A house of cards - that is the only way to describe Liverpool football club this week. It's manager and star striker have disagreed over the importance of signing £25m players, while its owners revealed that the cost to Anfield of them taking over has been even greater than the exposure to ridicule that Tom Hicks has caused.
There was a novelty factor to the club’s accounts for the year July 31 2007 which have surfaced at Companies House: Hicks and George Gillett’s signatures, scrawled beside each other. Not something we are likely to see again until Hicks finally agrees to his estranged business partner selling out to Dubai International Capital and they sign on it.
But there were also some extraordinary details in there, too. Like the Americans’ willingness to write off £10.4m – just to ditch stadium plans the club had drawn up before they arrived and replace them with their own. I am yet to find an architect who can explain how the club could have spent such money on a stadium model before ditching it. This platform is available now to any who can. There will be more write-downs next year when the club accounts for the fact that its second stadium model was also ditched in favour of something more modest - because soaring steel prices made the Americans' ambitions unrealistic.
And then there is the £1.5m in “personal expenses” which the Americans cost Liverpool in just the first seven months of their ownership. Travelling expenses, legal costs, “personnel costs” – all heaped on to the club into which the Americans were not investing a penny. It will be interesting to see how much cost Hicks, in particular, has hit the club on public relations services when next year’s accounts are delivered. Freud Communications appear to have joined Financial Dynamics (FD) on the Hicks pay-roll though Freud were unwilling to divulge yesterday exactly what their role for Hicks might be and referred media inquiries back to FD. Who are they working for - Hicks or Kop Holdings? Unclear. So much for the ‘Liverpool Way.’
All in all, it's the kind of detail which tells us that Michel Platini was both right and wrong on Friday when he railed, in L’Equipe, about the ‘cheating’ British clubs – Manchester United and Chelsea in particular – who buy success on tick. Yes, it is a concern that proprietors about whom we really know nothing are allowed to take up the reins at our clubs. But no, it’s not ‘cheating’. That would suggest something clandestine. Whether they discover trumph or disaster on tick next season, Liverpool is being torn apart – limb for limb – by Hicks in particular and the evidence of that fact is there for all to see.
How much do you get paid to keep up the anti-Hicks campaign? Just because Gillett has decided to hide under the table, you seem to be forgetting that it was he that started the downward spiral with the Klinsmann escapade. Parry has also been found out, trying to buddy up to anyone with a cheque-book. Moores and Parry created the American ownership, and got lots of cash for doing so. Does your beloved Parry get anit-Parry pieces because he lined his pocket with £500,000 bonus when the deal went through? No. I suspect the Hick drivel you people keep coming up with is down to less than honest control from external forces. DIC chum by any chance?
Posted by: Paul | 10 June 2008 at 07:31 PM
Ian Herbert knows less than me on this subject. A far better example would have been his own club down the M62. But now that they're winning again, the raping and pillaging of that famous club by a family of vampires is welcomed with open arms.
Posted by: Cally | 10 June 2008 at 08:51 PM
Fernando Torres basically said Liverpool FC must spend big on star players or get it absolutely correct when signing a potential one if the club is going to compete for the title next season. This is because with Benitez's modest budget there is no room for a mistake. Benitez has hinted his budget is low as its ever been but has also said he believes that after selling some players the club can purchase others(not big money stars but the 'right' players at the 'right' prices in the 'right' positions as found by the scouting department) which will help launch an assault on the title next season. Don't make it out that Torres and Benitez have disagreed on the 'importance' of signing '£25m players'or anything else. Thats something the two both agree on. The impracticability of purchasing a £20m+ on the budget Benitez seems to be on is another thing they are likely to agree on too.
Posted by: Javier | 11 June 2008 at 06:22 AM
Unbelievable how I still find it unbelievable when a journo unbelievably manages to sully Liverpool, without just cause, this time managing to put us alongside other clubs being criticised, when we were never even mentioned in the first place. Clever. But that is why he is a Manc loving articulate journalist; and me just a Liverpudlian, walking on with hope in my heart. Roll on August!
Posted by: Jim Meehan | 11 June 2008 at 06:46 AM
Of course the focus is on these accounts, given that from financial year end of 31 July 07, a company has 10 months within which to file accounts at Companies House i.e by 31 May 2008. Accordingly, this is current news worthy of report as these are the most recent accounts filed in the football financial world.
What was it again that Boris Johnson famously said about the scouse persecution complex?
Posted by: Dave Hughes | 11 June 2008 at 09:10 AM
Another thing that really irks me is that almost every paper is asserting that Hicks & Gillett ditched the old stadium model on a whim - merely because they wanted to give the business to architects in their own Country/ City respectively.
The stub of the matter is that AFL Architects' original design lacked any of the spirit we currently would associate with Anfield.
The story goes - and if this is true, Parry should take all culpability for the £10.4m write-off - that AFL weren't even given the brief to create a Kop-esque stand. They were merely asked to create another generic 'bowl' stadium. This would have resulted in another Emirates style stadium - OK to look at from the outside but decidedly lacking in atmosphere on the inside.
What Gillett and Hicks did was to spot the crap design, and commission a firm with a history of designing world class stadia - such as the new Dallas Cowboys stadium - to design a stadium more unique and well fitting to Liverpool FC.
They can't be blamed for inheriting £10.4m worth of bad design. If you're going to lambast them, you should concentrate on their petty squabbling, airing of Liverpool's dirty laundry in public and saddling of the club with debt.
That alone should fill enough column inches to keep hacks like you in employment.
Posted by: 18times | 11 June 2008 at 09:23 AM
Let's laugh at at the reds getting worked up about Benitez' modest spending, lol. How much is it now? £150 odd million?
Posted by: jamesy | 11 June 2008 at 11:30 AM
Javiers comments on Raffa's need to buy sensibly, "the right players at the right price for the right position", make obvious sense. Is there a league manager who doesn't try to follow that line? The problem is that Benitez has shown very little skill at getting top value for average money in the past, and more often its been the reverse.
I doubt if there are many of his main Prem top 10 rivals who are more in need of a substantial buying kitty to afford him to buy off the peg at top prices. There are certainly quite a few who have done almost as well with far,far less.
The dumping of £10m at a club in deep debt, with the new building costs rising by the day, and with a manager crying out (as ever) for more funds, is certainly worthy of comment. More so when the background turmoil is so well known, thanks to that refreshing new concept of a club letting fans know what is going on by washing their dirty clothes in public. Some might call it "being kept informed"
but most seem to prefer secrets and nasty surprises, god knows why.
9as ever
0
Posted by: les corbett | 11 June 2008 at 11:42 AM
Perhaps not surprisingly there have been no comments from the architects of this shambles namely Moores and Parry, both of whom have profited handsomely from this buy out. The new owners are opportunistic businessmen who are happy to limit their personal financial liabilities while placing the burden firmly on the club. Was this part of the business model agreed too by Moores and Parry?
The squeeze being placed on the club will be resolved and soon I hope with a DIC take over, but here again the lessons learnt must be applied and the motives and way forward fully understood. As it stands the position of the four key players Hicks, Gillet, Moores and Parry is untennable in the eyes of the supporters.
Posted by: Rob | 11 June 2008 at 04:34 PM
Now I understand Ian H is not a "manc" - sorry for that Ian , but I was put on a bum steer - I would only add that I agree the owners and Parry et al have made a right pig's ear out of a silk purse. Also, us Liverpudlians (note, not Scousers in general, as was suggested above,) aint got a persecution complex for nothing. It has grown as a result of the concerted efforts of many in the media, who played and or supported other now successful clubs, during the era when we were dominant, to undermine us in whatever ways they can, off the pitch.
Posted by: Jim Meehan | 11 June 2008 at 06:50 PM
Yes there is a lot of anti-hicks flying about so lets stick it to Gillette as well, the long and the short of it is that we have to get rid of both, their bickering and 'personal expenses' is ruining the great club.
We also need to stop buying 10 squad players at £5million every summer, buy three class players, Villa to partner Torres, Barry in the centre and then buy a decent right back, one that would make it into a Swiss back 4.
Also tell Parry he has no power to negotiate ever again he has allowed to much talent to slip through the net. We have to get next season right .
The Sc*m are to close to an 18th title andwith whiskey nose still there we cannot allow them to knock us off our f*cking perch, spend the cash wisely, there is no trophey for 4th place and nothing since 2006 lets get it right pool !!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Barry | 11 June 2008 at 08:22 PM
Forget about Hick & Gillett, Think about the future of Liverpool club, selling off to DIC are the best thing as they have the fund to take Liverpool to another level.
If those two partners can't sort out thing between them I think that the fans have a very good choice to do next as this would be my personnal opinion. Firstly boycott all liverpool matches without any fans going to to stadium for any of their matches & this will really make an impact on their financil terms which they will then think of no choice that they need the only way is to sell their stake. Trust me it works.
Hick & Gillett they are no Football fan nor foortball lovers...they are just .......
DIC I think they love Liverpool...thats why they would only buy Liverpool not other clubs ...Think about it!
Posted by: Mohd Jamal | 12 June 2008 at 09:23 AM
Cally,
I applaud your description of the Glazers but you should know that they never were, still aren't, and never will be welcomed at Old Trafford, no matter what the manager feels he has to say.
Posted by: des | 12 June 2008 at 12:55 PM
They say you get what you deserve and at the moment we have got just that. DIC were literally hours from taking over when Moores and Parry made either a naive or greedy decison to go behind their backs and sell out to the 2 Amercians for more money. It smelt bad at the time and we have all seen how badly it turned out. The fall out between the pair was unfortunate but any 50/50 partnership has the potential to implode.
The decision (joint or not) to speak to Klinsman was fair enough at a time when we were struggling, and i think most Reds still have a certain degree of doubt about Rafa's stubborn stance over squad rotation and bloody substitutions!!! But it also showed yet more naivety (from the board) because he would have been a poor choice - was it just pure coincidence that he happened to be based in the states?
I think we are still building a team in the mould Rafa really wants, he did inherit a lot of mediocre players. I aslo think Barry for Alonso is a great move. Xabi is a great Eurpoean player but wanted too much time in the Premiership. And i also think Milner would be a great signing too, he is a good, strong, English player who will help us get the results away to whoever in the winter when we usuaually drop points. Yossi deserves a good run on the right because he is another decent player who is suited to the Prem, but if Rafa does decide to sell him, and JP, then we do need to spend big on one player with genuine flair and strength, not 2 or 3 more squad players...
Until DIC do take over, and please God let it be soon, we cannot compete with the Mancs, or Chelsea, or even Spurs and Man City off the pitch.
Posted by: Adam | 12 June 2008 at 01:12 PM
There seem to be alot of comments here about Liverpool needing hand out's from one sugar daddy or another to compete with Manchester United. Why is that the case? Before the Glazers took over Man U were a PLC making a £100 million a year profit with no Abramovic figure pumping money into the club. When will clubs start to take a long term view and stop looking for short cuts to success. Arsenal have got it right they've kept the manager they spend within there limits concentrate on scouting and youth coaching and building a strong financial base and they don't have anything like the fan base or global appeal of Liverpools brand. The whole culture of Liverpool FC needs to change if they want to keep pace with Manchester United. They have to realise that if you don't concentrate on every aspect of running the club you won't be successfull. If i was a liverpool fan i'd be very worried if something is not done soon about the laughable way the clubs finances are managed. What happens if liverpool don't qualify for the champions league and intrest rates rise again, with the comitment to the new stadium things could get very bad indeed for the trophyles Reds in the northwest
Posted by: Paul Edwards | 13 June 2008 at 12:56 PM
To Jim Meehan. Gillett has tried to sell his share of the club to DIC and GET OUT. That is why the focus is on Hicks.
Posted by: Gary Morgan | 13 June 2008 at 02:44 PM
who are you ian herbert - a MANU(re) sheep-shagger or a sad and twisted bitter blue ?
either way you ought to stick to discussing things you know about - obviously not football because there's way too much bias in what you say.
Posted by: alan brazier | 04 July 2008 at 08:50 AM
Paul Edwards is wrong to hold up Arsenal as a role model for any club to copy, what have Arsenal won recently??
Most Liverpool supporters are not asking for an Abramovich type sugar daddy, merely to have the same spending power as the Mancs, Liverpool followers feel that we have a global brand that is at least equal to the Mancs but that they have exploited the global market where as Liverpool have not.
To begin competeing with the Mancs on equal terms we MUST have a new stadium with a capacity of 60,000 absolute minimum, although Liverpool would sell out a 70,000+ stadium..no question. It is for the stadium that we require good honest investment, once built the rest would take care of itself.
'Remember We Are Liverpool'
Posted by: Steeco | 04 July 2008 at 04:40 PM
G&H will build the new stadium for the needed revenues to buy more players. A new stadium should increase revenues a million per home game. Worrying about 100k here and there for personal fund, hotel and jet fuel bills, isn't going to bring the house down. What will, no new stadium.
Posted by: SeaToby | 14 August 2008 at 11:29 PM
Liverpool lost their final pre-season friendly 2-1 at home to Athletico Madrid :(
Posted by: Archy | 15 August 2009 at 12:21 PM