2 Oct 2009

REVEALED: How Hicks and Gillett saved Liverpool FC from mediocrity

New Liverpool-Kop writer ALEX MILLER explores how the unpopular Americans have actually been good for the club, and examines how Liverpool's future is looking bright as a result..

There is no other way to put it other than to come straight to the point. Tom Hicks and George Gillett are good for Liverpool.

There, I’ve said it. Now, before you call for the men in white coats, let me start to explain why, by stepping back just 3 or 4 years.

You remember back then? We were in danger of losing touch with Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal at the top of the table. We were becoming a middle of the road club, the sort of club that would settle for pipping Everton and finishing fifth or sixth each season.

We really were going that way. Just listen to the likes of Jamie Carragher and Steven Gerrard , both of whom discussed the issue in their respective books.

Michael Owen had left the club he love; Gerrard almost left for Chelsea (twice). And why? Because we were becoming also-rans.

That seems like a long time ago now.

Since the Americans bought the club in 2007, we have reached a Champions League final and improved our performances in the league immeasurably. Of course, it must be noted Rafa Benitez was already in place and already getting to grips with the Premiership when they arrived.

Back to the present. These days we no longer fear finishing 30 points behind Chelsea and Man Utd, as was the case only a few years ago. Now, we genuinely hope to pip them.

Last season was a brilliant league campaign for us; it was just bloody unfortunate that Man Utd held their nerve to deny us (experience of winning titles and luck at vital times helped that lot).

But Rafa and the lads couldn’t have achieved their recent successes without a decent level of support from the owners. Let me put it another way, since arriving, Hicks and Gillett have not actually harmed our league form have they? In fact, our expectations in the league have been rising steadily over the last few seasons.

Since the Americans arrived, we have also smashed our transfer record several times over. They promised us big signings, and they have undoubtedly delivered on that point. Just look at some of the impressive deals Hicks and Gillett have rubber-stamped:

£20m on Fernando Torres
£20m on Alberto Acquilani
£20m on Robbie Keane
£18m on Glen Johnson
£17m on Javier Mascherano

Even the £6.5m we spent on Martin Skrtel smashed our record fee for a defender at the time.

Now we are no longer at risk of losing our best players to domestic rivals, as was the painful reality only a few years ago.

Torres, Gerrard, Agger, Kuyt, Benayoun and Rafa were wanted by other big clubs home and abroad, but have all recently signed new long-term deals with us. The chances are Mascherano will sign a new deal when the time comes, too.

And before anyone thinks of Xabi Alonso, it was hardly the fault of the Americans that he left for Real Madrid, was it?

In recent months we have also seen some impressive performances off the park too. Hicks and Gillett saw we had been seriously under-performing off the pitch for many years, and promised us we would improve commercially.

We are.

Furthermore, a very public spat with Rick Parry ended with him leaving in the summer. Now, whatever your feelings about Parry, you can’t help notice his successor Christian Purslow already looks far superior in terms of being able to bring cash into the club. He already seems to better understand our commercial value. Good on him, after all, we are Liverpool.

The Standard Chartered shirt deal is very impressive. This is the biggest deal of its kind ever, worth at least £80m over 4 seasons. And how was this achieved? By skilled negotiations by our new managing director Purslow (a Liverpool fan by the way) - brought in by the Americans.

Would the Standard Chartered deal have been done if Parry was still with us? I really don’t need to answer that, do I? More of the same with Carlsberg, I suspect.

This Standard Chartered deal could really extend our supporter base right across the world, especially across Asia. More importantly for us though, it could lead to Rafa having more transfer funds.

Just as impressive as the that deal was another revelation almost completely ignored at the time of the sponsorship announcement, i.e. Purslow's intention to continue working with Carlsberg. There is now talk of a £5m a season deal with Carlsberg from next year, even though they won’t be on our shirts (almost as much as our current shirt deal).

Other deals are certain to revealed soon, while new investors are continually been invited to the table, as was recently confirmed by Hicks and Gillett.

There is even talk of selling the naming rights of our new ground. Carlsberg are also said to be interested in sponsoring our new ground for an estimated £100m+ over a 10 year period - dwarfing Arsenal’s Emirates deal.

Ah yes, and talking of our new ground - does anyone actually believe we won’t have a new ground at some point in the near future? It will be built; there is no doubt about it. The Yanks have already spent millions of pounds on developing the project.

It is vital to them that it does get built. The credit crunch has simply delayed the building. It isn’t Hicks’ and Gillett’s fault that we are all in recession (or do some of you blame them for the credit crunch, too?). Once the better times return, the ground will go up.

So you see there are plenty of positive signs that the Liverpool giant is really beginning to reawaken after years of sleeping on the job. Maybe number 19 is now a more realistic possibility than at any time since King Kenny walked away.

Hicks and Gillett are clearly at Liverpool to make money. However, if while they are looking to do that, Liverpool continues to buy quality players, enjoys more success, builds a great new stadium, sees more cash come in and our fan base grow, do we really care?

Don’t get me wrong. We can’t forget the many stupid things Hicks and Gillett have said and done since buying the club. Broken debt promises; the courting of Jurgen Klinnsman; numerous public spats and so on, but it’s not all been bad has it?

The pair have made serious errors. Maybe now though, after a couple of years at the helm, they might just understand our heritage a little better, who knows?

It could be that 10 years from now, we will all be able to look back and grudgingly admit Hicks and Gillett gave the club the kick up the backside it badly needed. It may have been a bloody painful journey, but ultimately worth it.

Imagine the scene.

Bars in Bootle, Delhi and Shanghai all packed to the rafters as Liverpool fans across the world celebrate another Premiership title coming home at the end of the 2019/20 season.

'We’re flying. Four Premiership titles on the bounce, let’s see if the lads can make it 5 next year, I’d be made up if we bring home number 23. Maybe our priority ought to be the Champions League though, number 7 would be boss. We haven’t won it for 3 seasons now,’ chuckles Stan in Bootle.

Meanwhile in Delhi. ‘The extended Carlsberg Anfield will be open next season too, an extra 5,000 fans in, that’ll make us even stronger at home. Can’t wait to hear 70,000 of us singing ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’ adds Sunil.

The beers flow, thoughts turn back to 2007. ‘Funny to think we might not be winning the league again if the Americans hadn’t bought us out,’ ponders Ken Ho in Shanghai.

It could just happen you know.


133 comments:

  1. What a foolish article, the players were aquired by debt - something any owner can do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How typical - a one line, dismissive post that doesn't advance any reasoning at all.  If it's such a 'foolish' post, then explain why. If you can, of coursem which I suspect you can't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a rediculous article.How much did we spend last summer?

    Since Moores left the tv money has gone up massively,cl money has gone up ,income has gone up.We could have spent a lot more on players if mores had stayed.

    Prehaps you are a yank?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good article Alex. Although at first I thought they weren't good for us, the last few months have changed my mind. We haven't acheived our commercial potential in the last 20 years. We have a huge fan base across the whole world which we've never taken full advantage off before. 
    I've always sat there and wondered why Chelsea, Man Utd and Arsenal had huge shirt sponsers and ours was chickenfeed in comparison. Now we have a great deal too.  

    We're already the fourth most valuable club in the world after Real Madrid, Man Ut and Arsenal and I can see us getting bigger.

    Hicks and Gillett got a lot of stick about the debt renewal and stadium. But you have to remember that this coincided with the biggest economic crash since 1929. Everyone was affected. Anyone notice that Abramovich hasn;t spent much recently. Anyone notice how Man Utd didn't spend the £80m they made on Ronaldo.

    Whilst they may not be football fans, you can see they see the potential of Liverpool. They've both recently sold other sport franchises. But not Liverpool. Why? Because they seem the potential here, the amount of money that can be made from the Liverpool franchise, which is what we are now, as hard as it for some of the tradionalists to swallow .

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is poor research.
    The Yanks did not pay for Aquilani or Johnson. Alonso's sale has paid for them plus there was a few million change yet Rafa hasn't seen a penny. 3m they paid towards this summers transfers.
    It is Rafa Benitez who has changed this club from also-rans to contenders and no one else. Its only this tear the yanks are starting to produce the goods off the pitch. Since then they tried to fire Rafa, hire Klinnsman. If this happened we would be in the s**t. ALL because of the G&H. THEY ARE NOT GOOD FOR LFC and its poor from a KOP Writer to even think they are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Were the stadium, what about broken promises of not placing the club in debt, were Rafa's transfer kit going for the last two years?

    These Muppet's can't even talk to each other, never mind run football of Liverpool one of bigist clubs in Europe.

    YANKS OUT.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Its BENITEZ and not those 2 americans that have pulled the club back up from where we once were.

    ReplyDelete
  8. <div class="js-singleCommentBody js-singleCommentDepth0 js-comment-stripe-1">
    <table class="js-singleCommentBodyT" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
    <tbody>
    <tr style="vertical-align: top;">
    <td style="padding-bottom: 8px;" colspan="2">
    <div class="js-singleCommentText"><span><span style=" ">“</span></span>Were the stadium, what about broken promises of not placing the club in debt, were Rafa's transfer kit going for the last two years? 
     
    These Muppet's can't even talk to each other, never mind run football club of Liverpool one of bigist clubs in Europe.
     
    YANKS OUT.</div>
    </td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
    </table>

    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  9. <div class="js-singleCommentBody js-singleCommentDepth0 js-comment-stripe-1">
    <table class="js-singleCommentBodyT" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
    <tbody>
    <tr style="vertical-align: top;">
    <td style="padding-bottom: 8px;" colspan="2">
    <div class="js-singleCommentText">Were the stadium, what about broken promises of not placing the club in debt, were Rafa's transfer kit going for the last two years? 
     
    These Muppet's can't even talk to each other, never mind run football club of Liverpool one of bigist clubs in Europe. 
     
    YANKS OUT.</div>
    </td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
    </table>
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  10. your liveing in another planet mate'wake up and look around you ..you;ll see what these 2 yanks brought liverpool fc into.they just care about how much money they are going to swollow on behave of liverpool

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's just an empty assertion - please explain how this is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Were the stadium, what about broken promises of not placing the club in debt, were Rafa's transfer kit going for the last two years?

    These Muppet's can't even talk to each other, never mind run football club of Liverpool one of bigist clubs in Europe.

    YANKS OUT

    ReplyDelete
  13. Great piece. Too many people are too willing to jump on the "Yanks Out" bandwagon just because they're not "from round here". They haven't done too much wrong when you look at the bigger picture. We have progressed since they took over and will continue to progress.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What about the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression. Did you take that into consideration? The plans were there, and then within months the economic siutation around the world changed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. look give credit where it is due. They saw Parry as the cancer of the club and sacked him. Then Ayre and Purslow were appointed and they were good acquisition in the business sense. Ok they sucked when it came to the game. Nevertheless their business acumen is by far better than the previous owners. They allowed Rafa to make bids and freedom to go after his players. How many times have we heard Simao lost, Alves lost, Malouda lost, Gerrard almost lost, etc etc - it was the previous owners because 1-2 million difference was too tough to handle. I hate the Yanks don't get me wrong (because they are greedy), but I hate Moores and Parry even more because they are greedy and extremely stupid and gullible too.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is no doubt that Liverpool have reversed a backward slide but is this due to the Americans?  I would have liked you to have included Rafa's and Houllier's spending before they bought the club to compare.  The only success I agree with is their appointment of Purslow, who looks like he is a real business man with connections which is what we need.

    On the whole though I would say that the majority of our success is due to Rafa inspite of the Americans, rather than due to them.  Rafa has now seen how teams win the PL, with 1-2 big quality signings rather than 4-5 average players, plus a steady team selection.  He has put in place a system of playing that continues to prove positive and has challenged each player to improve themselves rather than sit on their laurels and feed their egos.  He has dominated the CL since his arrival and even Rick Parry's departure has Rafa written on it.  Hopefully his other impovements in the reserves and the Academy will bear fruit too over the next 4-5 years and we will be running riot in all competitions.  Do not underestimate hwo much damage was done to the team in the 90's and late on in Houlliers reign.  Rafa has steadied the ship and is now making up ground on the others at a rate of knots!  Personally, I would welcome a third party in the ownership as this uneasy truce between the Yanks is unhealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Every club buys players using a debt based financial method, unless it's City or Chelsea. People get carried away with the word 'debt', how did Arsenal build a stadium? loans!. Christian Purslow has been exceptional so far and is in fact a 20 year season ticket holder, without doubt the situation at Liverpool has improved hugely and very quickly. The article raises some very accurate points no doubt about it, Liverpool actually have less debt than Utd and Arsenal but people don't want to listen. Yes we want 'The Yanks' out but things have improved and they at least seem to be working together on this Saudi investment deal?, time will tell!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. i think Kanwar must be writing under a pseudonym to deflect attention from the crap he continually spouts.

    truly awful article with no understanding of how true fans feel.

    we were lied to, and you fellow fans are now defending them.

    unbelievable.  thi splace should be boycotted just like the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, the Americans jumped in February 2007 and you credit them for our Champions League performance of that year?  Seems rather generous, I think.

    The fundamental problem with this article is one of causality.  Did G&H have anything to do with our league success?  Did they provide significant net new funding in excess of what we might have expected given our revenues stream under Moores/Parry?  What might it have been under DIC, who were a razor's-breadth away from purchasing the club and would have done, if Moores hadn't held out for a few more pieces of silver.

    I was sanguine at the time about G&H vs. DIC, but clearly I was woefully off-base.  DIC represented real assets and real money, not contigent upon loose leveraged financing terms and fast money.  I have done a significant amount of analysis on the finances (and the new investment proposal) and it is clear to me that G&H are desperate for financing.  The new term loan and £60mm pay-down has only bought them time.

    If you look at the new investment brochure (copies are easily located on this interweb thingy), you see that the request is for £50mm of new equity capital plus a PIK loan.  A PIK loan is one, where effectively no interest is paid, but the interest accrues to the principal.  For example, G&H borrow £50mm in year zero at a 15% rate.  In year 1, this becomes £57.5mm.  In year 2, this becomes £66.1.  Year 3, £76mm, etc.  These are hugely expensive (compounding and issuance fees are a killer), which is why they are generally only used by people with no other access to funding.

    I could go on and on, but the question from a football-supporter perspective (rather than a lender or shareholder), is whether we would be further along financially and from a business perspective, had we been bought by DIC?  My view is clearly, yes.

    I admit the one area, where the gruesome twosome have performed is in terms of increasing the business side of things.  From a supporter's perspsective, this is only important if it means increased resources to compete on the pitch and invest in the club.  Right now, those revenues are going directly back into dealing with the LBO.  One league (or more importantly Champions League) hiccup and we are in severe danger of going down the Leeds/Portsmouth route.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good article. I always thought that the people only see the bad things the Americans did and forget or don't appreciate the good stuff.
    But the transfer fees for the players are wrong. For example Torres only cost 20 mio.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 2 simple questions:

    1. How much debt was LFC in before H+G bought the club?
    2. How much debt LFC responsible for today?

    Many Thanks

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  22. Are you seriously saying, Jamie, that Gillett and Hicks have been the saviours of LFC?

    Methinks you need to go back to writing emails to the press office about Philly Degen's broken nail.

    Be sure to lube up nice and good for when Tom and George fuck our club over good and proper. But I'm sure you and Alex will be wetting yourselves with excitement at the mere prospect of it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Unbelievable indeed mate. Everything about this site smacks of whopperdom from the layout to the writers. Massive swerve.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Alex,
    To be frank with you, I am a big doubter on Rafa (may be second only to Jamie): 1) He screwed up on many player signing , most of which on the offensive end; 2) He made many unnecessary tinkering & player changes which lead to many points dropped in the EPL; 3) He sticks with players (lucas) whom everyone else knows are crap, which again costs EPL points; 4) He made unnecessary rants last year which costed LFC the best chance in winning the EPL. To put it short, I DON'T believe Rafa would ever win the EPL for LFC unless he was given the funds like J MOurinho @ Chelsea / Hughes @ Man City. Nevertheless, to say the owners are "good" is just wide of the mark.  Of course, there are different definitions of "good", and the yanks are definitely better the owners of Portsmouth, and Leeds Utd.  Don't forget, they are the one who broke their promises on several occasions, including 1) injecting debt into LFC, 2) delaying (or canceling should be a better word to use) a new stadium construction, 3) keeping it VERY LATE to inform Rafa of the transfer funding shortage this year (even as poor as Rafa was, I think he could've made better player changes than we saw right now. In case you disagree, the best evidence is on Alonso: What's the point of playing hardball against RM if he'd known ahead of time that he could ONLY buy a 20 mil crock?). 4) making lies where "improved contracts count towards the transfer budget", as the improved contracts on SG / FT / YB / DK would not have costed more than 5-6m pound in total (if you work that out, it will be 30K / week wage increment per player mentioned).
    To me, it's VERY VERY strange for you to believe that the owners have ANY intension in making the necessary financial commitment to win the EPL title, or have any long term plan for the club. If they are, they would not have broken the 3 promises / made the lie above, and they will not keep making short term debt rather than long term like Man U. At least, they would have at least allowed Rafa to spend a little more this summer on a "breakeven" basis. We could debate on and on on this, but as matters stand, this is how I see it: Their real game plan is 1) to fend off the creditors (i.e. banks) for as long as possible, 2) making MINIMAL player expeness / acquisitions to keep the top 4, 3) while MAXIMIZING performance in the ECC (which is why they need Rafa as he is one of the best in this) and 4) maximizing other sponsorship income (stan Chart). And when the good time comes again after say 3-4 years, they will SELL the club at HUGE GAIN. To them, winning the EPL would be nice, BUT NOT by dishing out any extra out of their own pockets. I might be wrong, and I hope I am. I am not sure if the owners are 'good" or not, but they definitely (1) don't have any long-term commitment on the club (2) not willing to make the necessary investments to winning the EPL. The biggest risk here is that this "frugal" (i.e. cheap to put it bluntly) game plan might backfire big time this year with the emergence of Man City.  And while LFC is down just 3 points from league leaders, they have YET to play any of MU / ARS / CHEL / MC which Arsenal / MC have done twice apiece. It might be too early but LFC seems to be the most likely candidate to drop out. And without the revenue from ECC, god knows where your beloved "good" owners could convince new investors to fill up the big holes they have been digging.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Only care about Sunday's result.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So we are in a better position than if we had been sold to Dubai? Don't give me that.

    And as for the imagine a scene- here's a headline I jsut made up from the year 2020

    "Liverpool owners pledge new stadium WILL be built"

    I am glad Parry has gone, but then again, most owners would have shown him the door as soon as they bought the club. He was pap, and it still took them 2 years to get rid.

    If they weren't lying, deceiptful, greedy, and a huge number of four letter negatives, sure I might like them- but they aren't. They bought and ran the club with borrowed money, and now it seems they want another investor to bail them out, but surprise surprise- noone wants to be partnered up with cowboys.

    It could be worse- I could support Pompy or Newcastle. At least their owners seem to have some shame though.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I was merely asking the poster to justify his view instead of making empty assertions.  I don't personally think H+G are 'saviours' of the club, but I will accept that they have done many good things since arriving.


    I won't just ignoire the good things through xenophobia/narrow-mindedness.  Alex also ackknowledges in the article that H+G have a lots to asnwer for and have made some bad decisions, but this not negate their positive impact.

    ReplyDelete
  28. we could have had better owners, good for liverpool? not really...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ah - nice to see our friends over at 'The Rattle' spewing their bile in our direction: ---->>>

    If they think they're sao right, why don't they come here and present their counter-arguments against the article?  The reason is simple:  They can't.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The problem with this is argument is that Dubai is now suffering since the economic slump as their wealth wasn't built around oil. Dubai are having to borrow money from Abu Dhabi. So who's to say that DIC would have proved the best deal.

    ReplyDelete
  31. err. hello. who cares about transfers, money, players signed, players missed. the bottom line is that The Americans do not run this club the liverpool way, never before has our clubs news been in the press the way it has with G&H, never before have we been behind a managers back to replace him. I would like new owners to come in even if they spend less but ran the club in the right fashion. Fan ownership is the only way forward!

    ReplyDelete
  32. What a steaming pile of shite YANKS LAIRS OUT !!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. All the figures quoted are bollocks- £26 million for Torres?  £17million for Masch (counted his wages in that figure- very Chrisitain Purslow).

    Our transfer spend has not increased with the yanks (it's actually gone down) but the club now owe a few hundred million to the banks- great.

    ReplyDelete
  34. <span>"it must be noted Rafa Benitez was already in place and already getting to grips with the Premiership when they arrived"</span>

    Thats why Liverpool havent tailed off in to mediocrity, Rafael Benitez!

    Not because of Hicks and Gilette. Chances are if DIC had taken over and Rafa was able to compete financially we could possibly be the team to beat now.
    <div id="TixyyLink" style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  35. Funny how we have won fuck all, since them yank bullshitters took over.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Perhaps you'd like to respond to my post then, Jaimie... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  37. I would, but I think it's better to give the writer of the article the chance to respond first.  I don't want to hijack his thread.

    ReplyDelete
  38. League tables don't lie so where is your argument going? Rafa has improved us every season since he took over on a shoestring budget FACT..... NOT 2 debt ridden septics!

    ReplyDelete
  39. ok, No stadium 60 months+ (not days) No transfer kitty unless we sell,
    No investment from them, More debt than when that other isdiot Moores sold his soul to them........... Klinsmann! Not doing things the "liverpool way" (if you know what that is)

    ReplyDelete
  40. You've discussed 1 visiion of the future. Please read the alternative that I have posted on my web site:

    http://www.hms-systems.co.uk/Chrimbo.htm


    AS you can see, I have a different view

    ReplyDelete
  41. There's a significant difference between taking on debt to finance a stadium (completely normal and usually can be structured to be self-funding) and debt taken on to purchase an asset, then transferred to that asset to leverage up the returns.

    The first case is Arsenal = Good business
    The second case in Liverpool/United = Bad business

    If you can keep the lending merry-go-round working, the second model can work, but when it goes pear-shaped, the results are disastorous.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Alex and Jaimie, you are both full of shit. This doesn't even need arguing against it's so poorly thought out and researched.

    I haven't read much on this site, but I'm yet to come across anything that hasn't made me laugh out loud such has been the level of stupidity in the arguments presented.

    Seriously, get a fucking clue lads.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Blah blah blah.  So easy to make unfounded assertions.  Explain why it;s 'poorly thought out and researched'.

    ReplyDelete
  44. What exactly are the positives highlighted in this article? Some mythical shite about what might happen if we win 4 league titles in a row leading up to 2020?
    The "big spending" owners who actually spent less money net this summer than we have ever done since the european ban was lifted?  Robbie Keane, whom the manager didn't want to buy as a priority, is being held up as an example? The glorious european cup final in athens that G+H mysteriously brought us to without a single signing of any kind?

    That Purslow is Parry's replacement is not even true - he's a temporary appointment while a new chief executive is found. In fact, the only piece of substance in this article is the fact that we were underachieving in terms of shirt sponsorship deals, which any idiot could've told us.

    The increased sponsorship on the shirt deal, however, does not even cover the extra interest payments our club have to pay because Hicks and Gillette bought the club with money borrowed against the club itself. We're still worse off financially with G+H+Standard than we were with Moores+Parry+Carlsberg despite the huge increases in income. It could not be more obvious that the intention of G+H is to make as much profit out of this club as possible. It's all they've ever done with every business they've ever had and they're quite open about it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Totally agree with you Gary. In the article I am trying to stick to facts rather than going with the flow. Not to say I am fans of theirs, but it is not all doom and gloom. Sad to say, but Liverpool had to change otherwise we would have become a Newcastle.

    ReplyDelete
  46. As my article says, the stadium will come. Not the Yanks fault we are in recession is it??

    ReplyDelete
  47. We have got closer to the top of the league though, haven't we?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The players were bought with debt. The yanks "rubber stamped" a huge mill stone round our neck that will drag the club down if we don't sort it out.

    Kanwar, i don't know if your a wind up merchant, like saying controversial things, or just plain thick.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Couldn't be further from being a Yank - but do you remember our highest transfer fee we paid out before the Yanks came? It was about half the fee we paid for Nando (on Cisse) - the Yanks have raised the bar, like it or not...

    ReplyDelete
  50. well considering that the writer has not bothered to reply to questions re his article, maybe you want to 'step in' and help him out?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Absolute nonsense . . The difference at Liverpool is the Manager not the owners. The recession didn't start when they bought the club, it was well into their tenure, they promised building work would start on a new stadium within weeks, they lied. They promised no debt on the club, they lied. They made a point of stating they were not like the Glazer family at Man Utd, they lied.
    The only good point is from the commercial aspect but as soon as Parry left we all knew the new guy couldn't possibly be as inept and weak as Parry. So other than sacking Parry, what other benefits have the Yanks brought?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Nobody is saying that it is not down to Rafa being a genius - but he has to be allowed to operate - and by and large Rafa has got his way with them, even down to controlling the transfer pot. The Yanks have got a lot wrong, but they have also changed the club behind the scenes, for the better. ps - I will wet myself when 19 comes home. YNWA.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The writer has responded to questions actually - quite a few of them.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ok, here we go: this article is flawed because it only sees the situation as H&G or nothing. That was not the case. Parry and Moore had already allowed DIC to complete the process of due diligence and everything was satisfactory. Then H&G came into the mix: neither of them could have bought individually, they HAD TO be a consortium. That alone should have shown they did not have the necessary capital to take the club where we needed to get to.

    H&G used borrowed money, secured at major risk to the actual club, not to them. DIC had vastly greater reserves of their own money and hence would have input more and still incurred no crippling interest charges which we are now having to pay at the cost of a Fernando Torres and a Glen Johnson per year! The stadium (remember the 'I'll have a spade in the ground in weeks' comment? Laughable if not so pathetic!) is only going to happen with further investment from a new source as the Americans have not got the collateral to support a further loan to build it, nor do we want them to get further loans.

    The writer here also seems to have forgotten the lengthy periods during which h & G refused to even speak to each other like a pair of spoilt schoolgirls, making the club a laughing stock and putting major investments at risk as suitors looked and turned away when they realised these two were impossible to work with.

    Why do they get credit for us reaching the Champions League final in 2007? We got there in 2005 without them ... and won it!

    The nonsense people spin about 'well it's not their fault, we just happened to end up in a massive credit crunch that was global... blah blah...' is misguided at best. Yes, there is a global economic downturn but that is just an even greater reason why we should have allowed DIC to come in with their own capital rather than borrow from banks that were only prepared to lend if they could take us to the cleaners in the process. The Credit Crunch did not happen overnight, it was known by senior economists and anyone else with a financial brain for a long time. We COULD have avoided getting sucked under by the CC if we had not sold to H&G and had gone with DIC.

    I have no gripe with Alex Miller, he has seen things from one side but sadly has missed some key issues that show a very different picture of H&G to the one he paints.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thanks for your comments, Red Barron.

    Just thought I'd throw this out there: if anyone wants to present a counter-argument to Alex's article, and explain exactly why H+G are so bad for the club, then write an article about it and I will be more than willing to post it on the site.

    ReplyDelete
  56. come on guys, don't rise to the bait. this article is just intended to be controversial to drive traffic to this website. obviously had moores/parry sold to DIC we would have filled the trophey cabinet rather than the yanks pockets, but stating the obvious doesn't run a website!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Of course they care about their profit - we'll still get more £ coming in and a new stadium though!!

    ReplyDelete
  58. i think you just hit the nail on the head mate.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Totally agree - we are becoming far slicker off the pitch - it is a matter of time before tjhis bears fruit on the pitch...

    ReplyDelete
  60. I am not defending them, re-read my piece. A lot of what they have done is unforgiveable - but they have also woken us up commercially - this will lead to more £ for players in the future...

    ReplyDelete
  61. Actually, it is.  They had ample time to secure funding on the most generous terms ever in Spring/Summer 2007 and failed to do so.  If they had real assets, they would be able to do so now, instead of living day-by-day off the business equivalent of high-interest credit cards.

    Do some research on any other number of stadiums, which are being financed as we speak and throughout the crisis, before buying the bullshit party-line G&H answer...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Love your reply.

    I disagree with you on one matter. I have spoken to people very close to the DIC deal and we wouldn't have spent even as much on players as we have under the Yanks - FACT. Don't you think DIC were also in it for the profit? The big difference would have been they wouldn't have put debt onto the club.

    ReplyDelete
  63. That's the whole point, Alex!  We are far more likely to become a Leeds/Newcastle/Portsmouth, et al right now, given the egregious and unstustainable debts G&H have saddled either directly (club itself) or indirectly (Kop Holdings & related entities) than under Moores.

    You say you want to stick to the facts, but if you are going to write about the financial state of affairs of LFC, perhaps you ought to at least inform yourself of:
    - Basic financial theory
    - The actual finances of the club (which are available on the web)

    ReplyDelete
  64. Most notably not to anyone, who has articulated a well-informed view from the other side of the argument...

    ReplyDelete
  65. PaulPaul.
    I can tell you on thing as a fact. I have contacts who were very close to the DIC deal. DIC would have spent less on players than even the Yanks have - FACT. DIC wanted to sit on the club for 7 years and sell at a profit - FACT. The only major difference between DIC and the Yanks is the debt on the club.

    ReplyDelete
  66. How about responding to the articulate repsonse of Red Barron, rather than the one-liner from 'Guest'?

    ReplyDelete
  67. You make a lot of good points and I agree with you on most of them. The facts still remain though, we are becoming slicker and meaner off the pitch - and we needed to. In time that will mean more investment on the pitch...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Sad to say it - but its true - the Liverpool way dies when Parry and Moores sold out to line their pockets. Fan power is perhaps the only way to get it back now. Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Abramovich hasn't spent money, becase he already spent nearly a billion revamping the club.  No pressing need and would have, if he could have gotten Messi away from Barca.  Besides, he lost about 30-40% of his net worth from the price of Nickel & Oil collapsing.

    United didn't spend the money this summer for the same reason we didn't spend money --> Owners have leveraged the company to the tits.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Be more specific - what points are you making?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Worst article ever read. Clueless idiot. Call yourself a Liverpool Fan. The success you mentioned (which last time i checked was called silverware....none since 2006) has happened INSPITE of the useless owners. We broke transfer records under Moores too.They are a cancer on club.Fact.
    Wise up fool before writing rubbish

    ReplyDelete
  72. What business has spent money on building projects over the past year?, It would have been madness to go ahead in the current climate. All of us want H+G out no doubt about it but the stories of Liverpool going pop are utterly ridiculous but people still believe them. The major debt is with the owners themselves and not the club which is absolute fact, there is no doubt that the stadium will be built at all. I have faith in Christian Purslow and Kenny Dalglish, do we think Kenny would get involved if he thought the club was in trouble? no chance!. We need to get on with the football as the business side will take care of itself, yes we have debts but they are personal loans in the main and NOT against the club.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Putting 'FACT' in capitals does not, indeed make it a fact that DIC were going to spend less on transfers than G&H.  Whom exactly are you citing?

    I make no bones about DIC being in it for the money (indeed the arguments I made at the time said they looked very similar, so I was indifferent).

    The real issue is the debt one, you highlight.  DIC were never going to do a Man City for us, but they were clearly streets ahead in terms of being able to fund the purchase out of cash and put money, that is currently being used for debt service (~£40mm per year), back into the club, rather than into the hands of leveraged debt investors.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This is ridiculous. This site doesn't deserve people coming on here to point out the blatantly obvious.

    Main point: they've got the club deeper into debt. Anybody with access to credit from the banks could've done what they've done.

    It's all on borrowed money and they don't, or aren't willing to put the funds needed in to balance the books. Since they've arrived we've gone backwards, not forwards in club health terms.

    ReplyDelete
  75. WHAT A JOKE!

    1. Do you really think, the Yanks are responsible for the better squad, performances, league finish or what ever? Who is responsible for matters on the pitch? Right, RAFA!!!

    2. Two years before the Yanks were there, we even won the Champions League, not lost the final!!!

    3. Transfers: The fees were not paid by them!
    a) Torres, we just won the CL before, so you know, where the money comes from!
    b)Transfers this summer were paid with the money from Alonso, etc.!
       so Johnson and Aquilani were paid by the Sales!
    c) Keane: We got 16m £ back but never saw it again!!!
    d) Mascherano was bought after we had another good CL run!!! So the money was only there, because Benitez reached the latter stages of the CL!!!

    4. If they had supplied more funds for transfers, Rafa had not wanted to sell Alonso to fund the Barry transfer. So it was their fault, that Alonso felt not wanted and finally moved to RM = ALL THE YANKS FAULT!!!

    5. Parry had his power struggles with Benitez! And as RAFA earned a new contract with more responsibilities, Parry had lost the power struggle and had to go!!!

    6. The club had to pay almost 2m £ for the Yanks travel expenses. If they would have saved this money, we could have bought a better Defender than Kyrgiakos or better players than the free tranfers (Degen, Voronin, etc.)

    7. The Standard Chartered deal was done by <span style="color: #940f04;">Christian Purslow</span>, not the Yanks!!!

    8. IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE A WORD THE YANKS SAY, ITS YOUR OWN FAULT!!!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Good article unlike the usually attacks on Benitez and certain members of the team who may be deemed to be the week's underprformers hence the worst players ever to put on the LFC jersey.

    The lamentable thing is harmony in the board has been as scarce as the league title on the pitch..I would say the commercial aspect of the club has improved immeasurable and would go on to say we will be up there with revenue generation capabilty of Real Madrid should the stadium be eventually built.
    In the meantime our weakness of spending less wld now be an advantage since with new regulations teams are supposed to spend with a certain percentage of their revenue.
    We ha been spending within our means but clubs like City and Chelsea will have to aim for lower priced players to conform with this so in this regard we are doing very well..just my 2 cents..

    ReplyDelete
  77. Fact fact Fact , balls more like.None knows what DIC would have done.

    The 7 year escape clause is done by most people purchasing big buisness ffs

    ReplyDelete
  78. is this site run by mu fans?

    ReplyDelete
  79. The money spent on players has all been earned by Benitez continually doing well in the Champion's League. How can taking us into debt be good for the club?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Your stating that Micheal Owen had to leave his beloved club made me laugh. The FACTs are that we are basically Insolvent, we can't afford to repay the interest on the debt even before we start paying the acual debt. our own accountants had to warn the owners about our debt levels. How can this be good for us. You talk of £26 million for torres, but Torres himself say's the fee was £18 million, that's 4 million more than cisse. You say that you have insider knowledge of the figue that DIC were going to spend less than the two americans, How do you spend less thamoney than £0. The business plan of DIC was to borrow the from themselves for the purchase of the club and the cost of the stadium. They believed that it would take about 3years to build the stadium, after the 7 years with stadium nameing rights, plus increased commercial sponsership and increased gate reciepts they believed rightl or wrongly they would have payed themselves back the money for the stadium and the purchase. Then they would look to either keep the club as a going concern making money from the football club or sell the club for a large amount. They are the FACTs about the DIC deal, if you can argue the present situation is better than that then go for it.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Come on, tell me the truth. This site has been set up by Mancs or Chelsea fans under the guise of a Liverpool site, hasn't it?

    Continuous negativity. What appears to be a real dislike of the manager.
    It begs the question, why do you bother?

    Most knowledgable fans in the county? Don't make me laugh. You're an embarrassment to all that have gone before you.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hicks and Gillett had to pay £60m in July to refinance the loans taken out, the debt stands at £230m according to RBS and they confirmed that the club has limited debt due to personal guarantee's from the pair of them. This is why Gillett sold the Montreal Canadiens and Hicks is about to sell the Texas Rangers, they and Liverpool are far from insolvent. Are they chancers? yes of course!, Liverpool are miles from financial trouble and we have many people who want to take over the club, when they want out they will have their hands bitten off. The fact is the new stadium will generate huge sums of money and that is why they won't sell the club, you cannot say Liverpool are skint as it's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  83. this article, although correct in some respect, is way off the mark.
    no fan expects the club to be run debt free, but the whole point of selling the club was to have an owner who could back up the borrowing for the new stadium. The only difference between our past situation and the present is that we have a new commercial deal (long overdue) and £260m of debt attached to the club. moores could have borrowed £260m against the club a la real madrid and given it all to rafa to go out and buy 6/7 of the worlds top players. we would have the same debt, the same stadium, but a team with a much greater chance of cleaning up and subsequently, worth a lot more. The DIC model  would have been to buy the club, lend the club the money to build the stadium and repay this over 7 years, leaving a club with a massive asset. this may not have worked, but at the very least, the new owners should have bought the club outright and then looked for finance for the stadium, which they would have been able to get at the time

    ReplyDelete
  84. All this says is that Hicks and Gillett were better than having no one invest in the club.  Sure, if no money had come in we would have been unableto compete with all our newly-rich friends.  But the fact is, Liverpool were never short of potential investors - the fact is out of all the potential investors out there Moore managed to pick the worst ones. 

    I too try to be objective when analysing whata Hicks and Gillett have done.  They're not idiots, they are good businessmen.  Which also means they are not right for a football club, because they will always put shareholders and profits before the interests of the club.  As a businessman, if one business unit is not making so much money and another one is, it's an easy decision to dissolve the former in favour of the latter.  It's just a numbers game.  Someone who buys the club because he loves the club, on the other hand (read many middle-eastern billionaires) would never ever contemplate that idea.

    So yes, if we were Swansea and no one was interested in putting any money in LFC at all, then two rich yanks would have been a godsend.  As it turns out, we were never in that position.  We could have had any girl in the room, and we took the fat ugly one and married her.  You think other clubs might be laughing?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Not that you are going to understand if explained .....

    ReplyDelete
  86. Throw in the television rights, merchandise and turnstiles we are spending way less than the income. i.e we chould have had another 20 million player signed last summer. If you remember we had a record income but still reported a loss due to the interests to be paid off. Where does this take us ? Selling off our top players - it would be last season again but we wouldnt be able to get the Aquilainis and Johnsons.

    By the way the Yanks no longer are bothered to defend themselves - they have accepted that they were looking for third party investors to clear the debts.
    The banks have had doubts about them - which can be seen from the time they took to agree to refinance the loan and its they who are forcing the hand now on the third party issue.

    Maybe JK nows something the banks and the Yanks dont or he just wanted some clicks. better off putting up some topless photos. at least then you wouldnt be pissing of this many people

    ReplyDelete
  87. why spend hours highlighting what any genuine fans know - the current owners are not good for our club. The very fact the article states that Torres was £26 million highlights the lack of research done by the creater of this post - may i suggest you start with referencing your own lfchistory.net for players values as they are all wrong! 

    As a St of 30 years i honestly don't think people care where the owners are from as long as they do the right thing by the club. but then how very easy and English to play the xenophobic \ racist card - easy way out.

    Bottom line is our debt is now 400m MORE than when they came in. No stadium as promised, a total net spend from Rafa on new players of less than £13m per season - easily written off against CL revenues - i find it comical that anyone can seriously advocate the current owners are in any fashion good for the club.

    but hey, you need hits and we all think different things!

    ReplyDelete
  88. <p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:ApplyBreakingRules /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
    <span>
    </span>

    <style>
    st1\<img src="http://js-kit.com/extra/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-kiss.gif" mce_src="http://js-kit.com/extra/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-kiss.gif" title="Kiss" border="0" alt="Kiss" />{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
    </style>

    <![endif]--> <span>The whole idea of </span><span>Moore</span><span>’s selling the club was so that the new owners would provide the capital to fund a new stadium. This Hicks & Gillett have abjectly failed to do. The reason, according to Hicks & Gillett, was the credit crunch, conveniently ignoring the fact that the credit crunch only kicked in 12 months after they acquired the club. </span>

    <p><span>The real reason the new stadium has not materialised is because the new owners exhausted their line of credit simply funding their initial purchase of the club. No one was prepared to lend them an additional £300+ million to fund the stadium. Now we have the unedifying spectacle of the club being hawked around the world by Merrill Lynch and Rothschilds, to any prospective investor prepared to listen. Although Merrill’s & Rothschilds have been looking for new investors since March we are told that “<span>the process is at an early stage”, in other words, no-one is prepared to bail out Hicks & Gillett.</span></span>

    <p><span><span> Admittedly turnover has increased since their takeover but the majority of that (£19million pa.) has been due to increased TV revenues. This increase would have occurred irrespective of who owned the club. There has been an increase in commercial revenue but as impressive as the </span></span><span><span>Standard Chartered shirt deal</span></span><span><span> is, it is worth a maximum of £80 (not “at least £80m over 4 seasons”) and then only if we win the Champions League and/or the Premiership.</span></span><span style="color: black;"> </span>

    <p><span> As for claiming that “I have spoken to people very close to the DIC deal and we wouldn't have spent even as much on players as we have under the Yanks – FACT”. That is not fact, that is conjecture. Who knows what DIC would have spent? Perhaps they would have spent more in line with the increase in TV revenues. We only have your word, or rather the supposed word of anonymous contacts, that they would has spent less.</span>

    <p><span> What we do know is that under Hicks & Gillett we spent big on players i.e. borrowed big, until the money ran out. Subsequently our net spend in the 2008/2009 season, after selling Keane back to Spurs in January, was less than £3million. This summer our net spend was £7million. It wouldn’t have been as much as that but Glen Johnson represented the only means of recouping the £7million </span><span>Portsmouth</span><span> still owed for Crouch.</span>

    <p><span>Let’s put things into perspective. When Hicks & Gillett purchased the club for £175 million it had debts of approximately £48 million. Now, 33 months down the line the club owes RBS/Wachovia at least £245 million and the new [...]

    ReplyDelete
  89. The whole idea of Moore’s selling the club was so that the new owners would provide the capital to fund a new stadium. This Hicks & Gillett have abjectly failed to do. The reason, according to Hicks & Gillett, was the credit crunch, conveniently ignoring the fact that the credit crunch only kicked in 12 months after they acquired the club. The real reason the new stadium has not materialised is because the new owners exhausted their line of credit simply funding their initial purchase of the club. No one was prepared to lend them an additional £300+ million to fund the stadium. Now we have the unedifying spectacle of the club being hawked around the world by Merrill Lynch and Rothschilds, to any prospective investor prepared to listen. Although Merrill’s & Rothschilds have been looking for new investors since March we are told that “the process is at an early stage”, in other words, no-one is prepared to bail out Hicks & Gillett.

    Admittedly turnover has increased since their takeover but the majority of that (£19million p.a.) has been due to increased TV revenues. This increase would have occurred irrespective of who owned the club. There has been an increase in commercial revenue but as impressive as the Standard Chartered shirt deal is, it is worth a maximum of £80 (not “at least £80m over 4 seasons”) and then only if we win the Champions League and/or the Premiership.

    As for claiming that “I have spoken to people very close to the DIC deal and we wouldn't have spent even as much on players as we have under the Yanks – FACT”. That is not fact, that is conjecture. Who knows what DIC would have spent? Perhaps they would have spent more in line with the increase in TV revenues. We only have your word, or rather the supposed word of anonymous contacts, that they would has spent less. Sorry, but that cuts no ice.

    What we do know is that under Hicks & Gillett we spent big i.e. borrowed big, until the money ran out. Subsequently our net spend in the 2008/2009 season, after selling Keane back to Spurs in January, was less than £3million. This summer our net spend was £7million. It wouldn’t have been as much as that but Glen Johnson represented the only means of recouping the £7million Portsmouth still owed for Crouch.

    Let’s put things into perspective. When Hicks & Gillett purchased the club for £175 million it had debts of approximately £48 million. Now, 33 months down the line the club owes RBS/Wachovia at least £245 million and the new stadium is still a distant dream.

    Perhaps under DIC we would have spent less on players. Perhaps, perhaps not. However two things of which we can be fairly certain, the new stadium would be nearing completion and the club would not be burdened with servicing a debt greater than its purchase price.

    ReplyDelete
  90. The whole idea of Moore’s selling the club was so that the new owners would provide the capital to fund a new stadium. This Hicks & Gillett have abjectly failed to do. The reason, according to Hicks & Gillett, was the credit crunch, conveniently ignoring the fact that the credit crunch only kicked in 12 months after they acquired the club. The real reason the new stadium has not materialised is because the new owners exhausted their line of credit simply funding their initial purchase of the club. No one was prepared to lend them an additional £300+ million to fund the stadium. Now we have the unedifying spectacle of the club being hawked around the world by Merrill Lynch and Rothschilds, to any prospective investor prepared to listen. Although Merrill’s & Rothschilds have been looking for new investors since March we are told that “the process is at an early stage”, in other words, no-one is prepared to bail out Hicks & Gillett.

    Admittedly turnover has increased since their takeover but the majority of that (£19million p.a.) has been due to increased TV revenues. This increase would have occurred irrespective of who owned the club. There has been an increase in commercial revenue but as impressive as the Standard Chartered shirt deal is, it is worth a maximum of £80 (not “at least £80m over 4 seasons” ) and then only if we win the Champions League and/or the Premiership.

    As for claiming that “I have spoken to people very close to the DIC deal and we wouldn't have spent even as much on players as we have under the Yanks – FACT”. That is not fact, that is conjecture. Who knows what DIC would have spent? Perhaps they would have spent more in line with the increase in TV revenues. We only have your word, or rather the supposed word of anonymous contacts, that they would has spent less. Sorry, but that cuts no ice.

    What we do know is that under Hicks & Gillett we spent big i.e. borrowed big, until the money ran out. Subsequently our net spend in the 2008/2009 season, after selling Keane back to Spurs in January, was less than £3million. This summer our net spend was £7million. It wouldn’t have been as much as that but Glen Johnson represented the only means of recouping the £7million Portsmouth still owed for Crouch.

    Let’s put things into perspective. When Hicks & Gillett purchased the club for £175 million it had debts of approximately £48 million. Now, 33 months down the line the club owes RBS/Wachovia at least £245 million and the new stadium is still a distant dream.

    Perhaps under DIC we would have spent less on players. Perhaps, perhaps not. However two things of which we can be fairly certain, the new stadium would be nearing completion and the club would not be burdened with servicing a debt greater than its purchase price.

    ReplyDelete
  91. mate you are defending them, you re read your piece,

    i notice you deleted the bit that said this site should be boyotted just the s*n

    ReplyDelete
  92. Just a few points:

    1) some of the players mentioned were signed from funds generated by sales.  If no players had come in there would have been more extensive protests that there have been so 'sanctioning' is something in which we could question the motives.

    2) The other thing that really gets me is their total lack of understanding of how football works.  They have treated the manager like a US ice hockey coach at times in thinking he should have no say in buying players etc. 

    3) I beg to differ about our league form - when the above happened our league form did dip when they told Rafa just to coach and not worry about signing players.  An absoute joke.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Good article but it misses one key issue.

    If you have an Abrahamovich or the Man City Arabs then the reliance on the fan base for revenues is very low.  Therefore the influence the fans have is greatly diminished.  Abrahamovich fired Mourinho and hired Avram Grant and the fans had no say, no power, no influence.

    Because the Yanks are so dependent on the fan base for support and revenues it has massively strenghtened Benitez'a hand.  Similar to Fergie at Manure.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Under Moores we were 40m in debt, now its 245m.  Are you soft, they are nothing but fucking carpetbaggers.

    ReplyDelete
  95. JK is always going on about presenting quotes and evidence. Why don't you back up your claims about DIC with a direct quote or naming your source?

    And, every owner is going to want a return on their investment. The issue is that the Yanks borrowed to buy LFC and put the debt on the club. The debt is currently being serviced at the same price as two quality signings a season. Even without the credit crunch no bank would've lent them another 350m on top of what they already owe.

    ReplyDelete
  96. <span><span>smell the coffee dudes....'Tom Hicks and George Gillett have finally admitted what many of us have known for a while - they are looking for investment. Or more likely, the banks have instructed them to do so. </span></span>
    We have been here before under the American ownership, the club hawked around to those with billions in the bank.
    However their decision to seek investment as the global financial markets show further signs of improvement has other implications for them. Tom and George obviously feel that the money is flowing sufficiently to allow an investor to put in a substantial amount of capital. If this is the case, then the same market rules will apply to the owners.
    Whilst the pair have continually claimed the new stadium will go ahead once the financial markets improve, the time has now come for them to act on this. The markets are improving and the prices of raw materials and construction is low.
    So, Tom and George, when you said<span>, </span> <span>"</span>When we get to the point where the global market settles down and we bring pieces together to finance the stadium then we can again start building<span>. </span>It's certainly not anything we have changed our mind on. I don't know about the dates because of the global financial markets, but I know the markets will settle down and get better<span>"</span> <span>(Tom Hicks, 18th September 2009), </span>you might not have expected us to remember or even believe you.
    If you want us to believe you, let's see the work start on a new stadium. Let's see the beginning of a "large swimming pool" being dug out in Stanley Park (Your words George).'
    We won't hold our breath

    ReplyDelete
  97. That's not actually true BigDaveNYC: ‘basic financial theory’ would suggest that the banks want their money back and that they know that this is best attained by maintaining the value of the liverpool 'brand' and its prized 'assets' (Torres etc.). By owing the banks this amount of money, it is in fact the best way to guarantee that it won't become a Newcastle situation, as the computers and players (as sellable assets) do not add up to the amount owed. The ONLY option if they take control of the club, would be to maintain the club's value (not strip it) and find a buyer (of which there should be, would be and are, many).

    It is for this reason that Alex M is right in saying that all this doom and gloom prognosticating is farfetched and a bit tiresome - though I can't vouch for the form of the article, which was certainly a bit whimsical.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Whatever it is, we are stuck with the Yanks. Like it or not they ain't gonna sell this club for a lose. Also they are in this boat together with us. They can't sell this club before making it 'beautiful' or 'attractive' to other investors. In short the yanks and us have something in common now, to make Liverpool successful.

    If that is what they are doing, I have no problems. I will buy the merchandises and support my team whoever the owners are because I know that there is nothing I can do besides giving full support to the team. We can stage protest (not something I will waste my time for) or we can pledge money to buy the club (something I have done).

    So let's be constructive and move forward because time and time again we have been moving backwards. If there are no space to go backwards, the only way is forward.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Is it really H+G's fault that Moores and Parry sold to them with a bigger offer then DIC? In my opinion, it's Moores who is at fault, if he loved the club so much, he should have looked at the bigger picture, but no, he was out to get as much money as he could, regardless of the consequences. And there is nothing wrong with H+G wanting to make as much money as possible, but you are stupid if you think that they will make the money if the club is in debt and unsuccessful, it will only bring down the value of the club. They want the club to be successful, because it means more money for them.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Stupid article. Actually, BEYOND stupid.

    How much are you being paid by the Yank twats you cunt? The players were acquired by debt just for your information. They promised the commencement of the building of the stadium within 60 days, and now 4 years have passed and still nothing has happened.

    Oh and, this year our net spend was actually negative. So shut the fuck up and go and suck their Yank cocks in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Gillet and Hicks know nothing about football, yet insist on having their say on matters pertaining to football. They take loan after loan, seemingly apathetic to the fact that loans generate interest, which they'll have to pay some time or anoether. They make empty promises, treating us Liverpuldians like toys to be manipulated. They pulicly have pops at each other, making our club look like a laughing stock. They don't give a shit about our club, they just want to make money, and evidently aren't very good at it.

    They have absolutely no passion for the great history and heritage of Liverpool Football Club. Get out. Now.

    ReplyDelete
  102. at last someone else who can see the americans are doing a good job. They are expanding us off the field which Parry and Moores never did. All thee idiots who sing yanks out at half time during games need to get behing the americans. We are one club. Lets all go in the same direction. We will get a new stadium but lets be honest how many times a year do we sell out anfield. I go to every home game and theres always empty seats. TYeah theyve made mistakes but theyre working hard to get more revenue into the club so let them carry on i say

    ReplyDelete
  103. A reasonable article - at least it was positive.  Unfortunately, like everything in life, people now demand immediate and often unachieveable success.  No one in their right mind - or at least some idea of the current financial client could believe the stadium is a viable proposition at present.

    Also, the argument about DIC is irrelevant - their is no guarantee a) they would have bought and b) they would be any more willing to pump cash into the club than H&G. Personally, I would like to think they would, but they aren't the owners so it is mute.

    H&G have invested - both money and effort in the club - no one can say they are not trying to improve our club.  Liverpool fans of old would have accepted this and got behind them!  Like any manager or player - they are part of LFC future and deserve credit for the good they are doing and trying to move the club forward.

    Anyone who thinks the club has not moved forward since Moores sold out has a very selective memory about the past.  Moores had good and bad points, but one thing is for certain, he (and Parry) had either lost the passion, or perhaps more likely, had just taken the club as far as it could.

    Any talk of no transfer funds this year is also false - unless you add back in the large number of contract renewals - which I suspect, will take the annual £20m budget.

    I am not particularly happy the Yanks have our club, but I am not blinkered and can see that they are also doing some good.

    The Standard Chartered deal was done in a year we won NOTHING!  Imagine the difference the current management team could have made in 2005/2006 - on the back of winning the Champions League!

    ReplyDelete
  104. I do agree with certain points in this article. H&G may be our pet hates but they have taken the club forward when compared to the days of Parry and Moores. Yes we are in debt but we have also increased our income and have realised our business potential. Though my heart says otherwise, my head says we are in a better position than we were in the days of 'happy with 4th'.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Hmmm - is it 2011 already?  Hicks and Gillett only bought the club in 2007, so your contention that '4 years have passed and still nothing has happened' is totally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  106. It is good to see someone trying to have a bit of a more balanced look at the ownership instead of just having a go at the owners because everyone else is doing that. I'm not a big fan of the current owners, but I'm realising that are actually doing something useful. I can see the start of a solid foundation being built. It is true that the Carlsberg sponsorship deal wasn't big enough, but the new deal is just massive. As much as it hurts Liverpool has never been able to match Man Utd commercially, and now we've finally been able to do it at least in one area. Purslow looks like a good find as well and I hope he will be able to continue for many years. Based on these things I'm prepared to give the owners the chance to prove themselves, but they need to work hard, they've done some stupid things as well.

    I believe it is very important to keep the Liverpool way of doing things, hold on to the culture and spirit of what Liverpool is. Hicks in particular appears to be the complete opposite, a Liverpool owner, player, fan (basically everyone involved) should act with dignity and integrity and keep the dirty laundry behind closed doors (much like Moores). Using the media to promote his own agenda is not acceptable.

    Not happy about the transfer spending either, many people, including in this article, list all the big transfers and saying that Rafa have had plenty to spend. This is not true, these figures alone do not say anything. Net spending is the key figure, and it shows that spending has not increased since the Americans took over. Availability of funds for transfer was one of their key selling points when obtaining the club. The debt is another thing that worries me a bit, I understand why it has been placed on the club as during these hard times the club's assets might have been needed to secure the debt, but it's another broken promise and more than anything it could put the club's ambitions of being at the top at risk.

    I'm sure we're going to get a stadium and I do actually understand that it has not been built yet, but again they were wrong to promise.

    I don't think the new owners deserves to be given another chance, their behaviour has been poor, promises are broken and they have betrayed the trust of people who love the club. But it does appear that they are actually building something, so maybe, just maybe it is worth to wait and see a bit, maybe the end product is good.

    One thing is for sure, I'd much rather be a self-sufficient well run club (much like Man Utd if I dare say) then being some rich guys play thing like Man City. Mondesty is an important trait of Liverpool and I'd so that those who want to be someones plaything has lost touch with what it means being a Liverpool fan.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Do you honestly believe the Americans who have piled some 400million debt on the club is putting us in a better state than the 48m debt we initially had prior to their inception?

    had the new stadium been under way fair enough, but it isn't they even squandered a further 4million "re-designing" it through one of their own companies....   - they leveraged bought us and lumped the cost across different accounts ultimately on the club. how anyone with any common sense can suggest thats a good thing is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Hi there,
    I'm not happy about the debt, I think it puts the club at an unnecessary risk if we happen to go through bad patches where we don't get the extra income that Champions League bring. The debt is definitely one of the major stumbling blocks to accepting them.
    The reason I don't want them kicked out because of the debt is that it appears that they are actually doing some good in other areas of running the club. The way I understand it is that the banks won't accept another re-financing, thus the debt will have to be reduced in the future. If we come out of this as a better club then I think it'd be wise to overlook the debt issues even if we don't agree with it. It is clear that they are building a much stronger commercial platform than we've had before and I believe they should be given the time to prove what they can do. We've trailing Man Utd in particular and for the first time we finally appear to be catching up a bit. I think that has a lot to do with what the Americans have done at the club.
    I don't mean we are better off with the debt, what I see is a potential to be better off in the future and the debt is a something that will disappear or at the very least reduced. I'd be more worried to have rich owner who didn't care about making a club self-sufficient, it could a spectacular fall when such a owner decides to leave. The Americans should continue, but under a watchful eye to ensure it's going the right way.
    Mortz
    Mortz,
    JS-Kit.com Comments

    ReplyDelete
  109. Nah, the improvement started before the Americans arrived, it has only continued, only an idiot would fail to see that the improvement started when Benitez arrived.  But then you didnt think he was the right manager from the very start!!

    ReplyDelete
  110. i think hicks has a hairy bum

    ReplyDelete
  111. i think your right mate and anwers the point expertadly

    ReplyDelete
  112. Thanks for the respect, yeah I agree that the improvement started on the pitch when Rafa arrived, but off the pitch is a different matter.
    Mortz,
    JS-Kit.com Comments

    ReplyDelete
  113. Alex - well done on having the b*lls to write this.
    I get very frustrated with this 'DIC would have been better, wouldnt have put debt in the business". Lets get a few things straight.

    1) DIC is a Private Equity (PE) investment company - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity - they WOULD have put debt in the business as that is how PE company generate their returns. If you dont believe me, then check out their other investments as they have debt up to the eyeballs.
    2) The benevolent owner strategy (Chelsea, Man City) is NOT a sustainable business model. It is great for the fans, but the long terms viability of these clubs is not certain and is dependent on the owners' interest etc. Personally not a situation that I would be comfortable with
    3) IF (and this is a big "if") DIC did pour money in, I am not sure how tenable that would be given that Dubai nearly went bankrupt (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13186145). Can you imagine how vulnerable Chelsea/Man City would be if their owners became bankrupt?

    I am incredibly frustrated with G&H, particularly the stadium. That looks like one almighty cock up. Who knows if the same would have happened with DIC or another owner.... 

    ReplyDelete
  114. <span> does anyone actually believe we won’t have a new ground at some point in the near future?</span>

    Well yes, me, there's no sign of ANY work being done on a new stadium in either the immediate or near future - unless you have eveidence to the contrary?
    <div id="TixyyLink" style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">

    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  115. <span> "does anyone actually believe we won’t have a new ground at some point in the near future?"</span>
     
    Well yes, me, there's no sign of ANY work being done on a new stadium in either the immediate or near future - unless you have eveidence to the contrary? 
    <div id="TixyyLink" style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/revealed-how-hicks-and-gillett-saved.html##ixzz0TFOLdXUS
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  116.  "does anyone actually believe we won’t have a new ground at some point in the near future?"
     
    Well yes, me, there's no sign of ANY work being done on a new stadium in either the immediate or near future - unless you have eveidence to the contrary?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Bad, bad journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Alex and Jaimie.

    Embrace your insignificance.

    Either that or come the next SoS meeting and tell all about how the owners 'have saved this club from mediocrity'.

    The internet makes a perfect home for parasites such as yourselves.

    YANK LIAR$ OUT.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Would you be willing to put forward your point of view at an SOS meeting, or don't you go the game?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Do you even realise how cliched and tired your 'bet you don't go to the games' approach is?!  You and others like you are insular beyond belief. 

    I will meet you or anyone from SOS on neutral ground to debate any issue regarding LFC.  No problem whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Is this what Hicks and Gitlette are up to now?
    Posting filth and crap on the net?

    Do us a favour and walk on a landmine somewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  122. ALEX MILLER IS A TIT

    ReplyDelete
  123. <h1>George Gillett's Liverpool statements don't stack up</h1>
    <div class="mn_byline clearfix">
    <div class="mnb_img"><img src="http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/incoming/article90811.ece/ALTERNATES/medium/brian-reade.jpg"/></div>
    <div class="mnb_text">
    <p>By Brian Reade
    <p>Published 06:02 10/10/09
    <script type="text/javascript"></script>

    <ul class="ali_icons">
    <li class="first"><img src="http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/static/ver1/images/icons/comment.gif"/><span style=""> (2)</span></li>
    <li>
    <script type="text/javascript"></script>
    <div id="Recommend1255163520562" class="Recommend">
    <div style="display: inline;">
    <div class="Recommend_Container">Recommend (4) </div>
    </div>
    </div>
    </li>
    </ul>


    </div>
    </div>
    <div class="mn_carousel">
    <script type="text/javascript"></script>
    <div class="ms">
    <div id="swooshplaceholder"><img src="http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/article64500.ece/ALTERNATES/gallery-large/George+Gillett++%28Getty%29" alt="George Gillett"/></div>
    </div>
    </div>

    A fan can accept football illiteracy from its owners because they know the vast majority are only in it for kudos or profit.
    They can also excuse a lack of cash, if, like Bill Kenwright, they're in it mostly for love. Fans can even live with pig-headedness, aloofness and a poor knowledge of the club. But they cannot accept having the truth distorted or hidden from them.
    Which is what George Gillett, and his estranged partner in crime, have been doing for almost three years.
    This week alone, thanks to a leaked exchange with the fans group Spirit of Shankly, the former owner of Montreal Canadians ice-hockey team, came out with four statements which do not hold up to scrutiny.
    (1) "The club's debt situation is very sound." It was £44.8 million when Hicks and Gillett took over. It's now £245 million.
    (2) "It wasn't me who said we'd start building a new stadium in 60 days, it was Hicks." Check You Tube. It's you.
    (3) "We've spent £128 million on top of what's come in over the past 18 months to buy players." Rafa Benitez's net spend in that time has been £20 million.
    (4) "Liverpool is in an extraordinarily good financial position." So how come the banks have told you to find new investment, sell-up or they'll re-possess the club?
    This opportunistic, former bit-part player in a small-time North American sport has been found to be totally out of his depth in English football. His deceit merely adds insult to injury.
    As they say in ice-hockey, it's time to get the puck out of here

    ReplyDelete
  124. apologies  for the earlier post....here it is again... straight to the chase and not a red herring in site ! ....A fan can accept football illiteracy from its owners because they know the vast majority are only in it for kudos or profit.
    They can also excuse a lack of cash, if, like Bill Kenwright, they're in it mostly for love. Fans can even live with pig-headedness, aloofness and a poor knowledge of the club. But they cannot accept having the truth distorted or hidden from them.
    Which is what George Gillett, and his estranged partner in crime, have been doing for almost three years.
    This week alone, thanks to a leaked exchange with the fans group Spirit of Shankly, the former owner of Montreal Canadians ice-hockey team, came out with four statements which do not hold up to scrutiny.
    (1) "The club's debt situation is very sound." It was £44.8 million when Hicks and Gillett took over. It's now £245 million.
    (2) "It wasn't me who said we'd start building a new stadium in 60 days, it was Hicks." Check You Tube. It's you.
    (3) "We've spent £128 million on top of what's come in over the past 18 months to buy players." Rafa Benitez's net spend in that time has been £20 million.
    (4) "Liverpool is in an extraordinarily good financial position." So how come the banks have told you to find new investment, sell-up or they'll re-possess the club?
    This opportunistic, former bit-part player in a small-time North American sport has been found to be totally out of his depth in English football. His deceit merely adds insult to injury.
    As they say in ice-hockey, it's time to get the puck out of here

    unashamedly pinched off senor reade....get with the programme dudes !! 

    ReplyDelete
  125. A fan can accept football illiteracy from its owners because they know the vast majority are only in it for kudos or profit.

    They can also excuse a lack of cash, if, like Bill Kenwright, they're in it mostly for love. Fans can even live with pig-headedness, aloofness and a poor knowledge of the club. But they cannot accept having the truth distorted or hidden from them.

    Which is what George Gillett, and his estranged partner in crime, have been doing for almost three years.

    This week alone, thanks to a leaked exchange with the fans group Spirit of Shankly, the former owner of Montreal Canadians ice-hockey team, came out with four statements which do not hold up to scrutiny.

    (1) "The club's debt situation is very sound." It was £44.8 million when Hicks and Gillett took over. It's now £245 million.

    (2) "It wasn't me who said we'd start building a new stadium in 60 days, it was Hicks." Check You Tube. It's you.

    (3) "We've spent £128 million on top of what's come in over the past 18 months to buy players." Rafa Benitez's net spend in that time has been £20 million.

    (4) "Liverpool is in an extraordinarily good financial position." So how come the banks have told you to find new investment, sell-up or they'll re-possess the club?

    This opportunistic, former bit-part player in a small-time North American sport has been found to be totally out of his depth in English football. His deceit merely adds insult to injury.

    As they say in ice-hockey, it's time to get the puck out of here.

    <!-- m -->http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion ... 84559.html

    posted by senor reade....straight to the chase and not a red herring in sight !

    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
    <tbody>
    </tbody>
    </table>
    <div id="TixyyLink" style="text-align: left; background-color: transparent; width: 0px; height: 0px; color: #000000; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none;">apologies  for the earlier post....here it is again... straight to the chase and not a red herring in site ! ....A fan can accept football illiteracy from its owners because they know the vast majority are only in it for kudos or profit.  
    They can also excuse a lack of cash, if, like Bill Kenwright, they're in it mostly for love. Fans can even live with pig-headedness, aloofness and a poor knowledge of the club. But they cannot accept having the truth distorted or hidden from them.  
    Which is what George Gillett, and his estranged partner in crime, have been doing for almost three years.  
    This week alone, thanks to a leaked exchange with the fans group Spirit of Shankly, the former owner of Montreal Canadians ice-hockey team, came out with four statements which do not hold up to scrutiny.  
    (1) "The club's debt situation is very sound." It was £44.8 million when Hicks and Gillett took over. It's now £245 million.  
    (2) "It wasn't me who said we'd start building a new stadium in 60 days, it was Hicks." Check You Tube. It's you.  
    (3) "We've spent £128 million on top of what's come in over the past 18 months to buy players." Rafa Benitez's net spend in that time has been £20 million.  
    (4) "Liverpool is in an extraordinarily good financial position." So how come the banks have told you to find new investment, sell-up or they'll re-possess the club?  
    This opportunistic, former bit-part player in a small-time North American sport has been found to be totally out of his depth in English football. His deceit merely adds insult to injury.  
    As they say in ice-hockey, it's time to get the puck out of here  
     
    unashamedly pinched off senor reade....get with the programme dudes !! 

    Read more: <a [...]

    ReplyDelete
  126. A fan can accept football illiteracy from its owners because they know the vast majority are only in it for kudos or profit.

    They can also excuse a lack of cash, if, like Bill Kenwright, they're in it mostly for love. Fans can even live with pig-headedness, aloofness and a poor knowledge of the club. But they cannot accept having the truth distorted or hidden from them.

    Which is what George Gillett, and his estranged partner in crime, have been doing for almost three years.

    This week alone, thanks to a leaked exchange with the fans group Spirit of Shankly, the former owner of Montreal Canadians ice-hockey team, came out with four statements which do not hold up to scrutiny.

    (1) "The club's debt situation is very sound." It was £44.8 million when Hicks and Gillett took over. It's now £245 million.

    (2) "It wasn't me who said we'd start building a new stadium in 60 days, it was Hicks." Check You Tube. It's you.

    (3) "We've spent £128 million on top of what's come in over the past 18 months to buy players." Rafa Benitez's net spend in that time has been £20 million.

    (4) "Liverpool is in an extraordinarily good financial position." So how come the banks have told you to find new investment, sell-up or they'll re-possess the club?

    This opportunistic, former bit-part player in a small-time North American sport has been found to be totally out of his depth in English football. His deceit merely adds insult to injury.

    As they say in ice-hockey, it's time to get the puck out of here.

    <!-- m -->

    http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion ... 84559.html
    <!-- m -->


    straight to the chase and not a red herring in site from the kops very own senor reade
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
    <tbody>
    </tbody>
    </table>

    ReplyDelete
  127. A lot of digital ink has been used to write about the poor management style and broken promises of the two American owners ever since they assumed ownership of Liverpool Football Club. I don't mean to go over old ground, we all know that based on what we have seen so far the club would have been far more successful without them. But it's clear they are not interested in Liverpool winning trophies, only in making a profit. It's a management style indicative of American businessmen, it's a style called "Spreadsheet Management ". Success is based on how much profit you make, not on how many trophies you win. It's all about 'Return on Investment'. This management style will dictate whether a new stadium is built, how much Rafa is given to spend on players and how much tickets cost.
    The reality is if Liverpool finished 2nd or 3rd in the Premiership for the next five years and did well in the Champions League without winning it, Hicks & Gillett would consider this success due to the revenues generated by television and gate receipts. They will never admit this and will only communicate their commitment to the success of the club in carefully crafted press releases written by their Public Relations firm.
    <div id="more" class="asset-more">

    If a 3-5 year Strategic Business Plan has been developed for Liverpool FC by Managing Director Christian Purslow, and it should have been, I guarantee you winning trophies is not the number one priority. The number one's will be about maximizing profit and reducing expenditure. Don't get me wrong, of course the club needs to be financially stable, but if it means making less profit in order to put a quality team on the pitch and win as many trophies as possible, that gets my vote.

    To further support this thinking a recent article in 'The Independent' reveals there was a prospectus published in March by investment banks Rothschild and Merrill Lynch to attract potential investors to Liverpool that stated that net summer spending will be locked in at £20m until 2014. This includes wage increases from contract renewals. There is a section in the prospectus that talks about "player transfer payments" which states "Management believes that the normalised long-run level of new net player capital expenditure is £20m." See what I mean about "Spreadsheet Management"?
    When you compare the ownership of Liverpool versus Chelsea or Manchester City there is one fundamental difference. Abramovich and Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan are prepared to loose money or make less profit in order to make their "hobby" club successful. To them it's all about winning trophies, not making as much money as possible. But that's not the case with Hicks and Gillett, to them it's all about making money.
    I love Liverpool but I fear for the future of the club under the current ownership. If given a second chance, David Moores would never have sold his shares to Hicks & Gillett, that is for certain, as I'm convinced he loves Liverpool too.
    I don't have an answer to this dilemma but a club owned by the supporters, as proposed by ShareLiverpoolFC makes more and more sense every day.


    well written piece from the liverpool banter site 
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  128. Good post and I agree with a lot of what you write. Some of it mirrors my own thinking and blogpost http://<span>bit.ly/2oz9gP</span>

    For those who keep referring to the debts they are part and parcel of football these days. I'm just about to write a new post on our debts compared to the other 'top 4' sides. You may be surprised!

    ReplyDelete
  129. I'll be interested to read that.  Please post a link when you've finished :)

    ReplyDelete
  130. Hey Jaimie, just finished it <span>http://bit.ly/3wUgCo . I think I'm following you on twitter already @mcdonaldtaf. I await your thoughts.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  131. Still think this article is true?

    ReplyDelete