• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

The Owners

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,306
This will set some Mancs' blood boiling. FSG has taken £10M total out of the club, as repayment of the Anfield expansion loan. The Glazers have loaded over a billion in interest, financing fees, etc, in addition to the £511M of debt still there and the £22M or so dividends they have extracted every year.

 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
923
If LFC have a problem with human rights, they should swerve Doha entirely and focus on the Premier league and the English cups. I'd support them entirely if they took this decision.
I am not so sure they can swerve the competition though? I appears to be a mandatory attendance, and I would imagine a serious FIFA/UEFA sanction that would cost a lot more than missing out in the trophy.
In some ways the price of success is immense. But it signals success. I would imagine Citys owners would like the problem.
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts.
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
23,349
I am not so sure they can swerve the competition though? I appears to be a mandatory attendance, and I would imagine a serious FIFA/UEFA sanction that would cost a lot more than missing out in the trophy.
In some ways the price of success is immense. But it signals success. I would imagine Citys owners would like the problem.
City's owners wouldn't even think about that problem, as they are a full part of it.

Yeah, probably mandatory though. But apart from sleeping under tents, I don't see how LFC will avoid sleeping in a house not built under suspicious circumstances. Everything there has been built by slaves.
 

Livvy

Alles wird gut
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
6,903

Liverpool have bought the house Jurgen Klopp was renting from Brendan Rogers and are allowing the Reds boss to live there rent free, it has been reported.
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts.
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
23,349
Article from the Liverpool Echo about Amazon joining in and offering money to be able to stream PL games from next season on. Apparently, money from overseas broadcast, which is a big part of the pot, will in future be distributed 'on merit', which means that the top six teams, among them LFC, could bank roughly £80m a season from it, instead of roughly 40-45m until now. o_O


Oh and by the way, for all of us who look for streams on a weekly basis:

 

Livvy

Alles wird gut
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
6,903
There is now a member area on youtube. 3£ a month to get full access. Is it a LFC TV (lite) Youtube version now, or just the same youtube content now for money with some added bonus emojis?


 
Last edited:

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
14,678
Dont know where else to put this, but Hicks (a name that became a pejorative among many of my friends, and alternative to the C word) has popped his head up again. He has basically put the blame on Gillett, essentially calling him a moron who had been historically difficult to deal with, but in doing so identifies himself as being at least as big as an idiot. He asks the question of why he'd enter into such a large venture as a 50-50 partner with someone he had previously found difficult to work with, but still wants t position it as Gillett not being good at his job as being the problem. Furthering the idea that he learned nothing and just doesnt understand why he got it all wrong, he still speaks about feeling that we should currently be playing in the new Stanley Park stadium. How can he still think that given what the new owners have done to Anfield and how happy the fans appear to be with it?

He did say that one of his first goals was to get rid of Parry though, but Gillett blocked him.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,306
Dont know where else to put this, but Hicks (a name that became a pejorative among many of my friends, and alternative to the C word) has popped his head up again. He has basically put the blame on Gillett, essentially calling him a moron who had been historically difficult to deal with, but in doing so identifies himself as being at least as big as an idiot. He asks the question of why he'd enter into such a large venture as a 50-50 partner with someone he had previously found difficult to work with, but still wants t position it as Gillett not being good at his job as being the problem. Furthering the idea that he learned nothing and just doesnt understand why he got it all wrong, he still speaks about feeling that we should currently be playing in the new Stanley Park stadium. How can he still think that given what the new owners have done to Anfield and how happy the fans appear to be with it?

He did say that one of his first goals was to get rid of Parry though, but Gillett blocked him.
I think the comparison between those is best summed up by what happened to their other sports properties. Gillett managed to move the Montreal Canadiens back to a family that had owned them historically, and while as a Habs fan I am not exactly enamoured with the current era, it is not a matter of fundamental health. Hicks managed to drive the Texas Rangers into at least as big a hole as LFC ever was in, it just played out differently because of MLB's ability to take over the Rangers and resolve the situation themselves.
 

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
22,135
Was thinking the other day one of these massive bellends would resurface and demand some attention off the back of our success.

Anyway, hope the epic swindle is working out for them like it has for us.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
Dont know where else to put this, but Hicks (a name that became a pejorative among many of my friends, and alternative to the C word) has popped his head up again. He has basically put the blame on Gillett, essentially calling him a moron who had been historically difficult to deal with, but in doing so identifies himself as being at least as big as an idiot. He asks the question of why he'd enter into such a large venture as a 50-50 partner with someone he had previously found difficult to work with, but still wants t position it as Gillett not being good at his job as being the problem. Furthering the idea that he learned nothing and just doesnt understand why he got it all wrong, he still speaks about feeling that we should currently be playing in the new Stanley Park stadium. How can he still think that given what the new owners have done to Anfield and how happy the fans appear to be with it?

He did say that one of his first goals was to get rid of Parry though, but Gillett blocked him.
If he can't see where it all went wrong, I guess he is as big of an idiot as the partner he chose. Kicking out Parry is a good idea, but replacing him with Purslow didn't really make much of a difference.
 

Red Armada

TIA Regular
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
2,990
I wonder if the penny has finally dropped for these two idiots and realised what they had in their hands and how they completely mismanaged it.
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts.
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
23,349
Typical Hicks this... telling everyone that he made an error by 'picking' Gillett, when in fact it was Gillett who brought him in contact with LFC in the first place... Anyway, both of them proved to be terrible club owners, and we can be thankful to be rid of them.

It becomes an increasingly old story now, but going by his quotes in that interview, Hicks hasn't changed one bit. He's good pals with Trump (as he was with Bush jr. at the time), and his son is heavily involved to help him finance his campaign to be re-elected. He's obviously still the dirty businessman he was then and he still thinks that he did everything right and that he was victim of a conspiration against him, so he has learnt nothing, even with almost ten years to reflect on it.

In short, he's still a cunt.
 

Commando

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
2,445
Typical Hicks this... telling everyone that he made an error by 'picking' Gillett, when in fact it was Gillett who brought him in contact with LFC in the first place... Anyway, both of them proved to be terrible club owners, and we can be thankful to be rid of them.

It becomes an increasingly old story now, but going by his quotes in that interview, Hicks hasn't changed one bit. He's good pals with Trump (as he was with Bush jr. at the time), and his son is heavily involved to help him finance his campaign to be re-elected. He's obviously still the dirty businessman he was then and he still thinks that he did everything right and that he was victim of a conspiration against him, so he has learnt nothing, even with almost ten years to reflect on it.

In short, he's still a cunt.
I can't believe that it's only ten years ago. I'm off to Fuerteventura next week for a month in the sun. We've gone there for yonks for Christmas. Been in many bars and restaurents. But there is the one bar that I've only been in once, and won't go in again. I watched the game under Hodgson when we lost 0-1 to a Steven? Ward goal. When I walked in there was nobody else wearing a footy shirt. As the game went on there was nobody really bothered about the game, but as soon as Ward scored the whole bar became a Wolves bar.
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Moderator
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
23,785

Our revenues set to overtake United, as these figures are projected to see them drop £85m next time due to non-participation in the CL, while we'll shortly have the Nike money on our books.

----

Manchester United finished in third with revenues of €711.5m but Deloitte said the traditional financial powerhouse of English football was at risk of losing its crown for the first time, to Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City or even Liverpool.

City reported revenues of €610.5m, with Liverpool not far behind as England’s third most lucrative club on €604.7m.

Both north-west rivals could make up a shortfall of more than €100m because United have forecast a fall in revenues of up to £85m next year as a result of the club’s repeated failure to qualify for the Champions League.
 

The Elusive 19th

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
5,245

Our revenues set to overtake United, as these figures are projected to see them drop £85m next time due to non-participation in the CL, while we'll shortly have the Nike money on our books.

----

Manchester United finished in third with revenues of €711.5m but Deloitte said the traditional financial powerhouse of English football was at risk of losing its crown for the first time, to Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City or even Liverpool.

City reported revenues of €610.5m, with Liverpool not far behind as England’s third most lucrative club on €604.7m.

Both north-west rivals could make up a shortfall of more than €100m because United have forecast a fall in revenues of up to £85m next year as a result of the club’s repeated failure to qualify for the Champions League.
What does he mean, when he says even Liverpool.
Based on whether he is a Liverpool supporter or not, I want to do a hell lot of swearing.
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Moderator
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
23,785
What does he mean, when he says even Liverpool.
Based on whether he is a Liverpool supporter or not, I want to do a hell lot of swearing.
I guess because we're a few million behind City and United would need to lose a bit more than the projected £85m or we'd need to get slightly more than what we're projected to.

A lot probably depends on this year's CL performance.