Park Life

Steve Stodghill, the Texas lawyer representing the duo, said: "This outcome not only devalues the club but it also will result in long-term uncertainty for the fans, players and everyone who loves this sport because all legal recourses will be pursued. Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett pledged to pay the debt to RBS so that the club could avoid administration that was threatened by RBS. That offer was rejected. "It is a tragic development that others will claim as a victory. This means it won't be resolved the way it should be resolved." Hicks told the Associated Press that his attempts to block the club's sale, which he believes undervalues the club, were blocked by "the British establishment" in collusion with members of Liverpool's board. "This was a conspiracy of the British establishment and our own [club] employees," he said.

THIS is the worry. Need to sneak a win, however it comes.

There will be a direct green tax within 5 years and the money will come straight out of your paycheck, that is what they are heading toward. Don't come whinning to me when that happens. What people don't understand about science these days is that it is no longer a noble pursuit, but just another arm of the toxic and voracious capitlalist spider, charged with looking for new ways to bleed us dry.

Hear, hear. Life is rollercoaster just gotta ride it. Especially Parky who is definitely one of the more sensitive guys. It's a curse.

If I understand this correctly, H+G could have struck a deal with Mill to pay off the debt. Sort of re-financing. Which of course would saddle the club/holding company with even more debt." If I had a pet I'd call it Hicks, I think he's earnt it. Could actually sue the PL as well (Hicks).

My take is that Hicks will sue anyting that is moving if RBS don't back down. As a bank the assets are pretty small as it goes. Hicks v RBS v Liverpool stand up comics ftw.

Scousers can argue all they like but if Mill Financial get in then Hicks and Gillett are effectively still running the club IMO. Cushty.

You're fucking kidding, right? Not at all, sports grounds around the world are being renamed (or relocated) all the time at least we've got the @St James Park left. It's a name at the end of the day, has no influence at all other than that. It's akin to getting upset becasue the new kit isn't how you'd quite like it. Means nowt Means everything imo. What next? change the colours to red and blue like the logo? Means nowt after all right? Don't give him ideas!

Some might even say incorrigible German kezboard.

Beeb Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks is attempting to hijack the sale of the club by offloading his stake in the Reds to US hedge fund Mill Financial. The club were hopeful of ending the ownership saga on Friday by selling to North England Sports Ventures (NESV). Hicks believes he can scupper those plans by selling to Mill, which assumed control of American businessman George Gillett's 50% stake in August. It would then pay off the £237m debt owed to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). NESV's £300m deal is being held up by restraining order issued by a court in Texas, which is set to resume its hearing at 1300 BST. BBC Sports editor David Bond said: "They are still bound by the restraining order which hasn't been lifted because the Dallas court inexplicably adjourned overnight. "The feeling is that this was done to buy Hicks time to get a deal with Mill Financial done and potentially transfer the [debt] this morning, which leaves NESV in a difficult position because if the RBS debt is paid off a lot of pressure to sell to John Henry goes off." But on Friday, NESV owner Henry said on his Twitter feed: "We have a binding contract. Will fight Mill Hicks Gillett attempt to keep club today. Their last desperate attempt to entrench their regime." More to follow. Thing is once Texans sense a battle they are incourageable.

Hicks has asked Obama to assemble a task force. Navy seals seen in the Mersey.

Magic.

Loving these two.

Well done Jimbo. Really happy for you and rememeber luck favours the brave.

The mother of all fuck ups.

It's journalism like this that pisses me off. The scientific consensus is overwhelming yet the Telegraph still manage to give serious inches to one old man's ramblings. I dare say they'd still be printing 'Earth is flat' stories if there wasn't photogaphic evidence. The scientific consensus was overwhelming on aids killing millions and millions across the planet, it was overwhelming on bird flu from China causing carnage across Europe and killing everyone over 50, it was overwhelming that superbugs would eat everything in the fridge....Science is cobblers. Global warming being man made is cobblers. It's a trick to sell us shit weäve already got but with a little green label on it.

That's why they've already started sparying the skies with barium and the like to catch Co2 and block sunlight.

No one knows who the new owners are yet. But who ever buys will pay back the debt to RBS. So unlike Man Utd we don't have to pay intrest and we wont be losing shit loads of cash. So in nutshell we will have more cash to spend on players. Also whoever buys will have to spend big in Jan and build a new ground. Unlike Newcastle Liverpool is a worldwide supported club so it wont be hard to sell. They are worth at about half a billion dollars. Not enough to rejuvinate Liverpool, bearing in mind they will normally only earmark a percentage for re-investment into the side.

This is getting cushtier by the minute.

"Representative for Hicks and Gillett claims case against them paints 'misleading picture of the issues'. This case is not about, he says, the owners trying to maintain their ownership of the club. They accept reality that their ownership will shortly come to an end. It's also not about owners trying to put spanner in the works regarding a sale. The owners accept that some sort of sale will have to occur. They are not intent on stopping sale to NESV. The owners' issue is that the board did not properly enter into the NESV agreement in that the directors did not properly consider alternative offers and so it is they who are in breach of the terms of the sale agreement with RBS."

Arsenal blogger. http://anotherarsenalblog.blogspot.com/201...radicts-fa.html

Given recent events and the violence in the game that the FA refuses to confront, I sent a list of questions to the FA. It was no surprise to me that the FA ignored all the hard questions and claimed that "The FA generally has no power to take retrospective action, due to FIFA directives. ". I found it strange that so many other countries (Belgium/Spain etc) were able to act on dangerous tackling retrospectively, even for incidents seen and punished by the match referee, while the FA was allegedly prevented from doing so by FIFA. The FA were no help, so I turned to the Football ombudsman who was far more useful, he took the time to discuss things with the FA and he attempted to explain their position; he admitted that there was nothing explicit from FIFA that prevented the FA from acting: " it has been explained that there are not so much FIFA directives as FIFA interventions". In fact he said that it came down to page 332 in the FA's very own handbook: "RULE E3 OF THE ASSOCIATION A charge of Misconduct (as defined in and) pursuant to Rule E3 of the Rules of The Association may be brought against a Player in relation to an incident, notwithstanding that the same incident has been dealt with pursuant to this Memorandum. For example, against a player who has been dismissed from the Field of Play for an incident which The Association is satisfied was sufficiently serious to warrant an additional sanction, having particular (but not exclusive) regard to the following: (a) Any applicable Law(s) of the Game or Rules and Regulations or FIFA instructions and/or guidelines; ( The nature of the incident, and in particular any intent, recklessness, negligence or other state of mind of the Player; © Where applicable, the level of force used; (d) Any injury to any Participant caused by the incident; (e) Any other impact on the game in which the incident occurred; (f) The prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally; (g) The wider interests of football in applying consistent sanctions." I couldn't help chuckling when I read this for the first time, it is quite clear from reading the above concerning rule E3 that the FA could easily act on this issue of dangerous tackling if they so wished. Their own guidance seems to encourage action on dangerous tackling."

So is the evidence real? It's manipulated.