Arabs Liverpool

[B_i_N]

Looks like Liverpool are being bought by the Arabs FPMSL:D

Still with that kind of money they could give the russians, sorry chelsea a run for their money.

All this foreign money, it's getting ridiculous.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42386000/gif/_42386626_takeover270.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6205386.stm

Reds revel in £450m takeover talk


Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez has welcomed the news that the Premiership club is poised for a £450m takeover.

Dubai International Capital (DIC), the investment arm of Dubai's government, confirmed on Monday that they were in talks about a possible buy-out.

"I have talked to the chairman (David Moores) and chief executive (Rick Parry) about this and I was pleased with what I heard," said Benitez.

"It is always good for a club to have more money and more possibilities."

Liverpool, five-times European champions, have given DIC permission to carry out a complete study of the club's financial records ahead of a possible takeover bid.

The proposed deal is expected to include £200m to build a new 60,000-capacity stadium.
This is very important in terms of the proposed new stadium, which is key to plans for the regeneration of the local community
Rick Parry
Liverpool chief executive


"This is the latest step on the road of finding the long-term investment that the club needs," said Parry.

"This is very important in terms of the proposed new stadium, which is key to plans for the regeneration of the local community.

"On the pitch, Liverpool remains focused on winning and, here again, this is all about doing a deal that gives us the long-term resources to do that."

DIC chief executive Sameer al-Ansari said: "We hope we can agree a deal.

"Liverpool's investment requirements are well publicised. Hopefully this will provide us with the opportunity to fund its needs both on and off the pitch."
606: DEBATE
This has to be good news for Liverpool. The club have no choice
KO
606: Have your say


Both Moores and Parry stayed behind in Liverpool while the team flew to Istanbul for Tuesday's Champions League match against Galatasaray.

However, the deal is not expected to be concluded until early next year.

DIC owns the Madame Tussauds Group and the Travelodge hotel chain as well as one third of the London Eye.

The company is an investment arm of Dubai Holding, which is owned by Dubai Crown Prince and United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

Sheikh Mohammed, whose family is internationally renowned for its running of the Godolphin horse racing stables, is the world's fifth richest man, with an estimated personal wealth of $10 billion.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashed Al Maktoum is a keen racing fan

"Already they (DIC) have demonstrated a full understanding of, and respect for, the club's heritage and values," added Parry.

"We also believe they share our passion for success. In particular, DIC believes in investing in the businesses it acquires.

"This is very important in terms of the proposed new stadium, which is key to plans for the regeneration of the local community.

"On the pitch, Liverpool remains focused on winning and, here again, this is all about doing a deal that gives us the long-term resources to do that."

Liverpool have been linked with other takeover bids in recent years.

In 2005, American billionaire Robert Kraft - owner of the New England Patriots NFL team - was linked with a bid for the club.

Thaksin Shinawatra, then Prime Minister of Thailand, also made a high-profile bid to take control of the club in 2004.

Recent suitors have included George Gillet, the owner of the Montreal Canadians ice hockey team who met with Moores and Parry in the United States last month.

The takeover news will concern those worried about the number of Premiership clubs currently in the hands of foreign owners.

Manchester United, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Portsmouth and Aston Villa have all gone through high-profile takeovers by foreign owners in recent years.

[London Bantam]

Nice to see them execute players for not performing well eh?

[tony d]

Its good that so many clubs are getting bought out by big bankrolling consortiums...

Shame more Brits do not get stuck in but hey hoe thats business...

It's not how much cash it's how you spend it...If Liverpool win the League 2 maybe three season on the bounce it will be worth it...If not it's a waste ...

[Jantje]

I know the Maktoums have money to burn & have a good record in sport with their Godolphin organisation in Racing but i read today that the recent takeover at West Ham isn't what it first seemed.

It turns out the Icelanders haven't actually invested their own money, they've borrowed it and West Ham are liable for the repayments.

I always get suspicious of the motives of these people who purport to be football people and are independently rich but don't invest their own money.

If the investment goes tits up a lot of these clubs will be in mega trouble & they seem to be looking for the quick buck all the time.

A bit off Liverpool i know but its relevant to all the foreign takeovers.

[tony d]

I know the Maktoums have money to burn & have a good record in sport with their Godolphin organisation in Racing but i read today that the recent takeover at West Ham isn't what it first seemed.

It turns out the Icelanders haven't actually invested their own money, they've borrowed it and West Ham are liable for the repayments.

I always get suspicious of the motives of these people who purport to be football people and are independently rich but don't invest their own money.

If the investment goes tits up a lot of these clubs will be in mega trouble & they seem to be looking for the quick buck all the time.

A bit off Liverpool i know but its relevant to all the foreign takeovers.


So if around 50 more clubs get taken over by these dodgy blokes then go belly up we could by default be in the Prem....

Top draw lol....Bring on the ruskies and arabs ...:D

[Jantje]

So if around 50 more clubs get taken over by these dodgy blokes then go belly up we could by default be in the Prem....

Top draw lol....Bring on the ruskies and arabs ...:D

Thats what i was hoping Tone!!! oh for the days of being owned by Owthwaites Pork Pies director Albert Longbottom:D tup:

[Parrot]

It turns out the Icelanders haven't actually invested their own money, they've borrowed it and West Ham are liable for the repayments.

Sounds like a similar situation to the one that got Man Utds fans in a hissy fit!:D ....Maybe the West Ham fans will form AFC Hammers?:rolleyes:

[Kop Kred]

Sounds like a similar situation to the one that got Man Utds fans in a hissy fit!:D ....Maybe the West Ham fans will form AFC Hammers?:rolleyes:


Or maybe the MC Hammers?

[eurobantam]

The difference between the Man U and West Ham deals is that although both are debt funded, Bauger ( the blioke behind the West Ham deal) actually has the money to pay off any loan if required, while the Glazers do not.
As for the Liverpool deal, if I was a Liverpool fan I would be delighted. The Maktoums have more money than Abramovich and as Jantje points out, they have good record with Godolphin. None of their investments have resulted in asset stripping and they will undoubtedly pump a lot of money into Liverpool, and buy them a new stadium.

[ChuckleBantam]

The difference between the Man U and West Ham deals is that although both are debt funded, Bauger ( the blioke behind the West Ham deal) actually has the money to pay off any loan if required, while the Glazers do not.
As for the Liverpool deal, if I was a Liverpool fan I would be delighted. The Maktoums have more money than Abramovich and as Jantje points out, they have good record with Godolphin. None of their investments have resulted in asset stripping and they will undoubtedly pump a lot of money into Liverpool, and buy them a new stadium.

You also can take into account that unlike Roman, the Arab's money is all honest. Abramovich is a gangster and you can't bankroll a club from a shallow grave, prison or the Siberian Salt Mines. This spells bad news for Chelsea, because there is now a team with tradition, history and respect who can challenge Chelsea financially for any player. I mean you have two offers on the table one from the five times European Champions, eighteen League Championships, seven times cup winners three time UEFA Cup winners and seven League Cups or one from a Team with no history, guilty of tacky tactics, bankrolled by a Criminal and Managed by a Git, who can't even outsell their home games? No brainer really.

[king billy]

Prove that Abramovich's money isn't honestly earned Chucks - cos the Russian, British and European authorities haven't been able to!!.....
His money is from oil and gas - there are many million/billionaire's associated with selling oil and gas - why, apart from your blind hatred of Chelsea is Roman any different?

[king billy]

BTW mate - if i were offered a contract by the two clubs - a club in one of the most deprived areas of the country in the north of England - or a contract in one of the most affluent area's of the country in the capital City - it would be a no brainer David - i'd be wearing blue mate!!.....;0)

[ChuckleBantam]

- i'd be wearing blue mate!!.....;0)

You have been for years sunshine;)

[Jantje]

The big selling point & its a major one that Chelsea have over Liverpool is location. Would you rather live on Merseyside or West London? No brainer really. Every other aspect though Liverpool have the edge

[Jantje]

Just beat me to it KB!!

[king billy]

Do you honestly think that modern day footballers see past location and money?.....Both of which Chelsea have over every club in the premier league!!
Its a nice fairytale believing that players look at a clubs tradition before signing for em - but a load of bullshit!!

[baldbantam]

That's the thing.

Liverpool is one of the few areas in the North of England that I'm not interested in pricing for work in (the other one is Hull) because they are shitholes and the general chance of vandalism and intimidation from local scrotes and scumbags makes it not worth it.

[ChuckleBantam]

The big selling point & its a major one that Chelsea have over Liverpool is location. Would you rather live on Merseyside or West London? No brainer really. Every other aspect though Liverpool have the edge

Liverpool is one of the few areas in the North of England that I'm not interested in pricing for work in (the other one is Hull) because they are shitholes and the general chance of vandalism and intimidation from local scrotes and scumbags makes it not worth it

Oh... I forgot...that all Liverpool, Everton and Tranmere players have a clause in their contract that forces them to live in Toxteth for the duration of their contract and the same clause prevents them buying any property in the affluent stockbroker belt areas an hour or less drive away...... D'OH!! Silly Me:rolleyes:

[baldbantam]

They are still employed at a club in the heart of Liverpool, which means the major night life is in Liverpool, they will have contractual functions to attend there and they will spend a reasonably major part of their time there.

Even if you decide that Liverpool is generally ok, there is nowhere in the country that can hold a candle to London in terms of buzz and things happening. Everything happens there first and bigger than anywhere else.

If you are a foreign superstar looking for somewhere to play you don't give a knack about what trophy's a club won 20 years ago. You are concerned with it's prospects of winning trophys whilst you are there, how enjoyable you and your family's lives will be whilst doing so and also how much money they are going to give you, but you can assume a reasonably level playing field in that between the top 5 clubs I would have thought.

And Chelsea is far more attractive a proposition in terms of the first two.

[Superfatbantam]

Euro, aren't the Glazers trying to buy an american soccer team, and touting for Beckham to join them? How do they get the credit? Surely MBNA and GE Capital even draw the line somewhere!

[ChuckleBantam]

And Chelsea is far more attractive a proposition in terms of the first two.

Betcha Liverpool still get the players though.

[baldbantam]

They'll get some players, obviously. The ones that Chelsea don't want.

[ChuckleBantam]

They'll get some players, obviously. The ones that Chelsea don't want.

See the area and nightlife thing is a load of bollocks. Look what having a great nightlife did fior Adrian Mutu eh? Besides in the last 12 months I've been on the lash in Liverpool, Manchester and London and London was the shittest night. Manchester is only a 40 quid Taxi ride from Liverpool and it pisses over Liverpool and London put together.

If the Arab deal comes off for Liverpool and they can match Chelseas spending power, you'd have to assume thgat Liverpool will have more class and common sense as to the way they go about spending the brass. I'm sure they'll not go down the Jose Route and spunk it on anybody and everybody and stick em in the Reserves. I think they'll just go for what's needed and who they actually want therefore making it a more attractive career move for said players. when the Ink is dry on the Arab deal at Anfield, I'd honestly not be surprised to see a few of the Chelsea first teamers hawking themsens for a Move to Liverpool. Perhaps Steven Gerrard can sell the club to them because he's resisted the "fantastic nightlife" and Affluent Places to Live Round Chelsea" enough times now hasn't he?

[baldbantam]

Gerrard is a local lad who is playing for his childhood club. His motivations for doing so are not likely to be similar to a foreign player who has no previous affiliation.

Some may value first team football, and if they aren't good enough to get in to Chelsea's first team that may be a factor. But Chelsea will still have first pickings in 90% of the players out there.

[Superfatbantam]

No, I reckon you miss the biggest attraction for a foreign player. The manager. And mereckons Rafa is coming into his own now and Jose's appeal is predominently the money he can give them.

[ChuckleBantam]

At the end of the day. The main attraction is;

Liverpool are a Big Club, Chelsea are not.

[baldbantam]

What criteria do you use to measure what makes a big club?

[ChuckleBantam]

What criteria do you use to measure what makes a big club?

Some of what I touched on before like history and tradition. Support is another factor, Chelsea have a poor away following and don't sell out the majority of their home games, even as "Champions". I think you are mistaking Rich Clubs for Big Clubs Baldy. Chelsea may be Rich but Big they aint. Seems that Liverpool can add money to their status, wheras Chelsea just have the money. There are only Five Big Clubs in Britain. Man Utd, being the Biggest, then you have both Old Firm Clubs, Liverpool and Arsenal. As far as Stature within the game goes, Chelsea aren't even close. I'd even rate teams like Everton, Villa, Man City, Spurs and even Leeds as bigger clubs than the nouvea riche Chelsea. Tradition wise they are amongst the West Hams but money wise they are up there with the Barcelonas and Real Madrids and probably beyond. But it aint all about Money is it?

[gaza75]

True chucks they are no bigger than the clubs mentioned they got lucky with the Ruskie coming in but when he does pull out we will see how BIG they are and do we not forget how p#ss poor there crowds were in the 2nd division in 1988
One more thing BIG clubs don't get 8,923 attending a Premiership game do they ? Whatever they will never be as big as Man U or Liverpool there fans stuck with there clubs through the lean times could you say the same of the BIG club Chelsea.

[king billy]

The big club debate is a totally different one, and yep, historically, Villa, Everton, Spurs and probably even teams like Wolves and L**ds are bigger than Chelsea - no doubt about it!!
The point is that no foreigner in his right mind would choose Liverpool over London - the history and pedegree argument is bollox, it means fook all to the modern mercenary footballer!!

[ChuckleBantam]

You only have to look at the huge amount of Muzzys in Bradford with Chelsea shirts on to get an indicator of their fairweathered popularity. They always wear the vogue teams colours. Next year they'll be dressed in Salford Red again, the year after Scouse Red.

At the end of the day, you'd find even Mercenary Foreign Footballers, or any footballer will make the best move for them career wise if they have similar offers on the Table and anybody who knows anything about football and the personalities involved will tell you that Liverpool would be the club with more to offer, should their spending power match Chelseas. All Chelsea have over anybody at present is the unrivalled spending, should the playing field be levelled in the future, the dominance and their first port of call for big money signings will whither away. It would be interesting to see Man Yoo and Arsenal get similar investment to Chelsea and Liverpool, the blues wouldn't get a look in at all then. Don't shoot the messenger Matty, it's just a fact of life.

[tony d]

Forgive me if im wrong here but Chelsea before Shevchenko and Ballack hadnt made any so called big signings...

They have spent big to get the player they want but thats it?????

Prior to that Jose bought team players who could do the job of winning the League and he did that twice on the bounce...

The more trophies they win the bigger their player signing base becomes...The fact they are now one of the top 6 clubs in the world makes the previous history worthless.. Added to the fact they are one of the two main dominate forces now in England ensures this...

Liverpool would only draw in players if it was a top side again which they are not and will not be until Rafa gets his pot of gold...

Then the same people slagging Chelsea will be backing the Arabs with hypocritical outburst on how different but fair it is for them to buy success like everyother dominent club has throughout history...

Whilst at the same time moaning about Chelsea still sweeping up titles as they go....

History is only important to those of the past era or those who support clubs who won stuff in the past..Players today want success now not in 3 or 4 years...With a club who can do that now.....

[Rambo]

...The fact they are now one of the top 6 clubs in the world makes the previous history worthless..


Totally agree Tony!! History of "how good we WERE" means fuck all.

Bradford as a city was one of the richest cities in the world because of the woollen industry, and that's why we attracted people to settle here.

Because of our city's great industrial past does that still make us an attractive place to work in?

I think not!! This is exactly why foreign players will go for the "blinding lights of London" over the "Historical nature of Liverpool".

[youngbill]

English Premier League? League of Nations more like it. Call me a cynical old git but it's bullshit what Moore said about the Arabs already appreciating the Club's traditions etc. how can they if they have never "lived"the tradition? it is not something you can just pick up and appreciate,it's something that grows with you through your life. Moore is just trying to justify selling the family jewels for a fortune.I agree wholeheartedly with Tonyd about previous history being meaningless to the modern player------------ " money,money, money, it's a rich mans world" Cheers.