TRon Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Somebody else is looking at Chelsea. Funny that - I keep getting told that theres absolutlely no way anyone in the world can even contemplate buying a football club. Of course perceived success makes a difference - maybe if we'd had a better squad and kept KK and been higher we could have been sold. I don't usually agree with the NUSC view but the only reason Liverpool are sought after is because of their sustained success over the decades. Otherwise it was just an ordinairy club in an ordinairy city before Shankly. Not sure that KK would make much difference though. Fair enough but what about the interest in Chelsea who would cost a lot more and I would argue are less prestigious than us historically? I agree, this is something we have lost. During Keegan's first spell we were obviously a far more attractive proposition. Owners like the arabs want a club which will give them stature, Liverpool offer that right now, we don't. Re-building our stature is a big job and it's going to cost a lot of money. Throwing money at it doesn't necessarily work either, that's why we have been haemorriging money for years now. The club has been badly run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Somebody else is looking at Chelsea. Funny that - I keep getting told that theres absolutlely no way anyone in the world can even contemplate buying a football club. Of course perceived success makes a difference - maybe if we'd had a better squad and kept KK and been higher we could have been sold. I don't usually agree with the NUSC view but the only reason Liverpool are sought after is because of their sustained success over the decades. Otherwise it was just an ordinairy club in an ordinairy city before Shankly. Not sure that KK would make much difference though. It's about the brand. Liverpool is one of the biggest names in world football. We're not. I go to Morocco a lot. There's a bunch of guys I know in Marrakech who all work out of an office that backs on to the stadium of Kawkab Marrakech, the local team. You can get a completely unrestricted view of the pitch from the corridor leading to the toilet in the cafe these guys use. But they don't have the slightest interest in watching, even though, when we're drinking tea and smoking kif, the conversation often turns to football. Some of them "support" Barcelona or Real Madrid (Spanish football is much more popular there than the Premiership, one or two like Raja Casablanca (one of the best teams in Africa). One of them has been a Liverpool fan since, he says, he was a child. They've barely heard of Newcastle, though, and that wouldn't have been any different no matter what happened this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Not for majority share holding. Looks like Gillette wants out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Please... Can you turn your interest to the north-east. The Independent : Liverpool are engaged in covert talks with one of the wealthiest families in Kuwait, with a view to the sale of the club. The Al-Kharafi family has a collective wealth put at around £8bn, with the most significant member involved in the prospective purchase of Liverpool understood to be Rafed Al-Kharafi, nephew of patriarch Nasser, who was linked with the potential purchase of Newcastle United last year. Though it had been thought that Liverpool's current American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who have been seeking a new owner for months now, may have settled on a figure of £350m – the total sum of the club's debt – it is understood that they may secure £500m for a sale from the Kuwaitis. Two of Hicks' key allies at the club, finance director Philip Nash and commercial director Ian Ayre, have been in Kuwait this week, ostensibly seeking finance for the stalled development of the club's new stadium and though it is as yet unclear whether the two – very much in the Hicks camp – have yet had direct discussions with the Al-Kharafis, the events of the week point to a move towards a sale. One possibly outcome is that that the Al-Kharafis might buy out the 50 per cent share of Hicks' co-owner George Gillett, comfortably the less well off of the two owners and deeply frustrated by the current struggle to settle manager Rafael Benitez's contract issue. The money the Al-Kharafis could bring – made from the family's construction, engineering and telecommunications businesses – is vitally needed, with Hicks and Gillett having conceded weeks ago that they do not have the capital to progress the new stadium project and Benitez still forced to sell players before he can buy. The prospects of a sale were looking slim with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, now out of the picture. But there were rumours earlier this week that financier Amanda Staveley, who had brought al-Maktoum back to the negotiating table after their initial bid to buy Liverpool was dismissed in favour of the Americans in 2007, had become actively involved again in a prospective sale. There are suggestions that Gillett has not been involved in the trip to Kuwait this week – and that he and Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry, an ally, have been kept out of the tentative discussions. But Gillett is the more likely to sell – and the Kuwaitis becoming minority shareholders is a possibility. Though Liverpool's current £350m bank facility was extended for six months earlier this year, there are doubts as to whether it will continue beyond then – with the two banks, Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia, both severely by the global financial crisis. A £500m deal, to include taking on the club's debt , was all but agreed by one mystery buyer in the autumn but with a deal seemingly minutes away from signing, it went up in smoke for reasons which have never become clear. It now appears that the prospective buyers on that occasion were the Al Kharafis. is that the debt all the scousers get their knickers in a twist about when they are challenging for the title and playing in the champions league ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 That debt is going to be a real problem for them once the 6 month extension finishes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Please... Can you turn your interest to the north-east. The Independent : Liverpool are engaged in covert talks with one of the wealthiest families in Kuwait, with a view to the sale of the club. The Al-Kharafi family has a collective wealth put at around £8bn, with the most significant member involved in the prospective purchase of Liverpool understood to be Rafed Al-Kharafi, nephew of patriarch Nasser, who was linked with the potential purchase of Newcastle United last year. Though it had been thought that Liverpool's current American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who have been seeking a new owner for months now, may have settled on a figure of £350m – the total sum of the club's debt – it is understood that they may secure £500m for a sale from the Kuwaitis. Two of Hicks' key allies at the club, finance director Philip Nash and commercial director Ian Ayre, have been in Kuwait this week, ostensibly seeking finance for the stalled development of the club's new stadium and though it is as yet unclear whether the two – very much in the Hicks camp – have yet had direct discussions with the Al-Kharafis, the events of the week point to a move towards a sale. One possibly outcome is that that the Al-Kharafis might buy out the 50 per cent share of Hicks' co-owner George Gillett, comfortably the less well off of the two owners and deeply frustrated by the current struggle to settle manager Rafael Benitez's contract issue. The money the Al-Kharafis could bring – made from the family's construction, engineering and telecommunications businesses – is vitally needed, with Hicks and Gillett having conceded weeks ago that they do not have the capital to progress the new stadium project and Benitez still forced to sell players before he can buy. The prospects of a sale were looking slim with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, now out of the picture. But there were rumours earlier this week that financier Amanda Staveley, who had brought al-Maktoum back to the negotiating table after their initial bid to buy Liverpool was dismissed in favour of the Americans in 2007, had become actively involved again in a prospective sale. There are suggestions that Gillett has not been involved in the trip to Kuwait this week – and that he and Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry, an ally, have been kept out of the tentative discussions. But Gillett is the more likely to sell – and the Kuwaitis becoming minority shareholders is a possibility. Though Liverpool's current £350m bank facility was extended for six months earlier this year, there are doubts as to whether it will continue beyond then – with the two banks, Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia, both severely by the global financial crisis. A £500m deal, to include taking on the club's debt, was all but agreed by one mystery buyer in the autumn but with a deal seemingly minutes away from signing, it went up in smoke for reasons which have never become clear. It now appears that the prospective buyers on that occasion were the Al Kharafis. Liverpool are about 400 million in debt and they still haven't bought a stadium. oh dear. How come they haven;t gone into administration instead of buying Torres, Kuyt and Keane ? They have been getting it wrong all these years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Aye, the only difference between us and Liverpool is the unwillingness of the current owner to take on massive debt in a time of global financial meltdown. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 is that the debt all the scousers get their knickers in a twist about when they are challenging for the title and playing in the champions league ? http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?board=16.0 Quite a few of them very upset yes. Quite a few calling for the heads of such ambitious owners putting their club further in debt yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Part of me would love to be taken over by stupidly rich billionaires who;d will us to get at the top in one season, but otherpart says that id love to see us being built up from the bottom to the top over a period of years. I wonder if its more satifying to win being an Arsenal fan or more satifying winning being a Chelsea fan? Been pointed out many times before, but football is no longer about the football, its about money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 is that the debt all the scousers get their knickers in a twist about when they are challenging for the title and playing in the champions league ? http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?board=16.0 Quite a few of them very upset yes. Quite a few calling for the heads of such ambitious owners putting their club further in debt yes. they like benitez, right ? And Benitez continues to demand huge backing ? What do yuo think they would do if they lost Benitez due to them not backing him? What do you think they would do if their best players suddenly then decided they wanted to go elsewhere as a result -------- so far, they HAVE backed Benitez, and Liverpool aren't used to seeing their managers not backed and having a team not playing in europe,never mind the Champs League. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 There have big debt, Need megabucks for a new ground. Its all just bullshit paper talk again man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 is that the debt all the scousers get their knickers in a twist about when they are challenging for the title and playing in the champions league ? http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?board=16.0 Quite a few of them very upset yes. Quite a few calling for the heads of such ambitious owners putting their club further in debt yes. they like benitez, right ? And Benitez continues to demand huge backing ? What do yuo think they would do if they lost Benitez due to them not backing him? What do you think they would do if their best players suddenly then decided they wanted to go elsewhere as a result -------- so far, they HAVE backed Benitez, and Liverpool aren't used to seeing their managers not backed and having a team not playing in europe,never mind the Champs League. They were in the CL before they were bought out though when their (much smaller) debt was under control, it's only so high now because like the Glazers they took out a loan to buy the club and then switched the debt back onto the club, so they won't pay anything for it in the long run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Part of me would love to be taken over by stupidly rich billionaires who;d will us to get at the top in one season, but otherpart says that id love to see us being built up from the bottom to the top over a period of years. I wonder if its more satifying to win being an Arsenal fan or more satifying winning being a Chelsea fan? Been pointed out many times before, but football is no longer about the football, its about money. Arsenal's team aren't exactly North Londoners are they so all they've done is recruit earlier - I don't see what the difference is overall. I can't think of any successful team that you could argue was truly "home made" - either in terms of locals or even in youth team players. Man U had an extraordinary crop with Giggs etc but that was a one-off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Part of me would love to be taken over by stupidly rich billionaires who;d will us to get at the top in one season, but otherpart says that id love to see us being built up from the bottom to the top over a period of years. I wonder if its more satifying to win being an Arsenal fan or more satifying winning being a Chelsea fan? Been pointed out many times before, but football is no longer about the football, its about money. Arsenal's team aren't exactly North Londoners are they so all they've done is recruit earlier - I don't see what the difference is overall. I can't think of any successful team that you could argue was truly "home made" - either in terms of locals or even in youth team players. Man U had an extraordinary crop with Giggs etc but that was a one-off. To be honest I was on about turning the club from moderate teams to european giants like Liverpool , Arsenal and Man U have done, the way they have achieved success IS similiar to what Chelsea have done but on no way near the same scale. Id prefer to be an Arsenal over a Chelsea. If that makes sense at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I see what you're getting at but remember what Arsenal paid for Bergkamp, Henry, Anelka and Vieira. They were always quite big spenders before Wenger as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I see what you're getting at but remember what Arsenal paid for Bergkamp, Henry, Anelka and Vieira. They were always quite big spenders before Wenger as well. £7m for Bergkamp, £3.5m for Viera, £11m for Henry, £500k for Anelka. Thats the model we're after now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I see what you're getting at but remember what Arsenal paid for Bergkamp, Henry, Anelka and Vieira. They were always quite big spenders before Wenger as well. £7m for Bergkamp, £3.5m for Viera, £11m for Henry, £500k for Anelka. Thats the model we're after now. That was when 11m was a lot of money though - I thought Anelka cost more - fair enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I see what you're getting at but remember what Arsenal paid for Bergkamp, Henry, Anelka and Vieira. They were always quite big spenders before Wenger as well. £7m for Bergkamp, £3.5m for Viera, £11m for Henry, £500k for Anelka. Thats the model we're after now. And what did they get for them when they moved on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gleebals Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 7m for Bergkamp, £3.5m for Viera, £11m for Henry, £500k for Anelka = Bar Bergkamp, big profit What we paid for Smith, Barton, Duff , Owen = Big loss (no re sale profit either) Says it all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I see what you're getting at but remember what Arsenal paid for Bergkamp, Henry, Anelka and Vieira. They were always quite big spenders before Wenger as well. £7m for Bergkamp, £3.5m for Viera, £11m for Henry, £500k for Anelka. Thats the model we're after now. And what did they get for them when they moved on? Anelka aside, not as much as they could of done. Possibly Wengers only weakness, soldboth Henry and Viera a year too late and probably lost out on about £30m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It was the sales of Overmars, Petit and Anelka where Arsenal made their huge profit. Those sales really set them up financially for the next few years. He bought them for a total of £10 million, and sold them for £54 million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 is that the debt all the scousers get their knickers in a twist about when they are challenging for the title and playing in the champions league ? http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?board=16.0 Quite a few of them very upset yes. Quite a few calling for the heads of such ambitious owners putting their club further in debt yes. they like benitez, right ? And Benitez continues to demand huge backing ? What do yuo think they would do if they lost Benitez due to them not backing him? What do you think they would do if their best players suddenly then decided they wanted to go elsewhere as a result -------- so far, they HAVE backed Benitez, and Liverpool aren't used to seeing their managers not backed and having a team not playing in europe,never mind the Champs League. They were in the CL before they were bought out though when their (much smaller) debt was under control, it's only so high now because like the Glazers they took out a loan to buy the club and then switched the debt back onto the club, so they won't pay anything for it in the long run. Just like Ashley really. I see what you're getting at but remember what Arsenal paid for Bergkamp, Henry, Anelka and Vieira. They were always quite big spenders before Wenger as well. £7m for Bergkamp, £3.5m for Viera, £11m for Henry, £500k for Anelka. Thats the model we're after now. And what did they get for them when they moved on? Not relegation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 is that the debt all the scousers get their knickers in a twist about when they are challenging for the title and playing in the champions league ? http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?board=16.0 Quite a few of them very upset yes. Quite a few calling for the heads of such ambitious owners putting their club further in debt yes. they like benitez, right ? And Benitez continues to demand huge backing ? What do yuo think they would do if they lost Benitez due to them not backing him? What do you think they would do if their best players suddenly then decided they wanted to go elsewhere as a result -------- so far, they HAVE backed Benitez, and Liverpool aren't used to seeing their managers not backed and having a team not playing in europe,never mind the Champs League. They were in the CL before they were bought out though when their (much smaller) debt was under control, it's only so high now because like the Glazers they took out a loan to buy the club and then switched the debt back onto the club, so they won't pay anything for it in the long run. Just like Ashley really. I see what you're getting at but remember what Arsenal paid for Bergkamp, Henry, Anelka and Vieira. They were always quite big spenders before Wenger as well. £7m for Bergkamp, £3.5m for Viera, £11m for Henry, £500k for Anelka. Thats the model we're after now. And what did they get for them when they moved on? Not relegation. indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 is that the debt all the scousers get their knickers in a twist about when they are challenging for the title and playing in the champions league ? http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?board=16.0 Quite a few of them very upset yes. Quite a few calling for the heads of such ambitious owners putting their club further in debt yes. they like benitez, right ? And Benitez continues to demand huge backing ? What do yuo think they would do if they lost Benitez due to them not backing him? What do you think they would do if their best players suddenly then decided they wanted to go elsewhere as a result -------- so far, they HAVE backed Benitez, and Liverpool aren't used to seeing their managers not backed and having a team not playing in europe,never mind the Champs League. They were in the CL before they were bought out though when their (much smaller) debt was under control, it's only so high now because like the Glazers they took out a loan to buy the club and then switched the debt back onto the club, so they won't pay anything for it in the long run. Bit of myth that. They borrowed money off there wealth & then once the takeover happened it was transferred into the club, it is basically the same sort of transaction most people do to buy a house. Got to remember the Glazers as owners are the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 They've denied it anyway. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/7848428.stm A Kuwaiti business group has denied reports it is in talks with the owners of Liverpool over a possible takeover. Reds co-owner Tom Hicks had reportedly been in talks with Kuwait billionaire Nasser Al-Kharafi, who has an estimated £9bn fortune. But Kharafi Group vice-president Loay Al-Kharafi has insisted no talks were held and the reports were incorrect. Reports on Merseyside have suggested a prominent European businessman has also expressed an interest in Liverpool. The reign of Hicks and his co-owner George Gillett, who value the club at around £550m, has been dogged by controversy since their £218m takeover in February 2007. BBC Sport understands that even though the relationship between Hicks and Gillett has been troubled, they may be united in their desire to sell at the right price. And they are clearly on the look-out for new investors at the very least, even if Hicks stands by his intention of retaining a stake in the club. The pair have appointed rival banks to try and find potential buyers, Merrill Lynch are on board with Hicks and Rothschilds with Gillett. Their regime has become deeply unpopular among fans after early optimism, and the US tycoons have just been given an extra six months to repay a £350m loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia. The current economic climate has left both banks in desperate trouble and any further refinancing is unlikely, while no other bank would be willing to offer such a loan. Manager Rafael Benitez had public differences with the owners, who admitted they met former Germany coach Jurgen Klinsmann when doubts emerged over his future. Hicks also demanded the resignation of chief executive Rick Parry last season after labelling his time in charge "a disaster". The pair's plans for a new stadium have also stalled after spiralling costs meant it would cost around £450m rather than the original estimate of £300m. Benitez is currently locked in a contract wrangle with the Anfield hierarchy as he demands greater control over transfers at the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now