Can the man from the Gulf bridge the Anfield divide?
Liverpool's potential new owner Nasser Al -Kharafi could not be a more powerful man. He is reckoned to be one of the richest men in Kuwait and the largest shareholder in the National Bank of Kuwait and his politician brother is chairman of the Kuwaiti National Assembly.
He will see any investment he might make in Liverpool much more as a financial investment and is unlikely to behave like the Abu Dhabi owners of Manchester City, who are intent on splashing the money and demanding that the best of world football be assembled at Eastlands.
The talks with Liverpool's current owners are at an early stage but the likely price of about £400m should not cause Nasser Al-Kharafi, a man in his late 60s, and whose fortune is estimated at more than £10bn, too much bother.
He has recently built a city out of nothing in Egypt and in the past his extensive investments have been in the Arab world including the Lebanon and Morocco.
Although he has investments in the West they are well screened and not that visible. Should he buy Liverpool this would be his most public investment here. He is also known as a cautious, discreet, conservative businessman, with no previous interest in football. But his nephew, Rafed, is a strong supporter of a sports club in Kuwait.
Any deal with joint American owners of Liverpool, George Gillett and Tom Hicks, will not come easily. I understand that the club's finance director Philip Nash, the man recruited from Arsenal by Tom Hicks for the job, was in Kuwait at the weekend talking to the Al-Kharafi family.
The Al-Kharafi family was initially contacted by Gillett last year. It started as Gillett trying to secure finance for a new stadium, which was heralded as one of the main objectives when Gillett and Hicks bought the club nearly two years ago.
The talks blossomed into a possible sale but did not progress and collapsed. They have been revived by Hicks in recent weeks.
Some reports suggested that this indicated another breakdown in the relationship between the two Americans. Ever since they became owners of Liverpool the two owners have provided us with a rollercoaster ride, marked by disputes and a relationship that blows hot and cold.
There have even been suggestions that things between the two are now so bad that the Hicks initiative means the current talks centre around Hicks, with the help of the Kuwaitis, buying out Gillett and retaining an interest in the club or selling his own stake. However, reliable sources have told me that this is just not the case.
The talks conducted by Nash have been, and are being conducted, on behalf of both Hicks and Gillett. Both the Americans want to sell. The question is whether the Americans will get the price they want.
Back in February 2007 the two Americans paid £174.1m for shares of the Merseyside club (along with a debt of £44.8m - meaning Liverpool had an enterprise value of £218.9m).
Just over a year ago, when Hicks was in talks with DIC, he wanted £1bn. Now the price has come down to £600m but a price of £400m is more realistic in the current climate.
The American owners will soon need to renegotiate their deal to finance the club. It was just over a year ago that they agreed a £350m financing package with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia Bank, but both banks are now in desperate trouble.
The deal was due to end in January 2009 and has been extended to July 2009.
In order to secure the £350m deal, £225m was provided in a variety of ways, including cash from the owners, letters of credit and personal guarantees. Neither Hicks nor Gillett have ever disclosed how much personal guarantees they gave but it is believed personal guarantees from each owner amounted to £90m.
I understand that in the last week Gillett has refinanced some £75m of his personal guarantees.
The fact that the talks on the sale are being conducted by Philip Nash and not Rick Parry, the club's chief executive, suggests that the internal wars that have been part of the American ownership of Anfield may have revived.
While Parry has a good relationship with Gillett his relationship with Hicks has always been rocky.
Just over 10 months ago Hicks wrote a letter to Parry asking him to resign, Parry refused, describing it as offensive and stayed with the backing of Gillett.
A further strain has come as a result of ongoing problems with Rafa Benitez's new contract. Benitez is demanding total control over transfers, the sort of control no manager has in the English game. Not only does he want control over who is bought and sold but how much they are paid and the details of their contract.
Parry and representatives of Hicks and Gillett refused to accept such demands.
However, since then Benitez has made public comments which, while critical of the club, have been warmer towards Hicks. Hicks in turn has said he understands Benitez's frustrations, comments which have not gone down well with Parry.
With Parry on the sidelines as the current sale talks proceed it indicates what a tangled web Liverpool remains. It will take some time before the whole thing gets resolved though my Kuwait sources say should Nasser Al-Kharafi buy the club he will bring in his own management team to run the club for a very hands-on approach.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Great blog Mihir. The sooner these americans go, the better! Let's just concentrate on football!
Complain about this comment
Thats it Mihir, jump on the "Banks are in desperate trouble" bandwagon without looking too much up. Mihir, if you must write like this, write them as articles not blogs, that way you would have to check your sources were right (Heaven forbid...).
That aside, the update does bring those of us who aren't Liverpool fans roughly up to date with what they are looking to do without us having to dig around to much, so cheers for that.
Complain about this comment
Did the guys who bought Man City know Liverpool was for sale?
Complain about this comment
"Did the guys who bought Man City know Liverpool was for sale?"
Probably not or they would have brought Liverpool!
Complain about this comment
Interesting news about possible change in ownership. It was clear to all that Hicks and Gillett never had the financial clout or commitment to properly invest in Liverpool, there promises of a stadium that is still years away is proof of that.
But on the wider issue - I'm getting so sick and tired of foreign owners now, I'm just counting the years before a team is moved to another geographic area e.g. American Sports, where they are just another franchise. As the Premiership has gotten almost invincible powers now, the national team is as weak as ever and lets be honest the young players coming through are no better than what we have. How long will it take before something major is done by the FA and try to use the French youth system. For a country with a fairly weak league, the technical ability of its players is 2nd to none, see Gourcuff, Ribery, Nasri, Benzema etc. The only so called good english players in the league are either tough tackling players (e.g. Cattermole) or naturely fast (e.g. Young and Agbonlahour). Where are all the young quality English players?
Complain about this comment
As I understand it, the partners are using different financial parties to advise them.
One I believe is using Merril Lynch and the other is using I forget who for the moment, but it is a completely different company.
Rich owners riding out of the sunset to save your football club might seem like Mannah from heaven but as we have seen with Chelsea, the owners can tire of it all.
Complain about this comment
No 2 - Clearly the fact that Wachovia has had to be bailed out by Federal help and RBS shares recently plummeted to mere pence has escaped your attention.
I would hardly class stating both institutions as being in desperate trouble as 'jumping on a bandwagon' - if anything it is more stating the obvious.
I think the recent RBS crash has pushed Hicks and Gillet into making these moves more quickly. There cannot be any way that RBS will refinance the loans and I'm sure they will not want to pay it back
One solution - sell up and get the hell outta dodge.
Complain about this comment
With Regards to Rafa's demands to have complete control of transfers...Would it be benificial to Liverpool?? would the squad be better managed or is it simply a case of a power mongering manager???
Complain about this comment
So what Kuwait sources are they Mihir?
Tittle tattle journalists like yourself should stick to the facts!
I believe this is a well constructed PR exercise by Hicks to get more bidders involved and hence inflate the price for the club!
Does he honestly believe that the fans would accept new owners who it would seem be more ruthless than him and Gillet?
Come back Sheikh Mohammed & DIC pay the £400 million or so and get these hijackers and their ransom demands out of our beloved club.
Complain about this comment
Average blog. Couple of things:
1. Did the people who bought Man City know Liverpool was for sale? On the basis that City were sold for less than half the 500million being asked for and dont need to spend 400million on a new stadium since they already have one then I dont think it would have made any difference.
2. Mihir, you say the prospective new owners of Liverpool wont "splash the cash like at City", I doubt you know that for sure and I also doubt its what Liverpool fans would want to hear. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
An insightful piece of journalism.
It will be interesting to see what transpires at Anfield in the next month.
Complain about this comment
Two of the reasons for the Abu Dhabi group was one , that City has its own new stadium unlike Newcastle ,Portsmouth or Liverpool therefore saving 200-400 million and the second was the players coming through the academy which with Micah,Michael Johnson (who was rumoured to have had 12m bids for at the time),Daniel Sturridge and SWP having already realised 23mill made for good investment.It was said at the time that 300-400 million could put the City team challenging the top four within 3 years as that is a lot less than Liverpool , stadium and new players that is why City was a better deal .
Complain about this comment
A further strain has come as a result of ongoing problems with Rafa Benitez's new contract. Benitez is demanding total control over transfers, the sort of control no manager has in the English game. Not only does he want control over who is bought and sold but how much they are paid and the details of their contract.
------
You do realise this is not only completely false but also libelous as well, right?
Where on earth did Benitez say he wants to compile players' contracts himself? I've read all his interviews on the subject. He is quite clear about what he wants: the ability to spend money on players he chooses. He does not want to determine the amount of money he is given, nor control any other aspect of the job; he wants final authority on WHO is bought.
This is no big secret, and it's certainly not 'total' control. Arsene Wenger has the same control at Arsenal -- the board there continually (and very publicly) 'back' him in the transfer market. Ferguson shares much of the same at Manchester United. A manager is given a budget, and he is allowed to spend it as he sees fit. It what we call the British (as opposed to the Continental) style of football management, where -- minus a 'technical director' -- the manager get's the final say on signings.
The fact that your piece is lacking in this most basic (and pertinent) detail reveals how much (or little, as the case may be) you know about football and indeed LFC.
Complain about this comment
I'm confused Mihir. For the last year you've been writing and telling us that the famous "Anfield Insider' said the offer from DIC was 'still on the table' and was for over 500m. Why would Liverpools owners not take that bid instead of one for as little as 400m.
It makes no sense does it Mihir.Maybe the 'Anfield Insider' isn't really that much inside.
Complain about this comment
Concerning Rafa's demands to have total control of transfers. Rafa has come out and says, he wants control to the extent of working within an agreed budget. This blog makes it sound like he wants to write blank cheques. In addition, Parry is so slow in organising things and has let so many potentially great transfers slip away. Mihir, you don't seem to put that in your blog, instead you are trying to paint Rafa as power crazy.
You journos were full of praise for keegan and Curbishley when they wanted to take control of transfers. What's the difference here?
Complain about this comment
First of all, anything Liverpool do in the press never comes of light! The DIC sale, the Steve Morgan takeover, Gareth Barrys very public summer transfer where he actually said he wants to play for us.
Once these things come out in the media, then we always back off. Im surprised no one from LFC has said that this is total nonsense.
From the blog Mihir, it sounds like Parry is the odd one out, so maybe its him who has leaked this story to get one over someone at the club.
I love Liverpool to bits and just wish it would return to a group/family like the Robinson/Moores who actually gave 2 hoots about us rather than these businessmen who are just using us to gain financial success.
I read a report that the Moores family are actually worth around £2billion.. Ok its not much but they could have invested a quarter of that into the stadium and players rather than selling out to Yankee Doodle Dee and Dum.
Complain about this comment
I also believe that Ferguson and Wenger have total control over the transfers otherwise they wouldnt be in the game for 25 and 10 years respectively. I cant believe that neither Fergie or Wenger has doesnt have a say in who comes in or leaves.
I think Rafa should have total control, why not?? Managers should know what their workforce is on and encourage
There is no way that Keane was a Benitez buy when 2 days before we were offering £15mill for Barry.. Barry was Benitez signing and Parry and the board decided that Keane would be the better option.. Well a return of 4 goals says it all!!! WHen we have needed someone in the middle of the park to provide a bit of spark, Lucas has hardly set the place on fire and Mascherano does his best bits without the football.
Anyways, we are 2nd in the league, we have to goto Old trafford, we still have Chelsea, Villa and Arsenal to come to Anfield. Here is to losing no more games and winning the league or at least coming a very good 2nd place to United which would be no mean feat considering we have finished 4th and 3rd in previous seasons.
YNWA
Complain about this comment
"Where are all the young quality English players?"
Most English kids are playing XBOX not sports.
Complain about this comment
No. 17, please don't ever say we're happy finishing "a good second" to United.
I think 99% of Liverpool fans would rather go through Champs League qualifying again, rather than let that lot win the league.
Complain about this comment
*12, please go away and revise your comment about city having "their own" stadium please.
Complain about this comment
In contrast to the know-it-all tone, this article doesn’t explain it all.
Writers, like fans, don’t seem to be able to get their heads around the fact that a football club is a business. People buy football clubs to make profits. Although I personally doubt whether they are going about it in the right way, ‘splashing cash’ at Manchester City may be a sensible business strategy. If clubs in the top four are more profitable than those in mid-table, then making an up-front investment in order to get into the top four could be a sensible plan. But any business needs continual investment in updating its assets in order to remain competitive, and if as suggested Liverpool wouldn’t be able to invest under Mr Al-Kharafi’s ownership, he would be a fool to buy the club. But I’m sure he is anything but a fool.
If the current owners are going to be in difficulty renewing their financing package (i.e., if they lack collateral and it was a risky loan in the first place), then no shrewd buyer would step in at this stage. Far better to let them sweat and maybe buy the club from RBS in six months time for a much lower price.
Nowhere in the article is it explained how a club worth £229m in good times two years ago is now worth £400m in the middle of an economic and banking crisis. One doubts that it is, and it may be that the one who is in a position to dictate terms will be more likely to be Mr Al-Kharafi than the warring American owners.
Complain about this comment
number 12
Jibberish! Man city's stadium, although new, only holds 48000! Only a tiny fraction more than liverpool 45000ish. So if liverpool were to build a new stadium it would probably be closer to the 70000 mark; extra seats which would pay back the initial outlay in just a few seasons. Secondly - Man city don't even own their stadium, they lease it from Manchester council! I've no idea how much the rent is but it can't be cheap! Peanuts to the arabs of course. As for the squad, city need an entirely new one to have any hope of challenging for the title, whereas liverpool (who despite being a fan I dont think will win the league this year) are already challenging for the title, and I think most would agree that it would only take maybe 2 or 3 great signings (rather than the legions of average players rafa seems to like buying and selling every year) to make the title a very realistic possibility. It does seem silly that they didn't buy Liverpool as they probably would have succeeded in landing a few players like kaka what with our excellent champions league record and we maybe would have won the league in their first season as owners. I can only assume that city's owners wanted a challenge - to end man utd's dominance by making their city rivals great, which they very well may acheive. What they may not have realised however is that a lot of people involved with utd see Liverpool as their biggest rivals and not city.
Benitez - stop making stupid decisions! Ok, you're doing great and we're better than we have been since we last won the league but please play Babel more, give Keane a chance to prove himself, and never again play such a boring defensive line up like you did at stoke and never agin take off 45 mil worth of strikers when we are only one nil up like against everton!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Isn't your Motto: don't be afraid to be opinionated?
Pathetic BBC. don't you realize you're losing your shares in the Media market?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
All I want is this situation to be resolved as this is not the distraction the players need!
The yanks were never interested in this club and I lay this blame totally on Rick Parry! We could of won the league last season if we did not have all this infighting made public. If the Kuwaity has no interest in sports then I don't want him to buy this club!
Complain about this comment
The reason why the Arab group that bought Man City didnt buy Liverpool was that they thought they were buying Man Utd. Just the same as Robinho thought he was moving to Man Utd!
Lost in translation, what a bitter blow it must have been when they showed up to see their new purchase!
Anyway, good blog. Whatever pans out it was interesting to read about the Parry situation. I do, however, believe that Benitez is currying fan favour by raising the issue of transfers. Does anyone really believe that he doesnt have control over who we buy, within the confines of a budget? He is trying to distance himself from buying Robbie Keane for $20 million, is all.
Complain about this comment
Great news ! Finally we are getting rid of the worst club owners in history. Also great news that we are being bought by someone with more money then the glaziers and abramovich.
Please let this mean that the manager is given the the contract he wants and the money he needs to buy who he wants ( we could have had walcott, vidic, anderson and ramsey if rafa had had his way)
Complain about this comment
Poor blog as ever. There's nothing new here just the same old regurgitated garbage as usual. Please just give up blogging.
Complain about this comment
Where are you getting your info from? I'm sick of paid employees by the public (BBC) writing complete rubbish about my club. Is any of your article actual FACTS or are you Just getting your info from Sky Sports News?
Please tell me when Rafa actually told you personally he wanted complete conttol. I saw his press conference and that not what he said!
Please whatever your agenda is and the rest of the Bristish media, we don't need your negative hype.
Complain about this comment
Could you tell what are your Kuwait sources Mihir?
Poor article!
It's too early to draw conclusions!
Complain about this comment
Nobody in their right minds would be trying to buy Liverpool at this moment in time when come June they will be able to buy it for pennies in the pound of its current value.
Certainly not the £400,000,000 Mihir claims its market value is.
Why?
Because when the two American chancers find that it has been reposessed by RBS, who will have either been nationalised at this point or at least if not more than 70% ownership by the UK taxpayer already has lumbered on us, then there will have to be a fire-sale to get it off the books A.S.A.P.
Again, why?
Because it won't look good paying a pack of nancy boy primadonnas 5 times the annual nurses salary every single week - each - out of the nations taxes.
If you think both the meedja and the man on the street gets irate at the thought of MP's "allegedly" fiddling them out of a few thousand quid in the past, then imagine the outrage at a few million quid a week being spent to keep footballers in their Aston Martins, Bentleys and heated swimming pools as the country by that stage is on its knees with cap in hand before the I.M.F.
It won't look good.
More worryingly for me, that the mighty L.F.C. will have been reduced to this.
The shame will be unbearable !!!
Complain about this comment
#20+22. Indeed City dont own their stadium outright, they own approx 25%, i.e. the cost to transform it from an athletics to a football stadium and also build the North Stand. The lease is 100 years and City only pay rent when their crowd exceeds the capacity of Maine Road when we left in 2003. Dont get me wrong I hope Liverpool win the league but doubt they will, but the idea that City are some small rent outfit is a bit of an insult, what crowds do you think Liverpool and United would get if they had our abysmal record over the last 30 years? On the basis that both United and Liverpool rely on out of towners to fill or should I say nearly fill their stadiums, I wouldnt think the 43,000 we are averaging. City’s new owners could probably buy the stadium for a nominal fee as without City the stadium is huge white elephant and councils are always short of cash, but I guess they don’t want to at this stage. No doubt if/when Liverpool are taken over and start spending the amounts City have, I doubt they will be accused of ruining football. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
This all reads like a hyperbole of fantasy to me, with too much speculation and nothing really backed up with facts. Reminds me of when Mihir wrote the article a while back claiming that DIC were going to sell Liverpool off in 6-7 years, a claim DIC strongly denied and caused BBC to issue and apology.
As previously stated, a poor article.
Complain about this comment
#29 has it spot on.
Complain about this comment
blue defence:' I also doubt its what Liverpool fans would want to hear'
I'm a Liverpool fan and i don't want us splashing cash like man city or chelsea stlye. I want more money but only for a new stadium even though I love Anfield, the long term future of the club needs a bigger stadium. After such a long time, when and if we win the league whenever it is I want it to be becuase we built a team up and battled hard and earnt it not simply brought our way to it spending hundereds of milions of a summer. A budget of aorund 30 million a season is still alot of money and i wouldn't want us spending any more than that every year.
Complain about this comment
This whole thing with City and the take over making them the richest club in the world, has fasinated me, in respect to peoples attitude.
Had it been United, Liverpool, Chelsea or Arsenal making these bids for players like Kaka, it would have been quite okay, and part of the whole scene, but as soon as a club outside of the big 4 gentleman's club, it's all wrong, not good for the game and so on.
Boy it doesn't take much to rock the boat does it?, now these people who are looking to buy Liverpool are different than City's new owners.... why, I am sure Liverpool fans will be hoping that if they do buy Liverpool, that they will want to spend money like City are, just so they can be better than the other big 3...........
Chelsea have had 600 million pounds spent on players, but that's okay cause it's Chelsea.
Everybody who has negative comments about City and what the owners are doing, need to look in the mirror and ask the question, why is it okay for United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool to do what they want, and expect it to looked at as wow that's great, but not any other club outside of this circle...... it's called fear, afraid another club will come along and take some of the action.
So for all those City fans out there who for years and years have had to endure the usual, oh great United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal..... Good luck with the re-build, I wish you all the best.
Complain about this comment
rafa is asking to be allowed to pick the players and spend the transfer budget as he sees fit. Not an unreasonable request, because if he fails he gets the sack. Could you imagine Alex Ferguson allowing David Gill to tell who h could buy with the transfer budget. Biased ,mytopic view from another BBC hack
Complain about this comment
Chelsea have had 600 million pounds spent on players, but that's okay cause it's Chelsea.
*****************************
No they haven't.
It's nowhere near that much and not near that if you add in the purchase of the club and hotels and the new training facilities.
Hey Mihir,they Kuwaitis are denying.Do any of your 'inside' sources ever get anything right?
Complain about this comment
What's the point? This blog is far too hypothetical at this stage. Lot's of issues at our beloved club.
Complain about this comment
@#37: I think your memory is short. The Abramovith/Chelsea saga ran and ran at the time as did the accusations of 'buying the Premiership.'
However, the other Top 4 sides have all established their positions through success and good club management, not hand-outs.
Regarding Benitez and transfers, I believe this is yet another political move by Benitez in his power play with Parry and the owners. He never misses an opportunity to go public and get the fans support and, judging by the comments here, the fans never question who is right or wrong in this regard.
In that sense at least Benitez is a smart player!
Complain about this comment
Come on Mihir. Are you and your inside sources, who you trusted enough to post this article based on, wrong or is the denial by the Al-Kharafi reported in your own sport pages some sort of unlikely smoke screen?
As other probably more financially astute posters have put before me, pay now for twice the original price to purchase basically the same investment with a nice photoshop pic of what a stadium could look like...
or wait until the loans are called in and buy for a fraction of the cost. Hmmm its a toughie even without my copy of the FT to hand.
As an aside I like many I hope Rafa is in charge for a very long time.
Everton welcome LFC fans to Merseyside as always, we might even give you directions. COYB
Complain about this comment
Davy_p_82 says "extra seats will pay for the outlay in a few seasons" in relation to the new stadium. If you do the maths on the project you will see that the extra income just about covers the interest payments on the loan required to finance the building. No one is going to lend money to Liverpool FC these days, or in the forseeable future on that basis.
The real answer could be to re-introduce standing spectator accommodation back to Anfield and increase capacity by 20,000 or so. Radical, yes, because it requires changing the law. Most people stand up at football matches these days anyway, and be quite sure about this, Hillsborough happened not because spectators were standing up, but because of totally inadequate crowd control....I was there.
Spend the money saved on players and you have a world class team on your hands, which is what we supporters want, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Speculation of new owners aside (which I will believe when I see it) - how can the yanks justify valuing their "investment" at £550m? Personally I fail to see how the value of the club has doubled during their tenure, and just serves to demonstrate that sating their own greed comes before the good of the club.
With regards to Rafa's demand for total control over transfers Martin Samuel in the Mail this week hit the nail on the head - he should have control over the transfers but it certainly shouldn't be contractual - more an assurance based on trust between the manager & the board/CEO - obviously that trust doesn't exist like it does at Old Trafford and The Emirates.
Complain about this comment
Leaders who do not agree... a manager without clout... court case for captain ... bankrupt bankers... the red half of Manchester must be smug about the self-destruct. Tho seemingly some LFC fans would be happy playing second fiddle.
Complain about this comment
ive posted a couple of items in this blog Mihir and i want you to take note.
reports on this very website say that the kuwaiti group deny knowledge of this so called bid. In my first post i said that if it goes public then it never happens and i think i have just made my case.... i think i should be the one writing blogs!!
Complain about this comment
#29 #35 Please take their advice Mr Bose.
Complain about this comment
Mihir, why don't you ever respond to points when you've been 'found out?' Or even just for the sake of debate? You have been questioned on several of your statements and not defended one of them.
Complain about this comment
Very interesting blog Mihir.
You mention that Gillett and Hicks were holding out for 1 billion from DIC at one point, are they insane? I'd love to know how they justified such a price given that they bought the club for about 20% of that a year earlier.
Gillett and Hicks have been a disaster for Liverpool, I'd rather see the club owned by a consortium of Bill Kenwright, Gary Neville, and Harold Shipman than those two.
Regarding Benitez's demands, I worry about his and Parry's record in the transfer market so seeing either of them with total control worries me. Liverpool have made as many poor signings (Pennant, Kuyt, Keane, Dossena, Bellamy) as they have good ones (Torres, Riera, Alonso, Mascherano, Skrtel) and as good as these ones have been, they haven't exactly come cheap.
Complain about this comment
Hope somebody buys the club off the yankees. Just think of what the club can achieve.
We are nearly into february and are level on points with united. Think of how many of the signings are rafa's first choice. Apart from his first year "honeymoon" buys only torres and masch comes to mind. Everyone else has been second third or even fourth choice. On our total spending on the team, we are currently well behind atleast 5 teams. And on par with atleast 5 others. And we are second in the league. Remember the board trying to knock off the 9 million asking price for kuyt? Remember the chase for alves and we ended up with arbeloa. Even the funding for torres mostly had to be recouped from player sales.
Most pool fans are under no illusion regarding the squad. We know it is much behind chelsea and united. But rafa is doing a fantastic job in keeping us up there still fighting for the title. He deserves so much better in terms of investment. Hope he gets it.
Complain about this comment
4. At 4:55pm on 23 Jan 2009, fernando999 wrote:
"Did the guys who bought Man City know Liverpool was for sale?"
Probably not or they would have brought Liverpool!
--------------------------------------------------------
why would they buy liverpool when they thought they were buying man UTD?
anyway, good blog but it's all history now
no sale, no trophies, no new stadium, just another normal season in the history of LFC
Complain about this comment
I love the fact that 2 years in, with not a single brick laid, the images of the brand stadium get more fancy by the day
Complain about this comment
Mihir, I hope you got out of that cupboard safely. I read in Viz you had been there for a while.
Complain about this comment
The Premiership, soon to become The Arabian Super League.
Is the Premiership not becoming just a little bit, plastic?
Complain about this comment
Ha ha. Cryotek, you complain about 'foreigners' owning clubs and bemoan where all the English are. You then use a very American word/expression 'gotten'.
Complain about this comment
As a football hack myself it is a known fact those who provide us with those little morsels of gossip do so because they have an axe to grind, and wish to use someone like me, or Mihir Bose, to get it out into the public domain and set the cat amongst the pigeons/ or further a transfer.
But we go along with it because that is what our Editor's want- they need headline making stories to sell papers.
Most transfer stories are generated by agents in hushed tones - seeking a move for their clients. It's the same with club ownership.
Spit out a few scraps to someone like Mihir and let him try and piece it together.
Someone, somewhere, is sitting back chuckling knowing that he has thrown a hand grenade into the room.
If a deal really is being lined up in Kuwait, you can be sure Mihir Bose will be the last to know the details unless his source here does indeed have an axe to grind in ruining it.
Arab Sheiks do not take BBC journalists into their confidence, so take it all with a pinch of salt Reds.
As another poster said, by June you will probably have been re possessed by the RBS!
Complain about this comment
Mihir Bose replies to comments 25 and 34
Let me correct the points which both of you have got wrong. When I wrote about DIC’s intentions, I was not peddling anything, let alone anyone’s lies, but reporting hard and well documented facts which had come into my possession. I quoted from a DIC report entitled Project Oslo, Oslo being the code name for DIC’s proposed takeover of Liverpool. The document explained how DIC’s bid had been accepted by David Moores, then chairman of Liverpool, and George Gillett’s bid had been rebuffed. The document discussed various aspects of the bid. In a section entitled “Investment rationale” it stated that the plan was to hold the investment for seven years or so. That section also covered how the commercial business could be developed and how the equity value of the investment would be boosted once the new stadium was built.
I reported all this, and much more, quoting from the document, in December 2006.
The authenticity of the document has never been and cannot be questioned.
As regards 34’s comment that the BBC apologised for this story, this is nonsense.
I did not break the story for the BBC. I had not joined the BBC at that time.
I wrote the article for the Daily Telegraph where I was then employed by the paper as its chief sports news reporter which included writing a weekly column called Inside Sport. Why should the BBC apologise for a story that was both correct and not produced by one of its journalists?
Complain about this comment
Mihir, interesting that you haven't replied to the comments pointing out that your blog is wrong.
Complain about this comment
All the blogs get people who rubbish the opinion of the blogger or question some of the elements in it, that's the purpose of this blog. They're mainly excellent, often educational and always enjoyable forums.
Note To BBC: This is the ONLY blog that is repeatedly criticised for being so poorly written, regurgitating sensationalised tabloid 'facts' citing vague sources and being so riddled with poorly informed views.
Mihr Bose may be a lovely person who is kind to animals and donates to charity but he's an exceedingly poor writer, his knowledge of sport seems to be limited entirely to Cricket, Football (very debatable) and The Olympics. You have a sports editor who seems to know nothing about most sports and demonsrates (weekly) a truly poor understanding of the rest. It is, with respect, a nonsense. Who hired him?!
He appears on this website, the TV and frankly anywhere who will give him a platform on what seems to be a daily basis, with no personal disrespect intended nine times out of ten all he seems to do is embarrass himself and the title he holds.
Complain about this comment
as much as i laugh at the rubbish Benitez spouts, i'm struggling to believe that he has ever demanded total control of the buying and selling of the playing staff.
i can easily see how he might hope to have clauses referring to buyout fees, refusal to sell to certain clubs, and minimum/maximum length of contract.
but he's hardly likely to have demanded any of that stuff is he?
the more you think about it the more ridiculous an idea it is. then again, given the rubbish he spouts...!
Complain about this comment
With regards to the City investment you have to realise that the stadium comes with a) planning permission already granted to increase capacity to 60,000 and b) the opportunity to use much of the undeveloped land surrounding it for your own business ventures.
Therefore there are already murmourings of complete ownership of the ground and also a hotel complex and business park surrounding it.
For the money paid, the potential for growth exceeds that of Liverpool.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Liverpool FC must sort THIS OUT OTHERWISE WE WILL END UP A SMALL CLUB LIKE EVERTON
Complain about this comment
A couple of things strike me about this blog. The first is the misguided belief that very wealthy men dont fret too much over losing money, or paying over the odds for football teams.
The days of dimwits running football teams like bowling clubs are over. This man will very much be aware of the business sense of making a purchase, and 400million is a lot of money even if you have 10billion. Its 4 per cent of his wealth.
Wealthy men dont become wealthy by being fools. However, being a fool will not prevent you from becoming a journalist (and getting away with it for some years, apparently!).
The second point, is that there is little or no evidence that there is any truth to the matter. It is as likely that Hicks, and Gillett, together or individually planted this story to increase interest. Its called a stalking horse. The fact that Mr. Parry is not involved, is more likely proof of this, than a further breakdown in relations.
Mihir Bose, Sherlock Holmes you are not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
No56
This is a blog and is not here to "sell newspapers"
Why should we believe things that are published by people like yourselves that as you openly state are supplied by/founded upon
"little morsels of gossip"
"people with axes to grind"
"set the cat amongst the pigeons"
All i can say is you wouldn't make a very good prosecution lawyer.
As always we come to the journos classic get out of that statement
"We need stories to make headlines to sell newspapers"
Even at the expense of being honest fair and objective
Complain about this comment
Glad to hear the new man sees Liverpool as an INVESTMENT rather than a piece of jewellery. I'd hate to see them become a billionaire's plaything. No, sound financial planning is the way forward, especially the way things are going now.
Complain about this comment
obviously the "moderators" are of the opinion that No56 must be thicker skinned than Mr Bose!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#57 Mihir Bose
'I reported all this, and much more, quoting from the document, IN DECEMBER 2006.
The authenticity of the document has never been and cannot be questioned.
As regards 34?s comment that the BBC apologised for this story, this is nonsense.
I did not break the story for the BBC. I had not joined the BBC at that time.
I wrote the article for the Daily Telegraph where I was then employed by the paper as its chief sports news reporter which included writing a weekly column called Inside Sport. Why should the BBC apologise for a story that was both correct and not produced by one of its journalists?
Answer: because it is old news ie out of date, and being regugitated
#59 as Joe Green states:
'This is the ONLY blog that is repeatedly criticised for being so poorly written, regurgitating sensationalised tabloid 'facts' citing vague sources.........
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS