fabfive

I think he's useless and has proven that time and again. A mix between El Hadj spit and Milan "I run into blind alleys" Baros.

Well there's the rub. If the Captain isn't motivated how can he expect the rest of his team mates to be? Once or twice, a few times maybe the team mates can pick up the slack but not when it appears to be season long. And yet somehow next season his attitude will improve. I remember when people said Fowler had lost his pace and wasn't putting forth the effort. Even though he chipped in with enough goals to justify his place. Supporters were comparing the Fowler of his younger days to the Fowler of the present at the time. The same can be done with Gerrard. But it can't apparently.

Well he has given some verbals to others when they don't get him the ball. But that isn't my point. It is his on pitch demeanor. His walking around, lack of enthusiasm, it is like he is going through the motions. To often he's lackadaisical. There is little box to box take the match by the scruff of the neck that Stevie is so famous for. It is not down to Alonso leaving. It is not down to Torres being on the pitch or in the treatment room. Anyone who has seen the entire season and read the post match thread know Gerrard hasn't been at his best. And it's all down to Gerrard. No one else. Great players like King Kenny, Rush, Barnes, etc didn't mope about towards the end of their careers. Gerrard has and people have come up with 20 excuses why. a lot of them plausible but at no time should that exonerate Gerrard from his own lack of motivation. Does he need more money? Would that make him play harder? Is it up to Gerrard to pick the transfers now, that would make him play better? Should we have Gerrard pick the starting 11 and then he'll try harder? If it was Lucas moping about the pitch. well one can only imagine. Gerrard is cut a lot of slack because of what he's done in the previous years. Fine, no problem. But that is the past and this is now. There is little sentiment in football. Look at how Whiskey nose has gotten the best out of Giggs and Scholes. Put them on the bench and used them less to extend their careers and get the best out of them for a longer period of time. I think mentally the pressure is getting to Gerrard and he needs a break. That can be selling him to another side where he just "plays". At Liverpool he will always think the burden lies on his shoulders and that is what is wearing him down. It's not like we are going to be the galactico's and Gerrard just one of the lads anymore. Anyway, it's just a debate.

The question is can Gerrard get back to the levels we expect of him? Or that he expects of himself. Personally only a change of teams may give him something to get the best out of himself. He's to ingrained here. He's done that and got the tee shirt. A new manager won't change things as Stevie is Mr. Liverpool. In his own mind that is. So I see it as the only way Gerrard gets back to not walking around the pitch throwing his arms up at his team mates is to completely take him out of his comfort zone and sell him to another side. This could also free up our attack ( don't snicker ) as the players won't have to appease Gerrard by constantly passing the ball to him. Our attacks won't have to go through him all the time. To often we don't pass to someone making a great run because we have to look for Gerrard first. In fact it might be heretic to say but maybe we don't move and make those runs as much because we have to wait for Gerrard to get the ball first.

This. Especially if they don't get 4th place.

So that's a MOO GOO GAI PAN and a SHRIMP KUNG PAO to go then.

Could the reason Hicks didn't go for that deal is that Ambani would be majority owner as as such could dictate the selling price of the shares should Gillett or Hicks want to sell to Ambani? Unless a fixed sale price was agreed to before G&H sold him the 51% majority control. Maybe that was the stumbling block that they couldn't agree this fixed set price. Otherwise the only way that the shares would significantly increase is if Ambani decided to sell the club on and make a profit for himself and ultimately G&H as well. No?

They've puled the article because so many supporters complained.

Fyds: I've enjoyed your analysis of financial matters. For near three years now various experts have said G&H couldn't get a refinance and they'll have to sell on the cheap. If you keep repeating it , it must be true. In spite of the fact RBS have refinanced twice. I've asked for your documentation that Hicks sold his house because baseball demanded it to pay back some loans as you've claimed. Still waiting, btw. I do not seem to recall you or any other expert floating the idea that G&H will go to someone like BarCap in order to sell before it was announced. Funny that. Instead it was the same old RBS won't refinance them and they'll sell on the cheap this summer. Now of course RBS has extended the loans for another 6 months. At which time G&H have to sell on the cheap again. Regardless of Hicks bluster in the media. Same song, different version. Again. When the media are only looking for one angle of a story, that is the only one we see. Has the media ever explained why they've been wrong for near three years about G&H and refinancing ? But this time they're right. I understand that. Until of course they aren't and either G&H get the money they want for the club or come January 2011 they've refinanced once again with more promises of whatever. If someone doesn't like what they read or hear about this saga, the excuse is it is G&H's PR or you're an apologist for them. What i've learned is that they survive all this s***. We've seen it for three years. Nothing has changed in that respect. And I don't see much change in the future despite all the-- they've got to sell on the cheap again stuff. Quite frankly they don't have to sell. RBS gave them a get out of jail free card, again. I'd love for them to sell. Don't get me wrong. But I am highly skeptical after three years of all this s***. For me, i'll believe it when i see it and the deal is signed, sealed, and delivered. Until then they will keep a hold of LFC until it is pried from their greedy hands.

You think Hicks wrote this line: In the end, Hicks has paid dearly, in money and reputation, for a valuable lesson: Owning major league sports teams is unlike owning any other business because fans want owners to spend whatever it takes to win, even when an owner can't.

From the Dallas Morning News Hicks' soccer team sale may end troubled sports odyssey 12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, April 17, 2010 By GARY JACOBSON and BRENDAN CASE / The Dallas Morning News Tom Hicks appears to be breaking off his sometimes rocky 14-year romance with professional sports teams, although his advisers say there still might be a future fling or two. The Dallas dealmaker and his business partner, Colorado tycoon George Gillett Jr., announced Friday that they aim to sell the Liverpool Football Club, a marquee soccer team in the English Premier League. It's the third major sports franchise owned by Hicks to go on the block. He's locked in acrimonious negotiations to sell the Texas Rangers. And he's hired a New York investment banker to sell the Dallas Stars. Financially, Hicks could end up losing most of what he invested in the Rangers and Stars since buying the teams in the 1990s. Hicks, though, remains hopeful about making good money on Liverpool. "I've been in private equity for over 30 years, and I believe that Liverpool will prove to be one of the most profitable investments I ever made," Hicks said in a statement Friday to The Dallas Morning News. But doing a deal now means forgoing even larger potential profits down the line, many sports business experts say. There are advanced plans for a new, larger stadium, and if it's completed, Liverpool eventually could be worth more than $1 billion. In the end, Hicks has paid dearly, in money and reputation, for a valuable lesson: Owning major league sports teams is unlike owning any other business because fans want owners to spend whatever it takes to win, even when an owner can't. For Hicks, that has meant angry fans on both sides of the Atlantic. "Yank Liar$ out!" read a banner at a recent match in Liverpool, where fans argue that Hicks and Gillett reneged on promises to expedite the new stadium and put more stars on the field. While Hicks' financially strapped teams have tarnished his image in the press as a savvy dealmaker, some of his nonsports acquisitions are doing quite well. Based on Friday's close, for example, Hicks, his family foundation and related entities have gains totaling roughly $90 million on Resolute Energy Corp., which Hicks helped become a publicly traded company last September. But his forays into the high-profile world of professional sports have gotten more headlines. Hicks bought the Stars for $84 million in 1996 and the Rangers for $250 million in 1998. Business wasn't always good. In 2002, for example, the Rangers lost $45 million and the Stars lost $3 million, largely because of higher player payrolls, The News reported earlier. Over the years, loans on the teams grew to more than a half-billion dollars. At today's exchange rates, he and Gillett paid about $350 million, largely on credit, for Liverpool in 2007. Loans on the team now total about $380 million. Hicks might have more teams and larger loans, but his problems are similar to those of other owners whose income depends on making deals in other businesses. When the deals slow or stop, as they have in this economic downturn, so does the income. The question then becomes, no matter how rich, can an owner afford to keep supporting his teams from his own pocket? Hicks decided early last year that he couldn't, and Hicks Sports Group stopped making interest-only payments on $525 million in loans for the Rangers and Stars. Hicks said he personally made some of the payments. "In these times, I'm not willing to do that anymore," he said a year ago. For a while, he tried to maintain control of the teams. Early this year, however, he agreed to sell the Rangers and some land around Rangers Ballpark in Arlington to a group led by Pittsburgh attorney Chuck Greenberg. The value of the deal has been pegged at $530 million or $570 million, depending on what's included. Hicks and Greenberg are confident the deal will close, but lenders are pressing for more of the sale proceeds and are reportedly threatening to force the Rangers into bankruptcy if they don't get it. Even if the deal goes through, it won't satisfy Hicks Sports Group's debt completely. That's why the Stars are for sale, too, and why lenders are fighting for as much as they can get from the Rangers' sale. Major League Baseball, which helped keep the Rangers operating last year, also wants its money back. Hicks is one of the largest creditors of his sports group, with more than $80 million in loans. If the Rangers and Stars don't collectively fetch a high enough price, he won't get repaid. But he's not personally liable for the teams' debt. Loan obligations for the Rangers and Stars are completely separate from Liverpool. Hicks and Gillett each own half of the soccer team. Last fall, Forbes magazine estimated the value of the Stars at $246 million. Some experts say Hicks would be lucky to get that now. One valuable asset is Center Operating Co., which runs American Airlines Center. Center Operating is controlled 50-50 by the Stars and the Dallas Mavericks. Based on claims in a legal dispute between Ross Perot Jr. and Mavericks majority owner Mark Cuban, as well as interviews with Hicks advisers, it appears Center Operating is generating roughly $50 million a year in operating income. The Stars get half. In England, news reports indicate that Hicks and Gillett are under pressure from lenders to pay down debt, which is causing them to sell the team. That's not even close, said Hicks' advisers. They said Liverpool's revenue from sponsorships and media rights is increasing substantially and the club remains a valuable asset, worth perhaps $900 million or more, even without a new stadium. That's the view from dealmakers trying to make a deal. Other estimates of the team's value are lower. As he winds down his sports business, Hicks' advisers say he might retain minority interests in teams and might even buy other teams, if he finds the right deal. But for now, advisers say, he can't wait to get back to the private equity business. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-hicks_17bus.ART.State.Edition2.4c94b16.html I highlighted one part for Fyds who seems to think Hicks is near broke, sold his place in Colorado to pay off loans to baseball. Hicks isn't as near broke as some think. Nor is Gillett. We focus on their sports holdings and forget they have other investments doing the biz for them.

So they say. Someone will blink, concessions will be made, and the sale will happen.

If Jose Mourinho wants Champions League footy he'll be at Spurs next season.

Not in 2002 or thereabouts. From what I read the players went on strike and he couldn't find a buyer for what he wanted to sell the club at, so he pulled them off the market. The Stars went on to make the playoffs and i think even the semifinals in the years after. He's put them back on the market this year. And for those following the Baseball teams sale, Hicks Sports Group is in debt for 500mil. But that includes the Baseball and Hockey team. so when he sells the baseball team for 550 mil and then sells the hockey team for 2- 300 mil he will more than clear the debt. People predicted he'd never sell the baseball team for 500 mil, yet he is selling them for more. Don't underestimate the c*** for getting more out of something when others say he can't. He did in baseball. He will in hockey. And he will with us. We won't be sold for 350-400 mil. It will be much higher. What i fear is if he doesn't get an offer close to what he wants, he'll silently put together some other financial package to appease RBS and we'll be back to square one.

This.