Liverpool F.c.

[Englander]

hodgson won't get the sack. the club can't afford to fire another manager for starters, but he's a safe pair of hands for the owners who won't make demands on them like benitez did. roy's appointment was all about compromise and lowering of expectations and accepting mediocrity because of the state the owners and administrators have made of the club.

Ive seen Hodgson speak out about the current owners several times since he got the job, or at least saying they wont challenge for the league with the Americans in charge and the club needs new owners, sounds to me he may well have been appointed by the bank as opposed to those 2.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/7996453/Liverpool-need-new-owners-and-new-ground-to-deliver-title-says-Roy-Hodgson.html

Imho he must have known the financial situation before accepting the job so he should shut up and get on with the job, a good manager could get Liverpool challenging for a champions league place this year season, i wouldnt have though many Liverpool fans genuinely expect them to win the league.

[Abrak]

hodgson won't get the sack. the club can't afford to fire another manager for starters, but he's a safe pair of hands for the owners who won't make demands on them like benitez did. roy's appointment was all about compromise and lowering of expectations and accepting mediocrity because of the state the owners and administrators have made of the club.

He does look to have done a pretty good job of lowering expectations (if he gets any better, Man Utd might even considering resting a few players for the Liverpool clash.) He clearly portrays himself as a manager adept at getting the best out of limited resources.

However, he is potentially digging his own grave in the long run.

I suspect if the ownership issue is sorted out in a 'satisfactory' manner, the 'new owners' will feel that they need someone more positive and dynamic to take the club forward. The longer the ownership issue goes on the more Roy will be seen as an interim manager.

[rijit]

Saw some of the game yesterday, and ive got to say Torres is not the same player he was A couple of seasons ago. .Ive seen plenty of players come bac from career threatening injuries , Im not sure but I cant remember his being one., but I cant remember seeing a player coming bac and being so far away from the standard he was at b4 he injury, seems to have not only lost a yard, and thats being kind,, his mobilities reduced , confidence seems to have deserted him, he looks a totally totally different player Hes so far away from where he was b4 the injury , Ive got doubts he will ever get back to where he was b4., Thoughts anyone?.

[StevieH]

Imho he must have known the financial situation before accepting the job so he should shut up and get on with the job, a good manager could get Liverpool challenging for a champions league place this year season, i wouldnt have though many Liverpool fans genuinely expect them to win the league.

he undoubtedly knew the financial situation, which is what made him such an attractive appointment to the current administration. i don't think any manager would get us into the top four this season, our squad is simply too thin.

He does look to have done a pretty good job of lowering expectations (if he gets any better, Man Utd might even considering resting a few players for the Liverpool clash.) He clearly portrays himself as a manager adept at getting the best out of limited resources.

However, he is potentially digging his own grave in the long run.

this is it, his career is almost entirely based on getting the most out of what he has, so for the current shambles that is liverpool fc, he's an ideal appointment. he won't demand £40m to reinvest in the squad, he won't put five-year plans in place and it will more than likely be his last ever big job in football (though me may yet replace capello).

I suspect if the ownership issue is sorted out in a 'satisfactory' manner, the 'new owners' will feel that they need someone more positive and dynamic to take the club forward. The longer the ownership issue goes on the more Roy will be seen as an interim manager.

i have absolutely no doubt of that. there's no way a new owner's plans for the club include a 63-year old journeyman manager.

[Hackett]

hodgson won't get the sack. the club can't afford to fire another manager for starters, but he's a safe pair of hands for the owners who won't make demands on them like benitez did. roy's appointment was all about compromise and lowering of expectations and accepting mediocrity because of the state the owners and administrators have made of the club.

He does look to have done a pretty good job of lowering expectations (if he gets any better, Man Utd might even considering resting a few players for the Liverpool clash.) He clearly portrays himself as a manager adept at getting the best out of limited resources.

However, he is potentially digging his own grave in the long run.

I suspect if the ownership issue is sorted out in a 'satisfactory' manner, the 'new owners' will feel that they need someone more positive and dynamic to take the club forward. The longer the ownership issue goes on the more Roy will be seen as an interim manager.

Just a couple of observations.

The first would be that none of you are giving him much time to getting a new "ish" team to gel together.

Secondly, you are playing no better or worse than you were last season under the other manager who infact had a better team than the incumbant.

In short, with the resources available to him, RH will probably do a better job than Benitez would.

[StevieH]

Just a couple of observations.

The first would be that none of you are giving him much time to getting a new "ish" team to gel together.

Secondly, you are playing no better or worse than you were last season under the other manager who infact had a better team than the incumbant.

In short, with the resources available to him, RH will probably do a better job than Benitez would.

there isn't that much 'gelling' to be done. i've watched all of our matches this season and we're playing like fulham. sit back, men behind the ball, don't be concerned about dominating possession, see if you can nab something. last season was a hellish one, we were generally awful - but benitez proved in the 2008/09 season and others that he knows his business far, far better than roy hodgson does.

[Devil]

Just a couple of observations.

The first would be that none of you are giving him much time to getting a new "ish" team to gel together.

Secondly, you are playing no better or worse than you were last season under the other manager who infact had a better team than the incumbant.

In short, with the resources available to him, RH will probably do a better job than Benitez would.

there isn't that much 'gelling' to be done. i've watched all of our matches this season and we're playing like fulham. sit back, men behind the ball, don't be concerned about dominating possession, see if you can nab something. last season was a hellish one, we were generally awful - but benitez proved in the 2008/09 season and others that he knows his business far, far better than roy hodgson does.

Yep would agree with that Stevie. Although I remember Fulham at least closing teams down under Roy when they didn't have the ball but not this team - just shocking stuff right now!

Just hope the Man U game might kicks some life into this lot.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Devil

[StevieH]

Just a couple of observations.

The first would be that none of you are giving him much time to getting a new "ish" team to gel together.

Secondly, you are playing no better or worse than you were last season under the other manager who infact had a better team than the incumbant.

In short, with the resources available to him, RH will probably do a better job than Benitez would.

there isn't that much 'gelling' to be done. i've watched all of our matches this season and we're playing like fulham. sit back, men behind the ball, don't be concerned about dominating possession, see if you can nab something. last season was a hellish one, we were generally awful - but benitez proved in the 2008/09 season and others that he knows his business far, far better than roy hodgson does.

Yep would agree with that Stevie. Although I remember Fulham at least closing teams down under Roy when they didn't have the ball but not this team - just shocking stuff right now!

Just hope the Man U game might kicks some life into this lot.

fulham did that at home dev when they had their crowd behind them in their packed little ground, but not that high up the pitch. they still sat quite far back but closed down in packs and then looked for the out ball to torres. think back to liverpool away to united in 2009, the 4-1, where we were closing them down right high up the pitch and forcing errors close to their goal - that's what benitez had us doing, and it worked.

i'm worried we're going to get a whupping on sunday.

[Abrak]

The biggest problem I see for Liverpool going forward as a business proposition is not their debt (say GBP400m which is manageable) or their squad (with say GBP100m could make them top class) nor their fans or their management.

It is the lack of a new stadium. It will not only cost a lot of money - say GBP300m - but it will take time. However, I think it is costing the club something like GBP40m in revenues a year - say compared to a MANU.

'Vanity investors' need instant gratification and long term investors have to add that cost - much more than repairing the squad - to the cost of acquisition. This I feel is a major stumbling block to a deal on the basis that it is inherently an hidden liability - you ultimately have to pay for it for the future success of the club.

It is complicated by the fact that theoretically the new stadium is financable in that the cost of the new stadium should be able to finance itself out of future incremental revenues. However there is a natural reluctance for a finance based bid for the club both financially (because the owners often start mixing various revenues and debt) and within football. And to be honest, Liverpool will need the incremental revenues to remain a top club rather than to repay the costs of building a new stadium.

[StevieH]

The biggest problem I see for Liverpool going forward as a business proposition is not their debt (say GBP400m which is manageable) or their squad (with say GBP100m could make them top class) nor their fans or their management.

It is the lack of a new stadium. It will not only cost a lot of money - say GBP300m - but it will take time. However, I think it is costing the club something like GBP40m in revenues a year - say compared to a MANU.

'Vanity investors' need instant gratification and long term investors have to add that cost - much more than repairing the squad - to the cost of acquisition. This I feel is a major stumbling block to a deal on the basis that it is inherently an hidden liability - you ultimately have to pay for it for the future success of the club.

It is complicated by the fact that theoretically the new stadium is financable in that the cost of the new stadium should be able to finance itself out of future incremental revenues. However there is a natural reluctance for a finance based bid for the club both financially (because the owners often start mixing various revenues and debt) and within football. And to be honest, Liverpool will need the incremental revenues to remain a top club rather than to repay the costs of building a new stadium.

you're not really right there abrak - we finished second the season before last, ahead of chelsea, and were a couple of iffy refereeing decisions away from winning the league - with the present anfield stadium. so while it is an issue it isn't the 'biggest' problem, the biggest problem is servicing the appalling debt which the two owners swore at time of purchase would not be loaded onto the club.

we do need the new stadium and have done for years, both in matchday revenue terms and in terms of regenerating the area around anfield, part of the club's community. man united earn £3m more than we do every, single home match just on ticket sales. that's huge. but we could and have been successful in the 45,000 capacity anfield. a new stadium would be brilliant but it's far from our largest problem right now.

Edited September 15, 2010 by StevieH

[Englander]

The biggest problem I see for Liverpool going forward as a business proposition is not their debt (say GBP400m which is manageable) or their squad (with say GBP100m could make them top class) nor their fans or their management.

It is the lack of a new stadium. It will not only cost a lot of money - say GBP300m - but it will take time. However, I think it is costing the club something like GBP40m in revenues a year - say compared to a MANU.

Thats 800 million quid there, Man U cant manage this amount with an 80,000 stadium that didnt need building from scratch and that is usually full, a bigger global fan base, league and champions league success, they just deferred the debt.

Theyd need somewhere in the region of 60-100 million to pay the interest alone, as football clubs historically have got terrible rates when borrowing, hence Man Us bond sale.

[StevieH]

team for the uefa game against steaua bucaresti tonight:

reina

kelly, agger, kyrgiakos, konchesky

spearing, meireles

maxi, cole, babel

ngog

[longstebe]

Not a bad 2nd half performance at all. Some nice touches and link up play from Cole. I'm taking it Cole is back for the Manc game?

It 's gonna be interesting to see who he will play in the middle of the park on Sunday, surely Gerrard will slot back in there if Cole is back.

Well played Ngog.

[PattayaParent]

So Hicks is going to take sole control now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9009381.stm

[MSingh]

- but benitez proved in the 2008/09 season and others that he knows his business far, far better than roy hodgson does.

So long as he has an Open Cheque Book, which Hodgson has never had & certainly won't have in the current situation..

[bkkjames]

Somebody should tell gerrard that kissing the camera went out of style two years ago. Nice slip by the way.

Anyways, if my dog was as ugly as him I would shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards

[StevieH]

- but benitez proved in the 2008/09 season and others that he knows his business far, far better than roy hodgson does.

So long as he has an Open Cheque Book, which Hodgson has never had & certainly won't have in the current situation..

rafa benitez never had an 'open cheque book' singher. would expect better from you man.

[Abrak]

This latest refinancing deal that has been put together by Hicks and Blackstone looks to be very worrying for the club.

No new money for players or the stadium and Hicks gets until 2012 to sell the club or else it is taken over by Blackstone.

[StevieH]

This latest refinancing deal that has been put together by Hicks and Blackstone looks to be very worrying for the club.

No new money for players or the stadium and Hicks gets until 2012 to sell the club or else it is taken over by Blackstone.

not sure, it smells fishy this one. one because blackstone aren't that big and don't have that kind of money to lend to hicks themselves and two that hicks has no assets left to put up as collateral on more refinancing. i don't see who on earth is going to lend hicks any more money at the moment. so fingers crossed he goes bankrupt like his short-arsed friend george.

[Abrak]

This latest refinancing deal that has been put together by Hicks and Blackstone looks to be very worrying for the club.

No new money for players or the stadium and Hicks gets until 2012 to sell the club or else it is taken over by Blackstone.

not sure, it smells fishy this one. one because blackstone aren't that big and don't have that kind of money to lend to hicks themselves and two that hicks has no assets left to put up as collateral on more refinancing. i don't see who on earth is going to lend hicks any more money at the moment. so fingers crossed he goes bankrupt like his short-arsed friend george.

Well like all the Liverpool 'deals' they tend to be ephemeral.

However, Blackstone is certainly big enough. Together with GSO they have about US$90bn undermanagement and they recently raised US$15bn. Their CEO Shwarzman (himself supposedly worth US$3bn) is a good friend of Hicks.

The thinking behind the refinancing is that Liverpool is worth more than its outstanding debts either now or even in two years time. Blackstone would charge high interest rates (and presumably get an equity kicker). If the club is sold they will get interest plus a kicker. If interest and payment is defaulted they get the club.

I dont think the thinking is that unrealistic as I suspect the club is 'currently' worth more than its outstanding debts. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately if it comes to actually trying to complete a deal) I suspect it will be worth a lot less in two years time if Hicks remains.

[longstebe]

Looks like Blackstone have pulled out.

[StevieH]

Looks like Blackstone have pulled out.

i don't think they were ever really 'in'.

[PattayaParent]

This latest refinancing deal that has been put together by Hicks and Blackstone looks to be very worrying for the club.

No new money for players or the stadium and Hicks gets until 2012 to sell the club or else it is taken over by Blackstone.

not sure, it smells fishy this one. one because blackstone aren't that big and don't have that kind of money to lend to hicks themselves and two that hicks has no assets left to put up as collateral on more refinancing. i don't see who on earth is going to lend hicks any more money at the moment. so fingers crossed he goes bankrupt like his short-arsed friend george.

But wouldn't that make the club bankrupt too, and therefore subject to 9 points deduction and asset stripping (ie players sales) to raise funds

[StevieH]

This latest refinancing deal that has been put together by Hicks and Blackstone looks to be very worrying for the club.

No new money for players or the stadium and Hicks gets until 2012 to sell the club or else it is taken over by Blackstone.

not sure, it smells fishy this one. one because blackstone aren't that big and don't have that kind of money to lend to hicks themselves and two that hicks has no assets left to put up as collateral on more refinancing. i don't see who on earth is going to lend hicks any more money at the moment. so fingers crossed he goes bankrupt like his short-arsed friend george.

But wouldn't that make the club bankrupt too, and therefore subject to 9 points deduction and asset stripping (ie players sales) to raise funds

not really - the club is already in the hands of the bank and hicks has no money anyway. so it's no different.

[PattayaParent]

This latest refinancing deal that has been put together by Hicks and Blackstone looks to be very worrying for the club.

No new money for players or the stadium and Hicks gets until 2012 to sell the club or else it is taken over by Blackstone.

not sure, it smells fishy this one. one because blackstone aren't that big and don't have that kind of money to lend to hicks themselves and two that hicks has no assets left to put up as collateral on more refinancing. i don't see who on earth is going to lend hicks any more money at the moment. so fingers crossed he goes bankrupt like his short-arsed friend george.

But wouldn't that make the club bankrupt too, and therefore subject to 9 points deduction and asset stripping (ie players sales) to raise funds

I'm no business man but I understand that the general way of doing things is that if a business cannot pay it's debts it's declared bankrupt and the assets sold off to pay the creditors. How is Hicks / Gillette situation different from Portsmouth or Leeds before them?

[rott]

This latest refinancing deal that has been put together by Hicks and Blackstone looks to be very worrying for the club.

No new money for players or the stadium and Hicks gets until 2012 to sell the club or else it is taken over by Blackstone.

not sure, it smells fishy this one. one because blackstone aren't that big and don't have that kind of money to lend to hicks themselves and two that hicks has no assets left to put up as collateral on more refinancing. i don't see who on earth is going to lend hicks any more money at the moment. so fingers crossed he goes bankrupt like his short-arsed friend george.

But wouldn't that make the club bankrupt too, and therefore subject to 9 points deduction and asset stripping (ie players sales) to raise funds

I'm no business man but I understand that the general way of doing things is that if a business cannot pay it's debts it's declared bankrupt and the assets sold off to pay the creditors. How is Hicks / Gillette situation different from Portsmouth or Leeds before them?

The legal definition of insolvency is ''when you can no longer pay your bills as they become due.'' Bankruptcy strictly speaking refers to the individual and not the corporate entity, who generally are required to declare themselves insolvent through a licensed insolvency practitioner. Not splitting hairs troops, just thought I would mention it.

[rijit]

4 shots on target against a 2nd division side!!! LOL!!!! Northampton, Snicker!!!!! virtually bankrupt, not even the banks want you and now this. R I P Liverpool.

[Abrak]

I'm no business man but I understand that the general way of doing things is that if a business cannot pay it's debts it's declared bankrupt and the assets sold off to pay the creditors. How is Hicks / Gillette situation different from Portsmouth or Leeds before them?

The legal definition of insolvency is ''when you can no longer pay your bills as they become due.'' Bankruptcy strictly speaking refers to the individual and not the corporate entity, who generally are required to declare themselves insolvent through a licensed insolvency practitioner. Not splitting hairs troops, just thought I would mention it.

Football Clubs fall into 'Administration' (at which point they get deducted points.) The aim of 'Administration' is to keep the club as a 'going concern' namely to avoid 'liquidation'. Liverpool is certainly worth a lot more as a whole entity rather than as the sum of its parts. Especially as its major assets - say its fan base or its sponsorship deal are not for sale.

I believe the 9 point deduction will happen this year if Administration is before March.

I dont know if anyone knows the exact terms of the Loans to H&G. Remember they are personal loans which were on lent to a holding company which then purchased Liverpool so that the club assumed the debt. I would 'guess' that G&H have pledged their equity holdings in the holding company as collateral against the loans, so that upon default RBS may be able to takeover the company without necessarily placing it into 'administration'.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Abrak

[StevieH]

jesus fuc_king wept. 17th in league 2 northampton. at home.

roy is fast, fast losing the fans with performances like that and with comments like last night's post-match and after united at the weekend.

[bkkjames]

Yea stevie, with only two shots on target his performance was horrible and should be benched.