The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread - Arne to Slot right in?

[The Real Laoislad]

Lads, I'm not on the wind up here but could you explain to me how a Liverpool fan would be happy to give up the history of Anfield/The Kop etc to share a ground with Everton? Can't understand it. Would have to be a very bitter pill to swallow just for a few more seats?

Seeing as you are being serious for a change I will answer you with how I feel as a Liverpool fan.

History is great,Liverpool's history is one of the greatest in soccer,but history is what it is..History.
It will always be there and no one can take away what Liverpool or Anfield was.
But history isn't going to win you trophies in the future,its not going to pay the bills either.

If they build a stadium on their own they will still be leaving Anfield behind and all the history of the ground as well,so ground sharing would be the same.Only difference is every second week Everton would also play in the same stadium.

I think what a lot of people forget is that stadiums are only bricks and mortar and grass,the history of Liverpool is the club not the stadium in my view.

There has been the option of redeveloping Anfield,I'm no Engineer or Architect but I don't see how that is possible given the space constraints around Anfield,maybe they could put a 2nd tier on the main stand or over the Kop but I doubt it.
If they can't afford a new stadium then on their own the only other option I see is to ground share with Everton,and if it means that doing that will put Liverpool back on the level of the other top clubs then I would be all for it.

[Joxer]

The prosective new owners have passed the PRemier League tests anyway.  Should hopefully only be a formality.

From BBC Sport:

Meanwhile, the Premier League has met the owners and directors of NESV and has confirmed that John W Henry and the other directors have passed the league's new 'owners and directors' test.

The decision means that only the High Court action by Hicks and Gillett stands in the way of the £300m deal going through.

The Premier League statement read: "The Premier League has met with the owners and directors of New England Sports Ventures (NESV) regarding their proposed takeover of Liverpool FC and has received details, in accordance with Premier League rules, of the proposed company and ownership structure as well as the make-up of the new Board.

"The Premier League is satisfied, with the information provided, that the individuals NESV intend to put in place in the event they complete their takeover of Liverpool FC meet the criteria set out in our owners' and directors' test.

"The board of the Premier League will continue working with Liverpool FC in regard to this process, however, we are aware that the formal completion of this takeover is yet to be resolved and it is therefore inappropriate for us to offer any further comment at this time. "

[Lecale2]

I can't see this being sorted next week.

The High Court is unlikely to rule on a case like this on Monday. If the ruling later in the week favors Hicks the sale is off and unless a new increased offer comes in very quickly the club will be put in administration and sold to the New Yanks.

If the judge rules against Hicks (as I expect he will) he can appeal and therefore delay the sale for another couple of weeks. If that happens I'd expect RBS to extend the current loan deal until the case is eventually settled. If could be another month or so before the deal is sealed.

[EC Unique]

Lads, I'm not on the wind up here but could you explain to me how a Liverpool fan would be happy to give up the history of Anfield/The Kop etc to share a ground with Everton? Can't understand it. Would have to be a very bitter pill to swallow just for a few more seats?

Seeing as you are being serious for a change I will answer you with how I feel as a Liverpool fan.

History is great,Liverpool's history is one of the greatest in soccer,but history is what it is..History.
It will always be there and no one can take away what Liverpool or Anfield was.
But history isn't going to win you trophies in the future,its not going to pay the bills either.

If they build a stadium on their own they will still be leaving Anfield behind and all the history of the ground as well,so ground sharing would be the same.Only difference is every second week Everton would also play in the same stadium.

I think what a lot of people forget is that stadiums are only bricks and mortar and grass,the history of Liverpool is the club not the stadium in my view.

There has been the option of redeveloping Anfield,I'm no Engineer or Architect but I don't see how that is possible given the space constraints around Anfield,maybe they could put a 2nd tier on the main stand or over the Kop but I doubt it.
If they can't afford a new stadium then on their own the only other option I see is to ground share with Everton,and if it means that doing that will put Liverpool back on the level of the other top clubs then I would be all for it.

Fair enough but I can't help but feel it would be painfull for fans to leave Anfield. It is the envy of most of the league but I guess the atmosphere is created by the fans and not the ' bricks and mortar and grass'.

It is another sign of why ££££ are taking control of the game and IMO destroying it.

[MCMLX]

Anfield the envy of most of the league? Have you ever been? Its a kip.

[supersarsfields]

I'd guess he's on about the atmosphere more than the premises itself.

[The Real Laoislad]

Anfield isn't a kip ffs,the area around it wouldn't be pleasant alright but the stadium itself isn't a kip.
Small yes,old fashioned yes but its not a kip.
The old Landsdowne is an example of a kip of a stadium.

[MCMLX]

Compared to other grounds in the premier league it is a kip. Its cramped, very cramped in fact, poor enough facilities and there is nothing but derelict houses around it. It should have been replaced or revamped a long time ago. They really should go for a ground share with Everton. Good atmosphere though.

[GalwayBayBoy]

Anfield the envy of most of the league? Have you ever been? Its a kip.

I've been in Anfield more times than I can remember and the stadium itself is perfectly fine. It's just too small to keep up with the revenue that the likes of Man U and Arsenal generate. And Chelsea but they can charge exorbitant London prices for a smaller capacity.

The area around the ground is a kip right enough but the club emerged from those working class tenements.

[Farrandeelin]

Why are Hicks and Gillett bringing the board to court anyway? Surely they should accept the democratic decision of the board to sell to the Red Sox owner and make a bit of bob on the club? I'm not one who's well up on these things, I sometimes have to re-read the Glazer situation on Utd to find out how they operate as well.

[muppet]

Why are Hicks and Gillett bringing the board to court anyway? Surely they should accept the democratic decision of the board to sell to the Red Sox owner and make a bit of bob on the club? I'm not one who's well up on these things, I sometimes have to re-read the Glazer situation on Utd to find out how they operate as well.

Democracy is merely one of the tools available to decision makers to force their will on people.

[Geoff Tipps]

Why are Hicks and Gillett bringing the board to court anyway? Surely they should accept the democratic decision of the board to sell to the Red Sox owner and make a bit of bob on the club? I'm not one who's well up on these things, I sometimes have to re-read the Glazer situation on Utd to find out how they operate as well.

They stand to lose in the region of £150m.

[lurganblue]

Why are Hicks and Gillett bringing the board to court anyway? Surely they should accept the democratic decision of the board to sell to the Red Sox owner and make a bit of bob on the club? I'm not one who's well up on these things, I sometimes have to re-read the Glazer situation on Utd to find out how they operate as well.

I know very little about these things but are hicks and gillett not the majority stake holders and thus don't have to do anything they don't want too no matter how unpopular that is?

[supersub]

Why are Hicks and Gillett bringing the board to court anyway? Surely they should accept the democratic decision of the board to sell to the Red Sox owner and make a bit of bob on the club? I'm not one who's well up on these things, I sometimes have to re-read the Glazer situation on Utd to find out how they operate as well.

I know very little about these things but are hicks and gillett not the majority stake holders and thus don't have to do anything they don't want too no matter how unpopular that is?

Basically they are out voted on the board by 3 to 2 in favour of selling the club, but they are challenging the decision and the boards authority to sell without them because they claimed to have replaced Purslow and Ayre with Hicks' son Mack and Lori Kay McCutcheon, giving the co-owners a majority on the board and with it the ability to block any sale.

[naka]

Why are Hicks and Gillett bringing the board to court anyway? Surely they should accept the democratic decision of the board to sell to the Red Sox owner and make a bit of bob on the club? I'm not one who's well up on these things, I sometimes have to re-read the Glazer situation on Utd to find out how they operate as well.

I know very little about these things but are hicks and gillett not the majority stake holders and thus don't have to do anything they don't want too no matter how unpopular that is?

directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company( which in law is a seperate legal entity)  which is what the 3 guys said they did, the crux of the matter is whether hicks and gillete had the authority to remove them prior to the directors meeting