Purslow's interview yesterday

[GWistooshort]

Listen to all of it HERE from 34 minutes in or an edited clip HERE

 

Liverpool Echo

Oct 26 2009

 

Liverpool FC managing director Christian Purslow backs Rafa benitez

 

LIVERPOOL managing director Christian Purslow insists Rafa Benitez’s job is safe even if the Reds do not win the Premier League this season.

 

He also says Anfield stars Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard are not for sale at any price.

 

Purslow launched his support of Benitez even before the Reds’ 2-0 home victory over Manchester United yesterday.

 

He said: “The most important aspect of the football club I was involved in in my first week in the job was securing Rafa for another five years. You only have to look at the Premiership era and our two major competitors in the last 10 to 12 years to see the benefits of longevity.

 

“Liverpool Football Club is on a long-term journey and that journey is to be the most successful club, firstly in our country and secondly in the world and you don’t do that by worrying about short-term results. You do that by having long-term plans centring on the people and the strategy. Rafa Benitez is absolutely central to that plan.

 

“The core of the team which won 86 points last season remains intact with some excellent additions so I have every reason to believe we can perform at that level this season over the season.”

 

To the direct question of whether he would guarantee Benitez’s position was safe even if the club did not win the league he said: “Yes I would.”

 

Purslow, who was speaking on BBC Radio Five Live’s Sportsweek programme, also insisted Spanish striker Torres had no clauses in his contract which allowed him to leave Anfield if they did not qualify for the Champions League.

 

He said: “Fernando signed an extension to his contract this summer. He has a five-year contract. He is a crucial leader in our team. He loves Liverpool Football Club. He has been fantastic around the place. Fernando Torres and Liverpool Football Club go together and I believe they will go together for the length of his career.”

 

To the question that he was not for sale at any price, Purslow replied: “Correct.”

 

The same, he insisted, went for Gerrard, while he said Argentina midfielder Javier Mascherano, whose future has been the subject of speculation, was also happy at the club.

 

Purslow said: “He is the leading central holding player in world football. It is inevitable that big clubs will covet players of that quality.

 

“We also had another central midfielder (Xabi Alonso) coveted by a world team in the summer who left us.

 

“We sat down with Javier at the time and he reasserted his total commitment to Liverpool. He has had a lot going on with the Argentina (World Cup) qualification situation which is now behind him. He is a hugely important player for us. He is a leader and this week in the aftermath of Lyon he has been a powerful figure.”

 

Purslow also said Liverpool were four weeks into a process of raising new equity in the club which could take six months.

 

He insisted, however, that it did not mean controversial American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett were prepared to sell.

 

Purslow said: “There has been a huge amount of interest in the club from some extremely wealthy and expert investors but it will take three to six months to pull that together.

 

“It means there will be new investment into the football club. Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett have no plans to sell their shares. We will be issuing new equity to new investors, broadening our ownership.”

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-f...00252-25013458/

[sean]

Purslow said: “There has been a huge amount of interest in the club from some extremely wealthy and expert investors but it will take three to six months to pull that together.

 

“It means there will be new investment into the football club. Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett have no plans to sell their shares. We will be issuing new equity to new investors, broadening our ownership.”[/b]

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-f...00252-25013458/

 

 

Hold on, we're getting new investors, but our existing equity holders won't be selling any, or part of their existing equity? I'm an idiot, but how does this work?

[fred]

Hold on, we're getting new investors, but our existing equity holders won't be selling any, or part of their existing equity? I'm an idiot, but how does this work?

 

They issue new shares and sell those. It dilutes their holding, but they don't need to sell anything. For the sake of argument, say there are 100 shares of LFC in existence, 50 of which are owned by Stattler and Waldorf each. If they issue another 50, they'll each own 33% of the club rather than 50%, but they won't have sold anything. If all 50 new shares go to the same person, that person then also owns 33%.

[Mike]

ahhh, confirmation that there WILL be new investors.

[richwilks]

Let's hope it's someone who has a burning desire to take over fully.

 

I guess the issuing of new shares would mean that the money would go into the club rather than to the Yanks. Perhaps they see this as a way of funding the stadium or paying off the debt.

[owenthomas]

They issue new shares and sell those. It dilutes their holding, but they don't need to sell anything. For the sake of argument, say there are 100 shares of LFC in existence, 50 of which are owned by Stattler and Waldorf each. If they issue another 50, they'll each own 33% of the club rather than 50%, but they won't have sold anything. If all 50 new shares go to the same person, that person then also owns 33%.

this might be a silly question but how do they decide how many shares someone gets? As in, if they say the clubs worth 500m do they then say "if you put in 150m you buy x amount of shares".. i just know this is gonna have an obvious answer i'm not seeing..

[Gomez]

They issue new shares and sell those. It dilutes their holding, but they don't need to sell anything. For the sake of argument, say there are 100 shares of LFC in existence, 50 of which are owned by Stattler and Waldorf each. If they issue another 50, they'll each own 33% of the club rather than 50%, but they won't have sold anything. If all 50 new shares go to the same person, that person then also owns 33%.

 

But the debt they used to by their 50 shares is still the responsibility of the club, and thus the new partner will be liable for 33% of?

Can't see even the dumbest billionaire falling for that one.

 

And for what it's worth, I'd like to be reassured, but Purslow is just a shill for G&H, and as they have repeatedly out-right lied to us in the past, we can't believe a word Purslow says either.

[smithdown]

ahhh, confirmation that there WILL be new investors.

 

in just six months, too

[Mike]

i can see this thread going to at least 8 pages through the night...

[fred]

But the debt they used to by their 50 shares is still the responsibility of the club, and thus the new partner will be liable for 33% of?

Can't see even the dumbest billionaire falling for that one.

 

And for what it's worth, I'd like to be reassured, but Purslow is just a shill for G&H, and as they have repeatedly out-right lied to us in the past, we can't believe a word Purslow says either.

 

They wouldn't be responsible for the debt IMO - their risk is that the shares they buy become worthless if the club goes bankrupt. There may be additional risks involved but this is where I bail and leave things to the experts.

[magneto]

is this the new investment thread?

 

Please inform boohog, fyds and that twit who said "DIC by July"

 

Thanks in advance.

[McBain]

i can see this thread going to at least 8 pages through the night...

 

It'll need a broadsheet article posting at some point in the late evening/night

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

I'm more worried by Rafa getting the 'dreaded' vote of confidence

[floyd]

Take what this patsy says with a huge dose of caution. He does like to tell "untruths".

[madaboutlfc]

looking for fyds..

[Maldini]

At this stage I'd even take some sort of investment that just lets us invest most of our profit in the team. We don't even need a sugar daddy. Imagine what a difference the £100m spent on loan repayments over the last two years would have made to our team. We're a very profitable club now, we're just not reaping the rewards from it.

[budgie]

But the debt they used to by their 50 shares is still the responsibility of the club, and thus the new partner will be liable for 33% of?

Can't see even the dumbest billionaire falling for that one.

 

And for what it's worth, I'd like to be reassured, but Purslow is just a shill for G&H, and as they have repeatedly out-right lied to us in the past, we can't believe a word Purslow says either.

 

 

The debt is the responsibility of the holding company not the club. The deal would be structured to reflect the new owner taking on it's share of the equity of the company. The new owner would not be responsible for the debt of G&H. It's a pretty standard business transaction. There are multiple options that they can use to reflect it - setting up a seperate company or changing the structure of the current holding company.

[Sion]

At this stage I'd even take some sort of investment that just lets us invest most of our profit in the team. We don't even need a sugar daddy. Imagine what a difference the £100m spent on loan repayments over the last two years would have made to our team. We're a very profitable club now, we're just not reaping the rewards from it.

 

exactly. Rival fans seem to think our protests are in relation to wanting a sugar daddy. I don't want a sugar daddy. I just want a chairman who can run us successfully and sustainably. If we're debt free the only investment we'd need is to fund a stadium, and that will eventually pay for itself.

[growler]

to be fair, we are better run as a commercial organisation than we were under moores. Its the leverage debt and the owners attitude I don't like.

 

As for purslow, I know he made a mistake with the transfer fee thing over summer, but I'm willing to give him a chance, I think he is a good guy generally.

 

I am someone who was never going to be a leading sports person but am very smart, so for someone like me, he is living the dream. He has my dream role. A liverpool fan, leading liverpool.

[Mike]

I am someone who was never going to be a leading sports person but am very smart, so for someone like me, he is living the dream. He has my dream role. A liverpool fan, leading liverpool.

 

hahaha

[McBain]

Kaizer-esque

[Gomez]

The debt is the responsibility of the holding company not the club. The deal would be structured to reflect the new owner taking on it's share of the equity of the company. The new owner would not be responsible for the debt of G&H. It's a pretty standard business transaction. There are multiple options that they can use to reflect it - setting up a seperate company or changing the structure of the current holding company.

 

I'm sure there are loads of ways to divide it up, but that would mean G&H not crippling the club with the interest payments, which is not that likely at the moment. For a new investor to come in, surely he'd want the profits the club make to either be ploughed back into the club, ie, stadium and transfers, or he'd want his 33% into his pocket if G&H are using their third to pay of their debts (which means we are no better off). I can't see 66% of profits going on servicing the debt G&H used to purchase the club, and the other third going back into the club.

 

Unless they take all of their debt back off the club (or the holding company that they bleed the club with) and take responsibility for it. I can't see another investor being of any benefit to us. And I can't see G&H doing that, without selling.

[Zoob]

Didn't really want to open a new thread, so thought I'd post it here:

 

I am quite gutted to see Spurs reveal their plans for a new shiny stadium here, with a huge Kop- like stand (even if the supporters on it will obviously still be cretins).

 

And despite the economic-meltdown-credit crisis-armageddon that means our great custodians are planning to maybe have our phantom new stadium open by 2018, Spurs are hoping to have theirs completed in time for the 2012-13 season.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Zoob

[mally]

There will be new investors in the ground within 60 days.

[Zoob]

There will be new investors in the ground within 60 days.