arabs
- Thread starter Skullflower
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
So assuming they come in, what does this mean? We begin work on the stadium?
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=36079.msg951585#msg951585 date=1253992725]
So assuming they come in, what does this mean? We begin work on the stadium?
[/quote]
We buy Ribery.....?
So assuming they come in, what does this mean? We begin work on the stadium?
[/quote]
We buy Ribery.....?
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=36079.msg951588#msg951588 date=1253992940]
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=36079.msg951585#msg951585 date=1253992725]
So assuming they come in, what does this mean? We begin work on the stadium?
[/quote]
We buy Ribery.....?
[/quote]
Your profile picture fits in with that suggestion...
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=36079.msg951585#msg951585 date=1253992725]
So assuming they come in, what does this mean? We begin work on the stadium?
[/quote]
We buy Ribery.....?
[/quote]
Your profile picture fits in with that suggestion...
From what i've read around the tinternet my understanding is that, they have confirmed a commercial tie up to open to academies in Saudi. They are now looking to buy into Liverpool 25-50% share.
Apperently Gillete has had parry working for him in the middle east looking for a suitor. I think this is going to be from gillets share as i couldn't see Hicks wanting to dilute his power.
So at the moment its just a sponsership tie in.
Apperently Gillete has had parry working for him in the middle east looking for a suitor. I think this is going to be from gillets share as i couldn't see Hicks wanting to dilute his power.
So at the moment its just a sponsership tie in.
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=36079.msg951584#msg951584 date=1253992651]
I cant view the links. Is this real? How likely that this happens?
[/quote]
According to reports in the Arab news it is true, i.e we have some tie up in terms of commercials and a few acadamys. Only confusion at present is whether they are also buying a stake in the club. Based on the pic above it does say they have bought a stake in the club. Text in the clip says up to 50%, though figures vary from 25% - 50%.
I personaly think its all horse shit.
I cant view the links. Is this real? How likely that this happens?
[/quote]
According to reports in the Arab news it is true, i.e we have some tie up in terms of commercials and a few acadamys. Only confusion at present is whether they are also buying a stake in the club. Based on the pic above it does say they have bought a stake in the club. Text in the clip says up to 50%, though figures vary from 25% - 50%.
I personaly think its all horse shit.
LIVERPOOL 6, HULL CITY 1
26/09/2009
CHRIS BASCOMBE
YOU could almost hear George Gillett whisper into the ear of his rich Saudi guest as Fernando Torres completed his hat-trick 47 minutes into this massacre.
"Better stick another £80m on that club valuation."
No wonder the Liverpool co-owner joined in the standing ovation as Torres was substituted long before the end of the rout, presumably as an act of mercy to Hull.
The sound of the cash till must have given Gillett tinnitus. "Take a good luck at him, Prince Faisal. One day, a share in him could be yours!"
Poor Ibrahima Sonko and his Hull team-mates were not so much put to the sword by the striker as suffer as close to a decapitation as you can get on a football pitch.
The best description of Torres' second is to imagine Hull's defenders impersonating orange police cones as he nimble-footedly zig-zagged through them and past keeper Boaz Myhill before tapping home.
So bemused were the visiting defenders, you got the feeling Torres could have repeated the trick before applying the finish.
It was a stroke of genius matched only by the opening goal, which began with a drop of the shoulder that left Sonko stranded before Torres stroked the ball past the keeper.
The Spaniard's third owed more to luck as he sprinted past Sonko before blasting through Paul McShane's legs into the bottom corner.
It was a regal display worthy of the presence of a prince, assisted it must be said by a Hull defence lamer than a two-footed donkey with chronic arthritis.
Brown said his main aim is still to be Hull manager by next month.
The way his side played, he'll be lucky to survive beyond the first editions of this newspaper.
"I was disgusted," he said after undergoing a 50-minute post-mortem with his players in the visiting dressing room. "We just didn't defend."
It's believed Darren Ferguson is on standby for Brown's job. He would be well advised to stay close to the phone for the next few hours.
The manner of Hull's capitulation was exceptional. There's bad, there's woeful, there's truly abysmal and there is this Tigers defence.
If the words 'closing down' or 'tracking back' have appeared in a recent Brown team talk, the sound must have been drowned out by the loudness of the Hull chief's tan.
Here's another piece of advice for his defence if they really want to save their manager's job - throw in a tackle or two.
The Tigers were pussycats. They might as well have taken a seat on The Kop in the second half and admired Torres from a more comfortable position.
You felt for teenager Liam Cooper, thrust into his debut, as he was terrorised as much by his own team-mates as the Reds' attack.
A lingering, bitterly repeated question for Liverpool fans is how a club bought for £195m three years ago is advertising itself for double the price via the Middle East's equivalent of 'Loot'.
Then you see Torres' performance here and it all becomes clear. Never has there been a more perfect example of speculating to accumulate. Liverpool broke records and the bank to secure the striker's services but he is worth treble his £23m fee now. "We knew when we spent what was a massive amount of money on him for this club he could improve," said Rafa Benitez, in what amounts to a eulogy about one of his own players.
You cannot blame Benitez for reinforcing the point in the presence of one of his bosses when the time comes to ask for another mega-cheque.
"He can do even better," said his manager with a dry sense of humour, fully aware he wouldn't be expected to say anything else.
The demand for even more is admirable but it's hard to imagine a more complete goalscoring performance than this.
Liverpool, so often the ruthlessly efficient machine of the top four, are transformed into the great entertainers.
The six here took their league goal tally for the season to 22. That's the best the club have achieved at this stage of the season since 1895-6.
The presence of Steven Gerrard in central midfield and the sight of rampaging full-backs Glen Johnson and the under-rated Emiliano Insua is adding a flourish in home games.
That's made them look more vulnerable at the back on occasion. Geovanni's equaliser after Martin Skrtel's poor headed clearance was a reminder where problems still arise.
Once Torres had taken his bow, his team-mates enjoyed an encore on his behalf. Gerrard swung in a cross from 30 yards which dipped over Myhill. Even the Liverpool skipper didn't dare claim he meant it.
Then Ryan Babel notched the last two, although it's doubtful he knew much about the fifth as the Dutchman deflected an Albert Riera drive.
As adverts for the club sale go, Torres was pure Saatchi and Saatchi.
The Saudi prince took the chance to thank Torres after the game. If he was as impressed as he looked, the £23m striker may have contributed to bringing in another £200m.
26/09/2009
CHRIS BASCOMBE
YOU could almost hear George Gillett whisper into the ear of his rich Saudi guest as Fernando Torres completed his hat-trick 47 minutes into this massacre.
"Better stick another £80m on that club valuation."
No wonder the Liverpool co-owner joined in the standing ovation as Torres was substituted long before the end of the rout, presumably as an act of mercy to Hull.
The sound of the cash till must have given Gillett tinnitus. "Take a good luck at him, Prince Faisal. One day, a share in him could be yours!"
Poor Ibrahima Sonko and his Hull team-mates were not so much put to the sword by the striker as suffer as close to a decapitation as you can get on a football pitch.
The best description of Torres' second is to imagine Hull's defenders impersonating orange police cones as he nimble-footedly zig-zagged through them and past keeper Boaz Myhill before tapping home.
So bemused were the visiting defenders, you got the feeling Torres could have repeated the trick before applying the finish.
It was a stroke of genius matched only by the opening goal, which began with a drop of the shoulder that left Sonko stranded before Torres stroked the ball past the keeper.
The Spaniard's third owed more to luck as he sprinted past Sonko before blasting through Paul McShane's legs into the bottom corner.
It was a regal display worthy of the presence of a prince, assisted it must be said by a Hull defence lamer than a two-footed donkey with chronic arthritis.
Brown said his main aim is still to be Hull manager by next month.
The way his side played, he'll be lucky to survive beyond the first editions of this newspaper.
"I was disgusted," he said after undergoing a 50-minute post-mortem with his players in the visiting dressing room. "We just didn't defend."
It's believed Darren Ferguson is on standby for Brown's job. He would be well advised to stay close to the phone for the next few hours.
The manner of Hull's capitulation was exceptional. There's bad, there's woeful, there's truly abysmal and there is this Tigers defence.
If the words 'closing down' or 'tracking back' have appeared in a recent Brown team talk, the sound must have been drowned out by the loudness of the Hull chief's tan.
Here's another piece of advice for his defence if they really want to save their manager's job - throw in a tackle or two.
The Tigers were pussycats. They might as well have taken a seat on The Kop in the second half and admired Torres from a more comfortable position.
You felt for teenager Liam Cooper, thrust into his debut, as he was terrorised as much by his own team-mates as the Reds' attack.
A lingering, bitterly repeated question for Liverpool fans is how a club bought for £195m three years ago is advertising itself for double the price via the Middle East's equivalent of 'Loot'.
Then you see Torres' performance here and it all becomes clear. Never has there been a more perfect example of speculating to accumulate. Liverpool broke records and the bank to secure the striker's services but he is worth treble his £23m fee now. "We knew when we spent what was a massive amount of money on him for this club he could improve," said Rafa Benitez, in what amounts to a eulogy about one of his own players.
You cannot blame Benitez for reinforcing the point in the presence of one of his bosses when the time comes to ask for another mega-cheque.
"He can do even better," said his manager with a dry sense of humour, fully aware he wouldn't be expected to say anything else.
The demand for even more is admirable but it's hard to imagine a more complete goalscoring performance than this.
Liverpool, so often the ruthlessly efficient machine of the top four, are transformed into the great entertainers.
The six here took their league goal tally for the season to 22. That's the best the club have achieved at this stage of the season since 1895-6.
The presence of Steven Gerrard in central midfield and the sight of rampaging full-backs Glen Johnson and the under-rated Emiliano Insua is adding a flourish in home games.
That's made them look more vulnerable at the back on occasion. Geovanni's equaliser after Martin Skrtel's poor headed clearance was a reminder where problems still arise.
Once Torres had taken his bow, his team-mates enjoyed an encore on his behalf. Gerrard swung in a cross from 30 yards which dipped over Myhill. Even the Liverpool skipper didn't dare claim he meant it.
Then Ryan Babel notched the last two, although it's doubtful he knew much about the fifth as the Dutchman deflected an Albert Riera drive.
As adverts for the club sale go, Torres was pure Saatchi and Saatchi.
The Saudi prince took the chance to thank Torres after the game. If he was as impressed as he looked, the £23m striker may have contributed to bringing in another £200m.
Christ, Bascombe sounds so ridiculously cynical now.
I know. Its a really horrible piece.
Its made me think of Liverpool as a 15 year old drugged up prostitute being paraded in a skimpy neglige behind one way glass and being made to totter round on her 4" heels so the fat arab can get a better look at her peachy and unsullied ass.
Its made me think of Liverpool as a 15 year old drugged up prostitute being paraded in a skimpy neglige behind one way glass and being made to totter round on her 4" heels so the fat arab can get a better look at her peachy and unsullied ass.
i think he feels like the black sheep now.
By CHRIS BASCOMBE, 26/09/2009
LIVERPOOL are the subject of a possible £200million investment from a Saudi billionaire - and that has re-ignited the bitter war between Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
The Anfield co-owners are still both trying to sell each other's half of the club.
Prince Faisal bin fahad bin Abdullah al Saud attended yesterday's 6-1 thrashing of Hull as a guest of Gillett and was even taken into the dressing room to meet the team.
Although he was aware of the Saudis' attendance, Hicks was not part of any of the discussions with or invitations to the Prince, who claims he will negotiate for as much as 50 per cent of the club.
Sources close to Gillett insist the Prince's visit was primarily about setting up Liverpool FC Academies in the Middle East, playing down the guest's investment talk.
But Sport of the World understands the invitation is part of ongoing efforts by the co-owners to oust the other from the Anfield boardroom. The pair are pursuing new co-investors separately. Prince Faisal, who was flanked by three bodyguards in the Directors' Box, is chief executive of F6, a marketing and investment company in Saudi Arabia.
He is the latest in a series of potential investors invited to Anfield.
His primary interest is in sports such as powerboat racing. He is president of Saudi Water Sports Federation and has shown little previous interest in football.
Ironically, Hicks has appointed financial advisors Merrill Lynch to seek millions from Saudi Arabia and across the Middle East. Again, he has acted independently from Gillett.
Gillett is currently in a stronger financial position than his co-owner, having sold the Montreal Canadians ice hockey side for around £360m. Hicks has consistently flexed more muscle in his boardroom power struggles.
He has overseen the appointment of managing director Christian Purslow, forced through the five-year extension to Rafa Benitez's contract and the departure of ex-chief executive Rick Parry.
Last year, owners of the Delhi Daredevils Indian Premier League club were wined and dined by Hicks.
Leaked documents compiled by Merrill Lynch and sent to potential investors last March underline why Liverpool are still desperate for investment.
Until they raise the funds to build the new stadium on Stanley Park, the club will continue to lose as much as £55m per year in matchday income.
Despite this, manager Benitez has been assured a £100m kitty over the next five years, providing Liverpool consistently reach the last 16 of the Champions League.
Qualifying for the group stages of the competition has long been Benitez's minimum requirement to raise funds.
But he must ensure Liverpool are in the knockout stages every season until 2014 to preserve his current £20m-a-year net spend. The club's ambitious budgeting is a consequence of Benitez achieving this goal in every season since his arrival.
Liverpool have failed to progress into the quarter-finals just once since his move to Merseyside in 2004.
And a win over Fiorentina in Italy in midweek would go a long way to securing a safe passage this season, too, preserving his spending power next summer.
The transfer vow, although heavily incentivised through on-field performance, is partially reassuring to Kop fans, especially as this figure will grow if Liverpool reach the later stages or win the competition.
Both Hicks and Gillett are increasingly hitting back at claims they have failed to invest in the team since their controversial takeover three years ago.
Sources close to the duo say they are baffled at the unfavourable financial comparisons with Arsenal and Manchester United, who they insist they have outspent since taking over Liverpool.
The club's own study into transfer activity revealed how, up until the end of last season, the Merseysiders had splashed out £205.3m on players since 2004, recouping £98.75m from sales.
That figure does not take into account an estimated £10m invested on youth players over the same period.
Fans desperate for the Americans to sell their stake have warned about the club becoming the next Leeds United, but club insiders dismiss those fears.
Gillett was confronted by angry fans at Liverpool's Academy yesterday morning, when he launched a stern defence of his role at the club and refuted claims of financial instability.
A Kop source told Sport of the World: "It's nonsense to suggest Liverpool is going the same way as Leeds.
"The documents leaked are out of date. They were written last November and don't take into account the refinancing last summer or the record sponsorship deal we've just completed, but you can see how prudent the club is being.
"We are not spending above our means and the targets set were based on the last five years' income.
"A net spend of £20m per season compares favourably with our top four rivals. You only have to look at what Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester United have spent over the same period to see that."
However, the latest developments underline how fragile the recent truces are. And there could be further divisions ahead over the appointment of a new chief executive.
Gillett is anticipating a shortlist for Parry's replacement to be drawn up as early as next week and sees Purslow's role as merely transitional.
The managing director has been commuting from London twice a week since joining the club, although his exceptional performance so far means he is likely to take a broader, long-term role.
LIVERPOOL are the subject of a possible £200million investment from a Saudi billionaire - and that has re-ignited the bitter war between Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
The Anfield co-owners are still both trying to sell each other's half of the club.
Prince Faisal bin fahad bin Abdullah al Saud attended yesterday's 6-1 thrashing of Hull as a guest of Gillett and was even taken into the dressing room to meet the team.
Although he was aware of the Saudis' attendance, Hicks was not part of any of the discussions with or invitations to the Prince, who claims he will negotiate for as much as 50 per cent of the club.
Sources close to Gillett insist the Prince's visit was primarily about setting up Liverpool FC Academies in the Middle East, playing down the guest's investment talk.
But Sport of the World understands the invitation is part of ongoing efforts by the co-owners to oust the other from the Anfield boardroom. The pair are pursuing new co-investors separately. Prince Faisal, who was flanked by three bodyguards in the Directors' Box, is chief executive of F6, a marketing and investment company in Saudi Arabia.
He is the latest in a series of potential investors invited to Anfield.
His primary interest is in sports such as powerboat racing. He is president of Saudi Water Sports Federation and has shown little previous interest in football.
Ironically, Hicks has appointed financial advisors Merrill Lynch to seek millions from Saudi Arabia and across the Middle East. Again, he has acted independently from Gillett.
Gillett is currently in a stronger financial position than his co-owner, having sold the Montreal Canadians ice hockey side for around £360m. Hicks has consistently flexed more muscle in his boardroom power struggles.
He has overseen the appointment of managing director Christian Purslow, forced through the five-year extension to Rafa Benitez's contract and the departure of ex-chief executive Rick Parry.
Last year, owners of the Delhi Daredevils Indian Premier League club were wined and dined by Hicks.
Leaked documents compiled by Merrill Lynch and sent to potential investors last March underline why Liverpool are still desperate for investment.
Until they raise the funds to build the new stadium on Stanley Park, the club will continue to lose as much as £55m per year in matchday income.
Despite this, manager Benitez has been assured a £100m kitty over the next five years, providing Liverpool consistently reach the last 16 of the Champions League.
Qualifying for the group stages of the competition has long been Benitez's minimum requirement to raise funds.
But he must ensure Liverpool are in the knockout stages every season until 2014 to preserve his current £20m-a-year net spend. The club's ambitious budgeting is a consequence of Benitez achieving this goal in every season since his arrival.
Liverpool have failed to progress into the quarter-finals just once since his move to Merseyside in 2004.
And a win over Fiorentina in Italy in midweek would go a long way to securing a safe passage this season, too, preserving his spending power next summer.
The transfer vow, although heavily incentivised through on-field performance, is partially reassuring to Kop fans, especially as this figure will grow if Liverpool reach the later stages or win the competition.
Both Hicks and Gillett are increasingly hitting back at claims they have failed to invest in the team since their controversial takeover three years ago.
Sources close to the duo say they are baffled at the unfavourable financial comparisons with Arsenal and Manchester United, who they insist they have outspent since taking over Liverpool.
The club's own study into transfer activity revealed how, up until the end of last season, the Merseysiders had splashed out £205.3m on players since 2004, recouping £98.75m from sales.
That figure does not take into account an estimated £10m invested on youth players over the same period.
Fans desperate for the Americans to sell their stake have warned about the club becoming the next Leeds United, but club insiders dismiss those fears.
Gillett was confronted by angry fans at Liverpool's Academy yesterday morning, when he launched a stern defence of his role at the club and refuted claims of financial instability.
A Kop source told Sport of the World: "It's nonsense to suggest Liverpool is going the same way as Leeds.
"The documents leaked are out of date. They were written last November and don't take into account the refinancing last summer or the record sponsorship deal we've just completed, but you can see how prudent the club is being.
"We are not spending above our means and the targets set were based on the last five years' income.
"A net spend of £20m per season compares favourably with our top four rivals. You only have to look at what Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester United have spent over the same period to see that."
However, the latest developments underline how fragile the recent truces are. And there could be further divisions ahead over the appointment of a new chief executive.
Gillett is anticipating a shortlist for Parry's replacement to be drawn up as early as next week and sees Purslow's role as merely transitional.
The managing director has been commuting from London twice a week since joining the club, although his exceptional performance so far means he is likely to take a broader, long-term role.
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=36079.msg951642#msg951642 date=1253999036]
I know. Its a really horrible piece.
Its made me think of Liverpool as a 15 year old drugged up prostitute being paraded in a skimpy neglige behind one way glass and being made to totter round on her 4" heels so the fat arab can get a better look at her peachy and unsullied ass.
[/quote]
TBF that's pretty much what is happening.
It's the only possible way we'll make progress towards a new stadium & financial stability in the long term, so we best just hope for the best.
As I said in the thread quoting SoS, the yanks failing means LFC failing, so I'd prefer both to win at everything until such a time as we're that successful they sell us for their bag of gold & we move on.
I know. Its a really horrible piece.
Its made me think of Liverpool as a 15 year old drugged up prostitute being paraded in a skimpy neglige behind one way glass and being made to totter round on her 4" heels so the fat arab can get a better look at her peachy and unsullied ass.
[/quote]
TBF that's pretty much what is happening.
It's the only possible way we'll make progress towards a new stadium & financial stability in the long term, so we best just hope for the best.
As I said in the thread quoting SoS, the yanks failing means LFC failing, so I'd prefer both to win at everything until such a time as we're that successful they sell us for their bag of gold & we move on.
[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=36079.msg951520#msg951520 date=1253986183]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=36079.msg951518#msg951518 date=1253986097]
he is definately nowhere near the wealth of DIC, ManCity new owners, or the kuwaiti prospects.
[/quote]
tut
[/quote]
Egyptian, no?
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=36079.msg951518#msg951518 date=1253986097]
he is definately nowhere near the wealth of DIC, ManCity new owners, or the kuwaiti prospects.
[/quote]
tut
[/quote]
Egyptian, no?
[quote author=Robonoodle link=topic=36079.msg951735#msg951735 date=1254023178]
[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=36079.msg951520#msg951520 date=1253986183]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=36079.msg951518#msg951518 date=1253986097]
he is definately nowhere near the wealth of DIC, ManCity new owners, or the kuwaiti prospects.
[/quote]
tut
[/quote]
Egyptian, no?
[/quote]
tautology
[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=36079.msg951520#msg951520 date=1253986183]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=36079.msg951518#msg951518 date=1253986097]
he is definately nowhere near the wealth of DIC, ManCity new owners, or the kuwaiti prospects.
[/quote]
tut
[/quote]
Egyptian, no?
[/quote]
tautology
"Take a good luck at him"
Did this really make it into a Newspaper?
Did this really make it into a Newspaper?
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=36079.msg951841#msg951841 date=1254049262]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[/quote]
banks.... what do banks know.. where have you been...are you even a real doctor
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[/quote]
banks.... what do banks know.. where have you been...are you even a real doctor
You've got a fan Doc.
[quote author=akai147 link=topic=36079.msg951922#msg951922 date=1254052020]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=36079.msg951841#msg951841 date=1254049262]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[/quote]
banks.... what do banks know.. where have you been...are you even a real doctor
[/quote]Is your real name Moriarty?
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=36079.msg951841#msg951841 date=1254049262]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[/quote]
banks.... what do banks know.. where have you been...are you even a real doctor
[/quote]Is your real name Moriarty?
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=36079.msg951933#msg951933 date=1254052262]
[quote author=akai147 link=topic=36079.msg951922#msg951922 date=1254052020]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=36079.msg951841#msg951841 date=1254049262]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[/quote]
banks.... what do banks know.. where have you been...are you even a real doctor
[/quote]Is your real name Moriarty?
[/quote]
Your getting personal
[quote author=akai147 link=topic=36079.msg951922#msg951922 date=1254052020]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=36079.msg951841#msg951841 date=1254049262]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[/quote]
banks.... what do banks know.. where have you been...are you even a real doctor
[/quote]Is your real name Moriarty?
[/quote]
Your getting personal
[quote author=akai147 link=topic=36079.msg951952#msg951952 date=1254053012]
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=36079.msg951933#msg951933 date=1254052262]
[quote author=akai147 link=topic=36079.msg951922#msg951922 date=1254052020]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=36079.msg951841#msg951841 date=1254049262]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[/quote]
banks.... what do banks know.. where have you been...are you even a real doctor
[/quote]Is your real name Moriarty?
[/quote]
Your getting personal
[/quote]*unzips*
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=36079.msg951933#msg951933 date=1254052262]
[quote author=akai147 link=topic=36079.msg951922#msg951922 date=1254052020]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=36079.msg951841#msg951841 date=1254049262]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=36079.msg951791#msg951791 date=1254044513]
FWIW it makes no sense that either of them is trying to get the other out, and is most likely rubbish.
It would be interesting if they were taking a minority stake, talk of a 50% share is probably wide of the mark too. If they put in 150m for a 33% or something like that then so long as the Yanks don't pocket the cash it could be used to start the stadium.
[/quote]
I'd like to think the Banks would encourage the Yanks to invest the money in starting the new stadium rather than wanting a large slice for the debt.
[/quote]
banks.... what do banks know.. where have you been...are you even a real doctor
[/quote]Is your real name Moriarty?
[/quote]
Your getting personal
[/quote]*unzips*
I had one of them. It was boss.
- Status
