Liverpool FC

Aren't all economies by its definition boom and bust. The art is how to predict and control the impact of those cycles. I am a dyed in the wool Liverpool supporter and went to University and lived there for most of my life. We knew when these clowns arrived what was going to happen at least unlike the Glazers who realise they have a stronger commercial engine to service their debt Liverpool do not have that type of revenue. Largely because they have not exploited the brand or improved match day revenue with a new stadium something it should have done 10 years ago. The new owners will in essence be benefectors as Liverpools business plan has to be rewritten to make them commercially competitive with Arsenal,Man Utd and probably now Man City.Worrying times for a team I have travelled all over the world watching!!

Their situation is pretty dire to put it mildly, somebody has to find £500million to buy the club then they need to find another 300-400million to build a new stadium...all in this financial climate.

(17-04-2010 03:10 )Mister Gummidge Wrote:  I'm in full agreement with colino and Doctoratthedock, here. Football is a bubble economy and the thing about bubble economies, the really important thing, is that sooner or later, they burst. I hope Liverpool are able to find a sensible new owner soon, because when the bubble bursts only clubs with sugar daddies willing to underwrite the horrendous losses are going to be able to ride out the storm. Look at Leeds Utd nearly going to the wall, Portsmouth still aren't out of the woods and more Football League clubs than I care to think about are in similar situations.

Fans of EPL clubs shouldn't be hoping for sugar daddies with big dreams and hopes of reflected glory, but sensible owners who are more concerned with making sure a club operates within its projected turnover and debts don't spiral out of control. Short term success may be harder to come by, but long term those clubs who do will be beter positioned than those who are leveraged to the hilt (which includes my own club!) to survive the inevitable crash. When a football club becomes a toy for someone, there's always the worry about what happens to the toy when the owner gets bored of it.

That last sentence of yours should be posted on every boardroom wall in the Premiership. I'm a little more comfortable about it now because it looks like he's in it for the long haul, but i used to have kittens thinking about what would happen to Chelsea if Abramovich woke up one morning and decided that he was fed up with owning it......

I thought that this article on Liverpool and the role of football clubs was very good. Football played by millionaire workers in one of the most deprived areas in the city and the country...an interesting juxtaposition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/...tion-votes

(17-04-2010 08:27 )tiger thomson Wrote:  

(16-04-2010 19:54 )colino Wrote:  whenever one wanted to do anything the other one made it his life's work to veto it!!

Neither Hicks nor Gillette had the power of veto. There have always been 6 members of the board, 2 representing the Hicks interest, 2 representing the Gillette interest and 2 others, the chairman and chief executive. If Hicks and Gillette disagreed on something the decision effectively rested with the charirman and chief executive. Nobody involved had the power of veto.

Ahem......I think i'll take the award winning journalist's view as being correct, thanks.....This, taken from Jim White's (of the Daily Telegraph) Eurosport column a few days ago.....

"To add to that inertia, the two Americans couldn't stand each other and would block each other's ideas as a matter of course. Rick Parry, the former chief executive, was running the place for over a year in a state of limbo because one of them wanted him out and the other wouldn't agree to it. Nothing was done because neither would let the other do anything. If one wanted tea served at a meeting, the other would insist on coffee. More often than not, they ended up with neither."

Welcome to the Forum, anyway

(17-04-2010 15:32 )colino Wrote:  Ahem......I think i'll take the award winning journalist's view as being correct, thanks.....This, taken from Jim White's (of the Daily Telegraph) Eurosport column a few days ago.....

"To add to that inertia, the two Americans couldn't stand each other and would block each other's ideas as a matter of course. Rick Parry, the former chief executive, was running the place for over a year in a state of limbo because one of them wanted him out and the other wouldn't agree to it. Nothing was done because neither would let the other do anything. If one wanted tea served at a meeting, the other would insist on coffee. More often than not, they ended up with neither."

Award winning journalist or not, that article doesn't explain the position very clearly.

When Hicks wanted Parry out, he was outvoted by Gillette and the Liverpool chairman, so nothing was done. Gillette couldn't have blocked it by himself, he didn't have the power. What the article is trying to say is that Parry would have been dismissed if the two Americans had agreed, but because they didn't agree nothing could be done. That's quite different to saying that either of them had a veto.

The Liverpool board still has 6 members now, all with equal voting rights.

(17-04-2010 16:14 )cosmonaut Wrote:  

(17-04-2010 15:32 )colino Wrote:  Ahem......I think i'll take the award winning journalist's view as being correct, thanks.....This, taken from Jim White's (of the Daily Telegraph) Eurosport column a few days ago.....

"To add to that inertia, the two Americans couldn't stand each other and would block each other's ideas as a matter of course. Rick Parry, the former chief executive, was running the place for over a year in a state of limbo because one of them wanted him out and the other wouldn't agree to it. Nothing was done because neither would let the other do anything. If one wanted tea served at a meeting, the other would insist on coffee. More often than not, they ended up with neither."

Award winning journalist or not, that article doesn't explain the position very clearly.

When Hicks wanted Parry out, he was outvoted by Gillette and the Liverpool chairman, so nothing was done. Gillette couldn't have blocked it by himself, he didn't have the power. What the article is trying to say is that Parry would have been dismissed if the two Americans had agreed, but because they didn't agree nothing could be done. That's quite different to saying that either of them had a veto.

The Liverpool board still has 6 members now, all with equal voting rights.

You're getting into semantics now and i really can't see the point.

"To add to that inertia, the two Americans couldn't stand each other and would block each other's ideas as a matter of course."

Forgive me, but i can't see the part of that statement that isn't totally clear. Not much ambiguity there, is there?

It's pretty much exactly what i said in my first post on this thread, nothing more, nothing less.

(17-04-2010 16:32 )colino Wrote:  You're getting into semantics now and i really can't see the point.

"To add to that inertia, the two Americans couldn't stand each other and would block each other's ideas as a matter of course."

Forgive me, but i can't see the part of that statement that isn't totally clear. Not much ambiguity there, is there?

It's pretty much exactly what i said in my first post on this thread, nothing more, nothing less.

You changed the meaning of the article by introducing the word 'veto' and that's what led to the discussion. Hicks and Gillette could effectively block each other's initiatives, but not because they had the right of veto.

More semantics!!........If you want to explain and differentiate between the words "veto" and "block" knock yourselves out......

Doubt i'll waste any of my time reading it though.

Block or Veto i think it all means the same. Clearly they had different agendas for owning the football club and need each others consent to pass a major motion. However all is clear today having read Hicks' statement about making four times his money back. What a conceited,stetson wearing yank cunt!!!

Get him out of my Football club quick!!!!!