Hicks-Gillett rift at Liverpool "had roots in differences over Benitez"

Hicks-Gillett rift at Liverpool ‘had roots in differences over Benitez’

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/12/hicks-gillett-rift-at-liverpool-%E2%80%98had-roots-in-differences-over-benitez%E2%80%99-120501/

By Nick Harris

12 May 2010

As the Spirit of Shankly group of Liverpool fans confirmed today that they will meet with Premier League officials on Friday to discuss ownership and governance issues at their club, sportingintelligence can reveal the historic rift between Tom Hicks and George Gillett was fueled by their contrasting views on Rafa Benitez.

Sources with intimate knowledge of the Hicks-Gillett relationship during the Americans’ time at Anfield tell us it was Hicks who “made all the running” in sounding out Jürgen Klinsmann as an “insurance policy” management option at the end of 2007.

After the Klinsmann talks were made public in January 2008 – when it became evident the owners had doubted Benitez – Hicks fell firmly into the pro-Rafa camp. Our sources add it was also Hicks who was the driving force in giving Benitez a five-year deal last year.

Gillett, on the other hand, although supportive of the Spaniard, felt Benitez worked best under the supervision of a “moderating” executive, specifically the former chief executive, Rick Parry.

Parry left in the summer of last year, after it became clear that, according to one source, “it was obviously going to be a dysfunctional situation going forward.” Hicks was aligned to Benitez, who had been given more powers in his new deal, while Gillett was aligned to Parry, who Gillett believed “kept Rafa in control”. Except Benitez didn’t want to be kept in control, and would not be.

Fast-forward one extremely disappointing season, and Hicks and Gillett are much closer now in mindset. The club is up for sale and Barclays Capital are actively talking to potential bidders, one of whom we reported on earlier this week.

The Americans still privately insist the club is in great financial shape, despite losses for the parent company of £55m last year, mainly due to interest payments of £40m on debt. They are also prepared to inject more money for transfers this summer “for one last time”, a source says.

The rationale is that they need an asset in good shape to make it attractive for a decent bid, but the Americans harbour “grave doubts” that Benitez should be the man to spend the money to keep the asset in good shape.

Figures acquired from inside the club by sportingintelligence show Benitez has spent more than £244m on transfers in the past four years. Hicks and Gillett do not trust Benitez to spend any more of their money. [NB late addition to piece: that £244m is a gross figure, not net, as the debate in the comments below elaborates on].

They will not sack him because his £16m pay-off is too expensive, and thus hope he leaves of his own volition. If he doesn’t leave – for Juventus or elsewhere – then they will only spend in the summer if the club’s chairman, Martin Broughton, oversees any deals.

Benitez wants cash and the freedom to spend it. All this is understood to have been part of a series of recent discussions (to be continued) between Benitez and Broughton.

The SoS group, meanwhile, will meet the Premier League, including chief executive Richard Scudamore, on Friday, to discuss issues they raised last month about Hicks and Gillett’s ownership.

SoS will ask a series of questions and will tell the League: “We do not want another Tom and George, we want ‘fit and proper’ owners. After all, it’s our football club, it’s our game, and on behalf of our members we are going to have our say.”

James McKenna, spokesperson for SoS, said “The Premier League have a duty to run the game properly, to regulate it and make sure it is protected. However, they don’t seem to take this duty seriously, allowing the debts at Liverpool to pile up, with owners who are far from fit and proper. Sadly, we aren’t the only club this is happening to, it is happening to many others, and the fans are the ones left to fight for their clubs.

“We would like to the Premier League to better protect clubs and put in place regulation that stops what has happened with Hicks and Gillett from happening all over again. It isn’t right or proper that a club should pay for its owners to actually own them, and it isn’t proper for the future and the finances of a club to be put in jeopardy for the sake of business and making a profit. Those in charge need to act, and they need to act now, before it’s all too late.”

Scudamore has been a sympathetic listener as Portsmouth fans have kept him updated on the dreadful declining state of their financially decrepit club this season. Lessons learned at Portsmouth have partly led to new rules that will be adopted this summer to lower the chances of new anonymous owners will no proof of funds and no business plans.

(The mysterious Ali Al Faraj – a former owner of Pompey who has never been seen in Britain and who never had an active role – falls into this category.)

SoS are sure to get tea and sympathy. But it will probably also be pointed out that both Gillett and Hicks had respectable references from major sports bodies in the USA, arguably the most highly-screened environment in the world in terms of sports ownership.

They passed the ‘Fit and Proper Persons’ test, which effectively amounts to having no convictions that bar them being directors in British companies. They would have shown proof of funds, albeit borrowed, but leveraging is not disallowed in English football.

They would also have shown a business plan, including the building of a new stadium. It’s just they didn’t manage to execute it.

Nice catch.

Sounds like another hatchet job on Rafa to be honest - trying to deflect blame away from the scum who still want to be seen as "the good guys"

It's the part about 244 million and the "one last time" that give it away.

What a pair of tossers...

In my opinion, this has the stench of purslow all over it - apart from the SoS piece, which I think was added to give some balance...

In my opinion, this has the stench of purslow all over it - apart from the SoS piece, which I think was added to give some balance...

I wouldn't think you're too far off with that assessment KiK.

I saw this piece last night and didn't post it for the same reason as mentioned - it stinks of Purslow.  Can't somebody gag this f**ker with his sneaky leaks to the press.  I'm sure if we did deep enough we could find some dirt to throw his way.

The rationale is that they need an asset in good shape to make it attractive for a decent bid, but the Americans harbour “grave doubts” that Benitez should be the man to spend the money to keep the asset in good shape.

Figures acquired from inside the club by sportingintelligence show Benitez has spent more than £244m on transfers in the past four years. Hicks and Gillett do not trust Benitez to spend any more of their money.

Their money.....hmm. Here I was thinking the club was now up to near 500 million in debt because these fools spent NO money on the club.
Pro owner propaganda

Just do what the normal media and make up sh*t.

Christian Purslow spiked me with Rohyphnol analed me and left me feeling so much less of a man I've now had a sex change and call myself Lisa.

Agree Pal.

Just do what the normal media and make up sh*t.

Christian Purslow spiked me with Rohyphnol analed me and left me feeling so much less of a man I've now had a sex change and call myself Lisa.

I've heard a lot of stories about purslime, from him giving it johnny big bollox in madrid (atletico game) and spouting off to journo's in the tunnel, to him actually coming into the dressing room and sticking his oar in and bollocking Rafa about his "man management" skills.

Obviously I don't know how much truth there is in these stories, but it wouldn't surpirse me in the least as he comes across like tory boy from harry enfield.

I'm in little doubt that he's the yanks's bumboy and that he's the "senior source" behind all the sh*t being thrown Rafa's way - he probably thinks if he throws enough of it, some will stick.

I find myself wondering what kind of deal the yanks have promised him for doing their bidding - they're both in the same line of business after all.

Someone needs to kick him squarely in the nuts - metaphorically speaking of course

I've heard a lot of stories about purslime, from him giving it johnny big bollox in madrid (atletico game) and spouting off to journo's in the tunnel, to him actually coming into the dressing room and sticking his oar in and bollocking Rafa about his "man management" skills.

I'd be very surprised if Benitez allowed that to fly.

I'd be very surprised if Benitez allowed that to fly.

It was rumoured also that he was telling anyone that would listen that Rafa was going he was going to be sacked because Purslow wanted his house.

It was rumoured also that he was telling anyone that would listen that Rafa was going he was going to be sacked because Purslow wanted his house.

That's just insane, isn't it? When you actually sit down & think about that...

I think it really comes down to either supporting Benitez all the way, giving him the funds that a club of Liverpools size should be able to, and letting him get on with his job, or telling him in no uncertain terms that he's not wanted, thus allowing him to move on to somewhere he can actually do his job properly.

Personally, i'd like to see him stay. If the owners are looking to get out, hopefully it'll happen soon enough for the club to get back on track.

This nonsense is making Liverpool out to be laughing stocks, and that's pretty sad.

I'd be very surprised if Benitez allowed that to fly.

Sorry, it was 2 separate incidents - he has allegedly come into the dressing room on more than one occasion, and has reportedly tried to bollock Rafa on another occasion (not in the dressing room) about his man management skills.

My apologies, I should have been clearer.

the whole think stinks of pr sh*t (since when did rafa spend 244m on new players in 4 years?) . the yanks are trying to sell the club so are making up crap.

i'm so tried of all this, really, really tired and sick of the scumbags.

Never been on that website, never heard of that website and quite obviously its shown itself to be a load of sh*te and can join the other shitrags like The Mirror and the swear words whose opinion and articles mean F**k all to me.

Next.

the whole think stinks of pr sh*t (since when did rafa spend 244m on new players in 4 years?) . the yanks are trying to sell the club so are making up crap.

I'm so tried of all this, really, really tired and sick of the scumbags.

Oh he has more or less spent that amount what it doesn't explain is that he's recouped all but about £75m of it.

Oh he has more or less spent that amount what it doesn't explain is that he's recouped all but about £75m of it.

i know mate. but the figures are wrong anyway, his total spend on players in 6 seasons has been 228m. His total spend in the 3 years the cu**s have been in charge has been 154m, of which 110m were recouped from player sales (not including jan 2010 sales).

So, again, my point is that the yanks have only put in 44m in 3 years. if you look at my analysis on money earned from europe alone in 3 years (in 1 of the other threads), european runs would have easily covered that.

basically, the c***s haven't put anything in. in the meanwhile, debpts have risen by 200m in 3 years (wtf?).

i hate it, i hate the whole thing

The Americans still privately insist the club is in great financial shape, despite losses for the parent company of £55m last year, mainly due to interest payments of £40m on debt. They are also prepared to inject more money for transfers this summer “for one last time”, a source says.

What the F*ck!!!!!!

Great financial shape? 500million in debt and money wasted on debt repayments that could go towards strengthening the squad. 40million(just for last year) down the shoot and they have the cheek to think Rafa is untrustworthy with money. You couldn't f**king make it up. 

I've never known such a site for rumours and counter rumours, whatever happens we will know soon enough, it was only last week that Rafa was resigning and the special one was being flown in on a private jet by the new chinese owners ,every f###ing week its something different.

Figures acquired from inside the club by sportingintelligence show Benitez has spent more than £244m on transfers in the past four years. Hicks and Gillett do not trust Benitez to spend any more of their money. [NB late addition to piece: that £244m is a gross figure, not net, as the debate in the comments below elaborates on].

They will not sack him because his £16m pay-off is too expensive, and thus hope he leaves of his own volition. If he doesn’t leave – for Juventus or elsewhere – then they will only spend in the summer if the club’s chairman, Martin Broughton, oversees any deals.

So let me guess this right. Benitez wasted a gross total of 244million of the owners money. But, 16million to get rid of him is too much money.

That makes a whole lot of sense.  

Not much 'Sporting Intelligence' going on in that website.

The owners have been there for 3.5 years.

Rafa hasn't spent a single cent of American's money.

Since they have been at the club Rafa has spent £25M of RBS' money on players. Not £244M.

Can't take the rest of that story seriously.