely underperforming squad for some time now and at some point the players have to shoulder the blame.  We have experienced internationals at almost every position and there is simply no excuse for the disjointed and frankly awful football that has been on offer over the past two years.  With H & G out of the picture (and I welcome this as much as any supporter) - the spotlight is on the players.  There's nowhere to hide now.

Gary said...

What exactly has he said that is true though? They did not spend what he said they spent on players thats plain for all to see. He had enough time to pay RBS back so why did he wait until the last minute to try pay it back?? Ill tell you why because he was not getting a profit out of the sale.  And where was he getting the money from?? Why could he not tell rbs where the money was coming from??? They have not invested nearly enough money, he says thet spent 30 million, 30 bloody million on the plans for the new stadium???? A joke he has been.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Why, because you say so?!  Laughable conclusion. You are not the arbiter of who is and is not a fan. Slagging Hicks off and rdiculing him...is that what being a real fan is all about?  if so, then I'm not interested.

Nick said...

I tell you what Jaimie, I'll leave you to being self congratulatory about things and 'analysing', I'll stick to being a football fan.

You get your calculator out and I'll have a pint or two watching the game. Which one of us do you think will have more fun?

Being a fan isn't about clinical analysis, it's about gut feeling. Clinical analysis is for Championship Manager, the rest of us prefer the real thing.

Phil Eel said...

I am a born and bred Scouser, went to my first match at the age of three and have supported the club for the 33 years of my life isnce.

My view on the issue, from personal knowledge (as a result of my job) are thus;

1. What Hicks says about the '60 days spade in the ground', is right. The elation of the takerover and the fact we had planning permission made Gillett say that, but I was so relieved when they decided to do a re-design. The old design was a poor mans Reebok Stadium. 20 years out of date even at design stage. They did go onto do site investigations on the proposed site, to ascertain if there was any contamination or ground conditions that required addressing within 60 days, so they did actually live up to their promise. Also, what Hicks says anbout the credit crunch is true as well. It hit at precisely the wrong time. Furthermore, there is no doubt that under their stewardship we have moved from the third division to the premiership commercially. If we had punched our weight commercially under Moores / Parry, we would be significantly etter off now.
act they have made us a very healthy club commercially.
You can blame them for many thins, but not the stadium issue, nor the f

Just another fan... said...

Looking forward to the evidential breakdown, J. Far as I could tell, the Premier League rejected refinancing from Mills because it didn't/ couldn't (given the time frame made available by Team H & G) pass its Premier League 'fit and proper persons' test, and therefore - in spite of Mr Hicks' claims - his plan to repay the loans was/ will always be, a total red herring. I mean, why wait until T-Minus 19 hours before producing this apparent trump card? Reason: Mr Hicks was drowning in a milkshake; clutching at straws. An alternative view might be that the whole manouevre was a study in disingenousness, designed to mitigate the PR disaster of Team H & G's handling of the final days of its Anfield tenure, and that their greatest fear was not simply being denied a vast profit from their Liverpool FC 'transaction', it was being made to look like chumps in front of their high finance buddies back in the Land of the Free.

Just another fan... said...

Looking forward to the evidential breakdown, J. Far as I could tell, the Premier League rejected refinancing from Mills because it didn't/ couldn't (given the time frame made available by Team H & G) pass its 'fit and proper persons' test, and therefore - in spite of Mr Hicks' claims - his plan to repay the loans was/ will always be, a total red herring. I mean, why wait until T-Minus 19 hours before producing this apparent trump card? Reason: Mr Hicks was drowning in a milkshake; clutching at straws. The whole manouevre was a study in disingenousness, designed to mitigate the PR disaster of Team H & G's handling of the final days of its Anfield tenure. Perhaps their greatest fear was not simply being denied a vast profit from their Liverpool FC 'transaction', it was being made to look like chumps in front of their high finance buddies back in the Land of the Free. Just a thought...<span>

Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/tom-hicks-interview-with-sky-sports.html#ixzz12YipVvqa</span>

anteater said...

I second that.

anteater said...

And I second that, too.

Mick said...

$300 million spent on players $150 net during their time at the club. Your thoughts Jamie

Art said...

Being a fan is about caring for the team through thick and thin. Just because Jaimie doesn't support blindly doesn't make him less of a fan.

In fact I think the amount of work he puts into objectively learning about liverpool and the situation we're in shows he cares and is a fan.

We can hate Hicks and Gillet all we want afterwards but while doing the research, I don't see how removing emotion and reducing personal bias is a bad thing. Its pretty paramount to research/reporting successfully.

anteater said...

While Hicks has one point or the other, my opinion is that he is talking out of his anus here. He wanted to make a huge profit as he has stated in an interview in the US of A. He didn't get it. He's had enough time to cough up the money to pay back the loans. I assume he came up with another refinancing at the eleventh hour. Good on Broughton et al they didn't sanction that. Hicks refused to sell to DIC when Gillett made them reappear.

All his sporting ventures in the US of A went wrong. He is despised by the supporters of those clubs. The Dallas Cowboys have one of their better seasons in recent history right now, since Hicks left!

He should show at least some dignity and take some blame himself. He's blaming everbody and their dog here. Good Lord Ollis, grow up. Sports teams don't work like soft drinks. You gambled, you lost. If you gamble you should know that you may well lose.

BigJohn said...

Your 100% right nick. It seems to me Jamie that all your interested in jamie is proving people wrong.

Beind a fan is all about emotion. Do you not love your club? And if im not mistaken love is an emotion.

Puddles said...

for someone that is so literal with there information and seeks accuracy in their opinions... that above is not the full transcript of the interview.  And incidentially I would pitch myself as a football fan some where in the middle of what Jamie champions on this site and Nick's comments above.  Factual information is important but sometimes you have to let your gut reaction take over. 

anteater said...

Back in the Land of the free they think he is finished. Even before he failed to earn anything from the sale of our club: http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2010/July/Can_Tom_Hicks_Make_Millions_Selling_His_Sports_Empire.aspx

KenDag said...

Nick you have hit the nail on the head.

How can you say you love the club then say you have no emotional connection?

And who really cares about "accurate figures".  The point is they were BAD for our club! 

anteater said...

I think Hicks adds the signing on fees, contract extensions and all that. Fair enough, has to be paid.

Just another fan... said...

C'mon Nick, was this article really so self-congratulatory? All he wanted to do was record this conversation in hard format...

Just another fan... said...

All the more reason for the justifications, no?

NetSpend said...

Lucas Leiva Gremio £5,000,000 11.05.2007
Krisztián Németh MTK Hungaria Undisclosed 25.05.2007
Mikel Domínguez Athletic Bilbao £270,000 28.06.2007
Sebastian Leto Club Atlético Lanús £1,800,000 01.07.2007
Fernando Torres Atletico Madrid £20,200,000 04.07.2007
Andriy Voronin Leverkusen Free* 06.07.2007
Yossi Benayoun West Ham £5,000,000 12.07.2007
Ryan Babel Ajax £11,500,000 13.07.2007
Charles Itandje Lens Undisclosed 09.08.2007
Emiliano Insúa Boca Juniors £1,300,000* 26.08.2007
Lauri Dalla Valle JIPPO £600,000* 08.11.2007
Martin Skrtel Zenit St Petersburg £6,500,000 11.01.2008
Javier Mascherano Media Sports Investment £18,600,000* 29.02.2008
Philipp Degen Dortmund Free* 03.07.2008
Andrea Dossena Udinese £7,000,000 04.07.2008
Diego Cavalieri Palmeiras £3,500,000 11.07.2008
David Ngog Paris St Germain £1,500,000 24.07.2008
Robbie Keane Tottenham £19,000,000 28.07.2008
Albert Riera Espanyol £8,000,000 31.08.2008
Glen Johnson Portsmouth £17,500,000 26.06.2009
Alberto Aquilani AS Roma £17,100,000* 07.08.2009
Sotirios Kyrgiakos AEK Athens £2,000,000 21.08.2009
Daniel Ayala Sevilla £160,000 17.09.2009
Maxi Rodriguez Atletico Madrid Free 12.01.2010
Jonjo Shelvey Charlton £1,700,000* 10.05.2010
Milan Jovanovi? Standard Liege Free* 08.07.2010
Joe Cole Free Transfer Free 21.07.2010
Danny Wilson Rangers £2,000,000* 21.07.2010
Fábio Aurélio Free Transfer Free 31.07.2010
Christian Poulsen Juventus £4,550,000* 11.08.2010
Brad Jones Middlesbrough £2,300,000 18.08.2010
Raul Meireles Porto £11,500,000 29.08.2010
Paul Konchesky Fulham £3,500,000* 31.08.2010

Total Spent on Players – £172,080,000

Players Sold

Florent S.-Pongolle Recreativo de Huelva £2,700,000 04.05.2007
Daniele Padelli Sampdoria Returns from loan 08.06.2007
Danny O’ Donnell Crewe £100,000 13.06.2007
Boudewijn Zenden Marseille Free* 01.07.2007
Jerzy Dudek Real Madrid Free* 01.07.2007
Robbie Fowler Cardiff Free* 01.07.2007
Luis Garcia Atletico Madrid £4,000,000 03.07.2007
Djibril Cissé Marseille £6,000,000 09.07.2007
Craig Bellamy West Ham £7,500,000 10.07.2007
Mark Gonzalez Real Betis £3,500,000 17.07.2007
Gabriel Paletta Boca Juniors £1,200,000* 26.08.2007
Chris Kirkland Wigan Ath. £3,500,000* 27.10.2007
James Smith Stockport Cou. Free 28.12.2007
Mohamed Sissoko Juventus £8,200,000 28.01.2008
Lee Peltier Yeovil Free* 31.01.2008
John Arne Riise AS Roma £4,000,000 01.07.2008
Harry Kewell Free Transfer Free 01.07.2008
Anthony Le Tallec Le Mans Undisclosed 02.07.2008
Peter Crouch Portsmouth £11,000,000* 11.07.2008
Danny Guthrie Newcastle £2,250,000 14.07.2008
Scott Carson WBA £3,250,000* 18.07.2008
Steve Finnan Espanyol Undisclosed* 31.08.2008
Robbie Keane Tottenham £16,000,000* 02.02.2009
Jack Hobbs Leicester Undisclosed 24.04.2009
Paul Anderson Nottm For £250,000 30.06.2009
Astrit Ajdarevic Leicester Free 30.06.2009
Sebastian Leto Panathinaikos £3,000,000 01.07.2009
Jermaine Pennant Real Zaragoza Free* 01.07.2009
Miki Roque Unknown Free 01.07.2009
Álvaro Arbeloa Real Madrid £3,500,000 30.07.2009
Xabi Alonso Real Madrid £30,000,000 05.08.2009
Andrea Dossena Napoli £4,700,000 08.01.2010
Andriy Voronin Dinamo Moscow £1,800,000 10.01.2010
Nikolay Mihaylov FC Twente £1,500,000 04.02.2010
Mikel Domínguez Athletic Bilbao £2,600,000 19.05.2010
Fábio Aurélio Unknown Free* 01.07.2010
David Martin MK Dons Free* 01.07.2010
Yossi Benayoun Chelsea £6,000,000 02.07.2010
Albert Riera Olympiacos £3,300,000* 23.07.2010
Diego Cavalieri Cesena £3,000,000 23.08.2010
Krisztián Németh Olympiacos £1,000,000 25.08.2010
Javier Mascherano Barcelona £17,250,000 30.08.2010
Lauri Dalla Valle Fulham £750,000* 31.08.2010
Alex Kacaniklic Fulham £750,000* [...]

anteater said...

As far as I can remember it correctly, Gillett even said "planning to have a spade in the ground in 60 days". He didn't say "will".

Anyway, I don't like the design they proposed.

NetSpend said...

bearing in mind they cam in at the beginning of 2007



http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/liverpool-fc/transferbilanz/verein_31.html

Rob A said...

Can someone take me through the £150m net numbers please?

The fact sheet....I don't care. If you have right on your side but fail to get that message across over 4 years then either a) your story isn't true b) you need a new PR director. These guys aren't little boys, they are supposed to be serious global business men. And yet they apparently get outfoxed by a Spanish guy that the media doenst like who has done nothing in his life but football. Well done geniuses.

Just another fan... said...

BTW way anteater, your linked article was very interesting...

Mick said...

$150 million on contract extensions. Jamie has all the financial figures at his finger tips and I am sure if they are true he will be able to prove it

anteater said...

While I, too, am convinced that H+G didn't spend 150m (Dollars or Pounds) net, the figures you mention are no absolutely correct. Jaimie has shown us some excerpts from the clubs official publication which led to the assumption that we've got 30m Euros for Alonso which was about 24m Pounds at the time. I am convinced that you'll find proof for that somewhere on this site, just in case you think I make that up.

Problem with these figures is that the media spread all sorts of wrong information which people tend to believe in the end.

anteater said...

Thanks. Nice pic of Hicks too, eh.

Bill said...

They may have give Rafa some money to spend but not until the best buys had already gone they also tried to replace him with some nomark German.  Get real guys H&G + M&P are the villains of the piece.

Matthew said...

The spade in the ground in sixty days didn't help but the main problem was the acquisition debt which they promised not to put on the club but did. We paid more interest on that debt per week than what we would have paid five El Niños. Without that debt we could have bought two world class players a year.

Like in this interview, most things Gillett and Hicks did come out with during their tenure was absolute poppycock. I'm really glad they're gone and I'm sure NESV couldn't be worse owners even if they tried. Hicks in particular is hated everywhere he's ever been but NESV come highly recommended by the fans of their clubs.

Matthew said...

Spot on Rob!

Meireles said...

Under Rafa we seem to have made a profit on many players...unlike when Houllier left and we ended up with players like Diao, Cheyrou, Le Tallec, Diouf....couldnt give them away!

anyway...i thought we are set to recieve £24m for Mascherano? That would make our net spend for last four years -approx £20m!! Thats less than what we pay in interest per year!!!

£150m NET? What RUBBISH!

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Net definition in Business: Remaining after all deductions have been made, as for expenses

Spend definition:  To pay out (money).

What is most importan here is SPEND. Now I can't  tell anyone hom much H&G gave Rafa to spend but at the end of the day Rafa SPENT the money.

Net can be refered to as "PROFIT" or "LOSS" for instance:

1. You SPEND 20mil on a player and sell him for 25mil and your Net (in this instance you will be making a PROFIT) on that specific player will be 5mil.
The player cost the club 20mil which was the purchase price (MONEY PAID OUT) and when he was sold the club made a PROFIT of 5mil. NOTE THAT THE PLAYER COST THE CLUB 20MIL NOT 5MIL.

or

2. You buy a player for 20mil and sell him for 15mil so that means your net (in this instance you make a loss) is minus 5mil.
The player cost the club 20mil which was the purchase price and when he was sold the club made a loss of 5mil. NOTE THAT THE PLAYER COST THE CLUB 20MIL NOT MINUS 5MIL.

Spend amount minus SOLD amount = Net (PROFIT/LOSS).

Net is just to show whether a PROFIT or LOSS has been made.

Just for those of you who do not understand :-D

SPEND is the very important factor...

Meireles said...

<span>"You talked about the debt; has that been one of the millstones around the neck of the club--</span>"

"Oh sure, well, it hasn't hurt the club at all - it's been a mill stone around the fans reaction to it. There's been so many inaccurate numbers around what our interest bill is. We've had plenty of operating income to cover our interest payments with a lot of room to spare."
That sums it up...Hicks doesnt even acknowledge that we spent more (net) on interest payments in the last 4 years than we did players. Correct me if im wrong Jaimie...

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Not until the best buys had gone?

Can you elaborate?

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

NET-SPEND is the biggest load of BULLSHIT ever!!!

The Rafa Benitez Brigade said...

And why is that, oh balanced and analytical one? Please, share your infinite wisdom. I could do with a laugh.

The Rafa Benitez Brigade said...

Arrrghhh!

So, if I buy a house for £150000, then sell it for £200000...

I buy another for £300000...presumably, you would feel the most important figure for my finances would be that I have spent a total of £450000 on houses????

The Rafa Benitez Brigade said...

Couldn't agree more. If you feel no emotion whatsoever when watching / thinking about your club, you aren't a fan at all. You're an observer. Or a sociopath. Furthermore, the self-congratulatory miasma surrounding this site is sickening.

carl said...

First of all I am anti hicks and gillett, I believed they lied from the out set over of alot of issues.

However, I would like to know the truth of what has happened over these last few years, and will read your findings with an objective mind.

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

So you made 50000 on your first house...

Now you are sitting with a house which you paid 300000 for...

And your point is?

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Who is laughing now...

ikcl said...

I used to think this too, and by your correct interpretation of the term (as you've outlined above) it is true. But what people mean when they say this, I believe, is in essence the buying power of the club.  For example your outgoing is £20m, and incoming is £15m.  In this case (in the most simplistic terms) you've incresased the value of your squad by £20m, BUT decreased its value by £15m, so the total value of the squad has increased by £5m. It is in this way that I accept what is termed the, so called, 'net spend' arguement!
In any case, from my knowledge of the stats, we spent (in any equation) quite an amount of cash, but it did get us our most convincing title challenge in years!  For me, then was when investment was essential, but not forthcoming; as I hark back to the arguement I was outlining to begin with.  Other issues played a part that season ofcourse, poor management, poor performances, poor luck, but alas, here we are now!!

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

"you've incresased the value of your squad by £20m, BUT decreased its value by £15m, so the total value of the squad has increased by £5m. It is in this way that I accept what is termed the, so called, 'net spend' arguement!"How can you increase the value of your squad twice?  

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

"you've incresased the value of your squad by £20m, BUT decreased its value by £15m, so the total value of the squad has increased by £5m. It is in this way that I accept what is termed the, so called, 'net spend' arguement!"How can you increase the value of your squad twice?  

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

"you've incresased the value of your squad by £20m, BUT decreased its value by £15m, so the total value of the squad has increased by £5m. It is in this way that I accept what is termed the, so called, 'net spend' arguement!"How can you increase the value of your squad twice?

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

H&G are gone carl so why so serious? I am over the moon that NESV has taken over!!!

The only way this club was going to move forward was for H&G + Rafa to be ousted.

Now everything will become clear and all the skeletons will be coming out of the closet which will lead to the reasons why H&G + Rafa needed to be sent packing  :-D

liver 4 ever said...

look guys i will tell u something.. i'm from kuwait, neither for USA nor UK, but the plain truth is hicks was a very bad owner for liverpool, he could't understand football, always have problems with Gillet, promises broken, all what he wanted.. some billionaire from the middle east just like the owners of man city, to get profit, take off al his excuses and answers on one side, and just read between the lines, i will not change my idea about him for ever. george gillet is far more better than him in some way.

Yewo said...

What is your point? That we should disregard any money that came back into the club through transfers and only look at what was spent? That wouldn't tell the full story would it?

H&G not Tom & George said...

don't get carried away and jump to conclusion,only time will tell

Saj said...

Looking forward to a full and thorough analysis of the veracity of Hicks' claims, hopefully in the same manner Rafa and others have been dissected on many occasions on this site.

Bob said...

Hey Kanwar, here's a question for you.

From whose pocket did the infamous 300 million pounds come from?

MikeArms said...

H&G are businessmen, in 2007 they noticed a naive owner and an inept director trying to sell an iconic football club for a relatively cheap price. They had a plan to buy the club, increase it's commercial sponsorship, build a new stadium to increase match day revenue and to sell it on in a few years for a vast profit.
The plan was perfect and they started very well, they took steps to build the new stadium, they brought our marketing and sponsorship into the 21st century, they allowed a limited amount of money to be spent on players and they allowed Rafa to wheel & deal without going over the strict budget.
So far, so good, but due to the economic down turn and the fact they borrowed too much money the perfect plan started to go badly wrong. They realised this and subsequently tightened the purse strings but then greed and pride got in the way of them making the right decisions on how much to sell for and how much to further invest etc meanwhile the creditors started making noises. Then it all came tumbling down as the main creditor RBS said enough is enough we want our money, the rest of course we know.
So they did have a perfect plan and they did take full advantage of Moores & Parry and if they had bought the club 2 years prior then they may well have made a vast profit. They haven't made any profit and now they are calling it a swindle, I'm sorry fellas but that's business, some you win, some you lose.

fraggs said...

Interesting point for JK in that Hicks claims to have spent £150 million on players when JK's own calculations say it's not even £40 million. I suspect Hicks is talking about salaries too but even still he looks to be way off the mark. I have some respect for JK and how he insists on getting the facts right. No need to make a personal comment here, simply re-visit an earlier article to point out that Hicks is not delivering accurate figures. 

fraggs said...

Indeed, this notion that they had the cash to pay off the debt ... when? And why didn't they just do it? Why is it that only now and at the 11th hour do we hear anything about G+H planning to pay off the debt? RBS have had an issue with this load for some time, the payments and burden (real or imagined) on the club has been there for a solid 12 months and more. G+H simply never seemed in a hurry to fix it. 
I guess it comes back to what Hicks is saying about the financial state of the club. He's claiming it's fine. He also seems to think it's worth the £600 odd million that he asked for it. In those terms I can see his point. He just waits for the right buyer and everyone comes out of the situation happy. RBS get their money back, the two owners don't lose any money and the club is supposedly bought at the right price.
It looks like nothing more than a contention over that issue. RBS don't see new buyers, they don't see the club being sold for £600 million. They have significant worries that the club won't be sold at all and the interest and penalties just keep mounting up. Now people should remember that often in these situations the banks are seen as the bad guys, the ruthless penny pinchers who would turf a pensioner out of her home to default on a loan. Instead in this situation we all seem to agree with RBS, not really seeing that they are still a bank doing nothing more than protecting their bottom line at all costs. 
I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it. Hick's notion that buyers were scared off is an interesting point but what difference does it make? Is he blaming the difficult circumstances for not being able to get the right price? Sorry Tom but that's reality. Saying that in better circumstances you would have found the right buyer is pointless, the situation was what it was. If Liverpool was surrounded with acrimony and tension that scared buyers off then that's what was happening. If that means the asking price needed to be lowered then that's the end of the story. Fantasising about some ideal situation is not going to win anyone over, he should have adjusted to those facts. Doing business does not include sitting around complaining about why something is hard, you adjust and do what you need to do to make the transaction. Still, he might well be right in that the final sale price was absurdly low. I think we could have gotten more, this looks like nothing more than the bare minimum to set things right. That's a tough angle for RBS to take and it's hard to see that they were interested in anything more than getting their money back. So was anyone really looking after LFC and doing what is best for the club?

fraggs said...

No one who knows me should be surprised that I'm still with Rafa on this one. What I saw Rafa deal with was not a complete lack of funds, it was simply a failure to get the players he wanted. Compile a list of the players we chased and didn't get, I think you'll find it pretty remarkable. What Rafa was forced to do was go with plan B. I think Rafa just doesn't work well with plan B, either in terms of tactics or buying players. That's a large part his problem as it is with the teams that don't quite give him what he asks for, it's something I hope he learns to work better with over the years. Still, I think Rafa did not always get the players he wanted and that's a big part of why we only ever got to 2nd place in the league. We can all agree, the players he bought were too often not good enough, but when those players were not the ones he really wanted there is plenty of room for understanding. 

JM said...

if you guys need to find the "net spending", you can go back to find from his old articles. (lfc vs manu, lfc vs manc, lfc vs chelsea.) 

<span>Ps: I'm Thai and my English is not good, I spent lots of time to read his articles, but one thing I can read faster is the number. E</span><span>xcellent job Jamie, a good analyst, a truth digger, keep working.  </span>

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

If you do not understand my post with regards to NET and SPEND, then go back to school were you can be thaught.

You have NET-SPEND programmed into your brain though so not even the school will be able to help you. :-D

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Compile a list of players which the MEDIA made up or the list that RAFA wrote out and made |"vailable" for everyone to see?

I guess it is the one the MEDIA made up, oh how intellegent some are to believe the media...

:-D  

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Compile a list of players which the MEDIA made up or the list that RAFA wrote out and made "available" for everyone to see?  
 
I guess it is the list the MEDIA made up, oh how intellegent some are to believe what the media say...  

:-D

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Dont forget to look at his TOTAL SPEND figures i.e the column where it shows THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PLAYER i.e the AMOUNT OF MONEY PAYED OUT...

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

If you do not understand my post with regards to NET and SPEND, then go back to school were you can be taught.  
 
You have NET-SPEND programmed into your brain though so not even the school will be able to help you. :-D

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Are you afraid that I might be right?

anteater said...

Well, in football every player exists one time and there are quite a few clubs who may want to buy this player. Rafa won't be the only one who didn't get all the players he wanted. There actually only two teams on this planet who seem to get every player they want and these are Real Madrid and Barcelona. Out of these two one will come second, even if they got all the players they wanted.

perryuk said...

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments,

Hicks in a nutshell

Nick Ferr said...

Jamie, I see that the new owners have agreed to meet with supporter groups - they are infact due to meet with representatives of SOS oer the next couple of days.
Since SOS has 9000 paid up members now, 5000 of which took to the streets before the Blackpool match, how important do you thi it is that the new owners meet with supporter groups..?  i see that you have been very outspoken about such groups andalso see that you are not from Liverpool, has this swayed your opinion..? As well as asking for your opinion on this, can I also ask if you are a match going supporter..?

Danny said...

Thanks for publishing this transcript Jaimie, it's always good to read these things. Ultimately I think that we can't tell if he's telling the truth in some sections because all of his discussions with the media will be building up to the proposed litigation. He'll never admit to dropping a bollock until after that action is over.

Nick Ferr said...

Your English may be very good, but believe me, jamies articles are not very good and certainly not very well researched - he has been campaigning for Martin O'Neil to be our manager for a very ong time.  If your maths is good though mate, here are some stats from Rafa's time in charge (Not from Hicks, Furgeson, or Jamie Kenwar).

<span>Transfers in:      £228,976,000 million
Transfers out :  £152,500,000 million

Net cost :          £76,476,000 million

That's an average net cost per season of £12.75 million over 6 seasons.</span>
<span>
</span><span>£56 million per season  in  prize money, while £12.75 million has been spent.</span>

There is a saying in the UK - If a football club stands still, then it goes backwards - unfortunately when Benitez wasn't being backed with money, our football club went backwards

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Nick

You have just taken the words out of my mouth

You have posted the figures from a source but here is the sad storie

<span>"Transfers in: </span>£228,976,000 million"  Rafa was given this amount according to YOUr post, which means that the TOTAL PAYED OUT AMOUNT FOR PLAYERS i.e. THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE for the players that RAFA BOUGHT.  

Answer the following question. HOW MUCH DID NESV PAY FOR LFC?  

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Nick  
 
You have just taken the words out of my mouth  
 
You have posted the figures from a source but here is the sad story...
 
<span>"Transfers in: </span>£228,976,000 million"  Rafa was given this amount according to YOUr post, which means that the TOTAL PAYED OUT AMOUNT FOR PLAYERS i.e. THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE for the players that RAFA BOUGHT.    
 
Answer the following question. HOW MUCH DID NESV PAY FOR LFC?  

dhg said...

Exactly!

Even allowing for some figs being out by 5%, it still pours cold effluent on Hicks' claims.

AND let's not forget the millions LFC made in the CL under RB. G&H have bled the club dry!!!

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

So if the MEDIA reported that Messi was coming LFC you would believe them?

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

So Nick,

I see you conveniently deleted your post, which shows that RAFA had basicly spent an amount i.e. THE FULL PURCHASE PRICE ON PLAYERS i.e. THE AMOUNT COMBINED OF WHAT EACH AND EVERY PLAYER COST THE CLUB falls short of +- 70mil of the 300mil which NESV payed for LFC.

Now please come back and be a man and repost the comment on RAFA'S spend figures which you deleted in order for the PEOPLE to see that RAFA was given more than enough money in his time at Anfield to build a team that was capable of winning more than what he did...

dhg said...

Why all this bullshit?! You're being prosaic.

Look: I manage a club. In three years as manager I spend 100m on new players. In the same time I sell some players to the value of 65m. Thus my net spend is 35m during period. SIMPLES!

Of course, you can complicate things by only including players brought in by me (when manager) or sold by me (as mangaer) ie in RB's case, he sold Cisse, but didn't buy him so the income from Cisse's sale would be excluded.

Then again, I think that second way completetly distorts the picture eg Meireles bought in as a result of Mascherano leaving, though as RH did not buy Masch it would simply be minus on RH's balance. Is that right? No!

But even adopting that second flawed format RB's net spend figs are low - WAY TOO LOW when what LFC were trying to do during his tenure is catch up with Chelsea and MU! Even now: compare the wage bills!

And to repeat: during RB's time at Anfield LFC made over 100m from the CL.

By the by, RB having gone, I wanted RH as manager given those available at the time ... Though had Martin O'Neill been available then it would have been a tough call!

dhg said...

RH brigade is still pissing up a dead tree. Going with total spend still leaves RB dwarfed by the spend during the last decade at Chelsea, MU, City, Spurs. Arsenal's freakishly low spending is the exception rather than the rule - but then in 2004 RB inherited a LFC squad that finished 30 pts - THIRTY! - behind Arsenal in the league.

And regardless of figs. the evidence is obvious - simply use your eyes and count the no. of 20m midfield players (5) at Glazerfield, with, of course, a 30m defender behind them and two 30m forwards ahead. 

Then if unconvinced go look at Chelsea's starting XI in Jan 200 and look at it now. Though why bother when any fan knows CFC threw away 80m on players they barely used while they had them: Mutu, Crespo, SWP and the shadow that was Schevchenko.

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

Oh, so now you can only call yourself a real fan if you go to matches.

I wonder what percentage the global support outside Liverpool adds up to?

So the supporters group that ridiculed Purslow (One of the people who were instrumental in the NESV sale and is still an employe of LFC) are going to say what to NESV? 

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

There is no place to hide, the truth will be revealed on why H&G + Rafa needed to go.

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

I am not even going to waste my time explaing something simple as NET and SPEND AGAIN...

I will make it easy for you, just go read my original post on NET & SPEND :-D  







Ferr'y said...

I did not say anything about being a "real" fan Mr Knickers twisted.  I was asking Jamie what he thought - as he has been very outspoken about SOS, which now has 9000 members +.  However, our Global support DOES NOT create the famous 12th man, they do not spend thousands of pounds going the match week in week ou, season after season - that is why I feel it's impportant for matchgoers to have a sya in the running of the club - and why I'm delighted the new owners have agreed to meet.

There have been disagreements along the way between several people not just SOS and Purslow - it still remains to be seen if Purslow and Broughton have made the right decision (hopefully they have).

What cannot be denied is that whatever your personal views on Rafa were, the way he was booted out of the club goes against our character and should not have been allowed to happen. 

If you think that supporters groups talking to NESV is a bad thing then that just shows your ignorance and indeed actually shows you to be anything but a real fan..

Ferr'y said...

I didn't delete my post.

Jamie did. He always does whwn it doesn't suit his agenda.

Wake up man

Ferr'y said...

NB:

Rafa was not GIVEN that ammount of money.  How many bloody times do you people need to be told.  He brought more trophies and revenue to this club through success that most other clubs can only dream about. 

NESV paid enough money for the club to pay off the aquasition debt put on by the last owners - in answer to your rather daft question.

ikcl said...

I havn't said this, I don't think!  What i have tried to demonstrate, perhaps not clearly enough, is if for example you buy a player for £20m but then sell a player for £15m, the value of your squad has increased by £5m, similarly if you buy a player for £35m but have no player sales, your squads value has increased by £35m.  Essentially, when players join your  playing staff, quite often your team improves, and quite often when they leave, your team will disimprove. 
The key point is that you hope to have an overall improvement, which tends to mean you will have to spend more than you take in.  Funnily enough, this arguement isn't really relevant to Liverpool since 09 anyway, our net(!) spend was still comparably high up to then, and I did see desired improvements in our team up that time.

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

OK :-D  NICK...

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

So I wonder what amount it adds up to which the GLOBAL SUPPORTS spends on memorabilia and going to Anfield to watch matches?

"However, our Global support DOES NOT create the famous 12th man, they do not spend thousands of pounds going the match week in week ou, season after season - that is why I feel it's impportant for matchgoers to have a sya in the running of the club - and why I'm delighted the new owners have agreed to meet."  So I wonder what NESV are going to do about the fact that they would want SOX fans to get involved with showing their supoport the our club?

kk man said...

it was obvious a mistake to sack RAfa.... specially when he had a fulll four years left on his contract!!

So his sacking and his back room would cost around 10-15 million pound... cash

That is stupid! Purslow is stupid dan slow when it comes to football matter.

if you really wanna sack Rafa.... wait and later ask the new owner to decide!

the key is when you have money you can afford to sell high... but when you r poor you'll sell it cheap. That is what happen to MAscherano!

If Rafa was here we will be at the top 5 team...now we are at the bottom. And Arfa is also a slow starter... with his advance method we get stronger as the season go on!

Hodgson is an outdate British manager...

Now we play long balll and long cross.... that is without Crouch or Heskey!

alan said...

woys mate, ur spouting some sh!t, net spend is what is important, if someone puts a quid in a fruit machine and they win a fiver an then they put the fiver back in, they win a tenner and put that back in and lose it, have they spent 16 quid or a quid?

rusty1404 said...

I find it bizarre that RBS would refuse Hicks settlement of debt.  Surely they had a contract in place.  I suppose written undertakings to sell the club would be another contract preventing Hicks retaining the club but it's strange situation when a creditor attempts to settle the debt owed at the required time according to the contract and the lender refuses to accept settlement.

Torres9 said...

Really couldn't give a fudge about who spent what and how much. The fact is that Hodgson has us at the bottom of the table. No matter how wrong some people think Rafa got us, we would not be in the same position if he was here now. We are playing some atrocious football, with no style of play, no urgency. What happened to closing down players, a pressuring them high up the pitch. Torres is in bad form, but it doesn't help when he is playing with his back to goal, trying to hold the ball up, waiting an age for players to come join him in attack. Nando's game is about making smart runs into space and running the channels. This helped by the likes of Stevie G slipping him balls to his feet or in front of him to run onto or lay off to a winger. The headed goal at Old traf last season was on example of this. We have no build up play, it's just incepid. The fact that when fit he'd rather play Skrtle over Agger says it all. Roy needs to sort this out and fast. No matter waht you say, Rafa was far more tactically astute then Roy.  

Torres9 said...

No one is laughing we are bottom 3. Can't all blame that on Rafa. Hodgson has had enough time to produce at least one good performance in the league...I'm still waiting.

Dan the man said...

Why did you bother doing this? Get a girlfriend or a hobby

Torres9 said...

Rafa’s 11 or not, Roy has still not produced a good performance in 8 league games. And a lot of that 11 are full internationals, and OK we finished 7th last season, but wouldn’t you kill for that right now? Striker situation…Not ideal but Babel, Kuyt and Pacheco can all give Nanado some help. Plus we bought Poulsen for 4mil and did not spend the 10 mil we had available for a striker. Hodgson knew we were light upfront. Why not put the Poulsen money in the kitty and make it 14 mil for a striker.I’m not saying Roy has to go now, but all those still blaming Rafa, Hodgson had time to fix this and Okish money to do it, but still bought in Konchesky, Poulsen, not spend all the money available and still loaned out Aqua. Either use him or sell him. We need the player or the money. He was so caught up in the fact that he had signed the genius Cole, he thought “I don’t need Aqua”. Well, this isn’t Fulham, we need a strong squad with options. Fawning over Cole doesn’t help…BTW Aqua scored a screamer for Juve! Oh and wasn’t one of Hodgson’s main qualities was getting the best out of what he is given?

Torres9 said...

P.S. Why does Nick have to keep changing his account details? Doesn't seem to be saying anything offensive...

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

The most contradictive part of my name is that he wasnt my first choice as manager but chose it to actually get behind him as he is managing our team and knew there were those who were going to crucify him.

Roy has the problem now which has been building up and has finally come crumbling down. That is the fact that their is no pace or natural abilty in our team.
He is now trying to apply his way of managemt to the team but it is not working. TBH, when I saw a smile on his face when shaking Moyes's hand after the final whistle I actually saw a man that cannot handle the pressure of climbing a mountian which is LFC.

I will not jump on the bandwagon as yet though, we have the Jan window coming and Henry has come out and given his support to Roy. By the looks of things he will be here till the end of the season so he is going to need support from those who wont jump onto the bandwagon.

I am all for a managerial change hence him not being my no 1 but not before the end of the season. He got us in the predicament we are in now along with the players so as a unit by right they should get us out of the shit and aim as high as possible.

I am of the impression that Roy was only brought in as a stop gap, can you name another manager that would have been a better option at the time to replace Rafa who would have walked into the LFC job knowing that there wont be money to spend because of the club being sold and they would be surrounded by a near possible disaster when it came to the ownership issues? 

anteater said...

Huh? No. Why do you think that? What has that to do with my post? What I wanted to make clear is that every manager, or almost every manager, will miss out on some transfer prospects, simply because there are other clubs out there who may wish to buy one of your transfer prospects too. What has that to do with anything the media say?

Guest said...

Because he doesn't follow the agenda and therefore is censored. Nazi state this.

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

To make it easy for you too, please go read my post on NET & SPEND :-D

The Roy Hodgson Brigade said...

OK it is 1-0 to you!!! Sorry mate, I also make mistakes you know  :-D

anteater said...

This probably is his hobby.

Growler said...

One of the things I would like to see, is that 300mil and 150mil net on players disproven, as its clear that we have had no net spend since the summer we signed Keane.

Also, if Hicks was serious about those buyers, he would have brought them to the table in April or May.the club has publically been on sale for 6 months. He's bitter because he missed the big paycheck that was coming from DIC.

Karim said...

Why are we wasting time reading about old owners for? the debt has been cleared so lets get on with it.

Richardotoole said...

25.1 million spent on players net during H+G reign. FACT..... Tom Hicks was and continues to be an epic LIAR!!!!! If there were othe owners lined up why did he not tell us who they were??? Why not tell us now??? He has nothing to lose now!!! There were no other owners, he just did not want to concede defeat to another American businessman. He was humiliated. LIES LIES LIES TOM

Jaimie Kanwar said...

25.1m - I'd be grateful if you could explain how this is a fact.  presumably, you have a valid source for this figure?  If so, please post it.

Richardotoole said...

Whay was my last comment deleted?? I was not abusive to either Tom Hicks or the 'writer' of the article. There is a word for silencing dissenting voices: censorship.

SOME FACTS

I will say it again for those who missed it the first time thanks to the censorship of the writer. Tom Hicks is a LIAR, this is not abuse it is a FACT. His claims in this interview even contradict themselves, is it 150 million pounds or dollars you spent on players??? Massive difference between the two. He spent 27 million NET during his and Gilette's reign. FACT.

There was no other buyer for the club, if there was why not tell us who they were either then or now?? He can't because they did not and do not exist. He has been humiliated and exposed as a liar and terrible businessman. FACT

Note to the administrator who deleted my opinions last time, I will continue to post this here untill you leave it on or block me. FACT

Richardotoole said...

Here is a detailed breakdown of the playeers bought/sold during H+G's reign. This has been independently calculated and reproduced in several reputable publications such as the Daily Mirror. Each time this calculation has resulted in a figure of between 25 and 27 million pounds. A long way short of the $150 million dollars touted by liar Hicks and even further short of the £150 POUNDS he also confusingly claimed in the SAME interview.... could it be he was making it up on the spot??

One question I have for you is exactly why do you feel so differently about Mr Hicks than everyone else?? I am all for people having an opinion, I just don't understand yours

Richardotoole said...

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisisanfield.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fliverpools-spending-under-hicks-and-gillett%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitterfeed%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter&h=bb6db

Old Timer said...

<p><span>Its pretty late in the game, I know, but I wanted to address three issues the first one is “you are/aren’t a fan” argument. If a fan is someone who wants what is best for the team, than I don’t see why employing one’s intellectual capacities (as opposed to one's emotions) in forming an opinion as to what’s best for the team <span> </span>is inconsistent with the idea of being a fan. <span> </span>An emotional response is not the only appropriate response for a fan. Sometime it’s the most inappropriate response. Normally, when I ask myself what position to take on any matter relating to Liverpool, I ask myself what I would have done had I been in charge. I think that’s what a fan needs to do even if this means that you come into pretty non-popular conclusions (one of which is that I don’t see Liverpool winning the title unless something drastic will change in the economic equation). This does not mean that my heart doesn’t get broken every time we find ourselves out of the title race. It’s a heartbreak I accept lovingly as part of the privilege of being a Liverpool fan. </span>
</p><p><span>Now to business: </span>
</p><p><span>Here are the Hicks’ statements I found most baffling: </span>
</p><p><span>“</span><span><span>I read a very interesting article recently from Sir Alex Ferguson that said Raga had more money than any of the rest of you did, he bought bad players. Rafa never wanted to take accountability for his own results, he would blame the owners.”

</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Rafa’s strained relations with the owners were no secret. They actually admitted they wanted to replace him with Klinsman shortly after they took over. This begs the question, if that’s what they felt about him, why did they give him a new deal on March 2009? A five year deal with a huge break-up fee? What responsible owners would saddle the club under such a contract with a manager they do not have faith in and who, according to their statement “NEVER wanted to take accountability for his own results [and] would blame the owners.”. Oddly enough, after Rafa’s new deal has been signed his net spent was negative. (it was actually negative throughout 2008 and 2009). Regardless of whatever side you take in the gross spending/net spending argument as it goes to judging Rafa, the net spending numbers are clearly the relevant numbers for determining whether Rafa’s spending played any part at the club’s economic downfall. They cannot blame Rafa for his conduct after the new deal with his was signed when in fact after the new deal was signed he was actually making money for them. <span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Lets be clear, if the reason for the contract extension was their fear or angering the fans, then that’s their fault as well. Its their job to make the decision for the good of the club. If they don’t trust the man in charge but hold him in place to appease the fans they have only themselves to blame. </span></span></p>

Old Timer said...

<p><span><span>Even more outrageous was the argument of having the money to pay RBS off and being denied of the opportunity to do that. In Hicks’ own words – </span></span>
</p><p><span>
<span>“I can confirm that yes, we did have the funds available to pay off RBS in its entirety, but between RBS and the Chairman, and the employees that conspired against us, they would not allow us to pay off their debt.”

And further:

“I know exactly why - they had the ability to, but this was an organised conspiracy that went on over many months, and it consisted of the RBS, Martin Broughton, who wanted to have a good PR event in his life.” </span></span>
</p><p><span><span> </span></span>
</p><p><span><span><span> </span>If I were a Texan, this would be the point in time when I would say “that’s horseshit”. <span> </span>Directors have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of a company. Where the company’s debts are such that it is insolvent its may be argued that the directors have a duty the creditors. If Hicks had the money to pay off RBS then the issue of whether or not the Board has any fiduciary duty to the creditors becomes moot and the Board’s will them become accountable solely to the shareholders (i.e., H+G).<span>  </span></span></span>
</p><p><span>If the shareholders have the money to pay the entire debt off, <span> </span>a director who denies the shareholder would be blatantly in breach of such duty. This would expose the members of the Board PERSONALLY to a gigantic lawsuit. Normally, directors protect themselves against being personally liable for acts committed while they were in office in two ways: (i) the enter into agreements which provide that the company will indemnify and hold them harmless against any damages they may have to pay for acts and omission made when they were in office; and (ii) the acquire professional liability insurance. The problem is that if their action were in bad faith or fraudulent such indemnity and insurance will not protect them. According to Hicks that’s exactly the case. The “conspiracy” and “swindle” are not the words that come to mind when you seek to describe the good faith actions of your Board.</span></p>

Old Timer said...

<p><span>So essentially, Hicks asks that we believe that Broughton was willing to risk a mega-bucks personal lawsuit: </span>
</p><p><span><span><span><span>(a)</span><span>    </span></span></span><span>which is pretty much a slam dunk (all H+G will have to show is that they had the money lined up and were denied the opportunity to pay off the debt, how difficult would that be?), <span> </span>and</span></span>
</p><p><span><span><span><span>(b)</span><span>   </span></span></span><span><span> </span>for which he will be personally liable without the protection of any indemnity or insurance. </span></span>
</p><p><span>The reason, according to Hicks, that Broughton, the former BA Chairman and a pretty astute businessman, will be willing to risk a potentially life-ruining lawsuit, is that Broughton “wanted to have a good PR event in his life.” No mega financial gain. Not the Eldorado. Just a good PR event. REALLY? </span>
</p><p><span></span>
</p><p><span>Jaimie: </span>
</p><p><span></span>
</p><p><span>As you indend to anylize Hicks' inteview I will be happy if you will address those issues. Thanks. </span></p>

Post a Comment