Kinda puts Magnier into perspective.
Human Rights
Printable View
Kinda puts Magnier into perspective.
Human Rights
and where did chelseas investor get his money from? HMMM!
Liverpool consider investment bids
Liverpool are contemplating two offers to invest millions into the club - one from Thailand and one from much closer to home.
A Thai Government spokesman claims that Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has reached a £60m deal to buy a 30% stake in the Reds.
And a report in Tuesday's Liverpool Echo details an offer to invest £73m in the club from building tycoon and Liverpool fan Steve Morgan.
Morgan, who claims a previous offer to underwrite a £50m share rights issue was rejected by the club, has come back with a two-part proposal.
He plans to underwrite a new share issue worth £61m and to issue a further £12m worth of shares for the fans to buy.
The bulk of the money would be spent on team strengthening with the rest earmarked for the new stadium plan.
Morgan's new offer would allow current chairman David Moores to buy some of the new shares. That would mean Moores could stay in control at Anfield with Morgan likely to gain a seat on the board.
Thaksin met with a group of Liverpool representatives led by chief executive Rick Parry on Monday and earlier on Tuesday Thai Government spokesman Jakrapob Penkair said an agreement had been reached with no details available ahead of a joint statement by Thaksin and Liverpool.
There remains confusion, however, over whether the deal represents a personal or Government investment by Thaksin.
Jakrapob said: "We will buy it in the name of Thailand. We want Thai people to be part of the purchase.
"The Thai Government is the one that negotiated the deal, not Thaksin, and most of the money will come from public funds."
This would appear to contradict a statement made over the weekend by Thailand's Deputy Minister of Commerce Pongsak Ruktapongpisal.
Prior to Monday's discussions with Parry, Ruktapongpisal said: "I also want to assure you that the money comes from the Prime Minister himself - not from public funds."
Shinawatra refused to clear up the confusion.
"Let's wait until Thailand buys the team before going into details whether we will spend Thais' money or the private sector's," he said.
Taken from http://www.teamtalk.com/teamtalk/New...827021,00.html
I hope they go with Morgans deal as it is a better one and a safer bet, though the Star today showed Parry and Shinawatara shaking hands on a deal. The Thai deal seems alot of hassle i.e. setting up an academy and selling furniture and food under Liverpool Fc's name (WTF like!?). Don't agree with Morgans proposal to ground-share with Everton though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4tothefloor
I wouldnt use a Liverpool trolley to do my shopping. The wheels would probably come off half way though my shopping season.
OHHHH how did he not get it down the aisle from that distance?
Changed my mind about morgan now. He plans to float the club on the stock market, groundshare with Everton and commercialise the club a la Man Utd. **** that, don't want to be anything like Man Ure and their global product.
Who is Mr. M? :confused:
I'm not going to back a plc structure. In theory (and ideally) it would mean a club 100% owned by the fans, but think of the sh!te over the last year with takeover talk, the club reluctant to let the wizard have funds for us to compete properly in the transfer market, the continous ticket price increases, the timing of the issue (straight after ECWC final) etc etc. However, as compared to helping prop up a regime that has a terrible human rights record...Quote:
Originally Posted by davros
btw the one good thing is that our structures are sustainable, and even if this is the start of a decline we're not going to go the way of Leeds and the potential way that siddy and arsenal...
Not even to be sucessful like them? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by 4tothefloor
No. United are the McDonalds/Burger King of football. I prefer the more traditional football clubs.
And what are you on about 'Not even to be sucessful like them?'. You see, you 've been fed the PLC bull**** such as 'The theatre of dreams' and 'biggest club in the world' - all self styled i'm afraid. How many European cups hve the 'biggest club in the world' won in their illustrious history? Whats that? 2? Surely some mistake!- Shur even the mighty Nottingham Forest have 2 European cups won! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! :D We have 4 btw, and would have had more only for the european ban. So much for Alex Ferguson being a better manager than Bob Paisley - what a joke! How many UEFA cups? Not as much as Liverpool, who hold the record. How many league championships have MU won - not as much as Liverpool. League Cups? Nah, still lagging behind the pool :p The FA Cup is the only cup MU have won more than Liverpool - and yer the biggest and best in the world? LMFAO!
Real Madrid are the biggest club in the world. Liverpool are the most successful english club of all time on the pitch, where it matters. And with United in a bit of a decline and Alex doing a wobbler, looks like it'll be a while yet, if ever, that United can even dream of matching Liverpools success. So near, yet so far lads ;).
On the other hand the 'Pool will be moving to a new stadium soon and investors are putting over €100 million into the club. Any future investment will be massive as well, as David Moores owns around 50% of the club and he would have to be bought out - so you're possibly talking about a Roman Abramovich type of takeover in the future as shares in LFC are £4,000 each. So I can't see a decline at Anfield, the only way is up IMO!
So you're happy to have a human rights abuser on the board? And it's in no way plc-ish to be selling LFC furniture and trying to appeal to the far east market? Everything United have, they earned themselves - but I suppose it's typical of scousers to want a hand out rather than actually do anything for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4tothefloor
Thats not investment. The money paid for those shares doesnt go to Liverpool. It goes to the holder of the shares who is LEAVING Liverpool.
The price of the shares means nothing.
He's not on the board, and will not sit on the board even if he invests. So get your facts right. I don't like Morgan but he's the lesser of the two evils when compared to Shinawatra. And where did I say I was happy about the Thai deal anyway? No where. I actually said I was against it. Read the bloody post properly bud. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
And BTW, everything United have, they earned themselves? Well, they came to the top of the game at exactly the same time as Sky Sports came on board, thus giving them a base for global coverage. Any club would have benefited. Had Liverpool had Sky and satellite tv etc. when they were the dominant force, United would never even have won a title in the first place in the 90's. Liverpool would have been so far ahead of them, (finances, global income etc), it would have been funny. United have dominated at the right time, and thats why they're where they are today.
Really, jeez I never knew that? :rolleyes: Thats why I said it would take a takeover of Abramovich proportions to buy out Moores AND invest in the club, thus any future takeover is likely to be a massive one. Mentioning the price of the shares was merely to show how expensive a takeover would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
I think you'll find there is mixed emotions about having the Thai investor on board. I personally would opt for a local fella like Morgan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Loved the comment about United. Dont ya remember Michael Knighton? Rupert Murdoch? How about Magnier or Glazier? Behind every Global brand is a team plotting away at worldwide domination. United have marked this terrority with Megastore in Dublin (did the ever sell maps of Manchester for the daytrippers?), a 3rd away strip and a TV channel for those riveting youth games.
Knighton was before we were a plc, Murdoch the fans fought and won, and whatever about my dislike for Magnier and Glazier, they hardly have a track record of human rights abuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan_Michael
Of course United are the only team to have a third strip and to change strips regularly, try and sell shirts abroad (isn't that one of the Thai investor attractions?). Liverpool would have the channel if there was the interest. Part of the Thai plan is furniture FFS, so how different to you really think the dippers are (and every premiership club) from United. United are the role model (rightly or wrongly) for clubs looking to get extra revenue.
Bottom line, United have gone out and earned the money - no one's come in and said he's 70 million for players and wages. It all has to be accounted for to the satisfaction of the stock market (if not some of the shareholders). Murdoch, Glazier and Magnier aren't coming in with millons to plough into the club - they are buying shares off other shareholders.
btw 4th to the floor - the Thai Prime Minister may not be going on the board, but he is having a representative on the boardm, if the deal goes through. And make up your mind which one you want. You wanted Morgan, then you said you changed your mind about morgan after his plans to go public (by default supporting the Thai bid).
I'll bet that Thai prime minister will hope this photo doesn't get posted all around the internet sometime soon. Oops...
http://www.football365.com/mediastor...ch/RedThai.jpg
Think you'll find there would be an interest in a TV channel. United success conincided with the birth of the Premier League so naturally sponsors went after the top team. The rest (Arsenal, Chelsea and Lpool) had to play catch up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
I havn't actually seen how much the Thai PM is going to spend on players etc is not using £60 million to buy a piece of the club? Even if he did offer £100 million for new players what does it matter? Trophies do the talking and Liverpool, long before Vodafone, Subscription TV etc had a monoploy on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4tothefloor
Well, again it doesnt prove how expensive its going to be because you dont give the amount of shares that have been issued.
There might only be 2 shares of £4,000. If a company has 1,000,000 shares at .50p that company would be the more expensive buyout.
Very high priced shraes usually indicated that there is not many actual shares.
And the fact that United have long been the biggest club in England (Note before you start I said biggest, not most successful - check out the attendance records)Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan_Michael
It doesn't matter really if you have no interest in how he runs a country and all you care about is football. Who cares if Human Rights are abused, once it doesn't effect the investment in the football team. Go on, tell us how many trophies you've won again, just not how long it's been since you won the league...Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan_Michael
Of course, I care about human rights but at the moment this guy hasn't even bought into the club. As I previously said I'd rather have Morgan on board. Don't get all ethical on me now - after all selling jerseys for £40 a throw when they cost about a fiver to make - to loyal fans isn't on either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
I didn't dispute United attendances - check Dortmund in Germany getting 80,000 - not top of the league though. As for investors do ya reckon Chelsea fans are moaning about Abaromvich (sp)? If Chelsea won the league wait for the enivitable 'they bought the league their all against us!' cries from the Mancs.
I can guarantee you every share at Anfield is worth at LEAST £4,000. They're much sought after, but very hard to get. My family has been trying for years (each share entitles you to tickets for all the games (on request), including 2 tickets to every cup final etc. Well worth the investment). This is how the current deal is proposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
15,000 shares = 30% (roughly)
15,000 * £4,000 = £60,000,000 million
This is being done through a new share issue, they are creating 15,000 new shares. Currently, Moores holding is 51% and as I understand it, he is not willing to sell any of his shares. Thus the share issue. Morgan wants to come in and avail of this, but in addition, re-issue another £12 million worth of shares to fans at £175 each, thus bringing his proposal up to £73 million of an investment. Thats the good side of Morgan, plus the fact that he's anti-Houllier. The bad side is the stuff I mentioned earlier.
Moores shares are apparantly worth up to £120 million, but it'd probably take £150 million to get him to sell. Not that he wants to, especially to Morgan, as he doesn't like him or his plans for the club.
Macy: I said I would back Morgan at a push as he was the lesser of the two evils. Do they not sell glasses up in Longford?! Also, The Thais WILL NOT have a member, or representative, on the board. Morgans offer comes with a stipulation that he gets a place on the board. Moores does not want anymore people on the board, as he sees it as a threat to his chairmanship. Thus him having a problem with Morgans bid all along, and instead dealing with the Thais, who I repeat, will not have a place, nor have they requested a place, on the LFC board. They will be just a large shareholder, with a company representing them in any dealings with the club. Their end of the deal is that an academy is set up in Thailand. Thats all they care about. Thaksin also wants to market Thai goods on the Asian and world markets through the Liverpool brand. Not sure how much LFC would benefit from this though.
You started Pro Morgan (anti Thai)....Quote:
Originally Posted by 4tothefloor
Then you anti morgan (Pro Thai by Definition)Quote:
I hope they go with Morgans deal as it is a better one and a safer bet, though the Star today showed Parry and Shinawatara shaking hands on a deal.
And then it became Morgan is the lesser of two evilsQuote:
Changed my mind about morgan now. He plans to float the club on the stock market, groundshare with Everton and commercialise the club a la Man Utd. **** that
Do they not teach you how to read back over a thread in Limerick? The first mention of seeing Morgan as the lesser of two evils was after I asked whether you preferred a human rights abuser to Morgan. Then you respond to a post in which I was referring to Declan_Michael. YSB.Quote:
I don't like Morgan but he's the lesser of the two evils when compared to Shinawatra.
btw from the BBC website from yesterday
Quote:
THAKSIN OPTION: Would expect representation on the board, but all early indications suggest he will be a benign influence, at least at the start, leaving major decisions to those already in power.
They're not now, and that was never what I was trying to say - If Abramovic (sp? again) gets bored with playing football clubs then it's Chelsea RIP as they'll be gone within weeks. Blackburn brought the league, but when Walker died and the money dried up what followed? I doubt they'll win the league in the next 20 years, unless someone else comes in spending unsustainable amounts of money...Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan_Michael
Bull**** Macy, never once did I say I was pro Thai. Not once in that thread. You're twisting things to suit yourself. No need to read back over the thread. I started off backing Morgan, and never changed from that stance. In between posts, I came across a new article about Morgan, and simply expressed my reservations about him having learned of his plans for the club. The only change was my support for him was now alot more reserved than my initial post. Whats wrong with that. Never was I pro Thai. To twist it your way, you wrote:
Is there a rule that says you have to like one of them? No there isn't. Ideally, I wouldn't back either. But Morgan is the better bet as he is Liverpool born and bred, plus he's putting more money in. I have my reservations about some of his plans though, which I mentioned earlier. You're saying that I must back one or the other, so if I back Morgan I must back everything in his proposal. Good man Macy :p In reply to your vulgarity - GFY, YSB!Quote:
'Then you anti morgan (Pro Thai by Definition)'?
What about the Thai bid not wanting board representation? Are you willing to admit that he does appear to want that? Or am in collusion with the BBC just to bullshít you?
You certainly didn't say Morgan was the lesser of two evils earlier in the thread, and yesterday afternoon that was in response to Declan Michael which you don't seem to have grasped.
This from the guy who called somebdoy a rascist for talking about the "three Degrees" at West Brom...Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
And the three degrees are a popular 60s R'n'B/Soul trio...