Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum: In for Anfield takeov

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Taxi for Benitez.

[CrazyHorse]

That's one of the common misconceptions, though. It's not an individual like Abramovich or Glazer (to an extent). It's an investment company who are taking us over as a business, not a wealthy oligarch's plaything or a millionaire's passport to a, er, passport like Fayed. He (Big Mo) won't have any dealings with the club.

I think it's somewhere acceptable in between those two, to be honest. It's a big cash injection, and from a company who will invest in the place (albeit not to the extent of Abramovich), but far enough away from Glazer's company who basically mortgaged United up to the hilt in order to buy them and try to wring every cent they can from them.

When these billionaires pull out of Anfield, then they'll have to sell their shares. Moores and Morgan and Granada will all be keeping a chunk of the shares, as it's not a total buyout from DIC. Also another reason why this is more acceptable to my eyes.

I don't really want to argue this out as it's pointless but I think it's a bit naive of you to assume just because it's not Big Mo-fo's money directly (as in it's the investment company's) that he won't interfere in the clubs day to day running if he sees fit.

Another question I will ask though, is that throwing money at Liverpool's managers in the last few years hasn't brought the success the fans demand (i.e. in with a realistic chance of the Premiership title) so why will this be any different?

[blurred]

I beg to differ, loss of face is a big thing with these guys probably a bigger deal than with the Chinese. Hence, Sheihk Mohammed will take an active interest in making sure that Liverpool do well, which will only be good for the Club.

Also he will want total control so don't be surprised if he buys all the shares and the whole club just like Glazier did at United.

Well I shall have to have a bit more of a look into how much dealings he's had with DIC's other business ventures. I know that he's got a passion for horses and so is involved with Godolphin, at least as a 'face' and attending the major races, specifically those in Dubai, but I doubt we'll be seeing bit Mo as a regular feature at Anfield in the same vein as Abramovich.

From my understanding of what's going on, they're not after total ownership (Moores and Parry are to remain, for instance, unlike Glazer at United), and I would be more wary if that were the case, for sure.

[blurred]

Another question I will ask though, is that throwing money at Liverpool's managers in the last few years hasn't brought the success the fans demand (i.e. in with a realistic chance of the Premiership title) so why will this be any different?

I'll take the Champions League, thanks And Liverpool's performances in the league are eminently more impressive under Houllier than under Benitez. It's clear that Gerard's tactics and purchases didn't work, as much as it's clear that Benitez's are.

And it's not so much that the board have been throwing money at their managers - we're a well-run club with consistent later stages performance in the Champions League and a good revenue stream from TV and merchandise. We've not mortgaged the club in terms of buying players, but have supported the managers as much as possible while still reducing the debt. Net spending at Anfield is not usually more than £10-£15m a year on players, which is about right for a club of our size.

This money reduces the burden of debt on the club, and also the stadium will now be financed. That means that more money is available to the manager (rather than limitless), and so where in previous seasons we've not paid that extra few bob for players (Alves and Simao spring to mind) we will now be in a position to do so. I don't see us throwing around Chelsea-esque figures for players, or building a squad of galacticos, because that's not the way that Liverpool or Benitez do their business. We will still be a business, but one that will be able to invest in its players.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I'm sorry Blurred. I think the fat waiter is now toast.

[CAPSLOCK]

'We don't operate like that'

'We wouldn't let that happen'

What a crock of shite

Oh aye, and its hardly, 'we' is it, carrot crunching glory hunter

[blurred]

I'm sorry Blurred. I think the fat waiter is now toast.

Why, exactly? Apart from 'new owners = new manager' theory, which obviously proved true at Old Trafford recently...

[blurred]

'We don't operate like that'

'We wouldn't let that happen'

What a crock of shite

Oh aye, and its hardly, 'we' is it, carrot crunching glory hunter

[CAPSLOCK]

I'm sorry Blurred. I think the fat waiter is now toast.

Why, exactly? Apart from 'new owners = new manager' theory, which obviously proved true at Old Trafford recently...

Oh perlease

Benitez and Ferguson

Mentioned in the same breath



I fear I've just wet meself

[jetsetwilly]

Apart from Roman, these guys all want profit. The only way this can happen is via the solo negotiation of TV rights. Sad day for football

[thebish]

'We don't operate like that'

'We wouldn't let that happen'

What a crock of shite

Oh aye, and its hardly, 'we' is it, carrot crunching glory hunter

who woke CAPS up? I thought he's gone into hibernation for the winter... you know what happens when you wake up grumpy bears before the spring.... it's just not a good idea..

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Liverpool's performances in the league are eminently more impressive under Houllier than under Benitez. It's clear that Gerard's tactics and purchases didn't work, as much as it's clear that Benitez's are.

Aren't those oppositional statements, Blurred?

[Bruce Rioja]

With a lot of places I think that's true, but with Liverpool I honestly don't believe that they'd do that. There's enough intransigence over the move already, and we are a club that like our traditions....

But Anfield's an area within the City of Liverpool, and it was there long before a bunch of mardy-arsed Evertonians spat their dummies out and skulked off over the park. If you like tradition so much then why not name the new stadium after which ever bit of the city you happen to turn up in next? Just think, you could even have a snappily named Bootle Bootroom policy.

[Crouch > Davies]

But Anfield's an area within the City of Liverpool, and it was there long before a bunch of mardy-arsed Evertonians spat their dummies out and skulked off over the park. If you like tradition so much then why not name the new stadium after which ever bit of the city you happen to turn up in next? Just think, you could even have a snappily named Bootle Bootroom policy.

And to North Wales...

Speaking of the Blues, they have really seen their rear over this. More bile than normal. But don't forget though, ifithadnabeenferheysel it would be them buying DIC, not the other way round...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Fairy nuff, like I say I'm sure you're right. Thing is of course, that if and when the 5th richest man in the world takes over and would like to see an instant return on his investment for little effort is doesn't matter what Rick Parry or the fans say. If he wants to call it the "Evertonian Stadium" he will do.

Back on topic, I think that the buy out will on the whole be nearer the Abramovich/Chelsea sort of thing than the Glazer/Man U thing. Of course whether that is a good point or not is anyone's guess.

Can't help but wonder what will happen when these billionaires want to pull out of the deal in the future though.

That's one of the common misconceptions, though. It's not an individual like Abramovich or Glazer (to an extent). It's an investment company who are taking us over as a business, not a wealthy oligarch's plaything or a millionaire's passport to a, er, passport like Fayed. He (Big Mo) won't have any dealings with the club.

I think it's somewhere acceptable in between those two, to be honest. It's a big cash injection, and from a company who will invest in the place (albeit not to the extent of Abramovich), but far enough away from Glazer's company who basically mortgaged United up to the hilt in order to buy them and try to wring every cent they can from them.

When these billionaires pull out of Anfield, then they'll have to sell their shares. Moores and Morgan and Granada will all be keeping a chunk of the shares, as it's not a total buyout from DIC. Also another reason why this is more acceptable to my eyes.

I still don't think I quite understand the distinction you're making. Abramovich and Kenyon have both said that the long-term goal is to make Chelsea profitable. What is the philosophical difference between one person throwing his money in, with this aim, and a group of people doing something similar?

[Village Idiot]

I just hope to god that Benítez stays at 'Pool for a decade or so, since the moment he leaves Anfield the next stop is Santiago Bernabéu, and he'd boss the Spanish league with an arm tied at the back.

[blurred]

Liverpool's performances in the league are eminently more impressive under Houllier than under Benitez. It's clear that Gerard's tactics and purchases didn't work, as much as it's clear that Benitez's are.

Aren't those oppositional statements, Blurred?

That would be a typo in the first sentence, should be Benitez and then Houllier, naturally. Brain not quite engaged. I blame it on me being ill.

[blurred]

Oh perlease

Benitez and Ferguson

Mentioned in the same breath



I fear I've just wet meself

Who's won more in the last 5 years? Ferguson's been on the slide since the start of the decade, and is nowhere near as effective a manager as he once was. Perhaps it's age, I dunno, but Benitez's 2 Spanish Leagues, 1 UEFA Cup, 1 Champions League and 1 FA Cup in the last handful of years tends to mark him out as one of the best managers in Europe if you ask me, especially seeing as his Valencia and Liverpool sides were far from being the best in their respective competitions. Beating Real and Barca to two titles in three years is quite an impressive feat, as was the Champions League run with a side who had Djimi Traore at left back!

[blurred]

I still don't think I quite understand the distinction you're making. Abramovich and Kenyon have both said that the long-term goal is to make Chelsea profitable. What is the philosophical difference between one person throwing his money in, with this aim, and a group of people doing something similar?

Can you see that actually happening, though? Their claims ring extremely hollow when they're throwing around the monopoly money, and not selling out for games when they're having to advertise in the Evening Standard to get people to come along. What year were they originally supposed to be breaking even? 2009-10? How that's likely to happen when they're making losses of £88m in 2005 with an annual payroll in excess of £100m (or 76% of turnover) I don't know.

There's more chance of me supporting Everton than Abramovich getting the money back that he's put into Chelsea.

As for the difference? I don't see DIC splashing that sort of money around on players, or allowing the wages to rise so disproportionately. Abramovich is on some sort of personal crusade for his galactico Chelsea side to be the biggest in the world, and when its his personal wealth he's entitled to do what he wants. When its a company who are investing, their philosophies are somewhat different.

[FaninOz]

When its a company who are investing, their philosophies are somewhat different.

Its not a company in any sense understood by the West, it is the investment arm of Dubai and is totaly owned by Sheikh Mohammed. Hence the ownership will be no different than that with Chelsea.