Liverpool FC

[The Baron]

It said on Sky on Sunday that new rules that are soon to come in mean you can only spend £33 million over 3 years ? I maybe wrong on whether it was actual spend or to make a loss but it was definitely £33 mil over 3 years which seems crazy compared to the current ways but it may well be a good thing.

Arsenal seem to be the best run club in this country in so many ways,but they never win out.

You'll only be able to spend what you make in future I believe.

Arsenal are paying off their stadium, once it's paid off (roughly 4 or 5 yrs from now?) they'll have the highest annual disposable income. If Wenger is still there I'd be amazed if they weren't back challenging for the top honours. If they nick a league or two in between it's a massive achievement.

[The Baron]

Kin

This was a monstrous business transaction. "promising to do things" is not a measure in business. You can legally ensure and enforce actions when the transaction is this big. THAT is what should have occurred re the ground, if that was the main focus of any sale.

The moores saying "they cant complete" - nonsense. - Just an excuse - are you competing now? Money is not the be all and end all in football. You had a club with a great fan base that was financially secure.

Please dont think that when the club was sold (especially in light of the Glazers), the the Board did not know the risks. They took the steps, understanding those risks, and have lost out. Thats the gamble.

In terms of greed from both sides, it doesnt need to be monetary. The club/fans sold out to H&G, and now they are suffering. Do you believe if your players had performed, if you had won something, that there would be this hoo-ha!

I am not suggesting that H&G havent reneged on promises, they have. But LFC is a business, and big businesses dont run on promises.

And please dont believe that anyone buying LFC from another country is in it for the love of the game! Especially if you sell to the Boston Red Sox. When the Americans came charging into the Premiership, it was because TV rights was the big issue, Club TV etc etc. It hasnt yet worked out, they are all probably a little sour about it.  The financial world has changed since your owners bought the club, that again was a risk. Liverpool risked alot and have lost out in most quarters. Unlucky. But please dont think that all this is down to H&G.

Liverpool were massively in debt (for that time) and needed to be sold. We competed because we had a good manager given enough to spend to improve the side year on year. The club was not financially stable and we couldn't obtain our transfer targets.

Liverpool fans never sold out to H&G. Please don't tell me you think this becuase the day the takeover happened we were happy that we weren't in debt any more. Most fans were bitterly disappointed that we weren't sold to DIC who had a history of making their sports ventures work. Within weeks we knew of Hick's history and feared for our long term future. The Torres purchase papered over this but not for long.

Moores did f*ck up yes - he admits this, he took the higher share price offered by the yanks. But please don't be ignorant enough to blame Liverpool fans for selling out. It simply isn't true.

Lol you think us winning a league (in a season where the players OVER performed) would have saved us from going £280m in debt?

Please explain who you think it is down to?

If in 2016 when Utd's loan is up they have won another 3 league titles and another European Cup should the Glaziers be thanked for getting the most successful club in England into administration coz they won a few pots?

[The Baron]

truth hurt?

LOL!

[The Baron]

Weeeee a journo who knows his footy:

There has been an ever-increasing amount of hot air and bluster surrounding Liverpool Football Club these past few years. The club has been a well-documented mess behind the scenes under the stewardship of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, with fans veering between despair and fury from moment-to-moment. But with the dark days of Hicks-Gillett apparently about to end, full focus can return to matters on the pitch.

The purpose of this piece is to attempt to present a rational analysis of what has been happening on the pitch so far this season, and how the tactical approach during the nascent Roy Hodgson era contrasts to Rafael Benitez’s side. Of course, the use of the word ‘nascent’ is pertinent as it is very early into the new manager’s reign, but early tactical trends displayed are consistent with Hodgson’s M.O. Moreover, Hodgson might not last long enough at the helm to warrant long term analysis.

Off The Ball

Earlier this season Andy Gray remarked that Liverpool’s set-up under Hodgson thus far was not too dissimilar to Benitez’s approach - two holding midfielders, with an advanced midfielder behind a single forward. In a crosses marked on a blackboard approach to presenting formations, this is correct. However, herein lies the danger of reducing formations to a series of numbers and dashes, whether it be 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, and so on. Two teams featuring the same names placed into the same framework can still be markedly different from one another in practice.

Both Benitez and Hodgson generally set up their sides in variations on 4-2-3-1/4-4-2/4-4-1-1, but there are key distinctions to be made. The biggest difference between the two managers’ approaches is in how they set up their team off the ball.

Now, at this point I feel it worth noting that I agree with the broad assertion that both managers are defensive-minded by nature. (Although I’d also like to note that Andy Gray’s assertion before the Manchester City match that Roy Hodgson was about to “let the reds off the leash” by fielding two strikers in that game was laughable. However, the “two strikers = more attacking” debate is one for another day.) Yet there is more than one way to stop the opposition, and the two managers are quite different on that front.

During these early days Hodgson’s Liverpool have set up with a compact defensive line that has never strayed too far away from the 18 yard line, with a compact midfield four not too far ahead. Then, one of Fernando Torres or David Ngog has led the line, with a revolving list of second strikers supporting. One thing that has been notable in these early days is the large gap between the team’s striking spearhead and everybody else on the pitch, though this is something I will return to later on.

When off the ball, Hodgson’s side retreats deep into its own half and forms a narrow double barrier of midfield and defence in front of the opposition. Possession is ceded, and the onus is placed upon the opposition to penetrate these two static lines. One thing Hodgson’s sides do not tend to engage in is pressing the opposition, as Danny Murphy’s quotes comparing the approaches of Hodgson and new Fulham boss Mark Hughes reveal:

“Off the ball [under Hughes] maybe we’re trying to win it a bit higher up the pitch, maybe take a few more risks. With Roy we tended to drop off more and fill in the gaps.”

The rationale for this kind of approach is simple: when you do it well, and your side maintains its shape, it can be incredibly difficult for opposition teams to break you down. Teams cannot get in behind your defence through the centre with a ball played over the top, it requires great passing, movement and technique to play through your defence on the ground, and - providing you have defenders who are strong in the air - you’re well equipped to deal with crosses from teams that will attack you from out wide.

Comparatively, while similarly concerned with stopping the opposition as a first priority, Benitez’s Liverpool had a tendency to press teams aggressively as a means of preventing the opposition from playing through them. Greatly influenced by Arrigo Sacchi’s AC Milan side, Benitez liked his team - remaining compact in terms of the distance between defence, midfield and attack - to squeeze up against their opponents while out of possession. For every negative pass played by the opposition, the team was to push forward as one block, with the relatively positioned player systematically closing down the man in possession.

However, this wasn’t exclusively the team’s way of working off the ball, with Benitez - like Sacchi - prizing adaptability and game intelligence above all other characteristics. Thereby there would be situations where the team would retreat into a half-press, limited to their own half, with the pressing forwards and midfielders withdrawing again when the ball was played back into the opposition’s half. This would usually be utilised when already leading a match, with the aim of conserving energy and drawing the opposition forward in order to counter-attack quickly. Similarly, the team could also retreat deep in a style similar to Hodgson’s side when circumstances dictated and the team was under pressure. Another method of defending more readily used by Benitez’s side when possible was by maintaining possession for long periods, though this approach was hindered when the side lost Xabi Alonso.

But what is clear is that more so than Hodgson, Benitez tended to mix up the team’s approach to defending, depending on the opposition’s characteristics or in-game circumstances.

[The Baron]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...t-2100899.html


Quote:
British lawyers believe that Liverpool's American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett face a supremely difficult task convincing a High Court judge that the sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV) is illegal, a move which they will attempt in order to prolong their unpopular tenure on Merseyside.

It is much needed good news for a club that continues to face huge on-field challenges. Fernando Torres is understood to be harbouring doubts about where his future lies, even though he appeared yesterday to be winning his battle to shake off the adductor muscle injury he sustained in the home defeat to Blackpool and should be fit for the crucial Goodison derby on Sunday week.

Lawyers for the English contingent of the Liverpool board, who are awaiting the 24-hour notice they will receive of the High Court hearing which will rule on the legality of the club's sale to NESV, do seem to have a strong case. Legal opinion on the sale – which Hicks and Gillett insist has been rendered invalid because they had suspended two of the directors who voted in the 3-2 decision – is that the Americans have handed non-executive chairman Martin Broughton a huge court-room asset by signing off to him the right to hire and fire directors.

"If that undertaking is in place, signed and sealed, [he] has a very solid case to seek a declaration that the board are entitled to sell the club," Andrew Nixon, a partner for Thomas Eggar, said yesterday. "If they have broken an undertaking that is a factual issue."

The articles of association, in which Broughton's right to hire and fire directors and the current owners' undertaking not to take any action to frustrate a sale are enshrined, are critical to the case, Mr Nixon added. "If they show that [Broughton] has powers of process in both the sale and appointment of directors, it is going to be very, very hard for Hicks and Gillett to get around that."

Asked by The Independent 48 hours ago whether the undertakings were indeed signed and sealed by Hicks and Gillett, Broughton replied: "They signed them and made them to RBS [Royal Bank of Scotland] as a condition of the lending extension [which gave Hicks and Gillett an additional six months' leeway on their £237m loans]." Broughton added that the undertakings "changed the articles [of] the company." Puzzlingly, there is no mention of these vital changes in the articles of association for Kop Football, the holding company which approved the NESV sale, though it is quite possible that they have been signed off through additional papers.

Further details have emerged about how NESC beat off a rival bid from Asia on Tuesday. NESC, owners of the Boston Red Sox, increased the cash element of their £300m bid to £240m when both interested parties had tabled the same offer for Liverpool.

Hicks and Gillett's case will centre on whether the £300m sale to NESV, who are today expected to be cleared by the Premier League as fit and proper owners, represents an undervaluation of the club. Under the 2007 Companies Act, it is the fiduciary duty of any director to secure the best value for a company. "If they can give proper evidence that the £600m price they are talking about is realistic, they have a case," Mr Nixon added. "If they can't prove there could be a better sale, they are going to have a very, very difficult job."

Broughton has not ruled out the pair being able to demonstrate that someone, somewhere values the club at £600m. "I never like to put anything beyond them," he said on Tuesday. But Liverpool would be staggered if, after a year-long search for buyers ultimately tempted only two takers, Hicks and Gillett manage to demonstrate that there are others out there ready to pay twice as much.

If the legal undertakings cannot be proven – and as yet no written evidence of them has been seen by this newspaper – then the High Court judge's decision will revolve around the more subjective decision of what constitutes work to "promote the success of a company." Here, the owners may also have problems.

Bernd Ratzke, head of corporate law at Dawsons, said: "It seems unlikely that the courts will halt the board's plans. Under the Companies Act 2006, Hicks and Gillett would have to demonstrate that the directors are not acting to 'promote the success of the company' and, given that the club is facing administration within a matter of days, that will be a difficult argument to make."

Even if Hicks and Gillett do win, it seems they would secure only a brief reprieve since RBS is likely to call in its £237m loans if it is not paid by the due date of next Friday. If they have a white knight, he has a week to ride to the rescue. 

[77dave]

Prospective owners New England Sports Ventures (NESV), led by John W Henry, plans to sit down with Hodgson once the deal is complete to discuss his vision for Liverpool's future.

The men who own the Boston Red Sox have no immediate plans to install their own manager but Broughton was brutally honest about the situation Hodgson now faces, and how Hodgson entered into his Liverpool contract with his eyes wide open.

In an exclusive interview with ESPNsoccernet, Broughton revealed: "Roy knew when he signed up from Fulham that we were in the process of finding new owners, it was not a surprise to him. He was fully reconciled with the possibility there would be an ownership chance and the risk involved with that.

"But Roy is self confident and was, when he signed up, confident he was capable of doing the job at Liverpool. With that in mind provisions were made in Roy's contract to relate specifically to any change in ownership."

The 'break clause' in Hodgson's contract was revealed by ESPNsoccernet this week, although even then there were no hints that a change in manager was being planned immediately.

"I suggested that the clause relates to Hodgson being paid a full year's salary within 28 days should the new owners want to bring in their own manager," Broughton commented: "I don't have Roy's contract in front of me, so I can't comment on that, but it is something like that in his contract.

"But he came to the club knowing full well the circumstances and the risks attached to it."

Hodgson will have to prove himself to the new owners. Broughton added: "I would full expect Roy to continue as manager and there has been no indication to me to suggest otherwise. However, as we all know, at the end of the day, everything depends on results."

[kinboshi]

From the beeb:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11518079

The bidding contest for Liverpool FC may not be over, the BBC can reveal.

The runner-up in the contest, Peter Lim, a Singapore billionaire, is to approach Liverpool's board with a view to making a higher offer for the club.

According to sources close to Mr Lim, he was the club's preferred bidder in the closing stages of the auction.

He had talks with Liverpool's chairman about how to announce his takeover, such was the apparent confidence that he would win the contest.
'No loans'

Mr Lim learned he was not the victor only a few hours before the club's chairman, Martin Broughton, announced on 6 October that Liverpool would be sold to John Henry's New England Sport Ventures for £300m.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

He never had a chance to negotiate directly with Royal Bank [of Scotland] He was expecting to do so, after agreeing the takeover with the board”

End Quote Source close to Peter Lim

Mr Lim, who is being advised by the British firm of lawyers Macfarlanes and by the Wong Partnership of Singapore, still does not know why Mr Broughton went with New England Sports Ventures, owners of the Boston Red Sox.

He believes that in purely monetary terms, his offer was at least as attractive as Mr Henry's.

Mr Lim, too, was offering to repay all of Royal Bank of Scotland's and Wachovia's £200m of long-term debt, to take on £60m of other debt and to inject £40m of working capital.

What's more - and Mr Lim regards this as crucial - all the money being provided by him would come from his own cash resources. He is not planning to borrow any of it.

I understand he is also offering to provide tens of millions of pounds to Liverpool's manager, Roy Hodgson, to allow him to buy players when the transfer window opens in January.

According to executives close to Mr Lim, he was told by Mr Broughton that his ability to fund the takeover for cash, and the size of his cash resources, meant he was a more attractive owner than New England Sports Ventures.

Mr Lim was told that Liverpool's board was concerned that New England Sports Ventures would have to borrow to finance the takeover - raising questions about whether Liverpool really would break free from the financial shackles perceived to have been imposed by the current owners, George Gillett and Tom Hicks.

In the event, New England Sports Ventures have insisted it will not load up Liverpool FC with debt.

But there are no guarantees that there will not be significant debt further up the corporate ownership structure of New England Sports Ventures - which could limit how much money Mr Henry and his colleagues can inject into Liverpool in the future.

Mr Lim is keeping a close eye on the court case, which starts on Tuesday.

The case is supposed to rule on whether Mr Broughton can sell Liverpool to New England Sports Ventures against the wishes of Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett.

The Singapore billionaire believes the judgement in that case may give him an opportunity to bid again, whatever Mr Broughton may wish.
Business empire

Mr Lim is also prepared to buy Liverpool, should it ultimately collapse into administration under UK insolvency procedures.

According to sources close to him, he feels that he may have been shut out because New England made an offer to Royal Bank of Scotland to pay some of the £40m penalty fees the banks have demanded.

If that is the case, he believes Royal Bank may have done a poor deal, because he would be prepared to pay RBS and Wachovia more than the £10m or so which New England Sports Ventures is said to have put on the table.

"He never had a chance to negotiate directly with Royal Bank [of Scotland]," said a source. "He was expecting to do so, after agreeing the takeover with the board."

Mr Lim has an estimated net worth of $1.6bn (£1bn), according to Forbes Magazine.

He made his fortune in fashion, logistics and agri-business.

His interest in English football stems from his ownership of several Manchester United themed bars in Asia - which have persuaded him that there is huge global potential for making money from top-flight English football.

Meanwhile, Royal Bank of Scotland announced on Monday afternoon that it had obtained an injuction to prevent Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett from sacking Martin Broughton or any other of the club's board members ahead of Tuesday's court case.

[kinboshi]

So he was the preferred option right until the point he wasn't? So that means he was the second choice then? That's what Broughton and co were brought in to do - choose the best buyer for LFC.

Load of noise (probably Hicks-generated) if you ask me. Which you didn't...

[Waz1892]

03/06/1892 born,
29/04/1901 1st title,
01/12/59 shankly arrives,
25/05/77 1st european cup,
10/08/77 kenny arrives,
29/05/85 heysel,
15/04/89 hillsborough,
28/04/90 last title,
25/05/05, istanbul.........................................


Yet arguably the most important thing to happen in years, 10.30am, 12/10/10

[The Baron]

So he was the preferred option right until the point he wasn't? So that means he was the second choice then? That's what Broughton and co were brought in to do - choose the best buyer for LFC.

Load of noise (probably Hicks-generated) if you ask me. Which you didn't...

Agree. You have four months to offer over £300m and you have a week to speak out about offering more since a deal was struck. Then you come out the night before a hearing to say you would offer more which is in your own and the current owners best interests and could affect the court ruling tomorrow. Amazing timing.

Liverpool fans will never warm to an owner like this.

[The Baron]

03/06/1892 born,
29/04/1901 1st title,
01/12/59 shankly arrives,
25/05/77 1st european cup,
10/08/77 kenny arrives,
29/05/85 heysel,
15/04/89 hillsborough,
28/04/90 last title,
25/05/05, istanbul.........................................


Yet arguably the most important thing to happen in years, 10.30am, 12/10/10

Most important by a mile.

[Josedinho]

Is it not just a case of RBS win and club is sold or RBS lose put Pool in admin and the club is sold?

[TheChipPrince]

Any idea how long before news is out on this?  Is it days or weeks?

[Karabiner]

Even if their is a decision in court today or tomorrow, will the inevitable appeal not take things beyond RBS's deadline anyway?

[pokefast]

From what i've read about the situation i'd expect a good outcome for the club and fans, but what's the likely impact if things go against you?