Watch Liverpool

Posts Tagged ‘gillett’

Liverpool’s new stadium prospects are now more remote than when Tom Hicks and George Gillett arrived

There are many bridges to cross before Liverpool’s co-owners must decide whether to accept the Rhône Group’s £110m offer for a 40% stake, but the bid lays bare the icy state the club are in.

The proposal’s key detail is that not a penny of all those millions would go to Tom Hicks or George Gillett but, instead, would reduce Liverpool’s £237m debts to Royal Bank of Scotland and the American bank Wachovia. Liverpool are only carrying that debt burden, or at least £185m of it, because the two Americans, who arrived as purported saviours in February 2007, borrowed the money to take over, then loaded the club with the responsibility to repay it.

Hicks and Gillett had said they would not “do a Glazer” and saddle the club with their own borrowings. But they did and now the new stadium they promised to build “as soon as reasonably practicable” cannot be contemplated until the debts they imposed are dramatically reduced.

Rhône’s bid, the first firm investment offer the chief executive, Christian Purslow, is known to have received, would reduce Hicks and Gillett to a 30% stake each and pay nothing to them for the 20% they have ceded. Intimations from Hicks that the deal is not lucrative enough for him are unlikely to wash if no other firm bids are prompted by Rhône’s offer. Hicks and Gillett are pinned to a deadline because RBS, which is 70% owned by the British public and last month announced a £6.2bn operating loss for the 2008-09 financial year, insists Liverpool must reduce their exposure to it by £100m by

• Gillett and Hicks told they are not welcome
• Spirit of Shankly rule out any link-up with United

Liverpool fans group Spirit of Shankly have taken their opposition to the club’s American owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks on to the streets of the city with a billboard campaign.

Several huge posters have sprung up on major routes into Liverpool with the message ‘Tom and George, Debt, Lies, Cowboys. Not welcome here.’

It is the latest venture in the group’s campaign to pressure Gillett and Hicks into ending their tumultuous reign which has been plagued by financial constraints and a failure to start work on a promised new 60,000-capacity stadium in Stanley Park.

“We, as fans, are unhappy with Gillett and Hicks and this is part of the campaign to show they are not welcome,” Spirit of Shankly spokesman Jay McKenna said. “Previously the protests were limited to match days but we are doing everything we can and decided to expand it to other areas.”

McKenna, however, dismissed any possibility of his group linking up with Manchester United counterparts – who are also unhappy at the level of debt the Glazer family have brought to their club – in a joint protest at the Barclays Premier League match between the two at Old Trafford on March 21.

“It is a complete non-starter,” he added. “The idea that Liverpool and Manchester United fans will walk down the same road together is never going to happen.”

Liverpoolguardian.co.uk

• SOS group claims Christian Purslow was critical of owners
• Purslow admits banks demand debt reduction by £100m

The Liverpool managing director, Christian Purslow, has become embroiled in a dispute with a supporters’ group over allegations that he accused Tom Hicks and George Gillett of making “unforgiveable” promises and having no money to invest in the club, despite being ordered by the Royal Bank of Scotland to reduce Anfield’s debt by £100m before July.

Purslow denies the comments are representative of a meeting on 21 January with members of the Spirit of Shankly Supporters Union (SOS), which has led the protests against Liverpool’s co-owners. Purslow met 12 members of the group and although written notes, but no recordings, were permitted at the exchange the two parties have been unable to reach agreement on the minutes. The stand-off prompted SOS to publish its own and Purslow’s contrasting versions of the meeting today, with ­supporters invited to make their judgment on another embarrassing affair for the Anfield hierarchy.

Both sides record a frank admission from Purslow that the RBS want him to reduce Liverpool’s debt from £237m to £137m before the co-­owners’ refinancing deal comes up for renewal in July. But the Anfield official admits he “cannot guarantee” a time-frame for investment that would prevent Hicks and Gillett being forced to put the entire club up for sale.

Purslow confirmed in his version: “One of our key priorities is to reduce the debt by £100m. This is a requirement from our bankers and will allow us to look at a more flexible and longer-term refinancing with our bankers when this investment is brought in. Ideally we would like a three- or four-year refinancing deal rather than the shorter ones we have had recently. The targeted reduction in borrowings was agreed by the bank, CP [Purslow himself] and the owners when I was appointed. The £100m investment will be made by the issuance of new shares, and will not go towards anything else other than paying down the debt, reducing it to £137m. This new investment will also mean a dilution of the current ownership.”

Interpretations of the Americans’ and the RBS’s long-term positions differ wildly, however. Minutes recorded by SOS but not Purslow include an alleged admission that Hicks’ and Gillett’s £100m asking price for a 25% stake of Liverpool is deterring potential investors. “No one would invest at the level they want,” Purslow is alleged to have said. There was also a statement that, in terms of Rafael Benítez’s transfer budget: “We will only have what we make and generate. The budget will only change if we get a sugar daddy.”

Further claims in the SOS minutes include a bleak assessment of the capital available to Hicks and Gillett, despite their sale of sporting franchises in the US and Canada, allegedly given by Purslow while he attempts to convince the meeting that Liverpool will find investors.

“LFC is for sale. It will be sold,” record SOS. “The owners have to sell, they are out of money. The bank want it sold, the fans want it sold and people want to buy it. The problems on the pitch at the minute aren’t the fault of the owners. It is not simple enough to say that new owners will guarantee results on the