It was about 176m GBP + the debt of about 40-50M GBP i thought. The 88M was more to do with Moores share of the deal i think which was for 51%.
Liverpool 'in investment talks with US group'
- Thread starter Cerberus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Liverpool FC agreed to a 174 million- pound ($343 million) takeover offer from U.S. sports tycoons George Gillett and Tom Hicks, five days after Dubai's ruler abandoned a bid for English soccer's most successful team.
Gillett and Hicks, the founder of leveraged-buyout firm HM Capital Partners LLC, will pay 5,000 pounds a share, Liverpool said. The pair will also take on debt of 44.8 million pounds and fund a new stadium costing 215 million pounds.
``It is the beginning of a new era,'' Liverpool Chief Executive Rick Parry said at a press conference at the club's Anfield stadium. ``They are bringing to the table tremendous and relevant experience, a passion for sport, real resources and a strong commitment to the traditions of Liverpool.''
The accord caps a week of acrimony in which Liverpool accused Dubai International Capital LLC of bullying shareholders into backing its offer, 11 percent less than today's tender. Liverpool, which won the last of its record 18 English league titles in 1990, has been seeking an investor for the past three years and is now poised to become the third elite English team to be bought by owners of U.S. sports franchises.
Gillett and Hicks, the founder of leveraged-buyout firm HM Capital Partners LLC, will pay 5,000 pounds a share, Liverpool said. The pair will also take on debt of 44.8 million pounds and fund a new stadium costing 215 million pounds.
``It is the beginning of a new era,'' Liverpool Chief Executive Rick Parry said at a press conference at the club's Anfield stadium. ``They are bringing to the table tremendous and relevant experience, a passion for sport, real resources and a strong commitment to the traditions of Liverpool.''
The accord caps a week of acrimony in which Liverpool accused Dubai International Capital LLC of bullying shareholders into backing its offer, 11 percent less than today's tender. Liverpool, which won the last of its record 18 English league titles in 1990, has been seeking an investor for the past three years and is now poised to become the third elite English team to be bought by owners of U.S. sports franchises.
Haha. Take that all you memory loss twerps. Your credibility is shot.
😉
😉
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=39299.msg1079170#msg1079170 date=1270032896]
I actually don't like Christian Purslow all that much. I think he is an RBS man. Till the debt is paid up there is going to be a stale mate, if Christian Purslow is running things.
[/quote]
I think Christian Purslow has done an excellent job in an awkward position.
Why would a bank not want a company to be servicing debt? That's how they make money. They just want the debt at a serviceable level. Whoever was appointed would be charged with the same thing, because RBS have to see attempts being made to deal with the issue.
I actually don't like Christian Purslow all that much. I think he is an RBS man. Till the debt is paid up there is going to be a stale mate, if Christian Purslow is running things.
[/quote]
I think Christian Purslow has done an excellent job in an awkward position.
Why would a bank not want a company to be servicing debt? That's how they make money. They just want the debt at a serviceable level. Whoever was appointed would be charged with the same thing, because RBS have to see attempts being made to deal with the issue.
That was pretty restrained Farky, all things considered
So they paid £219m and the debt is £237m
So the current debt is just £18m more than they paid for us, I don't know about anyone else , but considering the hard times and the way finances have changed that does not seem too shabby.
As I said before this debt thing can be confusing the debt is actually the value of the club. It's like a mortgage on your house, you owe the money , but the value is still there in the property.
Yes they have to service the debt but at the end of 2006 that would not have seemed an issue, particularly as they planned to be in a new stadium by the end of this year, paying for itself with the extra income.
They would not have foreseen banks turning from lolly people handing loans out like confetti to rabid beasts demanding their pound of flesh.
They may have got a few things wrong but they didn't have a crystal ball back then, if so it might have been different.
The real problem with those two , other than they were unlucky with global meltdown, is that they were not really rich enough, and did not really realise exactly what they had bitten off.
regards
So the current debt is just £18m more than they paid for us, I don't know about anyone else , but considering the hard times and the way finances have changed that does not seem too shabby.
As I said before this debt thing can be confusing the debt is actually the value of the club. It's like a mortgage on your house, you owe the money , but the value is still there in the property.
Yes they have to service the debt but at the end of 2006 that would not have seemed an issue, particularly as they planned to be in a new stadium by the end of this year, paying for itself with the extra income.
They would not have foreseen banks turning from lolly people handing loans out like confetti to rabid beasts demanding their pound of flesh.
They may have got a few things wrong but they didn't have a crystal ball back then, if so it might have been different.
The real problem with those two , other than they were unlucky with global meltdown, is that they were not really rich enough, and did not really realise exactly what they had bitten off.
regards
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=39299.msg1079389#msg1079389 date=1270058072]
That was pretty restrained Farky, all things considered
[/quote]
I'm trying,
That was pretty restrained Farky, all things considered
[/quote]
I'm trying,
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079397#msg1079397 date=1270058892]
So they paid £219m and the debt is £237m
So the current debt is just £18m more than they paid for us, I don't know about anyone else , but considering the hard times and the way finances have changed that does not seem too shabby.
As I said before this debt thing can be confusing the debt is actually the value of the club. It's like a mortgage on your house, you owe the money , but the value is still there in the property.
Yes they have to service the debt but at the end of 2006 that would not have seemed an issue, particularly as they planned to be in a new stadium by the end of this year, paying for itself with the extra income.
They would not have foreseen banks turning from lolly people handing loans out like confetti to rabid beasts demanding their pound of flesh.
They may have got a few things wrong but they didn't have a crystal ball back then, if so it might have been different.
The real problem with those two , other than they were unlucky with global meltdown, is that they were not really rich enough, and did not really realise exactly what they had bitten off.
regards
[/quote]
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bbbbuut all they want is money!
The biggest problem with them for me is not that they've lost a gamble due to poor timing, but that through their PR, childish attitudes with one another, and poor communication, they've made a bad situation much worse.
So they paid £219m and the debt is £237m
So the current debt is just £18m more than they paid for us, I don't know about anyone else , but considering the hard times and the way finances have changed that does not seem too shabby.
As I said before this debt thing can be confusing the debt is actually the value of the club. It's like a mortgage on your house, you owe the money , but the value is still there in the property.
Yes they have to service the debt but at the end of 2006 that would not have seemed an issue, particularly as they planned to be in a new stadium by the end of this year, paying for itself with the extra income.
They would not have foreseen banks turning from lolly people handing loans out like confetti to rabid beasts demanding their pound of flesh.
They may have got a few things wrong but they didn't have a crystal ball back then, if so it might have been different.
The real problem with those two , other than they were unlucky with global meltdown, is that they were not really rich enough, and did not really realise exactly what they had bitten off.
regards
[/quote]
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bbbbuut all they want is money!
The biggest problem with them for me is not that they've lost a gamble due to poor timing, but that through their PR, childish attitudes with one another, and poor communication, they've made a bad situation much worse.
An aside, but will the construction cost of the stadium have just significantly increased on the news that the iron ore price system has been altered?
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=39299.msg1079402#msg1079402 date=1270059274]
The biggest problem with them for me is not that they've lost a gamble due to poor timing, but that through their PR, childish attitudes with one another, and poor communication, they've made a bad situation much worse.
[/quote]
Yup. The situation has deteriorated since they purchased us but it would have been really nice not to have our club's name run through the mud simultaneously.
The biggest problem with them for me is not that they've lost a gamble due to poor timing, but that through their PR, childish attitudes with one another, and poor communication, they've made a bad situation much worse.
[/quote]
Yup. The situation has deteriorated since they purchased us but it would have been really nice not to have our club's name run through the mud simultaneously.
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=39299.msg1079402#msg1079402 date=1270059274]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079397#msg1079397 date=1270058892]
So they paid £219m and the debt is £237m
So the current debt is just £18m more than they paid for us, I don't know about anyone else , but considering the hard times and the way finances have changed that does not seem too shabby.
As I said before this debt thing can be confusing the debt is actually the value of the club. It's like a mortgage on your house, you owe the money , but the value is still there in the property.
Yes they have to service the debt but at the end of 2006 that would not have seemed an issue, particularly as they planned to be in a new stadium by the end of this year, paying for itself with the extra income.
They would not have foreseen banks turning from lolly people handing loans out like confetti to rabid beasts demanding their pound of flesh.
They may have got a few things wrong but they didn't have a crystal ball back then, if so it might have been different.
The real problem with those two , other than they were unlucky with global meltdown, is that they were not really rich enough, and did not really realise exactly what they had bitten off.
regards
[/quote]
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bbbbuut all they want is money!
The biggest problem with them for me is not that they've lost a gamble due to poor timing, but that through their PR, childish attitudes with one another, and poor communication, they've made a bad situation much worse.
[/quote]
I agree on the falling out issue, that is the biggest problem and brought about by the biggest problem, no one has over-all control.
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079397#msg1079397 date=1270058892]
So they paid £219m and the debt is £237m
So the current debt is just £18m more than they paid for us, I don't know about anyone else , but considering the hard times and the way finances have changed that does not seem too shabby.
As I said before this debt thing can be confusing the debt is actually the value of the club. It's like a mortgage on your house, you owe the money , but the value is still there in the property.
Yes they have to service the debt but at the end of 2006 that would not have seemed an issue, particularly as they planned to be in a new stadium by the end of this year, paying for itself with the extra income.
They would not have foreseen banks turning from lolly people handing loans out like confetti to rabid beasts demanding their pound of flesh.
They may have got a few things wrong but they didn't have a crystal ball back then, if so it might have been different.
The real problem with those two , other than they were unlucky with global meltdown, is that they were not really rich enough, and did not really realise exactly what they had bitten off.
regards
[/quote]
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bbbbuut all they want is money!
The biggest problem with them for me is not that they've lost a gamble due to poor timing, but that through their PR, childish attitudes with one another, and poor communication, they've made a bad situation much worse.
[/quote]
I agree on the falling out issue, that is the biggest problem and brought about by the biggest problem, no one has over-all control.
regards
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=39299.msg1079418#msg1079418 date=1270061424]
An aside, but will the construction cost of the stadium have just significantly increased on the news that the iron ore price system has been altered?
[/quote]
I know it was a problem all along, the world price of steel, and construction in general, was at a high because of China and the emergence of a number of LEDC's constructing. I believe it dropped significantly during the recession.
Now, would have been a good time to start while the price is , and this is a guess, still relatively low.
I suppose having said that the weak pound would be an issue
regards
An aside, but will the construction cost of the stadium have just significantly increased on the news that the iron ore price system has been altered?
[/quote]
I know it was a problem all along, the world price of steel, and construction in general, was at a high because of China and the emergence of a number of LEDC's constructing. I believe it dropped significantly during the recession.
Now, would have been a good time to start while the price is , and this is a guess, still relatively low.
I suppose having said that the weak pound would be an issue
regards
S
Squiggles
Guest
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079963#msg1079963 date=1270131216]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I do think we could have standing areas done safely now- where we could have more people in a section, and with a cheaper ticket.
Everything sold at the kiosk or online, with a firmly set allocation. I do think it would make for an improved atmosphere.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I do think we could have standing areas done safely now- where we could have more people in a section, and with a cheaper ticket.
Everything sold at the kiosk or online, with a firmly set allocation. I do think it would make for an improved atmosphere.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079963#msg1079963 date=1270131216]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I'm just reading about how the Kop used to pass those who had fainted over their shoulders to the front, and off they went down the tunnel. I knew all this happened, but reading about it in a detailed context and narrative really brings home how mental it must've been.
I also didn't know about the stabbings the Roma fans gave us before the Juve final in Heysel.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I'm just reading about how the Kop used to pass those who had fainted over their shoulders to the front, and off they went down the tunnel. I knew all this happened, but reading about it in a detailed context and narrative really brings home how mental it must've been.
I also didn't know about the stabbings the Roma fans gave us before the Juve final in Heysel.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=39299.msg1079968#msg1079968 date=1270131493]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079963#msg1079963 date=1270131216]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I do think we could have standing areas done safely now- where we could have more people in a section, and with a cheaper ticket.
Everything sold at the kiosk or online, with a firmly set allocation. I do think it would make for an improved atmosphere.
[/quote]
I think they have safe terraces in Germany. They could be managed today with all the technology now available, combined with a great police understanding of crowd control - but I can't see it ever happening. The authorities will not want to open themselves up to the risk. The status quo is perfect for them and the Police, so they'll never be a push for change.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079963#msg1079963 date=1270131216]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I do think we could have standing areas done safely now- where we could have more people in a section, and with a cheaper ticket.
Everything sold at the kiosk or online, with a firmly set allocation. I do think it would make for an improved atmosphere.
[/quote]
I think they have safe terraces in Germany. They could be managed today with all the technology now available, combined with a great police understanding of crowd control - but I can't see it ever happening. The authorities will not want to open themselves up to the risk. The status quo is perfect for them and the Police, so they'll never be a push for change.
There was hardly a mention of those stabbings in rome if I recall correctly. I'm sure it would be much different were the roles reversed.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=39299.msg1079968#msg1079968 date=1270131493]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079963#msg1079963 date=1270131216]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I do think we could have standing areas done safely now- where we could have more people in a section, and with a cheaper ticket.
Everything sold at the kiosk or online, with a firmly set allocation. I do think it would make for an improved atmosphere.
[/quote]
I agree Doc, you could do it, by partitioning the sections into smaller manageable units with plenty of exits
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079963#msg1079963 date=1270131216]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I do think we could have standing areas done safely now- where we could have more people in a section, and with a cheaper ticket.
Everything sold at the kiosk or online, with a firmly set allocation. I do think it would make for an improved atmosphere.
[/quote]
I agree Doc, you could do it, by partitioning the sections into smaller manageable units with plenty of exits
regards
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079972#msg1079972 date=1270131892]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079963#msg1079963 date=1270131216]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I'm just reading about how the Kop used to pass those who had fainted over their shoulders to the front, and off they went down the tunnel. I knew all this happened, but reading about it in a detailed context and narrative really brings home how mental it must've been.
I also didn't know about the stabbings the Roma fans gave us before the Juve final in Heysel.
[/quote]
The Kop was just so packed when you were in - you were in.
Going out for a piss was too much trouble, hence all the pissing down an echo into peoples pockets.
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39299.msg1079963#msg1079963 date=1270131216]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39299.msg1079953#msg1079953 date=1270130075]
I'd rather a weak pound than weak steal!
(I've just started reading Hillsborough: The truth and learning more in detail about how stadiums used to be. Eek - you must have sat in some proper dumps Vlad)
[/quote]It wasn't the sitting , it was the standing.
One of the worst areas was the Kippax at Maine Road, it was a long thin standing enclosure the length of the ground, like the paddock at Liverpool, but deeper. If you were down one end and the ball was at the other everyone used to lean forward on tip toe to see the other end and whoever was in front of the cruch barrier was just that - crushed.
The Kop used to be terrible when it held 30,000, when you went out you would get swept up in this torrent of people and your feet would be off the ground more or less and you had to go where the current took you.
Take my word for it it's much better now, the atmosphere might not be the same, but I think that is down to demographics of the crowd and not drinking as much as we did then before the game, but it a much more civilised experience
regards
[/quote]
I'm just reading about how the Kop used to pass those who had fainted over their shoulders to the front, and off they went down the tunnel. I knew all this happened, but reading about it in a detailed context and narrative really brings home how mental it must've been.
I also didn't know about the stabbings the Roma fans gave us before the Juve final in Heysel.
[/quote]
The Kop was just so packed when you were in - you were in.
Going out for a piss was too much trouble, hence all the pissing down an echo into peoples pockets.
regards
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=39299.msg1079996#msg1079996 date=1270133999]
There was hardly a mention of those stabbings in rome if I recall correctly. I'm sure it would be much different were the roles reversed.
[/quote]
Imagine Liverpool fans did it nowadays, Platini would spunk his kecks.
There was hardly a mention of those stabbings in rome if I recall correctly. I'm sure it would be much different were the roles reversed.
[/quote]
Imagine Liverpool fans did it nowadays, Platini would spunk his kecks.
Rhone Group press Liverpool for answer to £110 million investment offer
The deadline set by the Rhone Group for Liverpool to accept a £110 million offer to take a 40 per cent stake in the Anfield club expires on Monday, with the only concrete proposal received by current owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett in their search for fresh investment likely to be effectively rejected.
By Rory Smith
Rhone became the first suitor to show their hand when the New York-based fund management firm, run by billionaires Robert Agostinelli and Steven Langman, presented their offer to Liverpool in the early hours of March 13.
It is believed they informed the club they expected to discover whether their bid had been successful by April 5.
There has been no further contact between the parties and Telegraph Sport understands that Rhone are not prepared to extend that deadline.
Though it is believed Rhone's offer met Liverpool's valuation, it is thought the level of control they hoped to acquire for their stake as well as the nature of their investment has proved a stumbling block. Hicks is believed to be particularly resistant to seeing his stake being decreased.
Rafael BenÃtez, the Liverpool manager, had met with representatives of the group to discuss their plans for the club and it is believed he had kept senior players, including Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres – who has been unequivocal in his demands for Liverpool's owners to back BenÃtez in the transfer market this summer – abridged of developments.
That Rhone's deadline – barring an unexpected and unlikely turnaround in the next 24 hours – will pass with no progress made will no doubt come as a blow to those attracted by the group's promise of a £25 million infusion of funds for transfers, but it is far from the only cause for concern for a club whose immediate future remains clouded.
On the pitch, Liverpool know they must beat Birmingham at St Andrews on Sunday to maintain the pressure on Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City in the race to qualify for next season's Champions League. Off it, sadly, matters are far more complicated.
The Royal Bank of Scotland, Liverpool's bankers, have informed Hicks and Gillett that they must reduce their £237 million debt burden by £100 million by July if they are to be granted a deal to refinance their loans.
Christian Purslow, Liverpool's managing director and the man charged with securing a cash infusion to reduce the debt, has consistently identified Easter as the time by which he "hoped" to have a deal agreed with an outside investor to bring an end to the stagnancy induced at Anfield by the current, unpopular regime and to enable work to begin again on the long-awaited new stadium on Stanley Park.
Though sources at the club insist that was more guideline than deadline, that the holiday period will pass with Liverpool no closer to securing their financial future will hardly inspire confidence for BenÃtez's squad or the club's fans.
Sources at Anfield, though, remain confident of attracting the required investment "in good time" for the club's loans to be refinanced.
As many as "six or seven" serious investors were believed to be looking at matching or bettering Rhone's offer three weeks ago and noises emanating from the club suggest that as many as two of those are expected to materialise into firm proposals.
What is not in doubt, though, is that Liverpool are reaching their end game.
In the next three months, Hicks and Gillett's tenure will almost certainly reach an end, at least in its present form. More straightforwardly, defeat at Birminghamon Sunday and against Benfica in the Europa League second leg on Thursday, and much the same may be said of BenÃtez.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/liverpool/7550028/Rhone-Group-press-Liverpool-for-answer-to-110-million-investment-offer.html
The deadline set by the Rhone Group for Liverpool to accept a £110 million offer to take a 40 per cent stake in the Anfield club expires on Monday, with the only concrete proposal received by current owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett in their search for fresh investment likely to be effectively rejected.
By Rory Smith
Rhone became the first suitor to show their hand when the New York-based fund management firm, run by billionaires Robert Agostinelli and Steven Langman, presented their offer to Liverpool in the early hours of March 13.
It is believed they informed the club they expected to discover whether their bid had been successful by April 5.
There has been no further contact between the parties and Telegraph Sport understands that Rhone are not prepared to extend that deadline.
Though it is believed Rhone's offer met Liverpool's valuation, it is thought the level of control they hoped to acquire for their stake as well as the nature of their investment has proved a stumbling block. Hicks is believed to be particularly resistant to seeing his stake being decreased.
Rafael BenÃtez, the Liverpool manager, had met with representatives of the group to discuss their plans for the club and it is believed he had kept senior players, including Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres – who has been unequivocal in his demands for Liverpool's owners to back BenÃtez in the transfer market this summer – abridged of developments.
That Rhone's deadline – barring an unexpected and unlikely turnaround in the next 24 hours – will pass with no progress made will no doubt come as a blow to those attracted by the group's promise of a £25 million infusion of funds for transfers, but it is far from the only cause for concern for a club whose immediate future remains clouded.
On the pitch, Liverpool know they must beat Birmingham at St Andrews on Sunday to maintain the pressure on Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City in the race to qualify for next season's Champions League. Off it, sadly, matters are far more complicated.
The Royal Bank of Scotland, Liverpool's bankers, have informed Hicks and Gillett that they must reduce their £237 million debt burden by £100 million by July if they are to be granted a deal to refinance their loans.
Christian Purslow, Liverpool's managing director and the man charged with securing a cash infusion to reduce the debt, has consistently identified Easter as the time by which he "hoped" to have a deal agreed with an outside investor to bring an end to the stagnancy induced at Anfield by the current, unpopular regime and to enable work to begin again on the long-awaited new stadium on Stanley Park.
Though sources at the club insist that was more guideline than deadline, that the holiday period will pass with Liverpool no closer to securing their financial future will hardly inspire confidence for BenÃtez's squad or the club's fans.
Sources at Anfield, though, remain confident of attracting the required investment "in good time" for the club's loans to be refinanced.
As many as "six or seven" serious investors were believed to be looking at matching or bettering Rhone's offer three weeks ago and noises emanating from the club suggest that as many as two of those are expected to materialise into firm proposals.
What is not in doubt, though, is that Liverpool are reaching their end game.
In the next three months, Hicks and Gillett's tenure will almost certainly reach an end, at least in its present form. More straightforwardly, defeat at Birminghamon Sunday and against Benfica in the Europa League second leg on Thursday, and much the same may be said of BenÃtez.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/liverpool/7550028/Rhone-Group-press-Liverpool-for-answer-to-110-million-investment-offer.html
if there is someone who wants a full takeover they'd better do to now because once rhone get in I can't them liverpool being sold for unless less than 400m because rhone, G&H will want a big return on their investment.
Well, there are other stories in the media about other interested suitors. Sahara Group and a full take over is mentioned. And some say the deadline has been pushed for a couple of weeks.
Im thinking and hoping of course, that a full take over is on the cards.
Im thinking and hoping of course, that a full take over is on the cards.
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=39299.msg1081583#msg1081583 date=1270377405]
Does it not seem that we are just a week or two away from Deadline?
I want a fucking resolution motherfuckers.
[/quote]
rbs is saying they may extend the deadline I think they want a proper outcome as well
Does it not seem that we are just a week or two away from Deadline?
I want a fucking resolution motherfuckers.
[/quote]
rbs is saying they may extend the deadline I think they want a proper outcome as well
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39299.msg1081588#msg1081588 date=1270377546]
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=39299.msg1081583#msg1081583 date=1270377405]
Does it not seem that we are just a week or two away from Deadline?
I want a fucking resolution motherfuckers.
[/quote]
rbs is saying they may extend the deadline I think they want a proper outcome as well
[/quote]They wanna fuck their deadline off then.
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=39299.msg1081583#msg1081583 date=1270377405]
Does it not seem that we are just a week or two away from Deadline?
I want a fucking resolution motherfuckers.
[/quote]
rbs is saying they may extend the deadline I think they want a proper outcome as well
[/quote]They wanna fuck their deadline off then.
Pretty much saying the same as the Telegraph article posted above.
Liverpool to reject £110m offer from New York investors
By Ian Herbert
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Liverpool appear ready to reject a bid for control of the club from New York-based fund management company Rhône Group, which would enable them to pay off £100m of debt demanded by Royal Bank of Scotland. Rhône's deadline for Liverpool to take or leave their £110m offer – tabled on 13 March – expires tomorrow. With seemingly no willingness on the part of the company's partners, Robert Agostinelli and Steven Langman, to offer an extension, Liverpool must look elsewhere for funds.
The Independent on Sunday understands that the sticking point in talks with Rhône relates to their demands for control of the club rather than the valuation of the 40 per cent share they would take. Rhône are understood to have wanted concrete assurances written into any deal that Liverpool's co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, would not be able to combine their 30 per cent shares to maintain overall control. A 100 per cent takeover from Hicks and Gillett would seem to solve that issue, which always seemed a sticking point. Though Rhône's departure leaves Liverpool with no firm offers as the club reaches the Easter deadline, which managing director Christian Purslow had identified for finding a new equity partner, there are suggestions that the interest of two prospective investors may be turned into firm bids.
Liverpool, who need a win at Birmingham today to maintain their hopes of taking the fourth Champions' League position, continue with Hicks and Gillett. The unpopular Americans have been told by RBS that they must reduce their £237m debt burden by £100m by July if they are to be granted a deal to refinance their loans over a longer period and given access to funds to begin work on any new Stanley Park stadium.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-to-reject-163110m-offer-from-new-york-investors-1935386.html
Liverpool to reject £110m offer from New York investors
By Ian Herbert
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Liverpool appear ready to reject a bid for control of the club from New York-based fund management company Rhône Group, which would enable them to pay off £100m of debt demanded by Royal Bank of Scotland. Rhône's deadline for Liverpool to take or leave their £110m offer – tabled on 13 March – expires tomorrow. With seemingly no willingness on the part of the company's partners, Robert Agostinelli and Steven Langman, to offer an extension, Liverpool must look elsewhere for funds.
The Independent on Sunday understands that the sticking point in talks with Rhône relates to their demands for control of the club rather than the valuation of the 40 per cent share they would take. Rhône are understood to have wanted concrete assurances written into any deal that Liverpool's co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, would not be able to combine their 30 per cent shares to maintain overall control. A 100 per cent takeover from Hicks and Gillett would seem to solve that issue, which always seemed a sticking point. Though Rhône's departure leaves Liverpool with no firm offers as the club reaches the Easter deadline, which managing director Christian Purslow had identified for finding a new equity partner, there are suggestions that the interest of two prospective investors may be turned into firm bids.
Liverpool, who need a win at Birmingham today to maintain their hopes of taking the fourth Champions' League position, continue with Hicks and Gillett. The unpopular Americans have been told by RBS that they must reduce their £237m debt burden by £100m by July if they are to be granted a deal to refinance their loans over a longer period and given access to funds to begin work on any new Stanley Park stadium.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-to-reject-163110m-offer-from-new-york-investors-1935386.html
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39299.msg1081605#msg1081605 date=1270378474]
Rhone sound like absolute fucking chancers
[/quote]
yep, 100m for full control of the club.
Rhone sound like absolute fucking chancers
[/quote]
yep, 100m for full control of the club.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
