SOS on the Gillett and Rafa meetings

[Will]

Meeting with George Gillett, 13th Sept 2008

 

On Saturday September 13th several Spirit of Shankly Union committee members met, at short notice, with George Gillett at Anfield a few hours prior to the match with Manchester United. The meeting had been called by Mr Gillett so that he could hear, in his words, "what was on our minds".

 

Mr Gillet was accompanied by Chief Executive Rick Parry and long-time family business associate, Jim Skidmore.

 

The Union laid out unequivocally its opposition to Gillett and Hick's tenure at the club. Mr Gillett was told in the strongest terms that they had failed to deliver on their pledges regarding their ownership. He was left in no doubt that the Union saw neither he nor Tom Hicks as fit to run Liverpool Football Club. He was reminded of three basic claims that they had made when acquiring the club:

 

That no debt would be placed directly upon the club

 

That work on a new stadium - the whole point of the sale of the club - would begin almost immediately. "A spade in the ground in 60 days"

 

That he would respect the clubs traditions and values conducting the clubs affairs in a proper manner in keeping with 'The Liverpool Way'

 

Mr Gillett was told that the management structure at the club was untenable; that the division within the club was causing stagnation at best, and at worst causing us to fall behind our rivals. Gillett was told that the club appears to have no real, clear leadership. The apparent lack of dialogue between himself and Tom Hicks was a real cause for concern for all Liverpool fans, as was the lack of dialogue between Tom Hicks and Rick Parry. We made it clear that the internal warring at the club was a great of source of embarrassment and concern for all supporters. The Union then pressed him on the issue of saddling the club with a huge debt, reducing its ability to compete in the transfer market as profits are eaten up by repayments.

 

In response, Mr Gillett agreed that the leadership issues were far from perfect and that communication was not as it should be. He described the position as "cumbersome". He did, however, take exception at being branded a liar over other issues. The club's financial position changed, he insisted, because of the global financial situation, not because he reneged on any previous promise. External circumstances outside his control, with the banks, were the cause of the debt being placed upon Liverpool FC during the refinancing process.

 

This was, he went on, at the banks' and other financial institutions' insistence although he would not explain how the credit crunch itself could cause such a reorganisation of the debt. Mr Gillett also failed to reconcile, in the Union's eyes, his own stated intention of not loading the club with debt, with his partner's modus operandi in the leveraged buy-out business, whereby - in Hick's words - "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".

 

He denied that the debt and lack of operating finances had led us to fall behind in the transfer market; claiming that the club was in "decent" financial shape and had outspent everyone - bar Chelsea – over recent seasons. He claimed that the club had plenty of money to pay any debt repayments (he categorically denied it was anywhere near the £30m quoted in the press, but would not elaborate when pressed for a more accurate figure) and to operate in the transfer market. He denied that neither he, nor Hicks had taken any money out of the club, other than legitimate legal expenses accrued during the takeover. He reiterated the club's previous announcement that the turnaround in the global financial markets had led to a temporary halt on the stadium build. "The credit crunch", he insisted, "is here - it is real".

 

Mr Gillett agreed to look into a number of issues such as the £29 fan card membership scheme and other recent initiatives that we felt were squeezing the ordinary fan and were, instead, catering for the corporate market. He also agreed to consider the effect that the stadium delay was having on the overall regeneration of the Anfield area.

 

Despite all of Mr Gillett's claims, and his attempts to play down the situation we find ourselves in at the moment, we have not and will not be changing our stance. We remain unmoved in wanting Tom Hicks and George Gillett out of this football club, for the benefit of the club and for all of its supporters.

 

Meeting with Rafa Benitez, Melwood 18th Sept 2008, 2pm

 

A delegation from the Spirit of Shankly accepted an invitation from Rafa Benitez to meet with him at Melwood on Thursday 18th September after training had been completed. The meeting lasted just under four hours and covered the many aspects of Liverpool Football Club. The manager enthusiastically confirmed his commitment to Liverpool Football Club emphasising that he and his family were very settled on Merseyside and that he was as determined as ever to bring success to Anfield. The delegation listened to the manager’s passion and vision for the club and its future but also some of his already widely reported frustrations in not securing some of his primary transfer targets.

 

Rafa Benitez spoke at length of his love of Liverpool Football Club and especially the fans whom he described as 'the heart and soul of this football club'. He said he was extremely grateful to the supporters who had marched in his support last November 2007 prior to the Porto Champions League game. He persistently emphasised he was very happy at the club and was determined to win more silverware for the club and its supporters. He confirmed he had been approached by other clubs but was intent on staying here, as has been widely reported in the press previously. He acknowledged the financial situation at the club but emphasised that he was determined to bring more success to Liverpool Football Club even though he was 'not on a level playing field' with other top clubs in terms of finance, which would now include Manchester City after the recent takeover.

 

Rafa Benitez emphasised time and time again that he was a 'winner' and would do everything in his power to achieve this goal and he wanted everyone at the club to work together in order to achieve this. He felt that some of the other 'top clubs' had a united front when it came to dealing with The FA The Premier League and the Referees Body (PGMOL). He felt as a football club we were sometimes unwilling to fight our corner.

 

The delegation asked him if it would be possible for Liverpool Reserves to play at Anfield as this would give the opportunity for local youngsters to visit the ground and see some of the first team squad. Rafa Benitez said he didn't think the pitch at Anfield could sustain the added amount of games. He said he wanted the Reserves to play at The Academy with a small purpose built stand based on the Real Madrid model - he said he had given the hierarchy his ideas some time ago but as yet nothing had happened.

 

Rafa Benitez was very enthusiastic about the role Sammy Lee was undertaking and felt that Sammy embodied the Spirit of Shankly and understood the value of the Holy Trinity of the players, the coaching staff and the supporters.

 

The meeting finished with a tour of the excellent facilities at Melwood. During this tour Rafa explained that they had adorned the corridors with images of the history of Liverpool Football Club to emphasise the heritage and traditions of our great club. He also explained in detail why he had altered one tradition and requested that 'You'll Never Walk Alone' be played and sung when the players were on the pitch. He felt that this would inspire our players and strike fear into the opposition.

[johngibo YPC]

Don't tell everyone Will, that email was the first thing i've got for my tenner!!

[Guest Snorky]

Don't tell everyone Will, that email was the first thing i've got for my tenner!!

 

Me too, although I now have a membership card and pin badge

[Spike]

That's more like it. I am now satisfied and approve of the direction which SOS are taking.

[fyds]

Good stuff

[muleskinner]

Gillett is a c***

[Falconhoof]

I'm glad SOS met Gillet and put their points across. His responses are depressing though, gives the impression he isn't an inch closer to selling the club.

[fyds]

I'm glad SOS met Gillet and put their points across. His responses are depressing though, gives the impression he isn't an inch closer to selling the club.

I would have thought he would have been very careful to give them no real clue as to what his true intentions are.

[M4TTA]

Thanks for that Will, very pleased with what was written

[Gravy]

I'm glad SOS met Gillet and put their points across. His responses are depressing though, gives the impression he isn't an inch closer to selling the club.

 

Well there's a surprise.

[Will]

For some reason having this posted up on RAWK created a huge hoo-ha as they didn't want it appearing from anyone other than SOS. not quite sure why they haven't kicked up a fuss about it being on here - as they know it is, but there you go!

[CaptainXabi]

Well there's a surprise.

DIC by July?

[surf]

For some reason having this posted up on RAWK created a huge hoo-ha as they didn't want it appearing from anyone other than SOS. not quite sure why they haven't kicked up a fuss about it being on here - as they know it is, but there you go!

 

is al pacino a SOS spokesperson?

[jimmylibel]

Possibly the wrong place to be posting this but does anyone from SOS know if the subject of Rafa's contract extension came up in either meeting?

[boohog]

Not wishing to get my head bitten off here, but he has a fair point that the credit crunch has made banks completely reassess how they deal with credit and security. It's no surprise to me about the club having to be used as security. However who knows whether that was their intention all along.

 

Regarding selling the club, given the current market I suspect they would have trouble selling and breaking even to anyone other than a deep pockets sovereign wealth fund these days, never mind profiting to the egregious scale that the papers claim.

 

And to those who are still holding out for DIC, I fear we are all in for a long wait. Dubai has been utterly screwed by the credit crunch and recent financial turmoil. Think of Dubai like an investment bank - they are balls deep in debt and they are suffering from similar problems to Lehman, Goldmans, Morgan Stanley etc. Because their model was to fund growth through huge amounts of financial leverage and all of a sudden that liquidity has dried up, they are in a position where growth has to stop and they have a lot of liabilities and interest due.

 

Dubai have minimal oil and gas reserves and have relied on Abu Dhabi and international banks for their funding. Most of their income is from real estate related areas and real estate is in big trouble there. They have granted 10 year + tax exemptions for corporates that have relocated so they can't ramp up taxes to fund the problem. Basically all they can rely on right now is their sovereign wealth which is largely held by funds like DIC. Guess what? DIC make investments that are also predominantly funded by debt and their investments have lost huge amounts of value compared to a year or so ago. If liquidating assets from wealth funds can't solve the problem then they will have to rely on Abu Dhabi bailing them out.

 

In fact the problem is so bad that there are rumours that they have ceased work on Palm Deira (the big palm) which was being built by one of their wholly owned companies, and people are saying they may be technically insolvent to boot.

 

All in all, I don't think DIC are likely to be punting money on an overpriced investment with no foreseeable return.

[muleskinner]

Not wishing to get my head bitten off here, but he has a fair point that the credit crunch has made banks completely reassess how they deal with credit and security. It's no surprise to me about the club having to be used as security. However who knows whether that was their intention all along.

 

Regarding selling the club, given the current market I suspect they would have trouble selling and breaking even to anyone other than a deep pockets sovereign wealth fund these days, never mind profiting to the egregious scale that the papers claim.

 

And to those who are still holding out for DIC, I fear we are all in for a long wait. Dubai has been utterly screwed by the credit crunch and recent financial turmoil. Think of Dubai like an investment bank - they are balls deep in debt and they are suffering from similar problems to Lehman, Goldmans, Morgan Stanley etc. Because their model was to fund growth through huge amounts of financial leverage and all of a sudden that liquidity has dried up, they are in a position where growth has to stop and they have a lot of liabilities and interest due.

 

Dubai have minimal oil and gas reserves and have relied on Abu Dhabi and international banks for their funding. Most of their income is from real estate related areas and real estate is in big trouble there. They have granted 10 year + tax exemptions for corporates that have relocated so they can't ramp up taxes to fund the problem. Basically all they can rely on right now is their sovereign wealth which is largely held by funds like DIC. Guess what? DIC make investments that are also predominantly funded by debt and their investments have lost huge amounts of value compared to a year or so ago. If liquidating assets from wealth funds can't solve the problem then they will have to rely on Abu Dhabi bailing them out.

 

In fact the problem is so bad that there are rumours that they have ceased work on Palm Deira (the big palm) which was being built by one of their wholly owned companies, and people are saying they may be technically insolvent to boot.

 

All in all, I don't think DIC are likely to be punting money on an overpriced investment with no foreseeable return.

 

No debt on the club they said, they lied. Anything they say after such a fundamental part of their pitch to us was proven to be bulls*** is not going to be viewed in the best of light is it? Crying about the credit crunch is no excuse, its probably a lot more real, here and happening to the people they are aiming to fleece to pay for their folly of an investment plan than it is to them.

[boohog]

No debt on the club they said, they lied. Anything they say after such a fundamental part of their pitch to us was proven to be bulls*** is not going to be viewed in the best of light is it? Crying about the credit crunch is no excuse, its probably a lot more real, here and happening to the people they are aiming to fleece to pay for their folly of an investment plan than it is to them.

 

If their alternative was default on their debts, lose value their investment and leave the club with a points deduction due to bankruptcy, do you not think it made sense to them?

 

I get that you see that as a lie, but it may well be they had no other choice. And trust me, the credit crunch is not hitting the general public harder than business that use leverage. On a personal basis, yes people are losing jobs meanwhile uber rich directors are losing a few million here or there, but this is causing multi billion pound companies to collapse.

Edited September 26, 2008 by boohog

[oojason]

I don't remember there being a credit crunch when they took over the club - nor can I remember a credit crunch within 60 days of them taking over which is when they claimed work was going to have started on the stadium.

 

As for the claim by Gillet that the banks made him and Hicks arrange the finances like that - what has it got to do with them if, as claimed, no debt was going to be put on the club? (hence no loan required from any bank etc)

 

More lies, mistruths and misdirection from the 'custodians'

 

 

Well in to the SOS for calling Gillet on it. Keep up the great work!

[boohog]

I don't remember there being a credit crunch when they took over the club - nor can I remember a credit crunch within 60 days of them taking over which is when they claimed work was going to have started on the stadium.

 

As for the claim by Gillet that the banks made him and Hicks arrange the finances like that - what has it got to do with them if, as claimed, no debt was going to be put on the club? (hence no loan required from any bank etc)

 

More lies, mistruths and misdirection from the 'custodians'

Well in to the SOS for calling Gillet on it. Keep up the great work!

 

re first point, i wasn't referring to the stadium - i was referring to the sos post about debt secured by the club

re second point, i don't follow. Banks can demand anything they want to give you money. Its up to you if you take it or not. When they acquired the club the terms of financing were very different to where they are now (that's assuming you can get any financing at all).

[muleskinner]

If their alternative was default on their debts, lose value their investment and leave the club with a points deduction due to bankruptcy, do you not think it made sense to them?

 

I get that you see that as a lie, but it may well be they had no other choice. And trust me, the credit crunch is not hitting the general public harder than business that use leverage. On a personal basis, yes people are losing jobs meanwhile uber rich directors are losing a few million here or there, but this is causing multi billion pound companies to collapse.

 

They didn't have the money to back their claims from the off, they lied from the outset and fleeced the club and us supporters to try and turn a quick profit. They had a get out of jail card on the table, hopefully it is still there, so I don't accept that the club would have gone into administration. They chose to reject it which makes it all the more galling that the can plead poverty now. If they are so committed where the f*** is Foster Gillett? Or Tom Hicks jnr? Their families presence in Liverpool aren't they? The club is in almost total stasis because of their practically fraudulent plans.

 

I'm fully aware of what is happening to companies in the credit crunch thanks, I am seeing the effects each month on friends and family around the world who are losing jobs and struggling to pay their bills and keep their homes.

[boohog]

They didn't have the money to back their claims from the off, they lied from the outset and fleeced the club and us supporters to try and turn a quick profit. They had a get out of jail card on the table, hopefully it is still there, so I don't accept that the club would have gone into administration. They chose to reject it which makes it all the more galling that the can plead poverty now. If they are so committed where the f*** is Foster Gillett? Or Tom Hicks jnr? Their families presence in Liverpool aren't they? The club is in almost total stasis because of their practically fraudulent plans.

 

I'm fully aware of what is happening to companies in the credit crunch thanks, I am seeing the effects each month on friends and family around the world who are losing jobs and struggling to pay their bills and keep their homes.

 

It is entirely possible that they thought they would be able to fund their plans on advice from their banks and that wouldn't have to grant security over the club when they bought us and then events turned against them. Sometimes it is foolhardy to stick to promises you made in light of changes in circumstances. There are grey areas you know. Do you really think they should have said 'oh s*** we have to grant security over the club. Better sell for whatever we can now otherwise people will be pissed?'

 

Clearly any kind of debate is not welcome here - So, who is going to drag me to the gas chamber?

Edited September 26, 2008 by boohog

[Stevie H]

For some reason having this posted up on RAWK created a huge hoo-ha as they didn't want it appearing from anyone other than SOS. not quite sure why they haven't kicked up a fuss about it being on here - as they know it is, but there you go!

well then they should have posted it up on forums prior to sending it out to membership. you make it public, it gets posted everywhere, that's not news.

 

is al pacino a SOS spokesperson?

that's funny.

[muleskinner]

It is entirely possible that they thought they would be able to fund their plans on advice from their banks and that wouldn't have to grant security over the club when they bought us and then events turned against them. Sometimes it is foolhardy to stick to promises you made in light of changes in circumstances. There are grey areas you know. Do you really think they should have said 'oh s*** we have to grant security over the club. Better sell for whatever we can now otherwise people will be pissed?'

 

Clearly any kind of debate is not welcome here - So, who is going to drag me to the gas chamber?

 

What are you hoping to achieve? To convince us supporters that they have the best interests of the club at heart after all?

 

60 days?

Snoogy Doogy?

Foster Gillett?

TomHicks jnr?

 

Try reading this piece from a few people on RAWK http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=229270.0

 

You may get a feel for what LFC supporters think in case you are unaware.

[boohog]

What are you hoping to achieve? To convince us supporters that they have the best interests of the club at heart after all?

 

60 days?

Snoogy Doogy?

Foster Gillett?

TomHicks jnr?

 

Try reading this piece from a few people on RAWK http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=229270.0

 

You may get a feel for what LFC supporters think in case you are unaware.

 

Clearly you have no idea of my opinion of them and I have read that article before.

 

I'm not try to convince anyone of anything, I'm merely pointing out that certain 'facts' are not facts but assumptions. Its interesting to see the vehemence with which people respond when anything SoS is questioned. All I did was point out that they had a fair argument that the credit crunch made them change their plans. And you go all apesh1t like.

[Rimbeux]

boohog, it is a very fair point to point out that it might be a valid excuse, however these very same were busy telling us and the world that the crunch was not affecting their plans back when the stadium began to unravel a year ago, right through to the refinancing. Then you also have the battle of the board over how much debt is secured against the club with Parry and Moores claiming (yes through 'friends') that they blocked the whole lot being placed on the club.

 

 

I think it has affected them, as I believe they entered the whole escapade believing they could fund the whole show, the buy out and the stadium, on debt without much if any personal exposure or input, but very quickly found this not to be the case and as cheap money has dried up they've been asked for more and more personal input which they either haven't got or are unwilling to stump up, leaving us right in the s***.

 

 

Like any floundering politician it's now easy and convenient to trot out the crunch line and duck all blame for existing on and planning around a bubble of cheap money. He's a greaser and a bulls***ter and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the full directions from the banks looking for security included options/demands for them to put up more personal cash or assets, dont believe for a second they went from bank to bank looking for ways to avoid placing debt on the club as opposed to minimising personal exposure.

 

 

To be frank the whole thing stank from the outset, with the gatecrashing, with the ducking and diving over the initial loan and LBO/Glazer denials, and it unraveled pretty quickly. f*** knows where it all goes from here because a stadium will never happen under this ownership, not whilst there's an LBO needing funding, and as you point out, with the amounts required just to buy these out, it's not exactly the undervalued rough diamond it was in the last days of Moores.