Author Topic: David Moores  (Read 69831 times)

Offline Smug Cassandra

  • outh strikes again :)
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,382
  • Siempre Liverpool Siempre River Plate
Re: David Moores
« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2010, 12:43:12 AM »
Awesome good effort lads. Bout time Moores did something and explained why he sold the family silverware to some good for completley fuck all, incompetent, arrogant, pathetic, asset stripping, leveraged buy out, stringy streak of piss gobshites that our great club and city has ever known for the sake of a few extra quid which he will never use.

! LIVERPOOL - EN LAS MALAS - MUCHO MAS !

Offline rushyman

  • Not A Badgeman. Fuck him. Please. Someone. Anyone! But not Jonathan Pearce.....
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 46,884
  • On Halloween, parents send kids out lookin like me
Re: David Moores
« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2010, 01:31:32 AM »
Just why.

Why did he do it
The depressing thing about tennis is that no matter how good I get, I'll never be as good as a wall

Mitch Hedberg

Offline TipTopKop

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,749
  • Call Meeeeeee The Splund
Re: David Moores
« Reply #82 on: January 20, 2010, 08:25:46 AM »
Why, has he a spare 700 million in the bank?
Exactly

yup. my babysitter also recommended josef fritzl to look after my kids.
;D

Offline Redsnappa

  • Pining for a League Championship
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,707
  • Sitting on the shoulders of giants!
Re: David Moores
« Reply #83 on: January 20, 2010, 08:58:15 AM »
Never knew this about his life till I checked the links on Wiki... this tragedy might go some way to explaining the lack of fight in the man; what a weight of guilt to carry on your shoulders for the rest of your life....

Tragic end to life of beauty
Dave Appleton
September 04, 2002


TWENTY-FIVE years ago today a Rochdale beauty queen who married a Littlewood's pools heir died in tragic circumstances.

Kathy Anders drowned in two feet of water when her husband's car overturned into a ditch.

Kathy - the girl who had everything to live for - was just 26 years old when she died on 4 September 1977. She had been married to pools and mail order millionaire David Moores, now chairman of Liverpool Football Club, for just 18 months.

Mr Moores, then 32, had been driving them home to the West Lancashire village of Halsall when the accident happened. They had enjoyed a meal at a restaurant near Formby when his Jaguar hit a roadside banking and somersaulted into a ditch near their home.

Kathy, the "Cinderella'' beauty who life plucked from an end-terraced home in Rochdale to a life of luxury, was trapped and choked by mud when the passenger side of the car submerged in about two feet of water. Later, a coroner's jury in Ormskirk returned a verdict of "misadventure.''

Kathy Anders became Rochdale's most glamorous daughter when she was crowned Miss England in March 1974. It was exactly a year after another road accident which had threatened to wreck her burgeoning career as a beauty queen and model.

For on 7 March, 1973, Kathy, who lived on Bury Road with her family, was lucky to escape with her life when her sports car skidded and somersaulted on a motorway approach road. She was trapped in the overturned car for an hour before help came. She was in hospital for nearly a year and still had a metal pin in her hip when she won the Miss England title at London's Lyceum ballroom.

Kathy told an Observer reporter in 1973 the accident was one of the most important things that had ever happened to her.

"It really changed my outlook on life,'' she said. "I was on my back for a long time in hospital, just thinking I was lucky to be alive. And from then on I found things that I worried about before, didn't bother me anymore.''

Kathy was still convalescing when she decided to enter the heats of the Miss England contest in Blackburn. She said: "The only reason I entered was to boost my confidence after being out of beauty contests for a year.''

When she won, modest Kathy, whose first ever beauty contest was in Fleetwood, attributed part of her success to being out of the public eye for the best part of a year.

"You see, they are always looking for new faces and having been unable to do anything for 12 months meant I wasn't in everyone's mind.

When she won she took her family by surprise. They had planned to meet her in Manchester on her return home, but Kathy turned up at her Bury Road home early and, with a cheery greeting, made it seem as if she was "returning from a trip to the corner shop.''

Kathy, who had once worked at a petrol pump attendant at a service station on Halifax Road, was 22 when she became Miss England. She had already been engaged for two years to Mr Moores and was sure her win would not affect their relationship.

It didn't. She married Mr Moores in February 1976 at the 14th century parish church in the village of Halsall where the couple set up home in a five-bedroomed mansion, complete with swimming pool, on two acres of land.

After her marriage Mrs Kathy Moores, as she had become, never forgot her roots, coming home to Rochdale regularly. She also went on to take part in the Miss United Kingdom and Miss Europe, finishing runner-up both times.

Kathy's funeral service in Southport was attended by about 90 relatives and close family friends. The ashes of the young Rochdale beauty queen, whose life was bathed in publicity, are now interred in a quiet rural churchyard away from the public gaze.

http://www.rochdaleobserver.co.uk/news/s/331/331726_tragic_end_to_life_of_beauty.html

 :(

Offline fry

  • or stew
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,757
  • Hoe Hoe Hoe
Re: David Moores
« Reply #84 on: January 20, 2010, 09:06:13 AM »
ten out ten for effort guys.  Would love moores to explain him self and apologise.  Would also like him to provide SOS with any details he can that can help in the fight against G+H.  As for lead the fight, no.  IMO he does not get the chance to absolve his betrayal. 
Disclaimer: The above post may not be based on facts even if stated as fact.

Offline Dr Cornwallis

  • Ministry of Scilly Talks :)
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,132
Re: David Moores
« Reply #85 on: January 20, 2010, 09:15:24 AM »

Anyway, my point or rather my opinion, is that Moores panicked, and given Parry had been briefing the media, the fans etc. on this brave new world under our soon-to-be Dubai owners, when after so long courting investment and finally setting this deal up, they feared a massive backlash from fans if they pulled back from selling the club. And so in their eyes, it didn't matter who they sold it to at this point. The reanimated corpses of Idi Amin and Pol Pot could have fetched up together in L4 with a proposal and Moores would have accepted it. Psychologically he'd already sold the club, and a deal, any deal needed to be put through.

I think Gillett and Hicks saw this and said (i.e. lied) whatever they thought Moores wanted to hear.

I think you're right on this one.
It's just a pity that it demonstrated his true colours in the process of trying to get out.  Had he been 100% committed to the cause then he would have vetted these fuckers properly, but by the end he seemed to have just given up on the club and just wanted a quiet life.
David, if you'd bothered to have done one more days work and investigated them, then you wouldn't have people knocking on your door now, and I can only imagine the letters you get. 

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,016
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: David Moores
« Reply #86 on: January 20, 2010, 09:37:50 AM »
just reading the opening post now, well done guys..

Offline Manila Vanilla

  • aka Spud Balls!
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,449
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • Baile Family Website
Re: David Moores
« Reply #87 on: January 20, 2010, 09:59:07 AM »
A lot of good points in this thread.

Moores could have done exactly what Gillett and Hicks propose to do - borrow a lot of money to build the stadium. I think he felt nervous about putting any significant debt on the club, just in case it went wrong. No stadium ever comes in on budget (Wembley anyone?) and he would have carried the can if it came in at three times the expected cost. That in turn could have led to under-investment in the team and declining performances. In fact, everything we're seeing now....

It's also true that both he and Parry panicked once DIC walked away, so almost any offer would have given them a way to save losing face.

So Moores had his heart in the right place but had no business acumen.
Parry was an accountant but one with little experience of mergers and acquisitions.
Both would have relied on their professional advisers (Hawkpoint and others) and I'm surprised that these people appear to have escaped criticism.
Hawkpoint Partners tout themselves as experts in mergers and acquisitions so should have known about Hicks' modus operandi.
Then there should have been legal experts to pick through the contract once it had been drawn up.
Nobody appears to have said, "Where does it actually say that they won't put the debt on the club....?"

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #88 on: January 20, 2010, 10:05:41 AM »
  Had he been 100% committed to the cause then he would have vetted these fuckers properly, but by the end he seemed to have just given up on the club and just wanted a quiet life.

Fate does not play an even hand. In standing down, he did the club a service. What do you think that "proper vetting" would have uncovered? A highly financially successful duo worth around $2.5bn at that time. As Chairman of the company he had a duty to maximise shareholder value, which he did.If we had sold to DIC, the chances are that we would be in a similar situation to West Ham under the Icelandic owners.

It is easy to forget that at point of sale, we were not a brilliant buy. At £220m to buy the club, £300m for a new stadium, and a three year £80m transfer war chest that is a £600m investment, poor value compared to the Mancs.The damage had been done long before the sale.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline fry

  • or stew
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,757
  • Hoe Hoe Hoe
Re: David Moores
« Reply #89 on: January 20, 2010, 10:15:21 AM »
Fate does not play an even hand. In standing down, he did the club a service. What do you think that "proper vetting" would have uncovered? A highly financially successful duo worth around $2.5bn at that time. As Chairman of the company he had a duty to maximise shareholder value, which he did.If we had sold to DIC, the chances are that we would be in a similar situation to West Ham under the Icelandic owners.

It is easy to forget that at point of sale, we were not a brilliant buy. At £220m to buy the club, £300m for a new stadium, and a three year £80m transfer war chest that is a £600m investment, poor value compared to the Mancs.The damage had been done long before the sale.
No offence, but they would have uncovered the Corinthians stuff.  They would have uncovered previous bankruptcies, they would have uncovered their LBO habbit and realised that they would in fact be doing a glazer.  They would have recognised the distaste the stars and rangers fans have of their custodian. 

Apparently Moores was warned about the pair by a financial group that did accountant work for the club anway so i suppose it does not matter what he would have uncovered, he sold anyway after having a serious warning allegedly.     

I get what you are saying in terms of business, they may be good business men but they are not custodians fit for a a football club.  Too many feelings to be hurt. 

« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 10:17:55 AM by fry »
Disclaimer: The above post may not be based on facts even if stated as fact.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #90 on: January 20, 2010, 10:55:49 AM »
No offence, but they would have uncovered the Corinthians stuff.  They would have uncovered previous bankruptcies, they would have uncovered their LBO habbit and realised that they would in fact be doing a glazer.  They would have recognised the distaste the stars and rangers fans have of their custodian.Apparently Moores was warned about the pair by a financial group that did accountant work for the club anway so i suppose it does not matter what he would have uncovered, he sold anyway after having a serious warning allegedly.
I get what you are saying in terms of business, they may be good business men but they are not custodians fit for a a football club.  Too many feelings to be hurt.

Yes. The point I make is that Moores wanted out, and it was  case of sell to the highest bidder, which is what the Institutional shareholders would have demanded anyway. G&H's business methods and casualties were really of no concern.It's like selling your house, what the new owners do with it is up to them.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline GBF

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,851
  • The only religion with a God that you can touch!
Re: David Moores
« Reply #91 on: January 20, 2010, 11:27:13 AM »
Parry was an accountant but one with little experience of mergers and acquisitions.

I think you and many on here under-estimate Coco.  He might be bad in closing deals with players, but he is a very very good at keeping the balance sheet in good shape.  He worked on the television deals when the Premier League started (and you know how successful this was) and many other.  I think his task for liverpool sale was to get his former boss as much money as possible, which is a very good outcome of an acquisition deal.
01111001 01101111 01110101 00100111 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101110 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110111 01100001 01101100 01101011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100101

Offline Roman Maroney

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • They seek him ere.....
Re: David Moores
« Reply #92 on: January 20, 2010, 11:30:19 AM »
Yes. The point I make is that Moores wanted out, and it was  case of sell to the highest bidder, which is what the Institutional shareholders would have demanded anyway. G&H's business methods and casualties were really of no concern.It's like selling your house, what the new owners do with it is up to them.

Granted we can only guess what goes on behind closed doors, but the situation stinks when a buyer is prepared to pay almost twice as much a couple of years later for the same assest (DIC going from £220M up to a reputed £400M).  Why was that, and why did the G&H sale happen so fast?  Is it just because Moores wanted to sell out fast as he had committed to the fans, or are there other reasons......

I believe the club as an asset was obviously under valued when it was sold, as just over a year later it was re mortgaged for £350M (I am still not buying the £214M non sense)

Plus 'xerxes1' - I cant see an £80M transfer war chest anywhere... more like an £XM loan against the club!
" would rather have a beer with someone who was looking for the truth than with someone who had found it...." CB 2008

Offline Manila Vanilla

  • aka Spud Balls!
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,449
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • Baile Family Website
Re: David Moores
« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2010, 11:57:23 AM »
I think you and many on here under-estimate Coco.

Not at all. I've never referred to him as "Coco" for  a start.... He was very good at all the day to day stuff, keeping things in shape, and has to some extent become the fall guy.
Mergers and acquisitions are one-offs, the sort of thing that you might never come across in your career.
That's why you appoint experts like Hawkpoint.
I'm surprised the experts haven't taken more flak to be honest.

Offline danwms

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,334
  • Walking through the storm.
    • Last FM
Re: David Moores
« Reply #94 on: January 20, 2010, 12:50:01 PM »
looking forward to seeing a response.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #95 on: January 20, 2010, 01:02:22 PM »
Granted we can only guess what goes on behind closed doors, but the situation stinks when a buyer is prepared to pay almost twice as much a couple of years later for the same assest (DIC going from £220M up to a reputed £400M).  Why was that, and why did the G&H sale happen so fast?  Is it just because Moores wanted to sell out fast as he had committed to the fans, or are there other reasons......I believe the club as an asset was obviously under valued when it was sold, as just over a year later it was re mortgaged for £350M (I am still not buying the £214M non sense)
Plus 'xerxes1' - I cant see an £80M transfer war chest anywhere... more like an £XM loan against the club!

No bid has ever been confirmed as having been made by either the club, or a preospective buyer subsequent to G&H's purchase..The £400m "bid" is a fantasy.

The sale didn't happen fast, DIC and G&H were the only serious bidders in town.There is no evidence whatsoever that the club was undersold. Once Moores had signalled that he had had enough, a sale was inevitable, and desirable.

(My reference to a £80m war chest was a hypothetical figure that a rival buyer may have wished to allow for in addition to the cost of buying the club for £220m and spending £300m on a new stadium)
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #96 on: January 20, 2010, 01:10:13 PM »
Not at all. I've never referred to him as "Coco" for  a start.... He was very good at all the day to day stuff, keeping things in shape, and has to some extent become the fall guy.
Mergers and acquisitions are one-offs, the sort of thing that you might never come across in your career.
That's why you appoint experts like Hawkpoint.
I'm surprised the experts haven't taken more flak to be honest.

And that is a fair point. Like Manilla, I acknowledge that the wheels turned pretty smoothly under Parry. His competence as an Accountant/Administrator is  not really in doubt. Indeed it was because things ambled along so smoothly that no-one asked any questions. Moores had neither the desire, nor will and ability to take us into the 21st Century, and Parry did his job within that framework. But then the chickens come home to roost. Hasnt it been 16 years sence we won the title? How come OT is 32,000 seats bigger? How come Arsenal and Man U take £1.5m more a home game than us? How come we have only the 64th largest stadium in Europe? How can we be 23rd in the league table of average European attendances?

It reminds me of the tale of the snail who was mugged by the tortoise: "It all happened so quickly............"
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 01:13:27 PM by xerxes1 »
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,143
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: David Moores
« Reply #97 on: January 20, 2010, 01:18:32 PM »
Xerxex,

How the does the stadium cost come into it? No one was ever going to pay for that with cash, it was going to borrowed money and naming rights whoever bought the club.

Offline Roman Maroney

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • They seek him ere.....
Re: David Moores
« Reply #98 on: January 20, 2010, 01:50:43 PM »
No bid has ever been confirmed as having been made by either the club, or a preospective buyer subsequent to G&H's purchase..The £400m "bid" is a fantasy.

The sale didn't happen fast, DIC and G&H were the only serious bidders in town.There is no evidence whatsoever that the club was undersold. Once Moores had signalled that he had had enough, a sale was inevitable, and desirable.

(My reference to a £80m war chest was a hypothetical figure that a rival buyer may have wished to allow for in addition to the cost of buying the club for £220m and spending £300m on a new stadium)

I would say the £400M bid was not officially confirmed, not fantasy.

Moores had signalled he wanted to sell ages ago - I would say he was advised by his chief exec whom he would have expected to have done full due dilligence.  BUT if it was me sellin the 'family silver'  I think I would have not just taken adisors, or prospective buyers word - a little bit more detailed analysis would have raised a massive amount of questions.

From descriptions of Parrys skillset above, non seem to describe where he was a good Chief Exec, only a potentially competant Chief Operating Officer, or Chief Finance Officer.  He may have been sucessful in that role underneath a competant CEO.
" would rather have a beer with someone who was looking for the truth than with someone who had found it...." CB 2008

Offline TipTopKop

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,749
  • Call Meeeeeee The Splund
Re: David Moores
« Reply #99 on: January 20, 2010, 01:55:05 PM »
I'm impressed, 3 pages so far and still no "pig flying" icon yet..

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,016
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: David Moores
« Reply #100 on: January 20, 2010, 01:57:06 PM »

Moores could have done exactly what Gillett and Hicks propose to do - borrow a lot of money to build the stadium. I think he felt nervous about putting any significant debt on the club, just in case it went wrong. No stadium ever comes in on budget (Wembley anyone?) and he would have carried the can if it came in at three times the expected cost. That in turn could have led to under-investment in the team and declining performances. In fact, everything we're seeing now....
I think If Moore's / Parry attempted to do what these twats have done to build the stadium, we would be in a worse position, as Moor's/ Parry never capitalised on our market, so we would be pulling in less money, and paying presumably a similar interest on a similar borrowing..

Im not in anyway arguing for the current owners, just making the point that Moore's / Parry would probably not have been able to build the stadium, certainly by borrowing from the bank(s).

What I would have loved Moores / Parry to do, was perhaps give the fans an option to help pay for the stadium, ie bonds/shares etc.. we could have kept the ticket prices down in that respect for our matches, and made more money off other comercial interests like concerts and shows etc..

Offline Billy1561

  • The egg-beating, Turbo Wrist-Action King. Conqueror of Mow cop otherwise known as The Cow Mopper! Too old for Google...too overloaded to byte.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Scouse by birth. Red by choice.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #101 on: January 20, 2010, 02:02:21 PM »
ten out ten for effort guys.  Would love moores to explain him self and apologise.  Would also like him to provide SOS with any details he can that can help in the fight against G+H.  As for lead the fight, no.  IMO he does not get the chance to absolve his betrayal. 

He could if he so desired provide sos a suitable donation to the war chest but it's more likely he sees them and general matchgoers as insignificant little ants from his lofty hidey hole.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."

Offline Old No7

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,128
Re: David Moores
« Reply #102 on: January 20, 2010, 02:34:49 PM »
Well done for making that effort.

DM has a lot to answe for and would love to hear what he has to say both about the current circumstances the club finds itself in, and his role in getting the club into this mess

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #103 on: January 20, 2010, 02:35:43 PM »
I would say the £400M bid was not officially confirmed, not fantasy.
Moores had signalled he wanted to sell ages ago - I would say he was advised by his chief exec whom he would have expected to have done full due dilligence.  BUT if it was me sellin the 'family silver'  I think I would have not just taken adisors, or prospective buyers word - a little bit more detailed analysis would have raised a massive amount of questions.
From descriptions of Parrys skillset above, non seem to describe where he was a good Chief Exec, only a potentially competant Chief Operating Officer, or Chief Finance Officer.  He may have been sucessful in that role underneath a competant CEO.

On the issue of any other offer, we should be able to agree that no further offer, or figure, has any substance in fact.

Moores sold Littlewoods Pools for £161m, and the retail arm for £750m, both hugely successful disposals.The idea that he was sat there helpless, at the mercy of bumbling small time accountant Parry is simply not true.Moores had at his call a battery of expert advisers. He, and they, were experienced in multi-million pound disposals. It is not the case that Moores couldnt have, or didnt have the expertise to raise the stadium finance, he didnt want to. He didnt want the aggravation, which is why he sold. Parry could do no more than do as he was told, or resign from a very nice job, even if he disagreed with Moores.

The uncomfortable truth is that the due dilligence could only go as far as, "can they deliver their offer?" And G&H did. Once the cash hit the bank account they were not bothered ( within reason) what happened thereafter. And that's business.

From the point of view of P&M personally, and the Shareholders, it was a good deal successfully completed.That no-one has surfaced with a confirmed bid to pay a penny more than G&H did  confirms the view that they sold at the top of the market.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 02:38:55 PM by xerxes1 »
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Billy1561

  • The egg-beating, Turbo Wrist-Action King. Conqueror of Mow cop otherwise known as The Cow Mopper! Too old for Google...too overloaded to byte.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Scouse by birth. Red by choice.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #104 on: January 20, 2010, 02:44:57 PM »
On the issue of any other offer, we should be able to agree that no further offer, or figure, has any substance in fact.

Moores sold Littlewoods Pools for £161m, and the retail arm for £750m, both hugely successful disposals.The idea that he was sat there helpless, at the mercy of bumbling small time accountant Parry is simply not true.Moores had at his call a battery of expert advisers. He, and they, were experienced in multi-million pound disposals. It is not the case that Moores couldnt have, or didnt have the expertise to raise the stadium finance, he didnt want to. He didnt want the aggravation, which is why he sold. Parry could do no more than do as he was told, or resign from a very nice job, even if he disagreed with Moores.

The uncomfortable truth is that the due dilligence could only go as far as, "can they deliver their offer?" And G&H did. Once the cash hit the bank account they were not bothered ( within reason) what happened thereafter. And that's business.

From the point of view of P&M personally, and the Shareholders, it was a good deal successfully completed.That no-one has surfaced with a confirmed bid to pay a penny more than G&H did  confirms the view that they sold at the top of the market.

That's probably quite accurate Xerxes, but it makes a mockery of Parrys rhetoric prior to the sale. Sold to the highest bidder.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #105 on: January 20, 2010, 02:46:37 PM »
I think If Moore's / Parry attempted to do what these twats have done to build the stadium, we would be in a worse position, as Moor's/ Parry never capitalised on our market, so we would be pulling in less money, and paying presumably a similar interest on a similar borrowing..
Im not in anyway arguing for the current owners, just making the point that Moore's / Parry would probably not have been able to build the stadium, certainly by borrowing from the bank(s).
What I would have loved Moores / Parry to do, was perhaps give the fans an option to help pay for the stadium, ie bonds/shares etc.. we could have kept the ticket prices down in that respect for our matches, and made more money off other comercial interests like concerts and shows etc..

This is simply not true. Our current debt of £220m -£350m depending on who you believe is borrowed by the club.P&M would have been in an identical position to raise the same finance, and Moores is well capable of providing the appropriate Directors guarantees - he just did not want to. Coincidentally we all recognise those figures as being in the region of what a new stadium would have cost- except that an asset, and revenue would have been created, not a revenue stream in debt repaymnets to the Banks.

The idea that you floated for raising finance has similarities with proposals mooted by Steve Morgan. Sadly the Moores v Morgan clash meant that could never develop. Moores inability to find a way of working with Morgan is another indictment of his regime, the Club suffered due to personal battles.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 02:54:17 PM by xerxes1 »
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Billy1561

  • The egg-beating, Turbo Wrist-Action King. Conqueror of Mow cop otherwise known as The Cow Mopper! Too old for Google...too overloaded to byte.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Scouse by birth. Red by choice.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #106 on: January 20, 2010, 02:51:54 PM »

The idea that you floated for raising finance has similarities with proposals mooted by Steve Morgan. Sadly the Moores v Morgan clash meant that could never develop. Moores inability to find a way of working with Morgan is another indictment of his regime, the Club suffered due to personal battles.


Fixed it for ya
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."

Offline Roman Maroney

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • They seek him ere.....
Re: David Moores
« Reply #107 on: January 20, 2010, 02:51:57 PM »
From the point of view of P&M personally, and the Shareholders, it was a good deal successfully completed.That no-one has surfaced with a confirmed bid to pay a penny more than G&H did  confirms the view that they sold at the top of the market.

I can see your viewpoint with most of the above post - but I just cant take this last line at all. 

How in gods name can the club as an asset that has appreciated by over 60+% in over 18 months of  the refinance timeline (i.e. from when they bought the club)  in the worlds worse recesion since the 1930's, be considered as being sold at the market high.... your numbers dont stack up. 

The fact that he managed to sell the pools when they were already well on the slide (look at their numbers over the past 20 years and it will verify this) and then the retailer (2 company breakup merchants saw an opportunity and pounced... ring any bells - they didnt do too badly out of that either did they?!). 

What can be seen in someone who didn't have strong leadership anywhere.  Ran companies as they always had been and when their current business models began to buckle in modern markets he sells them, as he doesn't know how to take them forward (new wave retailing.... internet gambling.... global brand premier league teams).  It doesn't make him a business genius to me, just a man born with a silver spoon that got lucky on a few times - LFC is the one where the luck ran out.

PS: My mate sold his house at the peak of the housing boom and rented, he's not a genius, just a jammy b*stard.  And he'll tell you the same.
" would rather have a beer with someone who was looking for the truth than with someone who had found it...." CB 2008

Offline Craig 🤔

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 43,507
  • YNWA
Re: David Moores
« Reply #108 on: January 20, 2010, 03:05:41 PM »
Moores was under obligation to consider the offer from G&H when it came in, DIC spat the dummy out at him doing so and walked away, basically leaving us with one option. Now may be he could of got DIC back to the table if he wanted to, and in hind sight he certainly should of done, but he didnt.

The fact is, even if he didnt consider the bigger offer from G&H, ITV would of put a scupper to the DIC deal as they were always in it for the money and owned something like 9.9% of the shares. ITV even had a clause in the G&H offer that they could pull out right up to the last minute should another bid come in at a higher amount.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #109 on: January 20, 2010, 03:09:57 PM »
I can see your viewpoint with most of the above post - but I just cant take this last line at all.  From the point of view of P&M personally, and the Shareholders, it was a good deal successfully completed.That no-one has surfaced with a confirmed bid to pay a penny more than G&H did  confirms the view that they sold at the top of the market"
How in gods name can the club as an asset that has appreciated by over 60+% in over 18 months of  the refinance timeline (i.e. from when they bought the club)  in the worlds worse recesion since the 1930's, be considered as being sold at the market high.... your numbers dont stack up.
The fact that he managed to sell the pools when they were already well on the slide (look at their numbers over the past 20 years and it will verify this) and then the retailer (2 company breakup merchants saw an opportunity and pounced... ring any bells - they didnt do too badly out of that either did they?!).
What can be seen in someone who didn't have strong leadership anywhere.  Ran companies as they always had been and when their current business models began to buckle in modern markets he sells them, as he doesn't know how to take them forward (new wave retailing.... internet gambling.... global brand premier league teams).  It doesn't make him a business genius to me, just a man born with a silver spoon that got lucky on a few times - LFC is the one where the luck ran out.
PS: My mate sold his house at the peak of the housing boom and rented, he's not a genius, just a jammy b*stard.  And he'll tell you the same.

We both agree that Moore’s bailed out  of the Pools and retail businesses because he was unprepared, or unable, to take on the challenges of the new marketplaces. We also agree that happening to own something which is worth a lot of money is no guarantee of that person being clever, in Moore’s case it was indeed luck. But he, and his team, knew their way around selling multi-million pound assets.

I disagree with you that the clubs value increased by 60%  ( or whatever the figure was/is) just because the debt went up to that figure. When the banks allowed the debt to hit that figure they were only interested in whether G&H could pay the terms, not whether the club was worth the total debt.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #110 on: January 20, 2010, 03:11:48 PM »
Moores was under obligation to consider the offer from G&H when it came in, DIC spat the dummy out at him doing so and walked away, basically leaving us with one option. Now may be he could of got DIC back to the table if he wanted to, and in hind sight he certainly should of done, but he didnt.

The fact is, even if he didnt consider the bigger offer from G&H, ITV would of put a scupper to the DIC deal as they were always in it for the money and owned something like 9.9% of the shares. ITV even had a clause in the G&H offer that they could pull out right up to the last minute should another bid come in at a higher amount.

Agreed.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Roman Maroney

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • They seek him ere.....
Re: David Moores
« Reply #111 on: January 20, 2010, 03:19:13 PM »
We both agree that Moore’s bailed out  of the Pools and retail businesses because he was unprepared, or unable, to take on the challenges of the new marketplaces. We also agree that happening to own something which is worth a lot of money is no guarantee of that person being clever, in Moore’s case it was indeed luck. But he, and his team, knew their way around selling multi-million pound assets.

I disagree with you that the clubs value increased by 60%  ( or whatever the figure was/is) just because the debt went up to that figure. When the banks allowed the debt to hit that figure they were only interested in whether G&H could pay the terms, not whether the club was worth the total debt.


Lets settle on the violent agreement, as we will never know if G&H have secured the loans against the club entirely, or whether they had used their own assets as collateral aswell - and this is what would drive the current understanding of the value of the club (not G&H current price). 
" would rather have a beer with someone who was looking for the truth than with someone who had found it...." CB 2008

Offline deebo!

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
Re: David Moores
« Reply #112 on: January 20, 2010, 03:22:54 PM »
the near fact that they tried to buy villa and were turned down should have been enough! or am i getting confused :-\
Blackburn are a filthy disgusting bunch of degenerate c*nts managed by a prize cock of a man upon whom I'd gladly piss, even if he wasn't on fire. Nzonzi, Diouf, Chimbonda can fuck off and die for all I care.

Offline RedPat

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,494
  • Kenny Godglish
Re: David Moores
« Reply #113 on: January 20, 2010, 04:17:02 PM »
Does Moores even come to Anfield anymore.I wonder is he slow to criticise the Yanks for fear of losing his honorary life presidency.
Kenny Godglish

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: David Moores
« Reply #114 on: January 20, 2010, 05:08:46 PM »
Lets settle on the violent agreement, as we will never know if G&H have secured the loans against the club entirely, or whether they had used their own assets as collateral aswell - and this is what would drive the current understanding of the value of the club (not G&H current price). 

Fair comment!
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline WaltonRed

  • Oct 4th: Don't be stupid there are no buyers. Oct 6th: These buyers. I don't like them. Oct 8th: ???
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,994
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: David Moores
« Reply #115 on: January 20, 2010, 05:15:43 PM »
I can see your viewpoint with most of the above post - but I just cant take this last line at all. 

How in gods name can the club as an asset that has appreciated by over 60+% in over 18 months of  the refinance timeline (i.e. from when they bought the club)  in the worlds worse recesion since the 1930's, be considered as being sold at the market high.... your numbers dont stack up. 


But who said the club as an asset has appreciated by that amount?  That might be the price that G&H are asking but the fact they are struggling to find any takers implies that its not the price the market believes it is worth.  And, at the end of the day, its the price you sell an asset for, not what you price an asset at, that really counts.

Offline wesley

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
Re: David Moores
« Reply #116 on: January 20, 2010, 05:52:43 PM »
proud of the lads if they did what they said. civil talks are truly the liverpool way!

royhendo

  • Guest
Re: David Moores
« Reply #117 on: January 20, 2010, 06:20:30 PM »
Good to see this.

Offline Liverbird 2010

  • but you can call me....likes to giggle a lot but only if it's about fellatio
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,428
Re: David Moores
« Reply #118 on: January 28, 2010, 03:32:23 PM »
latest news on this:

So you all know myself and Mick recently had a unplanned talk to David Moores at the gates of his home. As a result of this a further meeting took place yesterday at the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral Cafe. (Paddy's Wigwam)
Present at the meeting were Myself, Mick, Kev Sampson, David Moores and Rick Parry.

Although both Mick and I were completely upfront about our views of both DM's and RP's role in the sale, the tone of the meeting was positive and we left feeling cautiously optimistic. We started by underlining our anger and frustrations at the situation the club is now in, and how we come to be in such a state. We let it be known to DM that he'd made terrible error of judgement in selling to G+H and David Moores agreed with us. In the meeting at his house, as well as today he said he felt personally let down, but more importantly the fans had been let down as a result of Gillett and Hicks' takeover.

We asked DM why he'd not been more vocal in his condemnation of how the club is now being run and why as of yet, he's not made public the reasons that he ultimately decided to sell the club. DM said he will definitely make a full and frank statment but two things are currently holding him back. One is an ongoing legal issue with Liverpool F.C. The other is that he's been led to believe that investment is very close and he doesn't want to jeopardise any potential sale or be blamed for driving investors away.

We reminded DM that G+H have been looking for investment since the day they arrived so why should us fans believe that any new investment is forthcoming. We suggested that given the track record of G+H, and the false promises they have made, particularly involving the new stadium that this reported new investment may just be another red herring. DM said that he was as frustrated as us fans. He felt let down at the way the situation at the club had developed but now would not be the right time to speak out. He went on to say that since resigning his position at the club he has not been to Anfield.

We brought up several areas where we felt that both DM and RP could be proactive in aiding the removal of Hicks and Gillett, but due to the sensitive nature of what was being requested we can't go into detail about these. It's common knowledge that this is an open forum, and it would be shooting ourselves in the foot to say too much more at this point.

Overall, we appreciated them coming out to meet us. We felt they could have, and still can do more. But we have certainly come away thinking it was a worthwhile conversation that may well have a positive outcome further down the line.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 03:39:37 PM by Lyndsey_LFC »
FOOTBALL IS A LIE! RAFAEL BENITEZ :-)

Offline GIPPO77

  • No new LFC topics
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,220
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: David Moores
« Reply #119 on: January 28, 2010, 03:33:39 PM »
Good stuff.
YNWA