Football Focus

[Emerson Crane]

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Emerson Crane Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Narnia Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > A recent study of the PL teams show the Arse

> to

> > > the the shortest and lightest players on

> > average.

> > > They get so many injuries of the non

> deliberate

> > > kind perhaps they should look at how they are

> > > training.

> >

> > Interesting point. Barcelona are one of the

> > shortest and lightest teams in La Liga. I don't

> > recall them having to put up with as many

> broken

> > limbs as The Arsenal. This because they have

> far

> > fewer argicultural, journeyman players that

> litter

> > the English game.

>

> I think you missed the point.

On contrary I think you have.

[Narnia]

I was talking about non limb breaking injuries and suggested something may be wrong with their training methods. You did miss the point.

[Emerson Crane]

To qoute you, "non deliberate" , no mention of non limb breaking, until just now. And as for training methods, how do you train a player to avoid a player of lesser ability causing a non limb breaking injury. Case in point Robinson on Diaby in the recent fixture against Boltom. Diaby is a big lad but awas caught on his standing leg, across the shin by a very late, clumsy, unnecessary, overly aggressive challenge. Please tell me what training regime you could put in place to negate this. I would galdly pass it on to many of my freinds inolved in running football teams of varying levels, I'm sure they would be greatly interested.

[Emerson Crane]

The thing that I find odd with this whole debate is that the onus off avoiding injury seems to be put upon those injured to avoid injury, in other words it's their own fault. Very little is being said about how we should train players NOT to make career threatening challenges, or to increase the level of technique and skill they posses so that they don't have to resort to scything people down, or is that too mush of a radical departure for you?

[Jah Lush]

Tackling is a lost art these days. As great a footballer as he is Paul Scholes has never been able to tackle. Too often his mis-timed challenges have resulted in bookings or sendings off.

The challenge the lad at Wolves did at the weekend was nothing short of assault. Absolutely appalling challenge. But you can't take tackling out of the game otherwise becomes a non-contact sport. It's part of the game and a great skill to have in your armoury so why is it such a dying art?

[Annasfield]

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/liverpool-fc-statement-3

WTF is going on?

The Board of Directors have received two excellent financial offers to buy the Club that would repay all its long-term debt. A Board meeting was called today to review these bids and approve a sale. Shortly prior to the meeting, the owners - Tom Hicks and George Gillett - sought to remove Managing Director Christian Purslow and Commercial Director Ian Ayre from the Board, seeking to replace them with Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutcheon.

This matter is now subject to legal review and a further announcement will be made in due course.

Meanwhile Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre continue to explore every possible route to achieving a sale of the Club at the earliest opportunity.

[Jah Lush]

Looks like Hicks and Gillett are doing everything they can to hang on to the club and mess it up even further by stopping any sale going through. Bastards!

[Mick Mac]

The art of achieving the best price in a sale is most likely achieved by giving the impression that you don't necessaruly want to sell....

(But hopefully they will sell soon)

[red devil]

Neither of the offers would give the Yanks a profit from their original investment...like the Glazers they only came in to make a profit, certainly not for the love of the game or the club...the best thing that could happen is for RBS to call in their loan on the 15th, the club goes into administration and you get a 9 point penalty, that way at least you are rid of the Yanks, someone will come in and buy the club for a lot less, so instead of giving their money now to the Yanks just so they can leave with a profit, that money can be invested in players and maybe a new stadium...bit of a scary ride but worth it in the end IMO. One thing I am certain of is that Liverpool will be sorted long before we ever get rid of the leeching Glazers...LUHG

[Mick Mac]

Dance with the devil....

I think and hope Hicks will accept that as with many investments globally over the last 4 years, you can cut your losses by getting out now.

They may have come in for a profit, but the world has changed.

[red devil]

Mick the closer it gets to the 15th, the less likely someone will come in and make a good offer, they know that if RBS call in the debt they will get the club for a lot less eventually, why bother making a good offer now?

[Mick Mac]

businesses breach banking covenants and renegotiate lending terms on a regular basis in recent times. I dont know the detail of the 15th deadline but often loans are not called in, in practice. But im talking generally.

[red devil]

Well if that were the case then maybe there's no pressure on them to sell...I did read a couple of weeks ago that RBS had forwarded the Yanks loan to their 'bad debt division', which is a precursor to calling the debt in, but don't know how much credence that article carried...I think it might have been the Grauniad :)

[Mick Mac]

sale now agreed in principle. Typical last minute brinkmanship but it looks like a price has been agreed.

[Annasfield]

The Americans are blocking it though and trying to remove the Directors. This will end up in court.

[red devil]

"The Board decided to accept NESV's proposal on the basis that it best met the criteria we set out originally for a suitable new owner.'' - Martin Broughton

Anna, do you know what the 'criteria' is?

[Mick Mac]

Broughton added: "By removing the burden of acquisition debt, this offer allows us to focus on investment in the team. I am only disappointed that the owners (Tom Hicks and George Gillett) have tried everything to prevent the deal from happening and that we need to go through legal proceedings in order to complete the sale."

I'm no expert on Company Law (maybe someone here is) - but how can a Board agree a deal and make such a statement that does not have majority shareholder support?

Assuming Hicks/Gillette are majority shareholdrs? then I'm not surprised thay are trying to sack the directors.

Edited to say - not that I support these Americans. I want what's best for Liverpool - Just would not want a board selling my majority sharholding without my consent, if I were a majority shareholder of a company. How does that work?

[Annasfield]

I believe it's because they are acting in the best interest of the club.

As owners, they cannot remove a Director without the agreement of a Chairman (Broughton) and it seems as though Broughton agrees that the club should be sold.

I might have misunderstood this bit, but there are 5 board members. Gillet, Hicks, (or their representatives), Broughton, Purslow and Ayre. Broughton, Ayre and Purslow have all voted for the sale of the club to NESV which leaves it 3 against 2.

The criteria will no doubt be regenerating the Anfield area, extending the stadium/or funding for a new one, clear the debt and investment in the team. H

[Keef]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Neither of the offers would give the Yanks a

> profit from their original investment...like the

> Glazers they only came in to make a profit,

> certainly not for the love of the game or the

> club...the best thing that could happen is for RBS

> to call in their loan on the 15th, the club goes

> into administration and you get a 9 point penalty,

> that way at least you are rid of the Yanks,

> someone will come in and buy the club for a lot

> less, so instead of giving their money now to the

> Yanks just so they can leave with a profit, that

> money can be invested in players and maybe a new

> stadium...bit of a scary ride but worth it in the

> end IMO. One thing I am certain of is that

> Liverpool will be sorted long before we ever get

> rid of the leeching Glazers...LUHG

This is how I see things going.

[Mick Mac]

Usually a sale can be recommended to the shareholders by the Board, but usually then needs shareholder approval?

I guess if a shareholder is deemed to be difficult, a court can override his decision.

[Keef]

Saying that, I think I heard on the radio that they'd agreed to sell... To another yank!

[Mick Mac]

Keep up Keef - its your club ! :)

Can the shareholders overrule the board of directors?

If the directors have power under the company's articles to make the decision, and (as would be usual) there is nothing in the company's articles giving the shareholders power to overrule the directors, the answer is "not directly". There are, however, various options open to shareholders.

Shareholders with at least 5 per cent of the voting capital can require the directors to call a general meeting of the shareholders to consider a resolution overruling the decision.

Shareholders can also attempt to dismiss a director (see 15) or appoint new directors to the board, in the hope that they will outvote the existing board members.

Shareholders can take legal action if they feel the directors are acting improperly.

In the first two options, the resolution could either be to take away the directors' powers to make such decisions, or to include an express power for shareholders to override directors. The shareholders could then make the decision they want. Legal advice would be needed before taking either option.

Even if shareholders take one of these actions, the decision will stand in the meantime.

[Narnia]

Do you think the Toshack/Keegan partnership will work Keef?

[Keef]

Ha ha. Hadn't read everything. Still tend to agree with R_D on this.

[Emerson Crane]

The way some English clubs have been run into the ground by financial mismanagement is criminal, Leeds, Portsmouth (hang your head in shame Redknapp) Liverpool, West Ham, Southampton, Luton, Man u, Newcastle, et al have all been victims to a lesser or greater degree.

Lets not forget, football is a business and has been for many, many years, and should be run using established and successful business models.