Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread [mod warning #11145, #32140 (see OP)]

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 14-10-2009 04:01PM

mayordenis wrote: »

>.<

"asshole"??

missingtime · 14-10-2009 04:11PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

"asshole"??

>O<

Big Asshole

He he he he...eww

Chardee MacDennis · 14-10-2009 04:12PM

http://www.caughtoffside.com/2009/10/14/liverpool-owner-just-days-away-from-anfield-exit/comment-page-1/#comment-340621

wrote:

Saudi prince: Liverpool talks near ‘final stage’
Prince Faisal says his company’s negotiations to buy shares in Liverpool are ongoing.
RIYADH – Saudi Prince Faisal bin Fahd bin Abdullah said on Wednesday that talks over his F6 company buying a major stake in Liverpool are nearing conclusion, as club co-owner George Gillett visited Riyadh.
“Our negotiations to buy shares in Liverpool are ongoing, meetings are taking place and we might be in the final stages in the coming days,” Prince Faisal said.
Gillett, one of the two US owners of the legendary but heavily-indebted English team, was in Riyadh mainly to discuss a project regarding the creation of Liverpool soccer academies around the region, Prince Faisal said.
In recent weeks, both parties have admitted that potential investment from Faisal has been firmly on the agenda.
Gillett and club co-owner Tom Hicks have been seeking new investment in Liverpool after refinancing some of its large debt during the summer.
The two met with Prince Sultan bin Fahd, president of the Saudi Youth Welfare organisation and chairman of the Saudi League, on Wednesday.
“The purpose of the visit of the owner of Liverpool Football Club to Saudi Arabia is to understand the sports industry and to learn about the facilities and the potential of the main clubs in order to set up the Liverpool Academy in Saudi Arabia,” Prince Faisal said.
The agreement between F6, a sports marketing and investment firm controlled by Faisal, would also provide opportunities for young Saudi players to train at Liverpool, he said.
(Middle East Online)

Fink Goddie · 14-10-2009 04:19PM

Once he's not a saudi Bastard Prince it should be ok.

Handsome Bob · 14-10-2009 04:57PM

So what's the deal with this bloke? Is he filthy rich to the point of Citeh proportions?

missingtime · 14-10-2009 05:03PM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

So what's the deal with this bloke? Is he filthy rich to the point of Citeh proportions?

I dont think so. Not sure what his game plan will be really. Lets hope he brings some stability.

mayordenis · 14-10-2009 05:10PM

missingtime wrote: »

I dont think so. Not sure what his game plan will be really. Lets hope he brings some stability.

That's the big thing,
would be probably unsetling for the club overall to go through a further huge change - bringing it back to normality with a few extra quid to spend is really all I'm hoping for right now.

whatawaster · 14-10-2009 05:21PM

I just want the funds to address the weaknesses in our squad.

A new defender
A new central midfielder
A new Striker

All of the above need only be squad players, and should't cost more than 20m

Then in the summer we can start a policy of buying one 20m player a year for the first 11, starting with a winger next summer

missingtime · 14-10-2009 05:28PM

One thing that we need to be careful of is the "Add 10M because its Liverpool and they are rich" crowd. That could be annoying.

There are a lot of exciting players out there but it will be difficult to get a striker to play back up to Torres.

I hope we can get a few bargains before the World Cup starts...prices always go mental afterwards if someone has performed well at it.

slingerz · 14-10-2009 05:31PM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

So what's the deal with this bloke? Is he filthy rich to the point of Citeh proportions?

If Fowler/Allyah is good

mike65 · 14-10-2009 06:52PM

Latest "ITK" stuff suggests Hicks is going to sell a few % so this F6 group will have a majority share.

joe123 · 14-10-2009 08:12PM

Anything to loosen the americans hold on the club is good imo. Think I read some quotes from the saudi fella a while back saying hes not here to bail out the club with floods of cash. Just help them find stability and start work on the stadium.

5starpool · 14-10-2009 08:47PM

As long as the debt is gone, that will be a huge step up. Actually as long as Hicks/Gillette are gone it will be a huge step up.

From what I have seen about this lad though so far, I can't see there being an awful lot of short term improvement. Hopefully it'll go through and I'll be proved wrong though.

14-10-2009 08:57PM

joe123 wrote: »

Think I read some quotes from the saudi fella a while back saying hes not here to bail out the club with floods of cash. Just help them find stability and start work on the stadium.

We have heard promises like this before though not so long ago.

I will be skeptical about any foreign takeover after the mess G&H got us in tbh.

Dublin_Gunner · 14-10-2009 09:30PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

We have heard promises like this before though not so long ago.

I will be skeptical about any foreign takeover after the mess G&H got us in tbh.

Would you be happier with a non-foreign takeover?

In fairness, any non G&H takeover has to be a good thing...

14-10-2009 09:40PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Would you be happier with a non-foreign takeover?

In fairness, any non G&H takeover has to be a good thing...

I'm just worried does this guy have the best interests of LFC at heart or in it for a quick buck.

But as you say it can't be any worse than at the moment.

14-10-2009 10:31PM

None of these guys have the best interests of LFC at heart they are only in it for what they can get out of it in the long run,if Gillette sells his stake even after loading the club with debt and making a balls of it he will still walk away with millions.

daithijjj · 14-10-2009 10:32PM

The irony of all of this is, that it was actually worse before they took over.
Moores had milked it for every last drop, or so his incompetence thought. DIC put a fair bid in and moores 'hummed and hawed' with ineptitude. Gillette came from nowhere and moores didnt do anything but take an extra 8 mil off the americans. Hicks only came along at the request of gillette who didnt have enough cash on his own.

Moores had an offer of 80mil for his shares from DIC, he u-turned overnight in business terms and took 88mil off the americans instead. The fact that our sponsors (carlsberg) were not asked to pay more for the privilege over a 17 year period is laughable. The americans have almost trebled what carlsberg were forking out annually with the deal with standard chartered. Parry is gone also, and those 2 things alone have left the club in much better shape imo.

Moores loved the club but was far too late selling up and his sidekick parry was a joke. Hicks was barely through the door and told us it was underperforming.

Put it this way. The americans have just brokered a deal for the club that will earn in 4 years, what moores and parry would have taken a minimum of 10 years to earn with carlsberg. Its an incredible coup for the club to be honest and shouldnt be elimnated from peoples views in regards to how the club is being run now and how it was 3 years ago.

5starpool · 14-10-2009 10:44PM

daithijjj wrote: »

The irony of all of this is, that it was actually worse before they took over.
Moores had milked it for every last drop, or so his incompetence thought. DIC put a fair bid in and moores 'hummed and hawed' with ineptitude. Gillette came from nowhere and moores didnt do anything but take an extra 8 mil off the americans. Hicks only came along at the request of gillette who didnt have enough cash on his own.

Moores had an offer of 80mil for his shares from DIC, he u-turned overnight in business terms and took 88mil off the americans instead. The fact that our sponsors (carlsberg) were not asked to pay more for the privilege over a 17 year period is laughable. The americans have almost trebled what carlsberg were forking out annually with the deal with standard chartered. Parry is gone also, and those 2 things alone have left the club in much better shape imo.

Moores loved the club but was far too late selling up and his sidekick parry was a joke. Hicks was barely through the door and told us it was underperforming.

Put it this way. The americans have just brokered a deal for the club that will earn in 4 years, what moores and parry would have taken a minimum of 10 years to earn with carlsberg. Its an incredible coup for the club to be honest and shouldnt be elimnated from peoples views in regards to how the club is being run now and how it was 3 years ago.

The fact that we have over 250m debt that we can barley pay off the interest on doesn't bother you? That was not there before they came in, and we do not have even one brick of a new stadium to show for it.

daithijjj · 14-10-2009 11:05PM

5starpool wrote: »

The fact that we have over 250m debt that we can barley pay off the interest on doesn't bother you? That was not there before they came in, and we do not have even one brick of a new stadium to show for it.

Of course its a concern to a degree. Alot of clubs run on massive debt tho, isnt united running on 650mil in debt? Doesnt seem to be hampering them. Football clubs are not normal businesses.

If the 60k stadium was built it would take over 30 years to pay for itself (+interest). The only way that can be brought down is by offering the naming rights of the stadium to a corporate. Lets get one point clear, i dont like the americans but you cant ignore the fact that since they took over there has been a worldwide financial meltdown.

jesus_thats_gre · 14-10-2009 11:08PM

daithijjj wrote: »

Of course its a concern to a degree. Alot of clubs run on massive debt tho, isnt united running on 650mil in debt? Doesnt seem to be hampering them. Football clubs are not normal businesses.

If the 60k stadium was built it would take over 30 years to pay for itself (+interest). The only way that can be brought down is by offering the naming rights of the stadium to a corporate. Lets get one point clear, i dont like the americans but you cant ignore the fact that since they took over there has been a worldwide financial meltdown.

United being in 100m debt 3 years ago and being in 600m debt now is not going to have an immediate effect on what they achieve on the pitch. It is the long term changes in policy that result from having to service th debt in the long that will hamper what happens on the pitch.

It is when the players that they have not have to be replaced and there isn't the money to do so.

deadhead13 · 14-10-2009 11:19PM

daithijjj wrote: »

Of course its a concern to a degree. Alot of clubs run on massive debt tho, isnt united running on 650mil in debt? Doesnt seem to be hampering them. Football clubs are not normal businesses.

The club now has to pay the interest on that loan, which I imagine is quite considerable. I also suspect the refinacing of the loan is the main reason the tranfer budget this year was 0. Far from being better than before H&G took over as you're suggesting, we are in fact £250 million worse off and you can't really get away from that. I also doubt there are too many united fans that are happy with that debt hanging over their club.

daithijjj · 14-10-2009 11:39PM

So basically, what people are saying is that they wanted owners who would come in, pay for the club in cash upfront, then pay 300mil for a stadium while also making upwards of 30/40mil available for transfers annually and not acrue debt in this time?

What is a reasonable amount of debt? The only other option is a sugardaddy, is it not?

Can anybody please tell me how 'you' would have gone forward with the club and how you would have financed it?

Mr Alan · 14-10-2009 11:53PM

Debt for the stadium is what people were expecting. That debt would pay for itself when the new stadium was complete.

There is crazy levels of debt now, when in nothing has been done about the stadium. Whats the debt gonna be like when the stadium is complete?

People were not expecting all the debt involved in the purchase of the club to be loaded onto the club, which basically means the americans don't pay a cent for the club.

as Tom Hicks himself said at the time

"This is not a takeover like the Glazer deal at Manchester United. There is no debt involved, and we believe that as custodians of this wonderful club, we have a duty of care to the tradition and legacies of Liverpool."

the amount of people defending the americans actions in this thread over the last few days is sickening.

deadhead13 · 14-10-2009 11:55PM

daithijjj wrote: »

So basically, what people are saying is that they wanted owners who would come in, pay for the club in cash upfront, then pay 300mil for a stadium while also making upwards of 30/40mil available for transfers annually and not acrue debt in this time?

What is a reasonable amount of debt? The only other option is a sugardaddy, is it not?

Can anybody please tell me how 'you' would have gone forward with the club and how you would have financed it?

DIC afaik were not planning a leveraged buyout and unlike H&G had the wherewithall to finance a new stadium. Does this new shirt sponser deal even cover the annual interest payments on the loan.

daithijjj · 15-10-2009 12:16AM

deadhead13 wrote: »

DIC afaik were not planning a leveraged buyout and unlike H&G had the wherewithall to finance a new stadium. Does this new shirt sponser deal even cover the annual interest payments on the loan.

I said myself a few pages back that DIC were the better option but moores alienated them when he got a sniff of 8mil more from G&H. The new sponsorship deal in place is 13 mil more than carlsberg had been paying annually, not sure what kinda chunk that eats into interest payments.

deadhead13 · 15-10-2009 12:18AM

ffs - Kyrgiaskos ruptured his cruciate ligament in the Greek v Luxembourg game. Could be out for 4 months.

Mr Alan · 15-10-2009 12:30AM

daithijjj wrote: »

I said myself a few pages back that DIC were the better option but moores alienated them when he got a sniff of 8mil more from G&H. The new sponsorship deal in place is 13 mil more than carlsberg had been paying annually, not sure what kinda chunk that eats into interest payments.

numerous articles a while ago after RBS made their statement said that we are paying £1m every nine days.

thats about £40m a year on interest. before even touching the actual debt or building a stadium.

kinda puts the shirt sponsorship deal into perspective.

daithijjj · 15-10-2009 12:50AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

numerous articles a while ago after RBS made their statement said that we are paying £1m every nine days.

thats about £40m a year on interest. before even touching the actual debt or building a stadium.

kinda puts the shirt sponsorship deal into perspective.

So thats what, 16.75% interest annually?, any ideas what it was before refinancing?

Mr Alan · 15-10-2009 12:51AM

no idea.

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread [mod warning #11145, #32140 (see OP)]

Comments