Thai PM or G & H

[Tyler]

In hindsight would you have preferred Moores sold to Thaskin?

 

BTW - I heard from a v reliable source that Everton were nearly sold within the last three months to a group of russian businessmen but the deal fell through because of money laundering regulations in England and the group was unable to satisfy them

[Gunga Din]

at this minute, i'd habve preferred Moores to have stayed on. for all his short comings, he at least cared about the club

[Tyler]

that would have meant no new stadium and no torres though

 

he was castigated for not selling if i recall

[Stevie H]

thai PM or H&G?

 

a thai hooker would be preferable to those c****.

[Anfield Fox]

In hindsight would you have preferred Moores sold to Thaskin?

 

BTW - I heard from a v reliable source that Everton were nearly sold within the last three months to a group of russian businessmen but the deal fell through because of money laundering regulations in England and the group was unable to satisfy them

 

At this point, who cares? It's not like he is going to come in now because he is at City, at least until he is arrested. Are you asking who is the lesser of two evils?? Sorry, just a bit pointless really.

[johngibo YPC]

that would have meant no new stadium and no torres though

 

he was castigated for not selling if i recall

 

Not necessarily

I don't see why Moores couldn't have lent loads of money and saddled it on the club

[Tyler]

At this point, who cares? It's not like he is going to come in now because he is at City, at least until he is arrested. Are you asking who is the lesser of two evils?? Sorry, just a bit pointless really.

 

 

my point is that if he had come in we may be in a potentially worse scenario

once businessmen invest in a club in many ways the club has lost its soul

none of these investors had posters on their wall of rush/daglish/best/charlton as a kid but they have deep pockets and are there to make a profit

 

they will make a profit by achieving more success/european qualification

 

is the issue with gillett and hicks that they are not rich enough to own us?

[SME]

my point is that if he had come in we may be in a potentially worse scenario

once businessmen invest in a club in many ways the club has lost its soul

none of these investors had posters on their wall of rush/daglish/best/charlton as a kid but they have deep pockets and are there to make a profit

 

they will make a profit by achieving more success/european qualification

 

is the issue with gillett and hicks that they are not rich enough to own us?

 

Own us? The Glazers own your team.

 

And you know what you can do with your posters of Best and Charlton .......

[Tyler]

re-read the post

very few people who are rich enough to invest in a club were boyhood fans so they do it to earn money

i used liverpool and united players to show example was not club specific

 

not even sure if a fan as an owner/chairman is a good idea

newcastle now

leeds under risdale

us under moores

[Magic8Ball]

hate to say it, I wish Abromovitch had bought us

 

 

The Liverpool Way

[lfc4eva99]

Robert Kraft.

[Rimbeux]

If Moores or to a large degree Parry had the vision, we'd have no issue. We'd have been in the stadium right now with Alves at the club. However I refute the idea that the only investment options available were/are LBO merchants. Of the many takeovers to have gone through, Chelsea, Villa, Fulham, Newcastle, City, QPR, West Ham, Sunderland, it's only UTD and us who have fallen into these hands. UTD had no say in it being PLC, we were duped.

 

I think our main issue was starting out looking for a minor shareholder. We should have gone all in for the stadium or all in for a total takeover. May well have gone to a more legacy drive American, not Glazer-inspired leverage kings .

Edited January 24, 2008 by Rimbeux

[McBain]

Robert Kraft.

 

Robert Palmer

Sherry Palmer

Sherry Trifle

[stressederic]

If it's a straight choice between the two then I'd have to say G+H. They be a pair of complete c****, but Sinawatra was the head of a regime which killed thousands of people and brutally suppressed the Human Rights of it's citizens.

Edited January 24, 2008 by stressederic

[Euphrates]

If it's a straight choice between the two then I'd have to say G+H. They be a pair of complete c****, but Sinawatra was the head of a regime which killed thousands of people and brutally suppressed the Human Rights of it's citizens.

Hicks is a neo-con buddy of Bush, implicated in some money laundering scandal involving the Carlyle Group. He may not be the head of any regime, but isn't he therefore involved in brutal suppression, and so on?

[Woodsyla]

Hicks is a neo-con buddy of Bush, implicated in some money laundering scandal involving the Carlyle Group. He may not be the head of any regime, but isn't he therefore involved in brutal suppression, and so on?

But he's OUR neo-con buddy of Bush, implicated in some money laundering scandal involving the Carlyle Group ....

 

In answer too the original question I'd prefer what we have got. Whatever is going on at City now I didn't like the way Thaksin used us for PR and I didn't like the idea of us being owned by a Govt. That was one of the things that made me wary of hte DIC bid because if the same ownership issue. However now my morals have gone out of the window and I'm hoping that Robert Mugabe or Pol Pot will stump up the cash !!!!!!!

[Rich Gobey]

I'd prefer some Thai sticks and some B&H.

[stressederic]

Hicks is a neo-con buddy of Bush, implicated in some money laundering scandal involving the Carlyle Group. He may not be the head of any regime, but isn't he therefore involved in brutal suppression, and so on?

 

Yep he probably is. But purely in a you must have one or other scenario I'd simply have to take the one who only "supported" such activities rather than the one who ordered it.

[Euphrates]

Yep he probably is. But purely in a you must have one or other scenario I'd simply have to take the one who only "supported" such activities rather than the one who ordered it.

Fair point.

 

You'd think the University of Texas could give us a couple of million though. $252 million has been invested in funds associated with Hicks ever since he was made chairman of the $13 billion endowment.

[Guest Si]

I certainly wish we still had Moores.

 

Despite the obvious issues at least we had the stability.

 

Surely Moores could have lumped 300 million onto the clubs debt to build a stadium? We didnt need to bring in some cowboy clowns to do it for us did we?

[Paisley]

that would have meant no new stadium and no torres though

 

he was castigated for not selling if i recall

 

ahem...we still haven't got a new stadium and Torres was bought using a credit note!

[Spike]

If it's a straight choice between the two then I'd have to say G+H. They be a pair of complete c****, but Sinawatra was the head of a regime which killed thousands of people and brutally suppressed the Human Rights of it's citizens.

 

I was going to half jokingly suggest the forum's own RP as a potentially desirable buyer but your post has made me reconsider.

[stressederic]

I was going to half jokingly suggest the forum's own RP as a potentially desirable buyer but your post has made me reconsider.

 

We have to draw a line somewhere.

[RP]

[Flanders]

If it's a straight choice between the two then I'd have to say G+H. They be a pair of complete c****, but Sinawatra was the head of a regime which killed thousands of people and brutally suppressed the Human Rights of it's citizens.

...but who has the most hard cash?