Rafa and Hicks...a grudging respect?

[Chewie]

pure speculation this but I can't help but wonder if these two have a grudging respect for one another...

 

both seem stubborn to a fault and convinced they're right

both don't seem to really care that much about what others think of them

both seem fairly single minded...

 

both will stand or fall by their convictions and even if Hicks' convictions are financial the net result is (as Utd have proven) success on the pitch equals success off it....

 

the fortunes of our club may hinge on the single-minded drive of these two men...and whatever we think of Hicks if he's determined to see this out then we may hope his convictions are well founded...

 

anyway...pure speculation but neither man seems to be going anywhere soon and both seem canny enough to realise that better the devil you know in terms of their professional relationship...

 

Chewie

[MFletcher]

I suspect it's more this:

 

Rafa knows he can't say anything about Hicks that antagonises him. Thus he toes the official line in order to safeguard his own position.

 

Hicks can't really sack Rafa if he's doing nothing wrong. The 'money' given to him to sign players is from the RBS.

[Chili Palmer]

Hicks can't really sack Rafa if he's doing nothing wrong. The 'money' given to him to sign players is from the RBS.

 

not defending hicks by any stretch but isn't that a stupid arguement re the signing of players? doesn't every club in the world bar Chelsea finance transfers?

[lfc003]

not defending hicks by any stretch but isn't that a stupid arguement re the signing of players? doesn't every club in the world bar Chelsea finance transfers?

 

sssh!!! that wont go down well on here

[Chili Palmer]

sssh!!! that wont go down well on here

 

[CaptainXabi]

sssh!!! that wont go down well on here

[Tones]

not defending hicks by any stretch but isn't that a stupid arguement re the signing of players? doesn't every club in the world bar Chelsea finance transfers?

 

Yes. Dont know why people are expecting him to sign players with his own money. As you say, it basically always the club that pays for players.

[CaptainXabi]

Yes. Dont know why people are expecting him to sign players with his own money. As you say, it basically always the club that pays for players.

It's simple. People expected free money.

[Tones]

It's simple. People expected free money.

 

I understand peoples concerns about Hicks but i believe some of it, or some posters on here and other forums, are objecting to the new owners not bank rolling big signings from their own pocket.

[Guest Phil Eel]

I understand peoples concerns about Hicks but i believe some of it, or some posters on here and other forums, are objecting to the new owners not bank rolling big signings from their own pocket.

 

Hicks isn't my choice of owner - that is and was at the time Moores switched, DIC. However, there are a lot of posters who hate Hicks without even knowing if it were he, Gillett or both, who broke promises / went to klinsmann etc etc. The following is a quote from the Guardian about signing Mascherano;

 

"Everyone knows Javier can be a key player for us. He gives us balance in midfield and can give Steven Gerrard more freedom," said Benítez.

 

"The club is more stable than people believe. We have completed the deal and for a big fee. The money is there for that deal and we are going in the right direction, by signing the players we need."

 

Parry added: "It demonstrates in very large measure the ongoing commitment of the owners, who once again have come good when funds have been needed."

 

 

Add to this the comments today about Gerrard being settled and he knows who we will be targeting in the summer, this clearly hints at further Torres like signings, and I get the distinct feeling that Parry and Benitez don't have a problem with Hicks.

 

I just think that behind the scenes, he might actually be working for the good of the club.

 

As for paying for transfers from his own pocket ? The Glaziers don't do it, Abramovich no longer does it and nor does Lerner. In that respect he's no better nor worse than any of them.

 

Now, I'm not saying he's perfect, nor am I saying we should stick with him, but I think the time has come now to judge him on his actions and forget sptting at his son in the pub and such like. If his actions lead to the sale of the club or his retention of the club, then let's judge him on that because I dont think preolonging the media focus on our dispute is good for us, the club nor the team

[Flight]

 

"The club is more stable than people believe. We have completed the deal and for a big fee. The money is there for that deal and we are going in the right direction, by signing the players we need."

 

Parry added: "It demonstrates in very large measure the ongoing commitment of the owners, who once again have come good when funds have been needed."

 

 

 

The ongoing commitment of the owners. So is Parry lieing, yet again, or is Gillett committed to the club ?

 

 

As for Hicks, I don't know about anyone else, but my protests against him are :

 

i) his history of being interested in making as much as he can from sports teams, WHILE PUTTING IN AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE, epitomised by his comments in my signature; and,

 

ii) the FACT that he cannot afford to take us forward in a way that the fans will be happy with.

 

If he can't raise 150mill to buy Gillett out, how is he going to raise 300mill to build a stadium, which, lets not forget, he promised work would start on within weeks oh his arrival last year ? Not to mention where transfer funds are going to come from for the next few years, with the club servicing debt interest at anywhere from 30-60mill a year.

 

 

 

People talk about his purchase of Alex Rodriguez but they don't mention that he looked to sell him within 2 years to maximise his profit on him and that Rodriguez, within that time frame, called Hicks out as a liar on all his promises to invest in players and take the club forward. If Hicks gets full control there is nothing stopping him from selling Gerrard and Torres next year for maximum $$$$$. Don't think he won't, he has done it before.

[Magic8Ball]

I'm waiting to see if Rafa gets any money (40m excluding player sales) this summer for transfers

[MFletcher]

I'm more rallying against those who argue that Hicks has given Rafa money and clearly isn't "that bad". That money came from the banks, not from our generous, misunderstood owner.

 

I'm aware it wasn't directly addressed in the topic, but I've seen a few people here (mainly on RAWK) claiming Hicks isn't that bad.

[CaptainXabi]

I'm more rallying against those who argue that Hicks has given Rafa money and clearly isn't "that bad". That money came from the banks, not from our generous, misunderstood owner.

 

I'm aware it wasn't directly addressed in the topic, but I've seen a few people here (mainly on RAWK) claiming Hicks isn't that bad.

I honestly am shocked how hard it seems to be for people to grasp the concept of fungibility of assets. A loan is real money. Money from a bank is real money. Given that the loans are in their name, G+H have put money into the club (well not into the club, into former shareholder pockets). Let's get that straight. It's not like they just gave Parry and Moores a Mars bar and got the keys to Anfield.

 

The question is when do they (or maybe more accurately just Hicks) expect to get that money back, which is a very valid concern. However, that is not related to where the money came from in the first place. You can buy a club cash and liquidate all it's assets to pay yourself back. You can take a loan on the club and absorb the interest payments for some amount of years while you wait for its valuation to increase.

[MFletcher]

I honestly am shocked how hard it seems to be for people to grasp the concept of fungibility of assets. A loan is real money. Money from a bank is real money. Given that the loans are in their name, G+H have put money into the club (well not into the club, into former shareholder pockets). Let's get that straight. It's not like they just gave Parry and Moores a Mars bar and got the keys to Anfield.

 

The question is when do they (or maybe more accurately just Hicks) expect to get that money back, which is a very valid concern. However, that is not related to where the money came from in the first place. You can buy a club cash and liquidate all it's assets to pay yourself back. You can take a loan on the club and absorb the interest payments for some amount of years while you wait for its valuation to increase.

 

What's your point exactly? The money was earmarked for transfers and that's what it has been spent on. Parry has tried to pass it off as the owners stumping the cash up. Moores could have went to the banks, taken a loan out and produced the same end result.

[smicer07]

He couldn't get the loans though.

[CaptainXabi]

What's your point exactly? The money was earmarked for transfers and that's what it has been spent on. Parry has tried to pass it off as the owners stumping the cash up. Moores could have went to the banks, taken a loan out and produced the same end result.

Yes he could have. Your guess is as good as mine as why he didn't. That's a separate issue though and has nothing to do with G+H, DIC or whomever owns us in the future.

 

The money was earmarked for transfers, I agree. So if I were Parry, I wouldn't be celebrating it either. Doesn't mean that RBS bought our players for us. Unless you think that Visa is buying your food for you at at Tesco every week...

[MFletcher]

Yes he could have. Your guess is as good as mine as why he didn't. That's a separate issue though and has nothing to do with G+H, DIC or whomever owns us in the future.

 

The money was earmarked for transfers, I agree. So if I were Parry, I wouldn't be celebrating it either. Doesn't mean that RBS bought our players for us. Unless you think that Visa is buying your food for you at at Tesco every week...

 

I'm just a bit pissed off with Parry using the Masch signing as a chance to push the owner's commitment to the club. There was zero need for it and some people seem to have bought into the idea that they aren't c**** on the basis of this signing.

 

And I'm not suggesting that RBS bought our players - but the line from Parry suggested that they'd dug into their pockets for Masch.

[MFletcher]

He couldn't get the loans though.

 

He chose not to because he didn't want the responsibility.

[Archangel]

withdrawn

Edited March 2, 2008 by Archangel

[mooks]

not defending hicks by any stretch but isn't that a stupid arguement re the signing of players? doesn't every club in the world bar Chelsea finance transfers?

Not "every club in the world" adds to an existing mountain of debt without any realistic hope of paying it off in the next few years

[Flight]

I honestly am shocked how hard it seems to be for people to grasp the concept of fungibility of assets. A loan is real money. Money from a bank is real money. Given that the loans are in their name, G+H have put money into the club (well not into the club, into former shareholder pockets). Let's get that straight. It's not like they just gave Parry and Moores a Mars bar and got the keys to Anfield.

 

 

 

“When I was in the leverage buy-out business we bought Weetabix and we leveraged it up to make our return. You could say that anyone who was eating Weetabix was paying for our purchase of Weetabix. It was just business. It is the same for Liverpool.”

 

 

 

They've still put little into either the purchase of the club or into transfer funds. Loading debt upon debt is taking massive risk. It isn't beyond the realm of possiblity that we could be the next Leeds, if Hicks gets his way.

 

 

Parry is like Nero fiddling while Rome burns still offering the kind of PR he is for this c***.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Flight

[Mullah_Owen]

I understand peoples concerns about Hicks but i believe some of it, or some posters on here and other forums, are objecting to the new owners not bank rolling big signings from their own pocket.

 

I disagree. Its not about bank rolling out of his own pocket. I couldnt care less where he gets the money from and how much money he borrows. Thats not the issue.

 

The issue is he is a complete c*ck of the highest order. He has no understanding of running a football club highlighted by him pursuing Klinsmann to succeed Rafa. Blocking Rafa from selling and signing players was even more f*cking ridiculous to say the least as is leaving Parry in charge of transfers. The stadium still hasnt been built. However, I personally dont care if we dont build the stadium. As long as Rafa is given money to buy 3 to 4 world class players I am happy for the stadium to be deferred by a couple of years. I would rather the £60m that is reserved for the stadium be spent on improving the team.

 

Success on the pitch will generate funds for the stadium. But as it stands I doubt very much Rafa will be given much to spend in the summer which means he will have to sell before he buys.

 

To sum it up Hicks is still a c***.

[Chili Palmer]

Not "every club in the world" adds to an existing mountain of debt without any realistic hope of paying it off in the next few years

 

how do you know that?

[Magic8Ball]

Hicks to offer Rafa new Contract