Liverpool : Le club est à vendre

Gerrard100 a écrit:http://www.thisisanfield.com/2010/04/17/hicks-i-should-make-four-times-my-money/
Ca montre leurs perceptions des choses!!

Gerrard100 a écrit:http://www.thisisanfield.com/2010/04/17/hicks-i-should-make-four-times-my-money/
Ca montre leurs perceptions des choses!!

Gerrard100 a écrit:http://www.thisisanfield.com/2010/04/17/hicks-i-should-make-four-times-my-money/
Ca montre leurs perceptions des choses!!

Bugsy a écrit:£2m net apportés par les ricains lors des 4 derniers mercatos...

johntoshack a écrit:Bon débarras, merci Sir David Moore d'avoir vendu le club a des escrocs.
j'espére que cette fois ci on va avoir de serieux investisseurs qui respecterons les valeurs du club.

rafa la bamba a écrit:
Personne ne nie que David Moores est un "nice guy" mais on est en droit d'attendre un comportement différent entre un supporter de base et un président au regard du niveau de responsabilité attendue.

M'sieur l'marquis a écrit:

johntoshack a écrit:Bon débarras, merci Sir David Moore d'avoir vendu le club a des escrocs.
j'espére que cette fois ci on va avoir de serieux investisseurs qui respecterons les valeurs du club.

Franchement, ça me gonfle d'entendre sans arrêt des réflexions pénibles au sujet de David Moores. Il s'est fait avoir, mais ne l'a pas souhaité. Les américains ont agi comme des escrocs; point barre ! Moores a été roulé dans la farine (et nous avec), mais il n'a jamais souhaité laisser le club dans les mains de minables investisseurs. Quand il a pris cette décision, il pensait que c'était pour le bien du LFC et je ne me souviens pas de supporters, s'être manifestés davantage pour le sheik que pour H et G. Au contraire !!!!
David Moores a été un grand serviteur du club, un homme honnête et intègre. S'il a fait une erreur, la moindre des choses serait de lui pardonner car il doit être au moins aussi malheureux que nous.

Ronan9 a écrit:Source : SKY Sports
Chinese businessman
Kenneth Huang has revealed he is in talks to buy Liverpool and wants
manager Rafa Benitez to remain at Anfield.Huang is at the head of a consortium interested in ending the
ownership deadlock at Anfield and has claimed he has been granted access
to the club's accounts by Tom Hicks and George Gillett. And the former Wall
Street broker, who has a huge portfolio of investment interests in Hong
Kong and the United States, expects a deal to be in place within the
next two months.Huang, who is working alongside business partner
Adrian Cheng on the deal, insists Benitez is at the heart of his
£500million master plan and has already contacted the Spaniard to give
him assurances about the future in a bid to keep him out of the clutches
of Italian giants JuventusCrucial stage
"Negotiations
have taken place over the last few months and we are at a crucial
stage,"
"I really hope it
turns out to be a successful bid. Right now my audit team is examining
the books and my legal team is in close contact with theirs."We
have a fierce competitor in the Middle east but it could be finalised in
June."

He added: "I was first approached (to buy Liverpool) in 2008 when I was in
Singapore attending a Formula one grand prix, but the asking price was
1billion US dollars."It was totally unreasonable so I turned it
down. The asking price has dropped significantly and we are talking
again."I want Liverpool to win the Champions League and Premier
League and I think Benitez is a very good coach."

baby-liverpool a écrit:En général en termes de business les asitiques (chinois, japonais, coréens, etc) sont des gens sérieux, et c'est ce qu'il nous faut. Bien surtout ceci sont des rumeurs, ce que je veux moi c'est desgens sérieux qui investissent dans le club et s'en occupent, pas des clowns comme les deux ricains. Après qu'ils soient indiens, saoudiens, chinois, jamaicains, etc, je m'en fous.

Brittanyred a écrit:

baby-liverpool a écrit:En général en termes de business les asitiques (chinois, japonais, coréens, etc) sont des gens sérieux, et c'est ce qu'il nous faut. Bien surtout ceci sont des rumeurs, ce que je veux moi c'est desgens sérieux qui investissent dans le club et s'en occupent, pas des clowns comme les deux ricains. Après qu'ils soient indiens, saoudiens, chinois, jamaicains, etc, je m'en fous.

Le principe du "fond sauterelle" -j'achète, je transforme mon emprunt en dettes au nom de l'entreprise achetée, je restructure l'entreprise et je la fais cracher un max de ponion ou je la revend dans les plus brefs délais, avant qu'elle ne me coûte 1$- n'est pas plus américain que chinois ou européen.

On peut tout à fait imaginer passer d'un fond sauterelle américain à un fond sauterelle chinois ou saoudien. L'objectif de Broughton semble justement d'éviter cela (si c'est possible de tomber sur un propriétaire comme celui de Villa...)

Brittanyred a écrit:

rikku a écrit:http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/i-ll-deliver-a-bright-future

Futur propriétaire
"My role is to make sure Liverpool is successful in the future. It is now very important that we find the right owner - not just a new owner.
"I ask for patience from the fans. They want to get what I want to get - not just the highest bidder but the best bidder in the long term."

Nouveau stade
Asked about the importance of the new stadium project in the sale of the Club, he replied: "Well I've looked at the stadium project. It's ready to go to tender and frankly there's an overwhelming financial logic for any buyer to proceed with the stadium. Any buyer would be crazy not to proceed with the stadium, it's going to be in its interests... you wouldn't get to be the winning bid without that commitment."

Transferts
"Well there'll be money available for transfers but obviously I'm not going to go into how much," he said. "The key point is that this will make a difference. It will clarify the ownership position going forwards."

Résumé :
Il choisira un investisseur qui a les reins solides et une vision à long terme, et qui offrira toutes les garanties pour construire le nouveau stade. Dans l'immédiat, afin de garantir la stabilité de l'équipe (et donc l'attractivité du club) il y aura de l'argent disponible pour les transferts (combien? mystère et boule de gomme)

Liverpool post £54.9m loss as debts continue to rise

Liverpool's parent company posted a huge loss of £54.9m for the year ended on 31 July 2009 as debt interest payments and severance costs hit hard.

The loss was 34% worse than 2008's figure as £40.1m went on servicing the club's £351.4m debt to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and US firm Wachovia.
Pay-offs to senior staff, including former chief executive Rick Parry, accounted for a further £4.3m.
BBC Sport understands that Parry's severance package was £3m.
This sum - twice what Keith Edelman received when he left the chief executive job at Arsenal - will raise eyebrows on Merseyside as it was Parry who introduced Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jnr to the club and pushed for their eventual takeover in 2007.
He would come to regret this decision as the American duo's ownership has proved to be deeply unpopular with fans and Parry was ultimately forced out of the club in February 2009. He had been in charge for over 10 years.

Hicks and Gillett may soon be following him out of Anfield as they have put the club up for sale: an apparent admission that their regime has been a failure on and off the pitch.
Of particular concern to the fans (and any potential buyer of the club) will be a warning in the parent company's accounts from the auditors.
For the second year in succession, KPMG has flagged up its fears about Liverpool's precarious debt position. This relates to the loans Hicks and Gillett took out to finance their purchase of the Premier League outfit.
Last year the pair were forced to pay off a £60m chunk of their debt to the state-owned RBS in return for a one-year extension of their "credit facilities". That extension expired in March but is believed they have been given six months' grace to find a buyer.
But until that happens the club is dependent on what KPMG calls "short-term facility extensions".
"These conditions indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast doubt on the parent company's ability to continue as a going concern," it said.
As well as the bank loans, Liverpool's parent company also owes £144.4m to its parent company, the Hicks and Gillett-controlled Kop Football (Cayman) Limited. The interest on this was £8.1m, although it has not been paid.
Other items of note in the accounts are the expenses bills from Hicks and Gillett of £158,000 and £118,000 respectively. There is also a charge of £22.3m for work done on the much-delayed new stadium project.
It was not all red ink in Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd's accounts, though. Manager Rafa Benitez managed to make £3.4m in the transfer market, following 2008's £14.3m net profit.
And the club's second-place finish in the Premier League brought in record TV revenues of £74.6m.
Mention was also made of the bumper shirt-sponsorship deal the club signed with Standard Chartered in September 2009. Worth £80m over four years, the first benefits of that tie-up will come in next year's accounts.
But with no Champions League football to look forward to next year, a squad in need of urgent overhaul and uncertainty surrounding Benitez's position, the shirt deal will be scant consolation to Liverpool's frustrated following.

Feriel a écrit:La situation financière du club empire...une perte de 54,9 m £ sur la dernière écoulée.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/8668320.stm

Liverpool post £54.9m loss as debts continue to rise

Liverpool's parent company posted a huge loss of £54.9m for the year ended on 31 July 2009 as debt interest payments and severance costs hit hard.

The loss was 34% worse than 2008's figure as £40.1m went on servicing the club's £351.4m debt to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and US firm Wachovia.
Pay-offs to senior staff, including former chief executive Rick Parry, accounted for a further £4.3m.
BBC Sport understands that Parry's severance package was £3m.
This sum - twice what Keith Edelman received when he left the chief executive job at Arsenal - will raise eyebrows on Merseyside as it was Parry who introduced Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jnr to the club and pushed for their eventual takeover in 2007.
He would come to regret this decision as the American duo's ownership has proved to be deeply unpopular with fans and Parry was ultimately forced out of the club in February 2009. He had been in charge for over 10 years.

Hicks and Gillett may soon be following him out of Anfield as they have put the club up for sale: an apparent admission that their regime has been a failure on and off the pitch.
Of particular concern to the fans (and any potential buyer of the club) will be a warning in the parent company's accounts from the auditors.
For the second year in succession, KPMG has flagged up its fears about Liverpool's precarious debt position. This relates to the loans Hicks and Gillett took out to finance their purchase of the Premier League outfit.
Last year the pair were forced to pay off a £60m chunk of their debt to the state-owned RBS in return for a one-year extension of their "credit facilities". That extension expired in March but is believed they have been given six months' grace to find a buyer.
But until that happens the club is dependent on what KPMG calls "short-term facility extensions".
"These conditions indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast doubt on the parent company's ability to continue as a going concern," it said.
As well as the bank loans, Liverpool's parent company also owes £144.4m to its parent company, the Hicks and Gillett-controlled Kop Football (Cayman) Limited. The interest on this was £8.1m, although it has not been paid.
Other items of note in the accounts are the expenses bills from Hicks and Gillett of £158,000 and £118,000 respectively. There is also a charge of £22.3m for work done on the much-delayed new stadium project.
It was not all red ink in Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd's accounts, though. Manager Rafa Benitez managed to make £3.4m in the transfer market, following 2008's £14.3m net profit.
And the club's second-place finish in the Premier League brought in record TV revenues of £74.6m.
Mention was also made of the bumper shirt-sponsorship deal the club signed with Standard Chartered in September 2009. Worth £80m over four years, the first benefits of that tie-up will come in next year's accounts.
But with no Champions League football to look forward to next year, a squad in need of urgent overhaul and uncertainty surrounding Benitez's position, the shirt deal will be scant consolation to Liverpool's frustrated following.

Gate21 a écrit:JOHN ALDRIDGE: I’m dismayed by Liverpool FC’s state of chaos
May 8 2010 by John Aldridge, Liverpool Echo

IT is difficult to remember a time in all my years following Lverpool that I have felt more deflated than now. Just look at the club. Negativity everywhere, no light at the end of the tunnel under an ownership that is beyond a joke.

Nobody knows when or if the club will be sold, nobody knows which players are staying or going and the financial figures make for horrific reading.It’s the worst possible scenario that you could ever wish to have and, much to everyone’s complete dismay, football is almost becoming inconsequential.

We play a game at Hull tomorrow that means absolutely nothing, one that if we were to win 4-0 or 5-0, it wouldn’t give anyone a lift.

The question is – how do we get out of the mess?

The only way that will happen is if Tom Hicks and George Gillett go and we have to hope that Martin Broughton, who did a good job at sorting out British Horseracing, can come good and find the investment we desperately need.

This, however, is something completely different and at this moment in time, I am dreading the start of next season. Whether Rafa Benitez is in charge or whether Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard are still here, I am struggling to see a way we can get competitive because the club has been brought to its knees.

Naturally at this time of year, you look for moments that stand out during the course of a season but all we will take with us into the summer are feelings of negativity. But it could get worse. Could you imagine the uproar that will happen if Torres is sold and the money goes to the bank?

Yet it is a situation we all fear will become reality. Because Liverpool is no longer the club it was – and that needs to change.

Mahiya a écrit:Pfff, que les temps sont durs . Vivement le début de saison en espérant sortir sain et sauf de cette période de mercato.

Par contre, je me posais une question: lorsque je vois City ou Chelsea qui ont été acheté par des milliardaires, quels étaient leurs motivations? Chelsea n'était pas un grand d'europe avant Abramovitch et City n'en parlons même pas.
Liverpool est le meilleur club d'Angleterre, il suffirait que quelques joueurs soient achetés et l'on pourra concurrencé n'importe quel club dans toutes les compétitions possibles. La colonne vertébrale de l'équipe est là (Reina, Carragher, Masch, Gerrard, Torres), les autres sont bons.
Mais pourquoi personne n'investit pas dans ce club? Qu'ont-ils pu trouver à City et Chelsea qu'ils ne voient pas à LFC?

Mahiya a écrit:Pfff, que les temps sont durs . Vivement le début de saison en espérant sortir sain et sauf de cette période de mercato.

Par contre, je me posais une question: lorsque je vois City ou Chelsea qui ont été acheté par des milliardaires, quels étaient leurs motivations? Chelsea n'était pas un grand d'europe avant Abramovitch et City n'en parlons même pas.
Liverpool est le meilleur club d'Angleterre, il suffirait que quelques joueurs soient achetés et l'on pourra concurrencé n'importe quel club dans toutes les compétitions possibles. La colonne vertébrale de l'équipe est là (Reina, Carragher, Masch, Gerrard, Torres), les autres sont bons.
Mais pourquoi personne n'investit pas dans ce club? Qu'ont-ils pu trouver à City et Chelsea qu'ils ne voient pas à LFC?

Feriel a écrit:

Mahiya a écrit:Pfff, que les temps sont durs . Vivement le début de saison en espérant sortir sain et sauf de cette période de mercato.

Par contre, je me posais une question: lorsque je vois City ou Chelsea qui ont été acheté par des milliardaires, quels étaient leurs motivations? Chelsea n'était pas un grand d'europe avant Abramovitch et City n'en parlons même pas.
Liverpool est le meilleur club d'Angleterre, il suffirait que quelques joueurs soient achetés et l'on pourra concurrencé n'importe quel club dans toutes les compétitions possibles. La colonne vertébrale de l'équipe est là (Reina, Carragher, Masch, Gerrard, Torres), les autres sont bons.
Mais pourquoi personne n'investit pas dans ce club? Qu'ont-ils pu trouver à City et Chelsea qu'ils ne voient pas à LFC?

Moi aussi je me suis souvent posé la question sans trouver la réponse...

C'est ce que j'ai toujours du mal à comprendre justement...