Topic: Patrick Barclay blunders into the Groundshare debate

[Armin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/09/17/sfnpb117.xml

A journalist who I enjoy reading, not today however. I'll post my letter to him once it's written.

[nige]

What ignorant bollox.

any idea of an e-mail addy ?

[Armin]

I'm pretty sure it's: patrick.barclay@telegraph.co.uk

Note to everyone, if you do email him please keep it polite etc. He's a good journalist but hasn't done the research on this one. We'll make a better case if we don't end with 'yer can stick yer fuckin groundshare up yer arse'.

Although of course he can.

[GibletII]

What's all the fuss about?

He's saying football doesn't have common sense and on that score he's right.

He's also correct to say that public money and land shouldn't be used by a commercial entity, especially when in doing so, the the company involved is taking a massive financial risk on it's own viability.

This assumes of course that Barcley is in full receipt of all the facts, I'm hoping Liverpool Fc and Liverpool City Council won't do anything as stupid as encourage the football club to enter in to a £180 million+ debt (mortgaged or otherwise), for the return it offers, at the expense of our heritage. 

But groundshare...no chance, it may be practical for the capital spend phase but what about the revenue phase, why don't these people ever think about that, not withstanding the partisan nature of football?

[stueya]

For a so-called respected journalist, has Patrick Barclay been living on the moon for the past 4 years or has he just not ventured out of the capital in a while. He has seemed to miss two main points
1. This argument has long since been settled and in 10 days time Liverpool FC WILL have provided financial guarantees needed to secure further funding, this will be with either through investment or as seems more likely- loans.
2. His argument about us being so compatible has long since gone, there's hasn't been a 'friendly derby' in 20 years and fans of both clubs despise each other as much as any other clubs in the country with the only exception being the Old Firm clubs.

[Big Red Richie]

So tell me.
Is this an article about groundshare, or corruption in the game?

It seems to be neither to me.

[sminp]

i read that......what a prick, he obviously doesn't understand the concept of pride and passion in football 

[anon-y-mouse]

Thought it was a good article myself. I don't agree with it but he does make some valid points.

[Armin]

He's at it again though it doesn't make the online version. Telling Liverpool supporters that the Gillette interest might be a good thing as his bid would mean the involvement of Steve Morgan. He goes on to say that groundshare might've been ruled out by the present board but it 'would be in the interests of both clubs and the local community'.

[ttnbd]

It's on the online version

PS Continuing delay in the completion of Dubai International Capital's purchase of Liverpool need not dismay supporters. While the board insist that they still favour the deal, a bit of competition from the American billionaire George Gillett Jnr sounds healthy, especially as I hear the rival bid might involve a role in the club's future development for the builder Steve Morgan, who, though worth only hundreds of millions, has the virtue of being both local and Liverpool-mad. When mounting a lone bid, Morgan was thought to favour the sharing of a new stadium with Everton: an idea which seems now to have bitten the dust. A pity, because it would help both clubs as well as the community.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/sport/2007/01/28/sfnpb228.xml

[JP-65]

He's at it again though it doesn't make the online version. Telling Liverpool supporters that the Gillette interest might be a good thing as his bid would mean the involvement of Steve Morgan. He goes on to say that groundshare might've been ruled out by the present board but it 'would be in the interests of both clubs and the local community'.

I had suspected that Morgan was involved in the Gillet bid, reinforces my concern that DIC may have trouble getting their bid through without a protracted wrangle.

This isn't the first time that Barclay has come out with these comments on groundshare either.....maybe Morgan is feeding him info?

[ttnbd]

I had suspected that Morgan was involved in the Gillet bid, reinforces my concern that DIC may have trouble getting their bid through without a protracted wrangle.

This isn't the first time that Barclay has come out with these comments on groundshare either.....maybe Morgan is feeding him info?

But with only 5.5% of the shares he needs to get a significant number of other shareholders on his side.  He may be able to get granada on his side, just depends on whether they want the extra £1.7m (before tax etc).

[JP-65]

But with only 5.5% of the shares he needs to get a significant number of other shareholders on his side.  He may be able to get granada on his side, just depends on whether they want the extra £1.7m (before tax etc).

Exactly.... 

And who knows who many small shareholders will hold out for a variety of reasons.