[quote author=Rosco link=topic=38291.msg1027487#msg1027487 date=1262734399]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=38291.msg1027451#msg1027451 date=1262732493]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=38291.msg1027442#msg1027442 date=1262732195]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=38291.msg1027421#msg1027421 date=1262731366]
So basically Moores sold us to the highest bidder and in turn G&H then lied (shocka) and saddled us with £250m of debt, which now leaves us completely in the shite?
[/quote]
Pretty much.
We're not really "in the shite", we're in a period of time where we need to be frugal with our money and clever in how we use it. There's lighjt at the end of the tunner, the tunnel could however be a couple of years long.
Clearing deadwood off the wage bill is an obvious place to start. Why pay the likes of Degen, Dossena, Babel and Voronin the guts of £8m- £10m a year in wages for fuck all return ?
[/quote]
Cheers Rosco.
If we get a new investor in (for George G's stake) would that change anything iyo, or do you think the same plan would still be followed?
[/quote]
I'm reading back the quoted post thinking how did I put an "r" at the end of tunnel, never mind the "j" in light. Am I retarded ?
With the current financial climate it's going to be difficult to get any investors in. Nobody is going to finance it out of their own pocket, they'd all look for a serious amount of borrowings to help finance it. We'd end up paying interest on that too.
If it's a case of swapping Gillett for A N Other then I don't see the point. The new investor can't put more money in (on top of what he pays off Gillett) unless Hicks ponies up an equal amount (highly unlikely given his financial problems) or dilutes his shareholding so he has less than 50% (again unlikely, we know Tom likes to have some degree of control).
Ideally what we want is a situation where we get rid of the Yanks, and strengthen the financial position of the club. Especially so we can get a new stadium built.
So we either need someone (or some new group) to buy both partners out and start afresh. Given the amount of money needed to do that as well as part finance a stadium we're down to a very short list of potential investors (and I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't give a shite about the club either). So I think it's unlikely.
Alternatively (and I've mentioned this a few times before) we need both Hicks and Gillette to sell an equal stake, say 15 -20% each, to a new investor. It could easily raise £150m+. Ideally they wouldn't pocket the cash (and to be honest given the potential larger gains to be had down the road I don't think they would) and would use it to lower debt and save some for part financing a stadium, putting us in a much stronger financial position. I would like to see that new investment come from Share Liverpool (even though I have doubts about them too). That way we guarantee the fans are well represented on the Board and can be made fully aware of any shenanigans the Yanks try. Hopefully in the long term we'd be able to get rid of the Yanks in favour of either complete fan ownership / or at least fan friendly investors.
[/quote]
Well I've made it to page 5 of this thread and don't think I can endure much more of the fabrications being spouted. Rebel, perhaps you could highlight the paragraph and quotes in the article that state that Benitez cannot spend any money he raises in January? That would make it much easier for a simpleton of my status to understand. See, when I read the article it seemed to state quite clearly that actual "club insiders" insist that the policy of paying interest is not what is preventing him having a war chest. Again, it could be my failings in the command of the English language but that seems to indicate that the people who would know are saying the interest payments aren't stopping Benitez. However, that shouldn't stop anyone who wants to have a shot at the owners and it certainly doesn't in this case because in the next paragraph the author states "critics of the owners would dispute this assesment". No kidding - imagine that? The article then continues, using this statement as absolute fact and basing everything on this foundation. Like I said, if I could just see the quote that indicates that this is fact rather than actual quotes which directly refute it I might be more inclined to agree with you.
Just on the post Ross has made above - which is very good - the option not often mentioned is for the owners to find someone willing to provide a convertible note over 12 months. At their discretion the owners could then decide whether to convert this to a share holding or, if finances have lifted significantly in the interim, repay at the stat interest rate. Not the most common deal for a company not listed on any exchange but still a possibility. That said, the last paragraph of the above post is the way to go and I'm sure it would have happened by now were it not for the economic uncertainty of the last 18 months.
I personally don't hold that the best option is they both go; for all their failings we've seen a far better marketing effort since they arrived and I still believe they can give us greater presence and cash generating leverage in the US. A better world economy would certainly be of use to all of us.
