Apparently there will be a 3000 word letter from moores in tomorrows times, and his side of the story to Tony Barret.
Moores speaks out
- Thread starter El Pistolero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
S
Squiggles
Guest
One word would do:
Sorry
Sorry
seven words would have done it
'i look like a cocaine addled womble'.
'i look like a cocaine addled womble'.
S
Squiggles
Guest
Re: Moores letter to The Times
Merrrrrge
Merrrrrge
The Yanks spoke a VERY good game publicly, I'd imagine financial gain aside, they'd have to have done a similar amount of bullshitting to get Moores to sign.
Or atleast, that'll be his story.
I feel sorry for him*
*I'm entitled to change my views after the reading of the Times article tomorrow.
Or atleast, that'll be his story.
I feel sorry for him*
*I'm entitled to change my views after the reading of the Times article tomorrow.
I think he gets a hard time. Very few people are willing to understand that the whole affair is an awful lot more complex than it's usually made out.
And very few of them are willing to acknowledge that we'd be in exactly the same situation had DIC taken us over. (All of their recent investments are haemorrhaging money because of high debts levels).
Given the fact he was pretty much forced to sell up and had to choose between two options that were far from perfect, and we're not even sure if one of them made a proper bid, I think people are always too harsh on Moores. He always acted in the best interests of the club.
And very few of them are willing to acknowledge that we'd be in exactly the same situation had DIC taken us over. (All of their recent investments are haemorrhaging money because of high debts levels).
Given the fact he was pretty much forced to sell up and had to choose between two options that were far from perfect, and we're not even sure if one of them made a proper bid, I think people are always too harsh on Moores. He always acted in the best interests of the club.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article7136481.ece
From The Times
May 26, 2010
David Moores fighting to hold his head up high
Tony Barrett
RECOMMEND? (3)
After becoming Liverpool chairman in 1991, David Moores was paid a warm tribute by one of his predecessors.
“The Moores family have been great benefactors to Merseyside football,†Sir John Smith said. “David’s appointment will keep the predators at bay.â€
Almost two decades on, the predators have not only stormed the Shankly Gates, they have put the future of Liverpool at stake. It is little wonder that Moores has not only revealed his “regret†at selling Liverpool to Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr but also called upon the unpopular pair to sell up at a reasonable price.
Moores has been criticised on two fronts in particular since it became clear to the overwhelming majority of Liverpool’s fans that the club are in the wrong hands. First, for selling to the Americans in the first place, and second, for remaining silent while the club stumble from one crisis to another.
By penning such a remarkable and, in places, hugely poignant letter, Moores has attempted to put the record straight on both fronts. It is also typical of a man who has always been naturally shy of publicity — he even refused interviews five years ago today on the morning after Liverpool had won their fifth European Cup amid wondrous circumstances in Istanbul — and wary of causing controversy. It is abundantly clear that he is acutely aware of the damage that is being done to the club and is desperate for it to be brought to a halt.
On several occasions during the past 12 months, The Times has sought an interview with Moores only for such approaches to be politely declined. There were occasions when it seemed like he would be ready to talk on the record, but for a variety of reasons it never transpired, despite Moores’s exasperation at what was happening at Anfield being widely known on Merseyside.
It is because of this that his letter assumes such significance. In many respects, it is an historical document because it represents the first-hand recollections of one of the most important figures in the most turbulent spell in the club’s history. This is David Moores trying to explain why he felt compelled to sell Liverpool, why he opted for the offer from Hicks and Gillett and not a rival bid from Dubai International Capital (DIC), and why he has come to regret his decision.
It is unlikely that all his critics will be won over by his account. But it will provide food for thought, with a situation that had for so long seemed black and white being clouded by shades of grey.
Perhaps the most crucial revelation involves the sales process. It had been widely believed that there had been no due diligence on the club’s behalf, that Moores had handed control to Hicks and Gillett without seeking, never mind receiving, reassurances about their ability to make good on their promises not “to do a Glazer†by saddling the club with inordinate levels of debt and that a new stadium would be constructed “as soon as reasonably practicableâ€.
This, in the eyes of Moores’s fiercest detractors, was his biggest failing, a perceived dereliction of duty that left the club he claimed to love in the hands of the predators he was supposed to protect them from. But his claim — and it is supported by an e-mail trail and other corroborating evidence — that Rothschild, the investment bank, provided these assurances after being appointed by the purchasers casts the circumstances surrounding the sale in a different light. His position is supported further by the official offer document that was put forward on behalf of Hicks and Gillett by Rothschild that made it clear that the club would not be responsible for the purchase debt.
But 3½ years later and Liverpool have just paid £40 million in interest to meet the requirements of the debt loaded on to them by Hicks and Gillett.
The disclosures regarding DIC’s offer are also illuminating. There is no doubt that DIC was the preferred option of Moores and the Liverpool board for a considerable period, but at a time when Dubai was involved in billions of pounds-worth of global investment, Moores’s recollections suggest one of its main investment arms dragged its feet when presented with an opportunity to purchase a genuine sporting trophy asset.
In hindsight, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that neither DIC nor Hicks and Gillett were right for Liverpool.
There will be much debate about Moores’s version of events, but one thing is in little doubt: there will be precious few Liverpool fans who do not share his feelings on the present owners of the club
From The Times
May 26, 2010
David Moores fighting to hold his head up high
Tony Barrett
RECOMMEND? (3)
After becoming Liverpool chairman in 1991, David Moores was paid a warm tribute by one of his predecessors.
“The Moores family have been great benefactors to Merseyside football,†Sir John Smith said. “David’s appointment will keep the predators at bay.â€
Almost two decades on, the predators have not only stormed the Shankly Gates, they have put the future of Liverpool at stake. It is little wonder that Moores has not only revealed his “regret†at selling Liverpool to Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr but also called upon the unpopular pair to sell up at a reasonable price.
Moores has been criticised on two fronts in particular since it became clear to the overwhelming majority of Liverpool’s fans that the club are in the wrong hands. First, for selling to the Americans in the first place, and second, for remaining silent while the club stumble from one crisis to another.
By penning such a remarkable and, in places, hugely poignant letter, Moores has attempted to put the record straight on both fronts. It is also typical of a man who has always been naturally shy of publicity — he even refused interviews five years ago today on the morning after Liverpool had won their fifth European Cup amid wondrous circumstances in Istanbul — and wary of causing controversy. It is abundantly clear that he is acutely aware of the damage that is being done to the club and is desperate for it to be brought to a halt.
On several occasions during the past 12 months, The Times has sought an interview with Moores only for such approaches to be politely declined. There were occasions when it seemed like he would be ready to talk on the record, but for a variety of reasons it never transpired, despite Moores’s exasperation at what was happening at Anfield being widely known on Merseyside.
It is because of this that his letter assumes such significance. In many respects, it is an historical document because it represents the first-hand recollections of one of the most important figures in the most turbulent spell in the club’s history. This is David Moores trying to explain why he felt compelled to sell Liverpool, why he opted for the offer from Hicks and Gillett and not a rival bid from Dubai International Capital (DIC), and why he has come to regret his decision.
It is unlikely that all his critics will be won over by his account. But it will provide food for thought, with a situation that had for so long seemed black and white being clouded by shades of grey.
Perhaps the most crucial revelation involves the sales process. It had been widely believed that there had been no due diligence on the club’s behalf, that Moores had handed control to Hicks and Gillett without seeking, never mind receiving, reassurances about their ability to make good on their promises not “to do a Glazer†by saddling the club with inordinate levels of debt and that a new stadium would be constructed “as soon as reasonably practicableâ€.
This, in the eyes of Moores’s fiercest detractors, was his biggest failing, a perceived dereliction of duty that left the club he claimed to love in the hands of the predators he was supposed to protect them from. But his claim — and it is supported by an e-mail trail and other corroborating evidence — that Rothschild, the investment bank, provided these assurances after being appointed by the purchasers casts the circumstances surrounding the sale in a different light. His position is supported further by the official offer document that was put forward on behalf of Hicks and Gillett by Rothschild that made it clear that the club would not be responsible for the purchase debt.
But 3½ years later and Liverpool have just paid £40 million in interest to meet the requirements of the debt loaded on to them by Hicks and Gillett.
The disclosures regarding DIC’s offer are also illuminating. There is no doubt that DIC was the preferred option of Moores and the Liverpool board for a considerable period, but at a time when Dubai was involved in billions of pounds-worth of global investment, Moores’s recollections suggest one of its main investment arms dragged its feet when presented with an opportunity to purchase a genuine sporting trophy asset.
In hindsight, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that neither DIC nor Hicks and Gillett were right for Liverpool.
There will be much debate about Moores’s version of events, but one thing is in little doubt: there will be precious few Liverpool fans who do not share his feelings on the present owners of the club
not yet
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=40383.msg1108989#msg1108989 date=1274825503]
I think he gets a hard time. Very few people are willing to understand that the whole affair is an awful lot more complex than it's usually made out.
And very few of them are willing to acknowledge that we'd be in exactly the same situation had DIC taken us over. (All of their recent investments are haemorrhaging money because of high debts levels).
Given the fact he was pretty much forced to sell up and had to choose between two options that were far from perfect, and we're not even sure if one of them made a proper bid, I think people are always too harsh on Moores. He always acted in the best interests of the club.
[/quote]
I agree
regards
I think he gets a hard time. Very few people are willing to understand that the whole affair is an awful lot more complex than it's usually made out.
And very few of them are willing to acknowledge that we'd be in exactly the same situation had DIC taken us over. (All of their recent investments are haemorrhaging money because of high debts levels).
Given the fact he was pretty much forced to sell up and had to choose between two options that were far from perfect, and we're not even sure if one of them made a proper bid, I think people are always too harsh on Moores. He always acted in the best interests of the club.
[/quote]
I agree
regards
The first high-profile bid for the club came from Thailand, led by Thaksin Shinawatra
The figures discussed were so enormous we were obliged to take a closer look. We had just persuaded Rafa [BenÃtez] to join the club as manager and were eager to back him in the transfer market. No matter how dizzying their wealth though, we would never simply rush into a relationship with an unsuitable partner, and so it transpired with Thailand.
After looking closely at the deal we withdrew from the proposition, and did so for all the honourable reasons you’d expect from our club. So it was ironic that Manchester City was subsequently sold to the same entity, without so much as a murmur of disapproval from their fan base.
The rejection of the Thais brought criticism from some fans
When it suits them, football fans can turn a blind eye to the things they’d rather not have to acknowledge. We did acknowledge it though — we confronted the reality that the Thai offer was unethical, made our decision to withdraw and carried on the search. Rick’s remark about selling the family silver has been used repeatedly against ourselves and the board — but it was said in all seriousness, with all sincerity. Several years down the line, I do sometimes wonder if we took the process too seriously. Do the majority of fans just want owners, whoever they are, who’ll buy all the best players, come what may? Speaking for myself, I could never square that outlook and that legacy with our own unique football club.
In late 2006, Dubai International Capital (DIC) came close to buying the club
We have been accused of failing to capitalise on the Istanbul Effect — in fact our talks with DIC stemmed directly from winning the Champions League in 2005, with Sameer al Ansari from DIC introducing himself to Rick Parry in Istanbul and making it known that he was an ardent Liverpool supporter. Rick wasted no time in following up this lead, and having laid out our needs (significant investment for players; a new stadium) we spent the next year working out a deal with DIC.
On 1st December 2006 we informed DIC that they were our preferred option — and that the deal would have to be completed by 31st December 2006, for two reasons. Firstly, so that Rafa could take advantage of the January transfer window, and secondly the timeline of non-negotiable targets we had to hit if we were to start the new stadium on time.
Several things happened (or didn’t happen) that gave cause for concern. Our being made aware that DIC had devised a seven-year exit strategy was one such issue, along with a suggestion they intended to raise £300 million in working capital (ie, debt), secured against the club. But by far the biggest reality check came when we got down to the practicalities of planning a schedule of works on the new stadium. Under strict terms we had negotiated with the various agencies, local and European, with whom we had to deal over grants, planning permissions etc, we were on course to complete the stadium in time for the 2009-10 season, but we had to keep resolutely to the timetable. Therefore (also in December 2006), the club put it to DIC that it was essential we placed an immediate order for the steel required for the new ground’s infrastructure. The steel was going to cost in the region of £12 million. Deadlines passed before and after Christmas. New Year 2007 came and still no steel, and quite frankly (and, I think, justifiably) we began to have misgivings.
These misgivings culminated in the board voting to accept Hicks and Gillett’s offer. It led to a showdown before the match away to West Ham United on January 30, 2007
I was conscious of the fact I’d agreed a deal with DIC, and telephoned Sameer al Ansari to tell him that the board preferred Gillett and Hicks’s offer, and I wanted 48 hours to think things through. DIC representatives confronted me prior to the game and put it to me that I had to sign off on their offer immediately or the deal would be withdrawn. I told them I wouldn’t be held to ransom — and they withdrew the offer. With hindsight, we may have had a lucky escape there as Dubai is not the buoyant market it was in 2007.
The figures discussed were so enormous we were obliged to take a closer look. We had just persuaded Rafa [BenÃtez] to join the club as manager and were eager to back him in the transfer market. No matter how dizzying their wealth though, we would never simply rush into a relationship with an unsuitable partner, and so it transpired with Thailand.
After looking closely at the deal we withdrew from the proposition, and did so for all the honourable reasons you’d expect from our club. So it was ironic that Manchester City was subsequently sold to the same entity, without so much as a murmur of disapproval from their fan base.
The rejection of the Thais brought criticism from some fans
When it suits them, football fans can turn a blind eye to the things they’d rather not have to acknowledge. We did acknowledge it though — we confronted the reality that the Thai offer was unethical, made our decision to withdraw and carried on the search. Rick’s remark about selling the family silver has been used repeatedly against ourselves and the board — but it was said in all seriousness, with all sincerity. Several years down the line, I do sometimes wonder if we took the process too seriously. Do the majority of fans just want owners, whoever they are, who’ll buy all the best players, come what may? Speaking for myself, I could never square that outlook and that legacy with our own unique football club.
In late 2006, Dubai International Capital (DIC) came close to buying the club
We have been accused of failing to capitalise on the Istanbul Effect — in fact our talks with DIC stemmed directly from winning the Champions League in 2005, with Sameer al Ansari from DIC introducing himself to Rick Parry in Istanbul and making it known that he was an ardent Liverpool supporter. Rick wasted no time in following up this lead, and having laid out our needs (significant investment for players; a new stadium) we spent the next year working out a deal with DIC.
On 1st December 2006 we informed DIC that they were our preferred option — and that the deal would have to be completed by 31st December 2006, for two reasons. Firstly, so that Rafa could take advantage of the January transfer window, and secondly the timeline of non-negotiable targets we had to hit if we were to start the new stadium on time.
Several things happened (or didn’t happen) that gave cause for concern. Our being made aware that DIC had devised a seven-year exit strategy was one such issue, along with a suggestion they intended to raise £300 million in working capital (ie, debt), secured against the club. But by far the biggest reality check came when we got down to the practicalities of planning a schedule of works on the new stadium. Under strict terms we had negotiated with the various agencies, local and European, with whom we had to deal over grants, planning permissions etc, we were on course to complete the stadium in time for the 2009-10 season, but we had to keep resolutely to the timetable. Therefore (also in December 2006), the club put it to DIC that it was essential we placed an immediate order for the steel required for the new ground’s infrastructure. The steel was going to cost in the region of £12 million. Deadlines passed before and after Christmas. New Year 2007 came and still no steel, and quite frankly (and, I think, justifiably) we began to have misgivings.
These misgivings culminated in the board voting to accept Hicks and Gillett’s offer. It led to a showdown before the match away to West Ham United on January 30, 2007
I was conscious of the fact I’d agreed a deal with DIC, and telephoned Sameer al Ansari to tell him that the board preferred Gillett and Hicks’s offer, and I wanted 48 hours to think things through. DIC representatives confronted me prior to the game and put it to me that I had to sign off on their offer immediately or the deal would be withdrawn. I told them I wouldn’t be held to ransom — and they withdrew the offer. With hindsight, we may have had a lucky escape there as Dubai is not the buoyant market it was in 2007.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=40383.msg1108989#msg1108989 date=1274825503]
I think he gets a hard time. Very few people are willing to understand that the whole affair is an awful lot more complex than it's usually made out.
And very few of them are willing to acknowledge that we'd be in exactly the same situation had DIC taken us over. (All of their recent investments are haemorrhaging money because of high debts levels).
Given the fact he was pretty much forced to sell up and had to choose between two options that were far from perfect, and we're not even sure if one of them made a proper bid, I think people are always too harsh on Moores. He always acted in the best interests of the club.
[/quote]
I'm also inclined to agree with this. I find the rumours he simply sold for more cash hard to believe. Whilst I have little respect for the Moores heirs in many ways, they are simply at times incompetent & greedy business people, not immoral.
I think he gets a hard time. Very few people are willing to understand that the whole affair is an awful lot more complex than it's usually made out.
And very few of them are willing to acknowledge that we'd be in exactly the same situation had DIC taken us over. (All of their recent investments are haemorrhaging money because of high debts levels).
Given the fact he was pretty much forced to sell up and had to choose between two options that were far from perfect, and we're not even sure if one of them made a proper bid, I think people are always too harsh on Moores. He always acted in the best interests of the club.
[/quote]
I'm also inclined to agree with this. I find the rumours he simply sold for more cash hard to believe. Whilst I have little respect for the Moores heirs in many ways, they are simply at times incompetent & greedy business people, not immoral.
The man who sold Liverpool to George Gillett Jr and Tom Hicks broke his silence last night to call for the club’s American owners to “stand aside†and not “punish the supporters any moreâ€.
In an emotional and wide-ranging letter to The Times, David Moores writes that Gillett and Hicks “risk damaging a sporting institution of global renown and if they have a conscience or nobility they will stand aside and allow new owners to take over the clubâ€.
The letter will turn up the pressure on the Americans, who bought the club from Moores three years ago in a deal worth £202 million. The new owners leveraged the club with debt, which now stands at £351 million. Moores, a member of the Littlewoods pools dynasty, walked away with £88 million.
Five years to the day that Moores woke up in Istanbul with the Champions League trophy beside him in bed, the former owner explains the reason why he sold the club and how he looked for a “fantasy investor ... the infintely wealthy Liverpool-loving individual or family with the wherewithal to transform our dreams into realityâ€.
The reality turned out very different and Moores admits he was taken in by the Americans. “We had looked at George Gillett’s affairs in detail and he came up to scratch,†he writes. “To a great extent, we took Tom Hicks on trust, on George’s say-so.â€
Moores rejects allegations, however, that anyone at the club was negligent in the due diligence process, saying Rothschild, the merchant bank representing the Americans, assured Anfield officials “both were good for the moneyâ€. The share offer, Moores contends, “was laid out in unambiguous terms ... the document pledged there would be no debt placed upon the club, and significant funds would be made available for investment in the squad and the new stadiumâ€.
The letter also explains why Moores felt he had to sell the club and why the bids from Thaksin Shinawatra and Dubai International Capital to buy Liverpool failed. Moores, 65, sees no need to apologise but admits to making “honest mistakes†while acting in the “best interests of the clubâ€. Nevertheless, he “hugely regrets selling the club†to the American pair.
Since he resigned from the board a year ago, Moores has not been back to Anfield. “It has been hard for me, sitting mute on the sidelines as the club I love suffers one blow after another,†he writes.
The scale of his contempt for the men who replaced him in Anfield’s corridors of power is clear. “I call upon them to stand back, accept their role in the club’s current demise, and stand aside with dignity,†he writes.
It is a sentiment that will resonate across Anfield Road but with no buyer in sight, one unlikely to be answered in the near future.
In an emotional and wide-ranging letter to The Times, David Moores writes that Gillett and Hicks “risk damaging a sporting institution of global renown and if they have a conscience or nobility they will stand aside and allow new owners to take over the clubâ€.
The letter will turn up the pressure on the Americans, who bought the club from Moores three years ago in a deal worth £202 million. The new owners leveraged the club with debt, which now stands at £351 million. Moores, a member of the Littlewoods pools dynasty, walked away with £88 million.
Five years to the day that Moores woke up in Istanbul with the Champions League trophy beside him in bed, the former owner explains the reason why he sold the club and how he looked for a “fantasy investor ... the infintely wealthy Liverpool-loving individual or family with the wherewithal to transform our dreams into realityâ€.
The reality turned out very different and Moores admits he was taken in by the Americans. “We had looked at George Gillett’s affairs in detail and he came up to scratch,†he writes. “To a great extent, we took Tom Hicks on trust, on George’s say-so.â€
Moores rejects allegations, however, that anyone at the club was negligent in the due diligence process, saying Rothschild, the merchant bank representing the Americans, assured Anfield officials “both were good for the moneyâ€. The share offer, Moores contends, “was laid out in unambiguous terms ... the document pledged there would be no debt placed upon the club, and significant funds would be made available for investment in the squad and the new stadiumâ€.
The letter also explains why Moores felt he had to sell the club and why the bids from Thaksin Shinawatra and Dubai International Capital to buy Liverpool failed. Moores, 65, sees no need to apologise but admits to making “honest mistakes†while acting in the “best interests of the clubâ€. Nevertheless, he “hugely regrets selling the club†to the American pair.
Since he resigned from the board a year ago, Moores has not been back to Anfield. “It has been hard for me, sitting mute on the sidelines as the club I love suffers one blow after another,†he writes.
The scale of his contempt for the men who replaced him in Anfield’s corridors of power is clear. “I call upon them to stand back, accept their role in the club’s current demise, and stand aside with dignity,†he writes.
It is a sentiment that will resonate across Anfield Road but with no buyer in sight, one unlikely to be answered in the near future.
PHEW!! what a lucky escape! we were almost fucked there.
fuck me... :🙂
The Letter :-
Dear Tony,
I’m writing to you not out of any mission to clear my name — if I felt I had anything to apologise for I would have done so, without hesitation, a long, long time ago. I’m sending this to you because my family are being wounded by the combination of hearsay, mistruth and malicious gossip regarding my decision to sell the club.
Above all I’m writing because I care deeply about the club, the team and the fans. I hope against hope that Messrs Gillett and Hicks will see this letter and do the right thing.
In holding on and holding out they risk damaging a sporting institution of global renown and if they have any conscience or nobility they will stand aside and allow new owners to take over the club for its future benefit and that of its lifeblood — the fans.
One thing we would never countenance was any notion of borrowing against the club to create a phoney wealth for some “jam today†spending splurge. I can say with certainty that our housekeeping was immaculate.
But in the wake of Euro 96 with the influx of more and more overseas superstars on superstar wages, I was aware the game was changing beyond all recognition and deeply worried, too, about my ability to continue underwriting the financial side. I was from the ever-decreasing pool of old-school club owners, the locally based, locally wealthy supporter like Jack Walker who stuck his money in out of his passion for the club.
Football clubs were beginning to be seen as a source of profit rather than a source of pride; they were as much financial institutions as they were sporting legacies. The Abramovich era was upon us, and I knew that I could never compete.
We wanted that fantasy investor — the infinitely wealthy, Liverpool-loving individual or family with the wherewithal to transform our dreams into reality. We invested huge sums and massive amounts of time investigating potential investors, only to conclude that they were not the right people for Liverpool. It would have been easier just to take the money, cross our fingers tight and hope things worked out — but we dug deep into every file and asked all the tough questions, knowing the answers might scupper any deal.
We spent time [in the United States] with the hugely impressive Robert Kraft. Both Rick and myself were disappointed that the Kraft family decided not to take their interest any further.
Around the same time we met George Gillett for the first time, liked him very much as a man and were struck by his sheer passion for the club he owned, the Montreal Canadiens. There was a cultural similarity between the Canadiens and LFC, in that Montreal is perhaps the most un-Canadian of Canada’s major cities; the fans see themselves as separate (and perhaps superior) to the rest of the country. They are devoted to their team, which gives them a sense of pride and identity. Importantly, too, all the fans we spoke to on the street and around the stadium had nothing but affection and praise for their owner, George Gillett. Sadly George was unable to follow up his very real interest with the necessary funding to take our club forward.
Gillett returned with a new proposal. We asked to hear more, and George introduced his partnership with the Hicks family. On 30th January 2007 we put the Gillett/Hicks proposal to the board, and they voted in favour
We moved ahead with Gillett and Hicks with all due speed (even now I cannot accept that we were hasty) — and here is an element of the process I accept we could have handled better. We had looked into George Gillett’s affairs in detail, and he came up to scratch. To a great extent, we took Tom Hicks on trust, on George’s say-so. Gillett and Hicks produced a very substantial offer document containing all the key assurances re debt, the stadium, investment in the squad and respect for Liverpool FC’s unique culture, traditions and legacy. It was impressive stuff — and it did the trick. For the motion to be carried we needed around 90 per cent in favour. Over 1,700 shareholders voted and the result was 100 per cent in favour of accepting the offer.
So many times I have had people ask me, and write to me, and quiz the people who are close to me: “Wouldn’t a simple Google search have told you all you needed to know about Tom Hicks?â€
The truth is that we went way beyond Google in our check-ups. We retained PricewaterhouseCoopers to advise us on the fabric of the deal, and they received assurances from Rothschilds, one of the most respected names in global finance, who vouched for both Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Indeed, Rothschilds — who were representing Gillett and Hicks — telephoned a non-executive director of LFC, Keith Clayton, to assure him that both were good for the money. Could we have done more? Probably — though under those circumstances, in that time-frame, probably not.
After four years searching, we may have been too keen, too ready to hear the good news that George and Tom had passed their tests. Don’t forget that everyone was delighted with their takeover at the time. Significant shareholders like Granada and Steve Morgan were insistent the board of LFC should accept the G&H offer, and left me in no doubt about my legal duty to accept the offer.
Ultimately, the deal we signed up to was laid out in unambiguous terms in the share offer document. It is a matter of fact that the document pledged there would be no debt placed on the club, and significant funds would be made available for investment in the squad and the new stadium. I signed up for that — not money.
It has been hard for me, sitting mute on the sidelines as the club I love suffers one blow after another. Since resigning from the board I have not set foot inside Anfield — and it hurts. I hugely regret selling the club to George Gillett and Tom Hicks. I believe that, at best, they have bitten off much more than they can chew. Giving them that benefit of the doubt — that they started off with grand ideals that they were never realistically going to achieve — I call upon them now to stand back, accept their limitations as joint owners of Liverpool Football Club, acknowledge their role in the club’s demise, and stand aside, with dignity, to allow someone else to take up the challenge. Don’t punish the club’s supporters any more — God knows they’ve taken enough. Take an offer, be realistic over the price, make it possible. Let the club go. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to concede for the greater good.
Yours faithfully,
David Moores
Dear Tony,
I’m writing to you not out of any mission to clear my name — if I felt I had anything to apologise for I would have done so, without hesitation, a long, long time ago. I’m sending this to you because my family are being wounded by the combination of hearsay, mistruth and malicious gossip regarding my decision to sell the club.
Above all I’m writing because I care deeply about the club, the team and the fans. I hope against hope that Messrs Gillett and Hicks will see this letter and do the right thing.
In holding on and holding out they risk damaging a sporting institution of global renown and if they have any conscience or nobility they will stand aside and allow new owners to take over the club for its future benefit and that of its lifeblood — the fans.
One thing we would never countenance was any notion of borrowing against the club to create a phoney wealth for some “jam today†spending splurge. I can say with certainty that our housekeeping was immaculate.
But in the wake of Euro 96 with the influx of more and more overseas superstars on superstar wages, I was aware the game was changing beyond all recognition and deeply worried, too, about my ability to continue underwriting the financial side. I was from the ever-decreasing pool of old-school club owners, the locally based, locally wealthy supporter like Jack Walker who stuck his money in out of his passion for the club.
Football clubs were beginning to be seen as a source of profit rather than a source of pride; they were as much financial institutions as they were sporting legacies. The Abramovich era was upon us, and I knew that I could never compete.
We wanted that fantasy investor — the infinitely wealthy, Liverpool-loving individual or family with the wherewithal to transform our dreams into reality. We invested huge sums and massive amounts of time investigating potential investors, only to conclude that they were not the right people for Liverpool. It would have been easier just to take the money, cross our fingers tight and hope things worked out — but we dug deep into every file and asked all the tough questions, knowing the answers might scupper any deal.
We spent time [in the United States] with the hugely impressive Robert Kraft. Both Rick and myself were disappointed that the Kraft family decided not to take their interest any further.
Around the same time we met George Gillett for the first time, liked him very much as a man and were struck by his sheer passion for the club he owned, the Montreal Canadiens. There was a cultural similarity between the Canadiens and LFC, in that Montreal is perhaps the most un-Canadian of Canada’s major cities; the fans see themselves as separate (and perhaps superior) to the rest of the country. They are devoted to their team, which gives them a sense of pride and identity. Importantly, too, all the fans we spoke to on the street and around the stadium had nothing but affection and praise for their owner, George Gillett. Sadly George was unable to follow up his very real interest with the necessary funding to take our club forward.
Gillett returned with a new proposal. We asked to hear more, and George introduced his partnership with the Hicks family. On 30th January 2007 we put the Gillett/Hicks proposal to the board, and they voted in favour
We moved ahead with Gillett and Hicks with all due speed (even now I cannot accept that we were hasty) — and here is an element of the process I accept we could have handled better. We had looked into George Gillett’s affairs in detail, and he came up to scratch. To a great extent, we took Tom Hicks on trust, on George’s say-so. Gillett and Hicks produced a very substantial offer document containing all the key assurances re debt, the stadium, investment in the squad and respect for Liverpool FC’s unique culture, traditions and legacy. It was impressive stuff — and it did the trick. For the motion to be carried we needed around 90 per cent in favour. Over 1,700 shareholders voted and the result was 100 per cent in favour of accepting the offer.
So many times I have had people ask me, and write to me, and quiz the people who are close to me: “Wouldn’t a simple Google search have told you all you needed to know about Tom Hicks?â€
The truth is that we went way beyond Google in our check-ups. We retained PricewaterhouseCoopers to advise us on the fabric of the deal, and they received assurances from Rothschilds, one of the most respected names in global finance, who vouched for both Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Indeed, Rothschilds — who were representing Gillett and Hicks — telephoned a non-executive director of LFC, Keith Clayton, to assure him that both were good for the money. Could we have done more? Probably — though under those circumstances, in that time-frame, probably not.
After four years searching, we may have been too keen, too ready to hear the good news that George and Tom had passed their tests. Don’t forget that everyone was delighted with their takeover at the time. Significant shareholders like Granada and Steve Morgan were insistent the board of LFC should accept the G&H offer, and left me in no doubt about my legal duty to accept the offer.
Ultimately, the deal we signed up to was laid out in unambiguous terms in the share offer document. It is a matter of fact that the document pledged there would be no debt placed on the club, and significant funds would be made available for investment in the squad and the new stadium. I signed up for that — not money.
It has been hard for me, sitting mute on the sidelines as the club I love suffers one blow after another. Since resigning from the board I have not set foot inside Anfield — and it hurts. I hugely regret selling the club to George Gillett and Tom Hicks. I believe that, at best, they have bitten off much more than they can chew. Giving them that benefit of the doubt — that they started off with grand ideals that they were never realistically going to achieve — I call upon them now to stand back, accept their limitations as joint owners of Liverpool Football Club, acknowledge their role in the club’s demise, and stand aside, with dignity, to allow someone else to take up the challenge. Don’t punish the club’s supporters any more — God knows they’ve taken enough. Take an offer, be realistic over the price, make it possible. Let the club go. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to concede for the greater good.
Yours faithfully,
David Moores
If the agreement was that there would be no debt to the clun are they not in breach?
In many ways it's hard to feel real anger at Moores. I think every fan knows that he cares about the club and felt he was doing what was in the clubs best interests. I think he even sold the club at a realistic price.
However, there are still thing that are hard to accept about it all.
4 years of searching only brought the Thais, DIC and G&H to the table with firm offers and essentially he admitted being duped by G&H. Of course the global financial crisis played a hugepart in G&H;s demise, but I think you have lay a lot of criticism at Moore's door.
He may have loved the club deeply, but a businessman he was not and his lack of business acuman over a large period of time has been one of the fundamental reasons why Liverpool FChas underachieved as a club.
However, there are still thing that are hard to accept about it all.
4 years of searching only brought the Thais, DIC and G&H to the table with firm offers and essentially he admitted being duped by G&H. Of course the global financial crisis played a hugepart in G&H;s demise, but I think you have lay a lot of criticism at Moore's door.
He may have loved the club deeply, but a businessman he was not and his lack of business acuman over a large period of time has been one of the fundamental reasons why Liverpool FChas underachieved as a club.
no chance. that's like you selling a car and insisting the new owner clean the car every week. the buyer may agree so you sell to him but he is under no obligation to do anything he doesn't want to once he buys the car from you as he owns the car.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=40383.msg1109028#msg1109028 date=1274844867]
Nice letter David, but do you think G & H will give one fuck about your "passionate address", and sell to the nearest fucking bidder for half what they think the club's worth?
Will. They. Fuck.
[/quote]
Let's just hope they issue a reply instead, that's sure to accelerate the selling process.
Nice letter David, but do you think G & H will give one fuck about your "passionate address", and sell to the nearest fucking bidder for half what they think the club's worth?
Will. They. Fuck.
[/quote]
Let's just hope they issue a reply instead, that's sure to accelerate the selling process.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=40383.msg1109041#msg1109041 date=1274853904]
no chance. that's like you selling a car and insisting the new owner clean the car every week. the buyer may agree so you sell to him but he is under no obligation to do anything he doesn't want to once he buys the car from you as he owns the car.
[/quote]
Congratulations! You have been nominated for the 'Shittest Analogy of the Year' award. I know it's early, but I think you're a real contender.
no chance. that's like you selling a car and insisting the new owner clean the car every week. the buyer may agree so you sell to him but he is under no obligation to do anything he doesn't want to once he buys the car from you as he owns the car.
[/quote]
Congratulations! You have been nominated for the 'Shittest Analogy of the Year' award. I know it's early, but I think you're a real contender.
[quote author=StevieM link=topic=40383.msg1109025#msg1109025 date=1274843892]
In many ways it's hard to feel real anger at Moores. I think every fan knows that he cares about the club and felt he was doing what was in the clubs best interests. I think he even sold the club at a realistic price.
However, there are still thing that are hard to accept about it all.
4 years of searching only brought the Thais, DIC and G&H to the table with firm offers and essentially he admitted being duped by G&H. Of course the global financial crisis played a hugepart in G&H;s demise, but I think you have lay a lot of criticism at Moore's door.
He may have loved the club deeply, but a businessman he was not and his lack of business acuman over a large period of time has been one of the fundamental reasons why Liverpool FChas underachieved as a club.
[/quote]
This sums up my feelings on the subject.
In many ways it's hard to feel real anger at Moores. I think every fan knows that he cares about the club and felt he was doing what was in the clubs best interests. I think he even sold the club at a realistic price.
However, there are still thing that are hard to accept about it all.
4 years of searching only brought the Thais, DIC and G&H to the table with firm offers and essentially he admitted being duped by G&H. Of course the global financial crisis played a hugepart in G&H;s demise, but I think you have lay a lot of criticism at Moore's door.
He may have loved the club deeply, but a businessman he was not and his lack of business acuman over a large period of time has been one of the fundamental reasons why Liverpool FChas underachieved as a club.
[/quote]
This sums up my feelings on the subject.
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=40383.msg1109042#msg1109042 date=1274854250]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=40383.msg1109028#msg1109028 date=1274844867]
Nice letter David, but do you think G & H will give one fuck about your "passionate address", and sell to the nearest fucking bidder for half what they think the club's worth?
Will. They. Fuck.
[/quote]
Let's just hope they issue a reply instead, that's sure to accelerate the selling process.
[/quote]
"Blow us, fuck face."
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=40383.msg1109028#msg1109028 date=1274844867]
Nice letter David, but do you think G & H will give one fuck about your "passionate address", and sell to the nearest fucking bidder for half what they think the club's worth?
Will. They. Fuck.
[/quote]
Let's just hope they issue a reply instead, that's sure to accelerate the selling process.
[/quote]
"Blow us, fuck face."
[quote author=StevieM link=topic=40383.msg1109023#msg1109023 date=1274843141]
The truth is that we went way beyond Google in our check-ups. We retained PricewaterhouseCoopers to advise us on the fabric of the deal, and they received assurances from Rothschilds, one of the most respected names in global finance, who vouched for both Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Indeed, Rothschilds — who were representing Gillett and Hicks — telephoned a non-executive director of LFC, Keith Clayton, to assure him that both were good for the money. Could we have done more? Probably — though under those circumstances, in that time-frame, probably not.
[/quote]
So u want to vouch the credibility of a person, u ask directly the one who is currently hired and PAID by that particular person. Talk about conflict of interests.
The truth is that we went way beyond Google in our check-ups. We retained PricewaterhouseCoopers to advise us on the fabric of the deal, and they received assurances from Rothschilds, one of the most respected names in global finance, who vouched for both Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Indeed, Rothschilds — who were representing Gillett and Hicks — telephoned a non-executive director of LFC, Keith Clayton, to assure him that both were good for the money. Could we have done more? Probably — though under those circumstances, in that time-frame, probably not.
[/quote]
So u want to vouch the credibility of a person, u ask directly the one who is currently hired and PAID by that particular person. Talk about conflict of interests.
I wish he'd said it sooner, and also wish he'd never sold us to them. I wish lots of things.
But David Moores is a good person. Some of the abuse meted out to him by the armchair superfans has been simply disgraceful.
But David Moores is a good person. Some of the abuse meted out to him by the armchair superfans has been simply disgraceful.
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=40383.msg1109060#msg1109060 date=1274862038]
I wish he'd said it sooner, and also wish he'd never sold us to them. I wish lots of things.
But David Moores is a good person. Some of the abuse meted out to him by the armchair superfans has been simply disgraceful.
[/quote]
Absolutely spot on.
I wish he'd said it sooner, and also wish he'd never sold us to them. I wish lots of things.
But David Moores is a good person. Some of the abuse meted out to him by the armchair superfans has been simply disgraceful.
[/quote]
Absolutely spot on.
- Status
