http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article7136481.eceThere is an article now in the Times............trying to find the letter!
From The Times
May 26, 2010
David Moores fighting to hold his head up high
Tony Barrett
After becoming Liverpool chairman in 1991, David Moores was paid a warm tribute by one of his predecessors.
âThe Moores family have been great benefactors to Merseyside football,â Sir John Smith said. âDavidâs appointment will keep the predators at bay.â
Almost two decades on, the predators have not only stormed the Shankly Gates, they have put the future of Liverpool at stake. It is little wonder that Moores has not only revealed his âregretâ at selling Liverpool to Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr but also called upon the unpopular pair to sell up at a reasonable price.
Moores has been criticised on two fronts in particular since it became clear to the overwhelming majority of Liverpoolâs fans that the club are in the wrong hands. First, for selling to the Americans in the first place, and second, for remaining silent while the club stumble from one crisis to another.
By penning such a remarkable and, in places, hugely poignant letter, Moores has attempted to put the record straight on both fronts. It is also typical of a man who has always been naturally shy of publicity â he even refused interviews five years ago today on the morning after Liverpool had won their fifth European Cup amid wondrous circumstances in Istanbul â and wary of causing controversy. It is abundantly clear that he is acutely aware of the damage that is being done to the club and is desperate for it to be brought to a halt.
On several occasions during the past 12 months, The Times has sought an interview with Moores only for such approaches to be politely declined. There were occasions when it seemed like he would be ready to talk on the record, but for a variety of reasons it never transpired, despite Mooresâs exasperation at what was happening at Anfield being widely known on Merseyside.
It is because of this that his letter assumes such significance. In many respects, it is an historical document because it represents the first-hand recollections of one of the most important figures in the most turbulent spell in the clubâs history. This is David Moores trying to explain why he felt compelled to sell Liverpool, why he opted for the offer from Hicks and Gillett and not a rival bid from Dubai International Capital (DIC), and why he has come to regret his decision.
It is unlikely that all his critics will be won over by his account. But it will provide food for thought, with a situation that had for so long seemed black and white being clouded by shades of grey.
Perhaps the most crucial revelation involves the sales process. It had been widely believed that there had been no due diligence on the clubâs behalf, that Moores had handed control to Hicks and Gillett without seeking, never mind receiving, reassurances about their ability to make good on their promises not âto do a Glazerâ by saddling the club with inordinate levels of debt and that a new stadium would be constructed âas soon as reasonably practicableâ.
This, in the eyes of Mooresâs fiercest detractors, was his biggest failing, a perceived dereliction of duty that left the club he claimed to love in the hands of the predators he was supposed to protect them from. But his claim â and it is supported by an e-mail trail and other corroborating evidence â that Rothschild, the investment bank, provided these assurances after being appointed by the purchasers casts the circumstances surrounding the sale in a different light. His position is supported further by the official offer document that was put forward on behalf of Hicks and Gillett by Rothschild that made it clear that the club would not be responsible for the purchase debt.
But 3½ years later and Liverpool have just paid £40 million in interest to meet the requirements of the debt loaded on to them by Hicks and Gillett.
The disclosures regarding DICâs offer are also illuminating. There is no doubt that DIC was the preferred option of Moores and the Liverpool board for a considerable period, but at a time when Dubai was involved in billions of pounds-worth of global investment, Mooresâs recollections suggest one of its main investment arms dragged its feet when presented with an opportunity to purchase a genuine sporting trophy asset.
In hindsight, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that neither DIC nor Hicks and Gillett were right for Liverpool.
There will be much debate about Mooresâs version of events, but one thing is in little doubt: there will be precious few Liverpool fans who do not share his feelings on the present owners of the club."
End
Comments?
