icklevillan

Sorry to nitpick, but thats the Express. The Mail's biggest concern would be whether the new owners were asylum seekers, gypsys, terrorists, gay, or on the Atkins diet.

They haven't exactly issued a denial either, though, as they would probably be expected to if the speculation was completely unwarranted.

I happen to think that Neville is looking to put a big sum of money (80m+) in and act as such a knight in shining armour, but I think, unfortunately, he's looking to do it by borrowing off commercial institutions with repayments leveraged against the Comer's assets. The Comers either don't have the liquidity or they don't have the inclination to put large amounts of liquid capital in at this point, and want to repay off club profits. The delay is in convincing the banks that this is a good idea. Not Ellis. IMO.

Unless Villalonga's looking to buy a stake in a club in the Champions League. In fact, has no-one really stopped to think why, since Abramovich, there have been only three multi-millionaire owners who've put into clubs... there's been Romanov at Hearts (and Hearts were so desperate to take his money because they were about to go to the wall that they didnt ask the questions of Romanov that even Dunfermline did), and there's been Gaydamak at Pompey (who bought half a stake in a non-listed company and has provided adequate investment, but nothing to set the world alight.) There's also been the Glazers, who have invested in Manchester United and transferred a massive amount of debt onto the club in so doing. And then we've got the Champions of Europe, who have been scratching around for new investment for god knows how long. And that, unless we're counting wee Gretna's meteoric rise, is about it. Would Abramovich even have bought Chelsea if they hadnt got that Champions League slot on the last day of the season? Has anyone thought that maybe getting people to buy football clubs and pour huge sums of money into them with no promise of return maybe isn't as easy at it looks?

or maybe Villalonga isn't interested in buying a stake in Liverpool at all

I'm not segregating anyone, pigeonholing for effect maybe, but that's all. Whilst I have no objection to you splitting people up into groups based on their opinions, as this is something that happens within academic historiography all the time, I do object to the names you give these groups. You give the groups the names you do for effect of rhetoric, whereas if your arguments were strong enough, you would not need to. As for whether people use these terms all the time; a term having slipped into a language game doesn't give it any more validity or credence in terms of its argumentative value, it just means that it is a term in use. What you do not realise is that when you do this "for effect," you may also be having the effect of a) offending those who disagree with you, turning away those who may potentially agree with you, c) annoying those who already agree with you because they get lumped in as "name callers" as well. In fact, the only people it does convince are the people who were convinced by you anyway. And if you're presenting an argument solely for their benefit, you're not producing a very good argument.

I think Malcolm's tendency to call people names, while, for a while acceptable in the name of 'artistic licence', does actually begin to border on the disrespectful after a while - the 'Tic Tac' brigade being the latest - lt me guess, that's as opposed to the 'Tac Tics' brigade yeah, Malc? I'd think a lot more of his arguments if he didn't use ridiculous inflated language such as "Messiah" as well.

Does kind of explain why Doug was eager to get it tied up quickly at a higher price while the Comers have been dragging it out. It's now kind of obvious to everyone that the club's not worth that. I think this could well force the sale.

Ok, I didn't want to get back into this: "Then we'll see if you apologists will still be on here posting. It's attitudes like this" That says to me: The attitude which I am talking about is that of an apologist (It's attitudes like this). The attitude which I am referring to was expressed by the person I am quoting (you apologists) .... In this case, I don't see the distinction between saying "you apologists" and "apologists like you" .... If you can show me to have interpreted you wrong, you're welcome to.

Well seen as you completely missed my point, (and demonstrated that you had missed it) by labelling me an apologist the first time round, it was probably as well of me to clarify. I apologise for taking up your precious time.

try not to complete edit your post twice. and don't be rude to me. Well, I resent you labelling me. I consider that to be rude.

I'm not an apologist. I think he's done a shit job at running the club and the club is nowhere near its potential. I just don't think he's done a Michael Knighton either, and EVEN IF HE HAD I think wishing people dead is wrong. Under pretty much any circumstances. Actually read what I say before applying one of your nice simplistic little labels.

arent we all.... Yep. Maybe I can take comfort in the fact that I dont find myself in the position of wishing people dead, though.

EDIT: I can make this a lot simpler. I think wishing people dead is wrong. Particularly over the fate of a football club. I'm not going to engage in utilitarian calculations over which one's better, because, for me, there is no contest.

Good, because you're a long way from it.

I didn't call you a hypocrite or a liar. I just think that the position you hold is, from a moral perspective, abhorrent.

Agreed. This one isn't about "Cuddly" Doug, it's just about showing the most basic respect for people.

His what???? Try Sword of Damocles! or Road to Damascus... ... or a cunning mix of both....

It's doing something, but I don't know as it's flying...

If you believe that Ellis did it. Aren't the rest of the board a bunch of yes-men anyway, though? :roll:

Doug has appointed Rothschild because, amongst other things, the Comers will not pay his asking price. While Rothshild may find someone who will, no-one has turned up yet, and the immense likelihood is that R. will lower the asking price, and sell the club at that price - their job in this is to sell the club, after all. Doug, then, has effectively appointed someone who will lower the asking price because no-one is prepared to meet his. That, to me, is the clearest indicator that this decision was not taken by Doug. The more that Doug was coerced into this, the less likely it is that he still has the clout to demand that Rothschild find a £64m buyer.

Come on ickle...... he wants them to appear to be in with a chance to make sure if anyone else comes in the price don't drop...... having said that shares down over 20p this morning It seems the market has bought the press reports and abandoned hopes of a quick sale then.

If Doug had decided that he wasnt going to deal with the Comers, wouldn't there have to be a statement released to the LSE being more explicit than "We've appointed Rothschild because we feel talks with the Comers are slow"?

Yes. Ellis isn't some kind of demi-God. He's a human being for f*cks sake, and a pathetic old 82 yr old one at that. Christ.

Rothschild's is a serious really bad person of an Investment Bank. They're not one of the big four (Goldman, Merill, Morgan Stanley or JP Morgan), but they're no cheapo outfit either. No need to worry about them.