Hicks; Bumbling Fool or Malicious Manipulator

I must have been expecting too much. That interview with Sky could have been a turning point for Tom Hicks; instead I'm left wondering if he is in reality so insular in his thinking " England, that's not far from Europe. right?" that he can only see the LFC problem in US franchise terms. What kind of advisors does he have? Is he taking any notice of them. It seems that whenever he is interviewed, only a couple of questions in, ego takes over and the editor in his brain, which should intervene between brain and mouth, shuts down.

Take this recent interview with Sky. A one year extension for Rafa? Who was that supposed to impress? Certainly not Rafa who has a right to feel he has served his apprenticeship and deserves a contract long enough for him to fully implement his plans. The fans, who were the target audience of this PR exercise will also not feel a one year extension is a convincing enough endorsement of the manager a vast majority of them revere. 

Then there is the question of his desire to buy out George Gillett. He made no attempt to disguise the fact that although George Gillett does not want to sell to him he, Hicks, was going to make him, like it or not. What does that indicate about his style of management should future issues with club staff or Manager and players comes up?

Hold on though, he hasn't got the funds himself to buy out Gillett and the fact that he talks about other investors tells us no lending institution regards him as safe enough or having assets enough to lend him the cash for Gillett's shares.

Hicks says he wants to lead a group of investors who will relieve the club of all debt apart from the normal working capital needs. How would that work? Hicks is in debt for virtually all of his share of the recent refinancing package. These mystery investors though are going to back Hicks up with real money whilst  he retains a majority, according to Hicks. So in less than 18 months time when the current loans are due Hicks will stump up at least 51% of the then value of the club in real money or loans secured on his own assets. If Hicks can't do it now how will he achieve it then, is the credit crunch going to melt away and the shackles come off the lending institutions in that time scale OR is this all BS , pie in the sky, which can neither be proved or disproved  BUT is what the fans want to hear?

Rick Parry gets another load in the neck in public. To describe our overall performance as a club in the Parry years as a disaster is way ott. I use the term "overall performance' because as CEO that is what Parry is accountable for. The playing side reports to him just as the marketing and administrative wings of the club do. He has overseen the recruitment of Gerard Houllier and Rafa Benitez and we have won a fair few trophies, so there have been plusses. To put down our falling behind Man U solely down to the marketing side is naive. We are at least 3 major signings behind which is down to the funding situation not to Rick Parry's admin. failings. Rick Parry remember remains an employee, accountable to the Board of Directors and as such does not enjoy the same freedom as Hicks to defend his position in public. Hicks knows this hence the bully boy tactics.

On to Klinsmann. Classic diversionary strategy here. The real question to be answered and not put in the interview is, who offered Rafa's job to Klinsmann? No way was it done at the first meeting when the full Board was present. It can only have been done at the meeting in Hicks' place in California. We know it went that far because Klinsmann said so. Hicks doesn't want this question put because he knows it will negate all the cosying up he has been doing with Rafa. So Hicks keeps harping; "Gillett was a friend of Klinsmann's he set the meeting up" to deflect awkward issues.

The window dressing, the family in the background, the family's regret at not being able to come to Anfield for the half dozen times a season he can tear himself away from Dallas; all may be sincere but may be down to the PR boys or the Sky producer. Our fans regard football as essentially a man's game and a retreat from family or job concerns so this kind of embellishment is unlikely to wash. Against possible sincerity you could put the anecdotal evidence of some fans who post the gossip that as far as young Hicks and his mates are concerned, LFC is a drinking club with a football problem. Also the paparrazi did Hicks and son no favours in catching them looking bored stiff and stifling yawns at the Arsenal away CL leg.

Once again Hicks either wont answer questions on or is having none of the veto time limit. Some fans claiming legal knowledge say that there is no way a contract provision that allows Hicks to perpetually block Gillett is legally sustainable. So either, Hicks is bluffing and hoping that other financial needs will force Gillett to the bargaining table or, there is a specific time limitation on his pre-emption rights and he is upping the ante, lashing out at Parry and Gillett in an attempt to force the issue before time runs out.

All in all Hicks could have done much better with this interview. He could have come completely clean with the fans, pleaded for a second chance and laid out properly the substance behind his grandiose plans. He missed the opportunity not out of a bumbling accident prone inability to stick to his script, but because, in my opinion, his manifest unpopularity is hindering his attempts to convince the mystery investors to back him and all this new "man of the people" stuff is a callous attempt to get enough fans on side until he gets what he wants.

Remember, that throughout this interview the emphasis was not on how we are going to re-establish ourselves as the No 1 team in the country but on how he is going to put the club's debt situation and shirt-selling capability back on track. 

Not for me folks I'm not buying.