Just read this.....

[rjlfc]

Sorry if a romario. Not impressed with this journalism, somehow manages to bring a link between the Hillsborough and Heysel tragedies and todays takeover and then even goes on to ask how the bereaved are feeling today? Maybe its me but can't understand why its been brought up?

 

Daily Mail

[Mike]

bitter, mealy mouthed, cynical muck raking.

very english. very daily mail.

keep britain tiny.

[Billy Dane]

Every time I've seen/heard/read Paul Hayward he's always come out with some bitter tripe. This article is fairly typical.

[Cobs]

here's our old friend Mihir Bose's account of things - in case it hasn't already been posted...

 

indicates Paul ' David Beckham, hung in effigy' Hayward is talking out of his hoop again.

[IgPig]

Is Gillett very little or is Hicks very big?

 

Also for all the stick that Bose character has taken, he actually seems to have been right on a few things along the way.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Post Kuytal Glow

[Gomez]

Is Gillett very little or is Hicks very big?

 

Also for all the stick that Bose character has taken, he actually seems to have been right on a few things along the way.

 

I'm trying not to consider the fact that he might have done us a big favour by exposing the plan to flog us after a few years. If it was true that is, and we still only have his word for it.

[mooks]

I'm trying not to consider the fact that he might have done us a big favour by exposing the plan to flog us after a few years. If it was true that is, and we still only have his word for it.

What do you mean? They had a document saying as much circulating among potential investors in the City. Bose exposed the document which spoke for itself.

 

And weren't you the one saying Gillett leaked the document to Bose?

[Gomez]

What do you mean? They had a document saying as much circulating among potential investors in the City. Bose exposed the document which spoke for itself.

 

And weren't you the one saying Gillett leaked the document to Bose?

 

When Bose exposed the document saying they would sell in 7 years, both Liverpool and DIC denied that was the case. AFAIK, neither party has since since said otherwise. We know there was a document, it's what the document was and whether it contained plans to sell that is unknown.

 

I didn't see the document, nor did anyone I know, and even if it did say the above, there are probably a number of credible reasons why it could have said so without it meaning that they were only buying to sell in 7 years.

 

I was told that "it was thought" the document was leaked by Gillett in order to upset the bid. I have no idea whether it was true or not, but the rumour came from BBC sports news (of which Bose is head) I'd still like to know how Gillett got hold of it, or how DIC can freely circulate a document around the city and not expect Liverpool to get wind of it?

 

There is also no evidence, other than Bose's word that Moores + Parry got cold feet because of this document.

 

Ultimately it all stems from Bose word, and it depends on whether you believe him or not. I really don't know, and I am wary of falling into the trap of believing a new truth today just because it is convenient. just as it was convenient to believe he was talking out of his hole two weeks ago.

[mooks]

When Bose exposed the document saying they would sell in 7 years, both Liverpool and DIC denied that was the case. AFAIK, neither party has since since said otherwise. We know there was a document, it's what the document was and whether it contained plans to sell that is unknown.

 

I didn't see the document, nor did anyone I know, and even if it did say the above, there are probably a number of credible reasons why it could have said so without it meaning that they were only buying to sell in 7 years.

 

I was told that "it was thought" the document was leaked by Gillett in order to upset the bid. I have no idea whether it was true or not, but the rumour came from BBC sports news (of which Bose is head) I'd still like to know how Gillett got hold of it, or how DIC can freely circulate a document around the city and not expect Liverpool to get wind of it?

 

There is also no evidence, other than Bose's word that Moores + Parry got cold feet because of this document.

 

Ultimately it all stems from Bose word, and it depends on whether you believe him or not. I really don't know, and I am wary of falling into the trap of believing a new truth today just because it is convenient. just as it was convenient to believe he was talking out of his hole two weeks ago.

Gomez, if you troll through the takeover thread you will see that at least one poster from this site saw the document. It clearly stated that DIC planned to develop the current stadium site and that they anticipated selling in seven years.

 

DIC never denied the existence of this document. All they came up with was a lame, "We're in it for the long haul" which was good enough for the average fan on here dreaming of Kakas and Ronaldinhos for Christmas.

 

The club never said anything about this document or DIC's intentions IIRC. How could they? It was up to DIC.

 

Thank God they aren't our new owners.

[rocz189]

just a b/s article; thinking they can attack it from a different angle, throw in a mention of heysel straight affter everton/derby followed by hillsborough and there it is! badooff! the death of english football. It does not count if our lower caste east lancs neighbours sell out(they are entitled to, as "THE biggest club in the world" (sorry i forgot any trademark branding). Russian money making Chelsea, whilst being rinsed and countless others selling the soul of english football. Maybe it really only hits home, that when the greatest club in the history (not just the lsat 10 years, although our silver haul is enough to make 96.6% of clubs jealous with envy)of the english game has to decide to join, before just beating them

[liverbird04]

'As the Gillett-Hicks buddy movie played to full houses, it was tempting to wonder whether the bereaved took any comfort from knowing that English football is now a much safer world, in which 60,000 Liverpudlians will flock to a new dream home.

 

More likely, they just wanted their loved ones back.'

 

 

 

ya what?

[mooks]

'As the Gillett-Hicks buddy movie played to full houses, it was tempting to wonder whether the bereaved took any comfort from knowing that English football is now a much safer world, in which 60,000 Liverpudlians will flock to a new dream home.

 

More likely, they just wanted their loved ones back.'

Unbelievably pathetic

[Nebraska Red]

there is a comment section right at the bottom, let's get some choice words over to these small minded pric*s.

[mooks]

I just wanted to add that an article like that is an insult to the victims of Hillsborough. Pathetic ...

[Guest Scot]

there is a comment section right at the bottom, let's get some choice words over to these small minded pric*s.

 

best ignored. He's trolling for such reactions.

[Nebraska Red]

best ignored. He's trolling for such reactions.

 

 

it's worth throwing in a few well thought out comments to show him up for the jerk he is.

[Guest Scot]

it's worth throwing in a few well thought out comments to show him up for the jerk he is.

 

He'll be made up and his editor will give him a raise

[mooks]

"The deaths of 96 people on the terraces of Hillsborough in 1989 led indirectly to today's financial nirvana. Those, plus the tragedies at Heysel and Bradford City. In Italy, where anarchy and opera compete for the game's soul, bombs are tossed into police cars and government ministers declare all but five of the nation's stadiums unsafe.

 

Through death and blood, the English game, via the Taylor Report and all-seat stadiums, evolved to the point where Liverpool could be fought over by Arab sheiks and American billionaires.

 

As the Gillett-Hicks buddy movie played to full houses, it was tempting to wonder whether the bereaved took any comfort from knowing that English football is now a much safer world, in which 60,000 Liverpudlians will flock to a new dream home.

 

More likely, they just wanted their loved ones back."

 

I'm still reeling from this.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think a lot of fans are overly sensitive when it comes to the press supposedly publishing negative stories about their team. In those cases it is often a case of the truth hitting hard ... or it's just a punter's opinion you happen to disagree with.

 

But this has nothing to do with Liverpool FC.

 

This is taking the memories of people who have died in a number of tragedies and somehow (logic defies it) trying to tarnish our new owners with these memories.

 

It is like saying at the time I wanted rid of Houllier that he was tarnishing the memories of the 96 with his team selections or his tactics. I would hope I would be banned from this forum if I had been so crass, insensitive, and witless.

 

I am not a Scouser, I do not know anyone who perished in any of these tragedies but we must make it clear we will not stand to have their memories debased and desecrated in this manner.

 

This goes beyond football.

[Murphman]

I don't read it like that sorry. Hillsborough doesn't need a second's discussion and linking it to Heysel etc. has driven me f*ckin mad for years now. However the Hillsborough and Bradford disasters brought the antiquated and in some cases down right unsfe stadia in this country to the top of the agenda. Add into the mix the hooligan problems which so blighted the game and we get all seaterr stadiums and the relatively luxurious environment we all watch today's game in. This has changed the profile of the 'fan' and brought millions into the game making the purchase of a top football club an attractive proposition. I think that is what the article is driving at.

[mooks]

I don't read it like that sorry. Hillsborough doesn't need a second's discussion and linking it to Heysel etc. has driven me f*ckin mad for years now. However the Hillsborough and Bradford disasters brought the antiquated and in some cases down right unsfe stadia in this country to the top of the agenda. Add into the mix the hooligan problems which so blighted the game and we get all seaterr stadiums and the relatively luxurious environment we all watch today's game in. This has changed the profile of the 'fan' and brought millions into the game making the purchase of a top football club an attractive proposition. I think that is what the article is driving at.

If that's the case, the Daily Mail article should be rejoicing that safe new stadia are being constructed as a fitting legacy to those who died at Hillsborough and Bradford.

 

Instead, he is suggesting Gillett and Hicks are somehow taking advantage of those who died. Couldn't get lower if he tried.

[JRC]

I nunderstand the argument about Hillsborough leading to the PL/Stadia/Cash around in Football today, but for the life of me cannot follow Hayward's logic in getting from harrumphing about Hicks and Gillett to the Hillsborough Victims Families. Mooks explanation above is probably right, in which case Hayward is confirmed as a w*nker of the first order.

[mooks]

I nunderstand the argument about Hillsborough leading to the PL/Stadia/Cash around in Football today, but for the life of me cannot follow Hayward's logic in getting from harrumphing about Hicks and Gillett to the Hillsborough Victims Families. Mooks explanation above is probably right, in which case Hayward is confirmed as a w*nker of the first order.

Yes - if the 96 were with us today their opinions on the takeover would be as varied as they are among the rest of us. Their memories and the feelings of the family members should be left out of this - whether you are in support or opposed to Gillett and Hicks.

[boohog]

I didn't see the document, nor did anyone I know, and even if it did say the above, there are probably a number of credible reasons why it could have said so without it meaning that they were only buying to sell in 7 years.

 

The document did exist. It was looking for co-investors and it did have an exit strategy.

 

There is nothing odd about such a document containing an exit strategy. City investors would not have been the slightest bit interested if there was no exit strategy.

 

The fact that it was divulged to city institutions seeking 'city investors' for me tells its own story. Those sorts of investors don't buy into something for heritage, brand or footballing success. They buy in for return and return is achieved through debt and an exit.

[Armin_Tamzarian]

Paul Hayward is a decent journalist with a liking for Liverpool. He may write for one of the worst papers in the UK but in the pantheon of British football writers he's near the top.

 

I do think this is one of the worst pieces of his I've read because he really struggles to make the link work between the takeover and the days of Hillsborough and Heysel but I can understand why he chose to approach it this way. The changes enforced by those tragedies have indirectly gone a long way to allowing the current finance obsessed culture to develop. For the club which underwent them to finally be sold is surely an event worth highlighting?

 

It also serves as a small balance to some of the other coverage. After all there's a massive amount of revisionism media management going on with the bid and the sudden re-emergence of Gillet. Bose is a relentless self publicist and will seize on any opportunity to inflate his part in proceedings. Nevertheless it was interesting that the DIC offer document only became a problem once a 12.5% higher bid was on the table. I share Hayward's belief that the extra money was pivotal, although possibly moreso to the other shareholders than Moores.

[RaoulD]

The piece would have been fine if he had simply confined himself to commenting on the way the takeover unfolded. It was the attempt to link the takeover with what happened at Bradford, Heysel and Hillsborough and the repetition of the quite offensive suggestion that those affected by the disasters should in some way take comfort from the fact that we now have all-seater stadia.

 

It is obvious that Bradford and especially Hillsborough led to the change to all-seater stadia in the early 1990s but this has little correlation to the massive increase in turnover that football clubs have enjoyed since then. The major reason for the increase in turnover was and still is the vast sums available from television. This was the catalyst for the creation of both the Premier League and the Champions League.