Worrying state of affairs at LFC

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

_blank_

A shortlist without Martin O'Neill is inevitable given what happened a few months ago when O'Neill came out and said straight that he would not be interested in the post, as far as I remember it resulted in a war of words with the LFC board and O'Neill.

Why should the chairman not be against giving board places to new investers. If this truly was a concern he would have bitten the hand off this Morgan character, he was offering cash with no strings wasn't he? I don't think he wanted a place on the board.

super_furry

I think he's right to try and limit the Thai influence. These are people who care nothing for the club, and just want the good publicity and profits that come from owning a part of England's most successful team. Moores and Parry should take the money as long as it suits Liverpool, but in no way should they allow the Thai's to have a major say in how the club is run – something they know nothing of.

As for Morgan's bid, well that in itself was laughable when analysed properly and he relied on the populist card and played on the anti-Houllier sentiment of some 'supporters' to try and bully his way into the club with a minimal outlay. Moores and Parry have a very good and will hopefully continue to do so, even if I don't agree with their decision to sack Ged.

As for O'Neill, I just don't think he's got what it takes myself but I wouldn't pay any attention to any supposed short-list by the tabloid media. Benitez would be my bet and I wouldn't be surprised to see him land the job.

leeroybrown

To my mind the Thai investment package is dodgy in the extreme and is not something LFC (or any other English club) should consider at all, especially when there is another viable alternative. That said, money talks ...

redspider

The investment approaches have been discussed at length on other threads but I do agree that the main owner (Moores on 51+ %) has not handled the whole issue well at all. Its taking place in the public gaze, unlike the Abramovich deal that was signed and sealed before it became known. For example, I thought it most unusual to see Micheal Owen at a press conference discussing the Thai deal and welcoming it. That is not really a players place and the club shouldn't have put him there, especially as the deal was still being negotiated.

Whether the two seats on the board versus one seat is a real issue or not is difficult to tell. If the board votes according to share ownership, then Moores IS Liverpool at the moment with his 51%. Not all decisions can be made with just 51% of the vote, some require 75% and 80% according to company rules, etc. Having seats on the board could be immaterial. The Thai's are mercenaries to some extent and are willing to invest in any club in England. I'm sure a Birmingham or somebody would willingly take the UKP 60m. I dont like the Thai deal and prefer it to fail really. The Morgan deal didnt have any real money behind it (all he guaranteed was a loan for those that needed the money to participate in a rights issue). It was never a deal that was going to succeed. What Granada think of all this I dont know.

My own thoughts are that if the Thai deal doesnt go ahead, which is now looking like it wont, then there will be no major money. But Liverpool do have some cash to invest so its not doom and gloom.

Bannor

There is a third potential investor who the club are negotiating with privately and are likely to succeed for that reason alone.

The Thai's have issued a deadline of Wednesday morning for the Liverpool board to accept their offer, somehow I think that deadline will pass without any acknowledgement from the board. The latest threat to invest the £65M in Everton, if the Liverpool board don't accept the offer is laghable. For that kind of money they could buy the whole Everton club.

Morgan's bid isn't worth talking about, and it speaks volumes that he wanted to conduct the business dealings in the public arena. Thankfully the board had the good sense to tell him no.

Shred

I think David Moores has the best interest of the club at heart, unlike the Thai's. Even though his familly have had a controlling stake in the club for over 50 years he had said earlier in the season at the AGM that he would step down if results didn't improve. I've also heard rumours that he will step down this summer.

I don't like the Thai deal, they don't care about the club it's just an investment to them and as such they shoudn't be given any seats on the board. Liverpool should have kept their dealings behind closed doors until it was all finalised though.

Bannor

Originally posted by Shred
Liverpool should have kept their dealings behind closed doors until it was all finalised though.

In fairness to the club, it was Morgan and the Thai's who wanted to conduct dealings through the media. That has never been the Liverpool way of doing things - there is a third potential investor and there has been nothing leaked to the media about it.

p.pete

Originally posted by Bannor
In fairness to the club, it was Morgan and the Thai's who wanted to conduct dealings through the media. That has never been the Liverpool way of doing things - there is a third potential investor and there has been nothing leaked to the media about it.

Having board members seen visiting Thailand doesn't help though...