Topic: A balanced and fair and (hopefully) unbiased and mature discussion about H&G

[Joe Rogans Chin]

Why?

Because i don't think Parry had the now how to do the deal, we'd have been linked with him, Atletico would have got pissed off with us, news would have got out that Atletico would sell and torres would have been elsewhere.

Meanwhile, we'd have had to get Darren Bent.

Alves,Villa,Simao,Vidic, Evra etc etc.

[west_london_red]

Because i don't think Parry had the now how to do the deal, we'd have been linked with him, Atletico would have got pissed off with us, news would have got out that Atletico would sell and torres would have been elsewhere.

Meanwhile, we'd have had to get Darren Bent.

Alves,Villa,Simao,Vidic, Evra etc etc.

But Parry did sign Torres.

[Joe Rogans Chin]

But Parry did sign Torres.

Well thats that then, you know what i mean, Parry under Moores wouldn't have.

[west_london_red]

Well thats that then, you know what i mean, Parry under Moores wouldn't have.

Im no fan of Moores, but i honestly disagree with that. If the club could afford to sign him they would have.

[xerxes1]

Your hatred of Rafa is stunning and monotonous, do you write anymore fairy stories then ?
They gave Rafa that contract when they where found out to be dealing with the german diver, and the supporters where practically unanimous in their backing of Rafa, so they did that to try to win us back to just mildly hating them rather total intense hatred of them!

This thread is entitled:" A balanced and fair and (hopefully) unbiased and mature discussion about H&G", others can judge the value of your contribution in this regard.

As someone who backed Rafa's appointment, and who has said that he should be judged at the end of next season, I say the anti-Rafa sentiments can only be your own.

Your grasp of the facts to the Klinsmann incident is flawed.He was neither due, nor sought, nor was offered a new contract after his agent said he had been approached by other clubs.Rafa said he had not approved his agents statement.
Hicks confirmed to the BBC that the Klinsmann approach, amongst others, had been a defensive measure in case Rafa left, not an offensive measure to oust him:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/7187086.stm

Shame to let a good story get in the way of the facts, eh?

We started off well in response to the thread, let's get back on track.

[SMD]

Your grasp of the facts to the Klinsmann incident is flawed.He was neither due, nor sought, nor was offered a new contract after his agent said he had been approached by other clubs.Rafa said he had not approved his agents statement.
Hicks confirmed to the BBC that the Klinsmann approach, amongst others, had been a defensive measure in case Rafa left, not an offensive measure to oust him:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/7187086.stm

Hicks out with Gillett over the design of the new stadium, and he has also been the target of abuse from fans for having talks with former Germany manager Jurgen Klinsmann about replacing Benitez.

But Hicks said: "George became good friends with Klinsmann a year ago.

"I get this call from George out of the blue in which he says 'have your people do some research on Klinsmann'.

"He and Rick set up the meeting in New York. I did go to the meeting along with my son Tom.

"Rick Parry had already met with Jurgen alone for a couple of hours when we arrived. We all then spoke to him for another four hours.

"Afterwards I told the truth to a reporter who asked the question and suddenly it is 'Tom Hicks tried to get Jurgen Klinsmann'. George initiated it but we all participated."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/7351883.stm

Dated 17th April, 2008. Which put this in doubt as to how truthful it is. 'Out of the blue' does not sound like this came about as a result of Rafa's agent, as you put it. The fact these two are to research Klinsmann also suggests that footballing criteria is not their only concern. Remember, he hadn't been involved in club football at that point.

[hoonin]

Hicks confirmed to the BBC that the Klinsmann approach, amongst others, had been a defensive measure in case Rafa left, not an offensive measure to oust him:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/7187086.stm

Shame to let a good story get in the way of the facts, eh?

Facts? I doubt that.

Ask yourself what would have been the reason for Benitez leaving a club and city he clearly has affection and respect for?

That would be the owners who have a track record that is nothing short of embarrassing when set in context of what the club stands for.

[xerxes1]

Shame to let a good story get in the way of the facts, eh?

Facts? I doubt that.
Ask yourself what would have been the reason for Benitez leaving a club and city he clearly has affection and respect for?
That would be the owners who have a track record that is nothing short of embarrassing when set in context of what the club stands for.

It's a matter of record.

I do  not believe that Rafa had any intention of leaving.I believe it was a powerplay at a point when he had a maximum position of strength, a play he lost.

G&H had nothing to gain by losing a popular manager who had won the CL.The circumstances have been misrepresented so often that the recollection of some has become distorted.

[hoonin]

It's a matter of record.

I do  not believe that Rafa had any intention of leaving.I believe it was a powerplay at a point when he had a maximum position of strength, a play he lost.

G&H had nothing to gain by losing a popular manager who had won the CL.The circumstances have been misrepresented so often that the recollection of some has become distorted.

I dont see it that way, but that's just personal opinion.

If we all take a step back from our own biases though we're left with a fact none of us can question. *If* Benitez left (regardless of the reasons) the co-owners of Liverpool Football Club decided Juergen Klinsmann was a satisfactory replacement. Does that not bother you in the slightest? Does it not raise any doubt about their fitness for the job?

That's where I'm at right now. We have 2 cowboys in charge of the club that don't have a clue about the game or the club and the farce surrounding Klinsmann is just one small part. As such I've no fair and balanced views on them because I've seen next to no evidence they warrant it.

[Mutton Geoff]

at the time Rafa was keeping this club together while the not dynamic duo where splitting it open with the rhetoric and personal feuding, you facts are seriously flawed, they contacted Klinsman before there was any talk of Rafa going in fact he has virtually turned down Real every summer. Think for one minute why would a guy who stood up for the fans here, be planning on going to Italy why for what logical reason, if you where a spin artist for the scheming yanks you are certainly not too good at it.

Your facts are about as reliable as a wiki page my friend and I viewed your comments based on your M.O. as a member of the G&H lobby.

[west_london_red]

Your facts are about as reliable as a wiki page my friend and I viewed your comments based on your M.O. as a member of the G&H lobby.

While i dont agree with Xerxes opinion on the Klinsmann saga, he posts on the owners have certainly not put him in the G&H lobby.

[No666]

The pair of them have no concept, bar a negative one one would presume, of the socialism integrated into the LFC culture. They are a disastrous fit for us. Their raison d'etre is to make the maximum amount for themselves at the minimum cost. ((Zilch cost at all, so far.) The club flutters with banners about solidarity, idealism, the compassionate face of benign socialism. Never going to work, was it.

PS xerxes is a good red.

[xerxes1]

I dont see it that way, but that's just personal opinion.
If we all take a step back from our own biases though we're left with a fact none of us can question. *If* Benitez left (regardless of the reasons) the co-owners of Liverpool Football Club decided Juergen Klinsmann was a satisfactory replacement. Does that not bother you in the slightest? Does it not raise any doubt about their fitness for the job?
That's where I'm at right now. We have 2 cowboys in charge of the club that don't have a clue about the game or the club and the farce surrounding Klinsmann is just one small part. As such I've no fair and balanced views on them because I've seen next to no evidence they warrant it.

Klinsmann was one of a number of prospective managers approached, he was never offered the job as a vacancy never arose.

I totally agree with you that the absence of any football or football Administration experience on the Board is the single most dangerous aspect of our current regime. G&H should not be running our club, the challenge is to find someone else who is administratively, and financially, up to it.

[hoonin]

That's really my point xerxes. If we take away this:

Klinsmann was one of a number of prospective managers approached, he was never offered the job as a vacancy never arose.

We're still left with this:

I totally agree with you that the absence of any football or football Administration experience on the Board is the single most dangerous aspect of our current regime. G&H should not be running our club, the challenge is to find someone else who is administratively, and financially, up to it.

Too many problems exist for any rational discussion for me. As No666 so eloquently put it - it's a clash of of culture and philosophy and they'll just never get what we all see and feel.

[xerxes1]

at the time Rafa was keeping this club together while the not dynamic duo where splitting it open with the rhetoric and personal feuding, you facts are seriously flawed, they contacted Klinsman before there was any talk of Rafa going in fact he has virtually turned down Real every summer. Think for one minute why would a guy who stood up for the fans here, be planning on going to Italy why for what logical reason, if you where a spin artist for the scheming yanks you are certainly not too good at it. Your facts are about as reliable as a wiki page my friend and I viewed your comments based on your M.O. as a member of the G&H lobby.

I, unlike many, opposed G&H's takover from the start, and have never supported their ownership in a single post.

The timeline of the Klinsmann affair is a matter of record. Check the press cuttings.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/jan/16/newsstory.liverpool

"It is not the meeting with the former Germany national team coach which has irked Gillett, however, because he himself was present at Hicks's Californian retreat when the Liverpool owners tried to secure their "insurance policy" against Benítez's rumoured departure...."

I flew back from Athens with a friend of a Board member who reported  their shock at Rafa's demands immediately after the final. You are free to disbelieve this. The subsequent press reports of his (justifiable) agitation for more funds culminating in his Agent's statement fit.

Your suggestion that I am a member of the G&H lobby ( ??) is inconsistent with your obvious ability to read. If you don't like the title of this thread, I suggest you post elsewhere.

Gareth posted,"As No666 so eloquently put it - it's a clash of of culture and philosophy and they'll just never get what we all see and feel." And that is right. The challenge is to find a new owner who feels the way we do, and is funded to back that up, and that has been our problem.

[redmen77]

That's really my point xerxes. If we take away this:

We're still left with this:

Too many problems exist for any rational discussion for me. As No666 so eloquently put it - it's a clash of of culture and philosophy and they'll just never get what we all see and feel.

But isn't the point that with CP, Ayres and Nash that is precisely what is happenning and they are taking prety much a back seat on the day to day running. You can almost hear the words Gillett spouted being verbatem what CP is saying to H&G in support of Rafa and why getting rid would be the wrong move.

I do agree that having KK on the board would be a masterstroke addition though.

i wonder what happenned to the chief executive role that was advertised so long ago?

[xerxes1]

But isn't the point that with CP, Ayres and Nash that is precisely what is happenning and they are taking prety much a back seat on the day to day running. You can almost hear the words Gillett spouted being verbatem what CP is saying to H&G in support of Rafa and why getting rid would be the wrong move.
I do agree that having KK on the board would be a masterstroke addition though.
i wonder what happenned to the chief executive role that was advertised so long ago?

Purslow, Ayres etc are G&H's hired hands, not freedom fighters waiting to reveal themselves when the moment is right.But that does not mean that they cannot, will not, or should not, do good work within the constraints of the G&H regime.

The paradox is that a collapse in the fortunes of LFC is likley to make the club more difficult to sell - so we are stuck with G&H for even longer ( see Mike Ashley at Newcastle), but no-one wants to see them succeed whilst looting the Anfield vaults.

To date, no-one (myself included) has envisioned circumstances in which G&H will be prepared to do a deal at a level at which a buyer would regard as being commercial. And without that, they are not going anywhere because they will be able to afford to sit tight, by hook or by crook, at our expense, for several years yet.

[mugsy]

Don't forget one of the people who was very much in favour of getting rid of Rafa for Klinsmann was Parry and did attend the meeting.  We don't know what has gone on behind the scenes before Parry left but he has been just as deceitful as the Americans and was wheeling/dealing.  It is interesting to note since Parry left the two Americans are on better speaking terms.  None us know what Parry has been playing at.  It is funny that when potential buyers of the club before the Americans came in had been put off when they seen how Liverpool was managed and its books.  There could be a lot more that we don't know about.  LOL I still think Parry was working for Man Utd secretly or the FA (because we kept winning all the cups previously) or someone to do a hit on us.  JOKE!

I am not a fan of the Americans and yes it could be worse, I personally think the major significant thing they have done recently is letting Rafa have more control of the club and I mean by academy, bringing in more coaching staff having Dalglish on board. 

[faithplusone01]

First, i'm not having for one moment that they deserve any reds respect? For what exactly?

Two, you are from Texas, and surprisingly you back them.

Three, your figure of the amount of debt( covering line of vagueness to the actual amount is shameful ) is the very least
estimate i have ever heard concerning how much debt those c*nts have put us in.Convenient i suppose when trying
to sell a product.

Whoah whoah hold on there. I said mature discussion. I hate the bastards too but I can't help where I'm from and where I live, so assaulting the place of my birth and residence was uncalled for there. It'd be the same as me saying because say, for example, you're Scottish and one day you choose (heaven forbid) to support that fucker Fergie after he rants about the refereeing in the game in which they lost for the thousandth time that its because you're Scottish and therefore cannot be trusted. I'd rather not say anything more than just simply please fuck off. Texas is a big fucking place, as is America, and if you're gonna be a little bitch about it and ignore the topic of conversation then do it somewhere else.

The point of this thread wasn't to convince anyone of anything, but rather to discover who was willing to converse intelligently about the topic at hand and who was going to bash shit as just "H&G OUT FUCK OFF YANKS" the whole time. Give reasons and contribute to the debate, don't start shit with people.

[faithplusone01]

I dont see it that way, but that's just personal opinion.

If we all take a step back from our own biases though we're left with a fact none of us can question. *If* Benitez left (regardless of the reasons) the co-owners of Liverpool Football Club decided Juergen Klinsmann was a satisfactory replacement. Does that not bother you in the slightest? Does it not raise any doubt about their fitness for the job?

That's where I'm at right now. We have 2 cowboys in charge of the club that don't have a clue about the game or the club and the farce surrounding Klinsmann is just one small part. As such I've no fair and balanced views on them because I've seen next to no evidence they warrant it.

I totally agree. My main problem with them is that, being American (and not just American, but Hicks being a Texan), they don't understand the game at all, much less the ever-changing and costly financial side of the game. It is completely different from any American sport, and the problem is that they're treating it like one.

In America, owners make money on their teams because the system is setup to let it happen. Football seems to be the only sport in the world, especially the European leagues, in which owners exist simply to pour money into the team with little/no return expected, much less delivered.

These two guys clearly didn't know what they were getting themselves into. The rest is history. I honestly believe this was just too expensive for them.

However, others here have stated a few very important things involving kicking these guys out. Especially what has been said about what happens afterwards. We really won't be helping ourselves if we force them out and nobody else buys us. Who in their right mind would? We now have all of this debt (yes yes we all know, as a result of H&G but we can't change this now) that nobody with 1/2 of a brain would want to touch, plus paying our large (and deservedly so) salaries + any transfer fees that are needed too. Who would want to buy us? Owners are still better than not having one, even if the ones we have are as bad as H&G.

[Mr Mojo Risin']

Whoah whoah hold on there. I said mature discussion.

Who the fuck are you to dictate what replies you receive?

And my reply was true.You  end your post in reply to Gareth with everything i said in a nutshell. All though you try and
disguise this, it is blatantly obvious where you are coming from.
Stand up for them two? Do me a fucking favour.

'' Who in their right mind would? We now have all of this debt (yes yes we all know, as a result of H&G but we can't change this now) that nobody with 1/2 of a brain would want to touch, plus paying our large (and deservedly so) salaries + any transfer fees that are needed too. Who would want to buy us? ''

So in saying this, you believe that no matter what wrongs have taken place, because we can't now change it we have
to get on with it regardless? Even admitting the reason why we can't get rid of the two c*nts is because nobody will buy the club now ( because of those two putting us in debt, even thougha promise was made to the contrary.)

[Zeb]

I totally agree. My main problem with them is that, being American (and not just American, but Hicks being a Texan), they don't understand the game at all, much less the ever-changing and costly financial side of the game. It is completely different from any American sport, and the problem is that they're treating it like one.

Poor Mr.Hicks. He bought Corinthians and had to do a runner. But as he doesn't understand football, he then decides to try a leveraged takeover of Liverpool and, oops, it doesn't quite work out as he planned as he can't do a short-term maximum personal profit for minimum personal risk buy and sell routine?

Come on mate. That's utter and absolute tosh. These are hard-nosed businessmen who saw a way to make a quick buck at Liverpool FC's expense with a business model which is absolutely loathsome to anyone with an ounce of feeling for the heritage of this club.

About as fair and balanced as it gets is:

They made the truth about the takeover dance a very merry jig - 'no debt on the club'
They are screwed financially without someone else now coming and investing
They can't be trusted to do anything which isn't in their own personal interests

So it may be a case that the only way in which they can keep their paws on the club will be to sell its assets and once that starts, then I think that any calls for action to speed up the process of their departure will actually help the club rebuild quicker rather than wait for them to take us to a point where there is nothing to rebuild from or with.

[HarryLabrador]

Hicks has sold his family's holiday resort.
===========================================

By JULIET CHUNG
Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks, whose Hicks Sports Group is in default on $525 million of debt, sold his three-acre, Aspen-area estate to Howard M. Jenkins, the former head of the Southeastern Publix Super Markets chain, for $18.5 million.

Rangers Owner Sells Estate

Besides the baseball team, which Mr. Hicks is in the process of selling to an investor group, his Sports Group owns the NHL's Dallas Stars. Separately, he owns England's Liverpool Football Club. The Snowmass Village, Colo., property, with an original $20 million asking price, has a main house and a guest house totaling 11,000 square feet. Mr. Hicks sold the contemporary homes furnished. The ski-in, ski-out property also has a pool, and the two homes share a driveway. The 58-year-old Mr. Jenkins, who has a home for sale in the area, said he plans to use the property as a getaway for his family and friends.

Mr. Hicks bought the property in 1995 for $1.03 million and says he's selling because his family has been vacationing elsewhere in recent years. Mr. Jenkins, a son of Publix founder George W. Jenkins, still sits on the board of Publix. Chris Lewis of Chaffin Light Real Estate represented Mr. Hicks and George Huggins, also of Chaffin Light, Mr. Jenkins.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013520311145404.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[HarryLabrador]

Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:11 am EST

Texas Rangers' sale finalizing today?
By Mark J. Miller

Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks is apparently about to have a huge weight off of his shoulders. According to the Dallas Morning News, Hicks may be ready to announce the sale of the Rangers as early as today.

The new owners are reportedly a 12-man investment team that has Pittsburgh sports attorney Chuck Greenberg as its leader. There's no reason to think right now that the purchase won't get approved by baseball's executive and ownership committees, and 75 percent of team owners. After all, that 12-headed monster includes team president Nolan Ryan and Hicks himself.

You can be sure the Hicks Sports Group cannot wait for this to be over so Hicks, who gained fame when he decided to pay Alex Rodriguez(notes) $252 million for 10 years of work all those years ago, doesn't have to be the frontman for the Rangers anymore.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors

[No666]

I can't think of anything balanced, fair or mature to say about those articles, Harry. Plenty of heavily loaded and immature things, though. Actually, I miss the old 'f*** off and die' threads. They served a purpose, like the 'we're going to tw*t these b*stards' threads prior to matches. Oh, Seantheprawn - where are you now?

[beardsley4ever]

Off topic (I'm sorry), but on the question of whether we would have signed Torres under Moores, didn't the old board have a limit on how much could be spent on one player?  I seem to recall that being the case around the time that Damien Duff was being linked to us.

[HarryLabrador]

I can't think of anything balanced, fair or mature to say about those articles, Harry. Plenty of heavily loaded and immature things, though. Actually, I miss the old 'f*** off and die' threads. They served a purpose, like the 'we're going to tw*t these b*stards' threads prior to matches. Oh, Seantheprawn - where are you now?

I know exactly how you feel. My fingers are sore from typing my feelings on our owners. Exhaustion doesn't come close to describing the way I feel. Therefore, when I see topics like this one, the obvious response of 'oh no, not another one'. But we won't give up. We won't cease to continue to tell people what a pair of unfit and improper owners we unfortunately inherited.
Yes, where is Seantheprawn?

[faithplusone01]

Who the fuck are you to dictate what replies you receive?

And my reply was true.You  end your post in reply to Gareth with everything i said in a nutshell. All though you try and
disguise this, it is blatantly obvious where you are coming from.
Stand up for them two? Do me a fucking favour.

'' Who in their right mind would? We now have all of this debt (yes yes we all know, as a result of H&G but we can't change this now) that nobody with 1/2 of a brain would want to touch, plus paying our large (and deservedly so) salaries + any transfer fees that are needed too. Who would want to buy us? ''

So in saying this, you believe that no matter what wrongs have taken place, because we can't now change it we have
to get on with it regardless? Even admitting the reason why we can't get rid of the two c*nts is because nobody will buy the club now ( because of those two putting us in debt, even thougha promise was made to the contrary.)

For the last damn time I'm not sticking up for these two. I hate them just as much as you guys and my place of residence has nothing to do with it.

I'm using my fucking brain here. These guys have fucked up, but rather than just kick them out and watch shit magically get better, why don't we honestly discuss solutions to the problems they've caused. We can't go back in time and change what they've done to us, rather we have to live with their shit and all of the debt and whatnot until something better arises.

As discussed before, the problem behind all of the "H&G OUT YANKS OUT" business is that we don't have anyone else to step in. How do we get people to step in and take initiative and invest money in our team? Suppose they do leave and nobody else comes in? What now? Obviously we'd be worse off than before cause then who is gonna pay the damn wages? We'd be like Portsmouth.

[faithplusone01]

Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:11 am EST

Texas Rangers' sale finalizing today?
By Mark J. Miller

Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks is apparently about to have a huge weight off of his shoulders. According to the Dallas Morning News, Hicks may be ready to announce the sale of the Rangers as early as today.

The new owners are reportedly a 12-man investment team that has Pittsburgh sports attorney Chuck Greenberg as its leader. There's no reason to think right now that the purchase won't get approved by baseball's executive and ownership committees, and 75 percent of team owners. After all, that 12-headed monster includes team president Nolan Ryan and Hicks himself.

You can be sure the Hicks Sports Group cannot wait for this to be over so Hicks, who gained fame when he decided to pay Alex Rodriguez(notes) $252 million for 10 years of work all those years ago, doesn't have to be the frontman for the Rangers anymore.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors

For the record, anyone here (in Texas) who knows anything about either Baseball or Ice Hockey HATES TOM HICKS. He's ruined both franchises, the Rangers in particular. Only recently are the Rangers looking any good, and it took signing a reformed drug addict to do it. When Dubya was an owner we were better off. Thats really saying something. But then again, under Hicks they were turning a profit until they signed that useless punk A-Rod. Not sure about the Hockey team though...

When my family found out that Hicks was in a bid to take hold of Liverpool, we were against it right away and most of my family hates Liverpool. The reasoning behind it being that a great club like that shouldn't have to suffer through what Hicks is going to do to them. It was big news here for a while.

[Ronnie1932]

For the record, anyone here (in Texas) who knows anything about either Baseball or Ice Hockey HATES TOM HICKS. He's ruined both franchises, the Rangers in particular. Only recently are the Rangers looking any good, and it took signing a reformed drug addict to do it. When Dubya was an owner we were better off. Thats really saying something. But then again, under Hicks they were turning a profit until they signed that useless punk A-Rod. Not sure about the Hockey team though...

When my family found out that Hicks was in a bid to take hold of Liverpool, we were against it right away and most of my family hates Liverpool. The reasoning behind it being that a great club like that shouldn't have to suffer through what Hicks is going to do to them. It was big news here for a while.

I know someone that may didagree

[Chindits]

No respect deserved at all. They need to earn it and they're fucking miles away.

Is right,an for me the only way to be with them they have done nothing but blow smoke up our ass's.
But by the grace of god LFC fans in general sniff BS out so there ends my tale of G&H

[Igor Zidane]

I simply can't get my head around being fair and balanced and unbiased. When we are supporters and fans of Liverpool football club . How are we/ i supposed to sit by and watch our club being torn apart and be unbiased about it . I just can't comprehend it , now if it was a derby and a stoke fan talking about our situation they should be able to be fair and balanced and unbiased about it ,fair enough. We are the ones being lied to though and we are the ones paying there loans and we are the ones attempting to make some sort of sense of all this mess. We cannot be unbiased in this whole situation ,it's just not possible .   I can just about do the mature bit though . I'll withdraw from this unbiased and balanced fair thread now i've had my say .

[Mr Mojo Risin']

Where have you used your brain in a way millions of other reds haven't?
Of course everyone knows that we need someone in place to pay the bills. But by us at the match trying to
make those c*nts feel ever so unwelcome, there may,MAY, be the chance they will sell up a little
cheaper than what the  greedy Americans are asking for.
And as for this ''Suppose they do leave and nobody else comes in''.. They are not baby sitters who will
leave you in the lurch by not turning up one night. They are leeches who will leave when they get
their bounty,or at least as near to it as the greedy c*nts can.So that means they will sell, but as their asking price is too high ,it
is hard for other parties to come in.
Those c*nts lied by saying they would not put this beautiful club into debt.They got sold the club
a little cheaper than they should have, due to their promise of using the cash saved to build a new stadium.

For every person i see with any message regarding ''H AND G OUT'' etc, i applaud them.

For every American poster who comes on to message boards to back them, .pfft.

[faithplusone01]

Where have you used your brain in a way millions of other reds haven't?
Of course everyone knows that we need someone in place to pay the bills. But by us at the match trying to
make those c*nts feel ever so unwelcome, there may,MAY, be the chance they will sell up a little
cheaper than what the  greedy Americans are asking for.
And as for this ''Suppose they do leave and nobody else comes in''.. They are not baby sitters who will
leave you in the lurch by not turning up one night. They are leeches who will leave when they get
their bounty,or at least as near to it as the greedy c*nts can.So that means they will sell, but as their asking price is too high ,it
is hard for other parties to come in.
Those c*nts lied by saying they would not put this beautiful club into debt.They got sold the club
a little cheaper than they should have, due to their promise of using the cash saved to build a new stadium.

For every person i see with any message regarding ''H AND G OUT'' etc, i applaud them.

For every American poster who comes on to message boards to back them, .pfft.

For the last time man I'm not backing them. I just wanted to start an intelligent conversation about what they've done, what they're doing, what they're going to do, and what to do about it.

I know someone that may didagree

I'm sure you do. Texas is a pretty big place (last I heard close to 25 million people...?) and there are people of many different/conflicting opinions here. I come from a family (and a town for that matter) of die hard Texas Rangers supporters and you don't see many of them exactly praising our dear friend Mr. Hicks...

[anon-y-mouse]

They could be a lot worse. They are not taking syphoning cash out of the club,

Utter nonsense. they are syphoning over £30 Million a year in interest payments out of the club. Debt which simply did not exist prior to them using it to buy the club.

[Ronnie1932]

Utter nonsense. they are syphoning over £30 Million a year in interest payments out of the club. Debt which simply did not exist prior to them using it to buy the club.

Hallalouya or however you spell it

[xerxes1]

Sadly, the majority simply do not care about G&H, they just support the shirts whether from home on TV or at the match.At Anfield I rarely hear G&H discussions.If the team wins they are happy, and if they don't they're not, and that is about that. And to be fair that's the way football used to be.

There is also a sizeable chunk who appreciate that there is something serioulsy wrong, but beyond "I hate G&H / G&H out" just don't want, or can't think beyond that, and there is plenty of that on this board. And that's fine, why should football fans be financiers, corporate buy-out specialists or financial forecasters?

Which is why I continue to support SOS. The first group of fans I mentioned aren't bothered. And beyond a banner and a chant, neither are the next. But someone needs to think about a coherent strategy and that is what SOS are trying to do.

The probability is that G&H will be here until the New Stadium is built,  at least another five years from now,dealing with the present and the future, rather than gnashing our teeth about the past, is where we need to be focusing our efforts. SOS, and representation sto the FA/Prem about the rules governing the way clubs are financed and owned is the way forward.

[TSC]

Prob irrelevant to the gist of this thread but does anyone know exactly what the FA's 'fit and proper owner' test involves?  Not sure if it was here before H&G landed - they may preceed it.  But I can't rem anyone actually failing it.  And the latest bunch of jokers taking the piss out of pompey obviously passed it as well.

What exactly is it and how much scrutiny are would be owners subjected to?

If we do ever get new owners (or even a new investor/s) you would assume they'd be subject to this 'test'.

[xerxes1]

This is the FA ,"Fit and Proper Persons Test". http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegulations/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FitandProperPersons0809.ashx
 Assuming that most of you won't bother to read the 34 pages it says, in brief, that if you have been disqualified as a Director of a Club or convicted of a criminal offence (but it depends what it was) you may not be a fit and proper person  whom the FA would allow to be a Director of an associated club.

The problem is less what people have done prior to owning a football club, more what they CAN do once they get their hands on it.

[TSC]

This is the FA ,"Fit and Proper Persons Test". http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegulations/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FitandProperPersons0809.ashx
 Assuming that most of you won't bother to read the 34 pages it says, in brief, that if you have been disqualified as a Director of a Club or convicted of a criminal offence (but it depends what it was) you may not be a fit and proper person  whom the FA would allow to be a Director of an associated club.

The problem is less what people have done prior to owning a football club, more what they CAN do once they get their hands on it.

No wonder no-one fails that if this is all that's required.  So basically you could've been disqualified from being a director (made bankrupt, etc) of a company and still get in, as long as said company wasn't a football club?  And your criminal record needn't be a hinderence either, depending on what it was?  No wonder Shiniwatra waltzed in.