meredithmathieson

George Lees wrote: "beyond all that, the best thing about his performance yesterday was that [babel] looked like one of the few who was arsed to be playing for liverpool. when one might have expected him to drift, he was putting every effort in." It's funny the different perspectives you get, isn't it? By us in the ground, Babel was getting stick from a fair few for being the opposite of what George wrote above, and for being a bottler to boot. He was ,however, one of the few to give a decent clap to the Liverpool fans at the end (Don't know how it came across on the TV, but the support was decent at White Hart Lane IMHO).

fao Tim, I've been asked to forward this on to the website for you on behalf of ShareLiverpool: "Hi Tim, I am in contact with a few board members of ShareLiverpoolFC and I forwarded them a copy of the text you posted on this Forum. Please see a response below; "Thanks for your interest and for going to the trouble of undertaking such a detailed analysis. Whilst we have confidence in our figures and the methodology employed, ShareLiverpool FC welcomes the opportunity to enter such dialogue as it helps us to strengthen the our model and, if appropriate, fine tune any elements to add to our understanding. Unfortunately, having spoken to our financial team and other members of our management Committee, it appears that your e-mail has not been delivered to any of our accounts directly. We would, therefore, be grateful if you would re-send it to: info@shareliverpoolfc.com at your earliest convenience. A representative of ShareLiverpoolFC will then contact you in order to address your points directly. You can rest assured that we take your concerns seriously." I think it is pretty urgent that we get this up, Cheers C"

Fair play, Tim. I await the reply with interest.

Boohog wrote: "Why should people not be allowed to question their statements and/or correct them if necessary? Is it akin to crossing the picket line?" No, Boohog, not at all. Simply that it is easy to come on here and 'blind with science' in a field in which most know little or nothing. [Not a dig at anyone, just an observation]. The point was put to Tim to simply e-mail ShareLiverpool with his figures and concerns and await a reply. It is after all Tim who has sought to ridicule and rubbish the ShareLiverpool figures without knowing how they arrived at them. And it would be very odd, don't you think, for ShareLiverpool to allow themselves to be discredited so easily by publishing figures which are so provably incorrect, which is what Tim says?

Tim wrote; "No, they've got basic things wrong. Transfer expenditure for example, they've said the club have spent £53m net since the club was sold. The club spent £33m net in the first 4 months of Hicks/Gillett ownership. In January/February 2008 the club spent upto £20m net, then in the summer the club spent in excess of £15m net. That's an awful lot to get wrong. The stadium facility is for the stadium only, it's written into the legal documentation that this is the case. As for pretty much everything I've posted these days being assumptions. How often have I posted in the last 6 months? I've probably posted less than half a dozen times, and most have been to correct inaccuracies or to give my opinion. Share Liverpool are confused in that commentary as to what they are looking at. In one paragraph it's the club itself, and then in another it's the group of companies. If they're going to do something like this then they need to concentrate on one area. There's nothing wrong with making assumptions, but to make some fundamental errors is not acceptable." Tim, 1. If they have got 'basic things wrong' to the extent that you say, I'll show my a*** in Lewis's. These people are not amateurs, have spent an awful lot of time and effort producing the figures, and quite frankly may have had access to information that you don't [Editor -Legally OK]. 2. I re-iterate my point above, which you seemed to have chosen to ignore. E-mail them with your points of concern, and await a reply as I am sure ShareLiverpool have more pressing matters than trawling every Liverpool FC website correcting disinformation. 3. And, in the interests of all concerned, publish the results. As I think it harmful to the ShareLiverpool cause for you to come on here with your rubbishing of their figures, you may consider this a gauntlet. I urge every reader to challenge you on whether you have the courage of your convictions or not. [ps not to discredit opinions - your opinion is your opinion. But you have stuck your head above that parapet and belittled both the figures produced, and de facto the people behind them, and that goes to general credibility].

Posted by Tim: "Rubbish, they haven't released any details on their assumptions for that model. Well if they have they haven't put any of it up on their website. They also got significant errors in the few details they did release in their commentary. They also seem to be getting themselves confused in the commentary as to whether they are talking about the club itself or the whole group structure. I wouldn't trust that piece by shareliverpool. It is a piece that appears to have been done by a novice." Tim, I am not a financial expert in any way shape or form, nor do I claim to be. Those who prepare the figures used are, though. Rather than slag it off on this site, why not e-mail them directly with your queries on the ShareLiverpool website? They have always answered my e-mails in detail - not just bland general statements. I do find your statement of 'rubbish' to be both harsh and inaccurate, however, as if there is one thing about ShareLiverpool it is that they do not do things half-cocked. As I said I know for a fact that the basis for the model used, which inevitably had to be based upon some assumptions as the figures are unclear (e.g. Mascherano), came to over 100 pages. If you want to take it up with Barry Baxter direct, I am sure that he will answer your queries. A novice he is most definitely not.

http://www.shareliverpoolfc.co.uk/index.php/work To be fair, they have done a humongous amount of the background work - e.g. as regards the constitution. And I wouldn't say that the format was 'pie in the sky' either. The one thing I would say about ShareLiverpool is that what they do is done properly (e.g. FSA Licence), and by people who know what they are talking about - e.g. the recent demoloshing of the club's financial state using the computer software that football clubs themselves use, and the supporting documentation (to explain why they had arrived at certain projected future figures; or how they had arrived at a certain figure when the club had sought to bury all the relevant numbers) which ran to over 100 pages. What I do know about ShareLiverpool is that they are neither amateurish nor shoddy. Perhaps they do not help themselves by working to a code of confidentiality, so that you would perhaps not hear of their involvement/attendance at a meeting, when with SOS you would? (Not a dig at SOS by the way - I am a member- but SOS is a different beast with a separate culture). It would be a shame of G&H proportions if - in my view - an opportunity to run the club in this manner passed by and was lost due to apathy/ignorance or even the fear of setting it up.

Well said, Sir! And I couldn't agree more.

"Funny how the events manager in the hotel knows that the deal was for $800m. You'd think the actual meetings and negotiations would be private." This might also be extended to the identity of guests attending a private function? Or is it like the Oil Barons Ball in Dallas?

Mods: You've made an old, IT illiterate man really confused, moving posts like that!! Apologies - didn't realise that The Times post was already in this thread.

Says The Times: Oliver Kay The ownership saga at Liverpool has taken another twist amid claims that a Middle East investment group came close to buying the Merseyside club two weeks ago, only to drop its interest in mysterious circumstances. Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the club’s American owners, continue to deny that they are looking to sell Liverpool and that they have held negotiations with any potential buyer, but sources claimed last night that an Arab group — unrelated to Sheikh Mohammed, the ruler of Dubai — had made a firm offer for the club, having inspected the company accounts, but walked away without explanation with a deal looking imminent. The Times has learnt that there has been interest shown in Liverpool recently by a consortium from Kuwait, although it is not clear whether this was the same group that came close to buying the Merseyside club. The previous £500 million offer from Sheikh Mohammed, now operating independently of, rather than through, the Dubai International Capital group, remains on the table. The American tycoons are expected to issue another public denial today, amid concerns that the price could be driven down if they are seen as active sellers, but it is an open secret in the world of football finance that they are willing to sell for the right price. Even if they have not been directly involved in negotiations, others have negotiated on their behalf. Last month The Times revealed that they engaged Merrill Lynch, the investment bank, to help to find a buyer. Another swift denial was issued that day, but Gillett squirmed and declined to comment when put on the spot in an interview with a Canadian radio station last week. Gillett conceded in the same interview that he was “embarrassed” by certain episodes since buying the club with Hicks in February 2007, such as the failure to deliver their promise of a new stadium in Stanley Park, the construction of which has been postponed indefinitely because of their inability to raise the funds. The Americans are under additional pressure to restructure their £350 million loan with the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Wachovia banks, which expires on January 25. If no buyer can be found in time, they hope to be given permission to take up the option of a six-month extension, but RBS, at present under public ownership because of the credit crunch, is by no means guaranteed to renew thereafter. Amid that growing pressure, Hicks and Gillett are firmly expected to sell the club sooner rather than later. [Apologies for new topic - Takeover thread locked?].

Aside from the heart attack or two he provided when playing either a very short ball out of our crowded penalty area late on, or else deciding that he can dribble it out! (With the honourable exception of when he flicked it over the head of the Chelsea player, and then 'bought' the inevitable free-kick, like Didi in his prime). Top player though, our Albert.

Stressederic wrote: "I always wonder who has to break the news to Rafa in these situations. I don't envy them that job." Made me laugh that, so very true. What other industry in the world allows multi-million pound assets to be loaned, gratis, whilst the lender continues to pay (i.e. wages) if they are then rendered incapable of being used? Barmy. Clubs should refuse to pay wages whilst their players are away on internatuionals, then you can judge how much playing for their country really means to them.

Filmed in Supermarionation: "Martin Skirtel, Indestructible!".

If anybody is stuck as to their man of the match, perhaps the fact that Carra did the school run this morning might sway it in his favour? Play an evening match in the South of France; God knows what hour they got home, and there he is this morning dropping the little ones off. Top fellah.

Poignant, and particularly tricky for ShareLiverpool to support the open letter from SOS as it called for the sale of the club to Dubai, which is obviously not what ShareLiverpool is about.

Question - if I turn up with a name badge saying Uncle Bob do you think I will get to see the match? Answer: of course, from your usual seat in the Directors Box!

"wasnt it after Beardlsey scored against Everton at the Kop end that Barry Davies goes on how he was kissed by a fan in a Blue top, classic" Oh yes.

If only Kenny would knock that rotation policy on the head....

No,no - they are quite right. The biggest mystery here is not how two American con-men sweet-talked their way into our club, lied, plied us with debt, talked behind the managers back, nearly sacked him, refuse to put money in, renege on building a new ground, leave us about to go into freefall. That is not the issue, at all. The issue is how do SOS run cheap coaches to Liege, Sunderland and Villa. That is the issue.

Does anybody else think it ironic that some posters are prepared to examine every SOS statement to the Nth degree, poring over the minutiae, before accusing the organisation of not concentrating on attacking G&H?

Wouldn't it be great if the City takeover turned out to be the 'fake Sheikh'. Although, given our track record, that will probably be saved for us!!

Quote: "groundshare makes financial sense. let's hope they underestimate the feelings of the fans and try to push it through. could be the last thing they do at this club". As has been proven time and time and time again, it makes financial sense only in the short-term [i.e. the halving of the construction cost]. Anything longer than that and it doesn't at all - it reduces revenue significantly. Please let's not have the 'groundshare makes financial sense' argument again - it only gives hope to the Bitters that they can at last piggyback us into a new ground.

fao Gomez and many others. Re. the ShareLiverpool meeting on Wednesday, when they ran out of time for questions, I wanted to ask if they are going to get a tie-in to a financial institution, who pay the initial £5k, and then you repay £50 per month for 10 years, or whatever, as I think this will open it up to a lot more people to actually own their own share, rather than be in a syndicate with 10/20 others. I've e-mailed them, as they said all e-mails will be replied to. I'll post the answer.

To be fair, I don't think it takes a genius to work out why. The protest in the main stand car park was hugely effective only because it was kept under wraps until the last minute, and gave the Police/Stewards no time to stop people getting in. Anyway, time will tell if what the man said is true.