Opið bréf David Moores til The Times

The Times birtir í dag óritskoðað, opið bréf sem þeim barst frá David Moores, fyrrverandi eiganda og stjórnarformanni Liverpool FC, þar sem hann ræðir sölu sína á klúbbnum 2007 og afdrif klúbbsins síðan þá.

Þar sem bréfið er á lokuðum hluta vefsíðu The Times (þarft áskrift til að lesa) birti ég það hér í fullri heild. Þetta er langt en skyldulesning:



Dear Tony,

Thanks for getting in touch again. I’m writing to you not out of any mission to clear my name – if I felt I had anything to apologise for I would have done so, without hesitation, a long, long time ago. I’m sending this to you, in good faith, because my family, particularly the younger members, are continually being wounded by the combination of hearsay, mistruth and malicious gossip regarding my decision to sell the club, and the process that led the sale.

I’m writing because it’s 5 years this week since the miracle of Istanbul – my greatest moment as a fan and as Chairman of Liverpool Football Club – but which now feels light years away from happening again. But above all I’m writing to you because I care deeply about the club, the team and the fans. I hope against hope that Messrs Gillett and Hicks will see this letter, or some portion of it, and do the right thing. In holding on and holding out, they risk damaging a sporting institution of global renown and if they have any conscience or nobility they will stand aside and allow new owners to take over the club for its future benefit and that of its lifeblood – the club’s fans.

One of the principles that unites us as Liverpudlians, gives us pride and informs our sense of identity is the philosophy of doing things The Liverpool Way. On the pitch this evolved from Shankly’s fearless attacking football into a simple but wonderful game of pass and move, founded on hard work and a team spirit that relied upon everybody fighting for each other. Off the pitch things were not so different. We would put our faith in the manager and support him to the fullest extent we were able. Since the day I accepted the honour of becoming Chairman of Liverpool F.C to the day I stood aside, that has been my guiding principle; back the manager, invest in his vision and ensure that the heartbeat of the club – the methods and ethics that we hold so dear – are preserved and continue in The Liverpool Way.

When I asked Rick Parry to join the club as Chief Executive, I knew that he too cherished these ideals. While we were both very eager for success and both dearly longed to help guide the club back towards the good times, we equally knew that there was a correct way, a Liverpool way of doing things. And one thing we would never countenance was any notion of borrowing against the club to create a phony wealth for some “jam today” spending splurge. I can say with certainty that our housekeeping was immaculate. I have always acted with the very best interests of the club at heart, and if I’ve made mistakes – which I know I have, and not solely with regard to Gillett and Hicks – then they have been honest mistakes.

To give a proper context to the situation we find ourselves in now, it’s important to trace things back to their roots. I became the majority shareholder of LFC in 1991, and underwrote a new share issue in 1994. Pre Euro 96, football was incredibly unfashionable. There was nobody else on the scene in Liverpool who was even remotely interested in taking on the financial challenge of LFC. I became involved for one reason – for the love of the club. But in the wake of Euro 96 with the influx of more and more overseas superstars on superstar wages, I was aware the game was changing beyond all recognition and deeply worried, too, about my ability to continue underwriting the financial side.

I was from the ever-decreasing pool of old-school club owners, the locally-based, locally wealthy supporter like Jack Walker who stuck his money in out of his passion for the club. If we’d have done it as an ‘investment’ we’d have come unstuck pretty quickly. Back then, football was a mug’s game when it came to the finances. You did it because you loved you club – although, unlike the Chairmen of other clubs, I would never entertain the idea of a stand or a stadium being named after myself. That wouldn’t be Liverpool, and it wouldn’t be me.

If loyalty is a weakness then I’m loyal to a fault. I stuck to my guns in terms of backing the people I trusted, and it began to work. Under Gerard Houllier we began seeing the results of a long-term strategy. The Academy, the new training facilities at Melwood, investment in the squad all required serious money – much more money than the club could ever generate in those pre-Champions League, pre silly-money years. It’s easy to overlook the fact that we only qualified for the Champions League for the first time in 2001, and only really started making money in Europe thereafter. But 2001 was a year we’ll all remember with great affection – the year we finally began our concerted fight back. Rick and myself felt satisfied that the time, the patience and the investment was finally amounting to the targets we aspired to: winning the League again, and re-establishing Liverpool F.C as a force in Europe.

I’d pinpoint 2002-2003 as pivotal in what led to my ultimate decision to stand aside if the club was ever going to truly progress – and if we could find the right calibre of investment, and curator. At the end of a terrific 2001-2002 where we made a bold and realistic scrap of the Premier League title chase and came agonisingly close in the Champions League, I backed Gerard in a significant summer of signings. The £20 million we spent was a huge outlay in those pre-Abramovich times, and it was done in the knowledge that we couldn’t repeat the spend again without significant progress – a proper go at the Champions’ League and, chief among our goals, the return of the League Title to Anfield. Very regrettably, 2002-03 failed to deliver our aspirations, and the players we invested in were unable to make a difference.

Rick was always vocal about planning for success, and after much soul-searching from everybody close to the club we bowed to the inevitable. We began to accept that the only way we could continue to compete was by building a new stadium. Anybody who cares to dredge the archive will find myself on record as finding the decision difficult to come to terms with; but looking back now, the thing I was finding most difficult, was the transformation of the game I loved. Football clubs were beginning to be seen as a source of profit rather than a source of pride; they were as much financial institutions as they were sporting legacies. The Abramovich era was upon us, and I knew that I could never compete.

The search for suitable custodians began in earnest. I don’t really care whether the supporters like me or approve of me – but it’s important that they believe me. I would never lie, never – and I have nothing to hide. We looked long and hard for the right person or institution, we followed up every lead. We WANTED that fantasy investor to come forward – the infinitely wealthy, Liverpool-loving individual or family with the wherewithal to transform our dreams into reality. And so sincere was our commitment to finding that person or company, that we invested huge sums and massive amounts of time investigating potential investors, only to conclude that they were not the right people for Liverpool. It would have been easier, I assure you, just to take the money, cross our fingers tight and hope things worked out – but we dug deep into every file and asked all the tough questions, knowing the answers might scupper any deal.

To give just one example, we responded to overtures from Thailand – the figures discussed were so enormous we were obliged to take a closer look. We had just persuaded Rafa to join the club as manager and were eager to back him in the transfer market. No matter how dizzying their wealth though, we would never simply rush into a relationship with an unsuitable partner, and so it transpired with Thailand. After looking closely at the deal we withdraw from the proposition, and did so for all the honourable reasons you’d expect from our club. So it was ironic that Manchester City was subsequently sold to the same entity, without so much as a murmur of disapproval from their fan base. When it suits them, football fans can turn a blind eye to the things they’d rather not have to acknowledge. We did acknowledge it though – we confronted the reality that the Thai offer was unethical, made our decision to withdraw and carried on the search. Rick’s remark about selling the family silver has been used repeatedly against ourselves and the board – but it was said in all seriousness, with all sincerity. Several years down the line, I do sometimes wonder if we took the process too seriously. Do the majority of fans just want owners, whoever they are, who’ll buy all the best players, come what may? Speaking for myself, I could never square that outlook and that legacy with our own unique football club.

Around that time, by the way, I experienced my first real backlash from the fans. It started with a few letters in The Echo and quickly grew into a campaign aimed at forcing me to sell. There’s an irony there somewhere that, in holding on and giving prospective new owners the third degree I was somehow seen as deliberately holding the club back! It was loud minority giving me stick, but this growing ill-feeling was certainly a factor I took into account. Our search for funding took us to the U.S where we spent time with the hugely impressive Robert Kraft.

Both Rick and myself were disappointed that the Kraft family decided not to take their interest any further – Robert is a good man, and would have been a fitting custodian for LFC. Around the same time we met George Gillett for the first time, liked him very much as a man and were struck by his sheer passion for the club he owned, the Montreal Canadiens. There was a cultural similarity between the Canadiens and LFC, in that Montreal is perhaps the most un-Canadian of Canada’s major cities; the fans see themselves as separate (and perhaps superior) to the rest of the country. They are devoted to their team, which gives them a sense of pride and identity. Importantly, too, all the fans we spoke to on the street and around the stadium had nothing but affection and praise for their owner, George Gillett. Sadly George was unable to follow up his very real interest with the necessary funding to take our club forward.

We have been accused of failing to capitalise on the Istanbul Effect – in fact our talks with Dubai International Capital stemmed directly from winning the Champions League in 2005, with Sameer Al Ansari from DIC introducing himself to Rick Parry in Istanbul and making it known that he was an ardent Liverpool supporter. Rick wasted no time in following up this lead, and having laid out our needs (significant investment for players; a new stadium;) we spent the next year working out a deal with DIC. On 1st December 2006 we informed DIC that they were our preferred option – and that the deal would have to be completed by 31st December 2006, for 2 reasons.

Firstly, so that Rafa could take advantage of the January transfer window, and secondly the timeline of non-negotiable targets we had to hit if we were to start the new stadium on time. Several things happened (or didn’t happen) that gave cause for concern. Our being made aware that DIC had devised a 7-year exit strategy was one such issue, along with a suggestion they intended to raise £300 million in working capital (i.e debt), secured against the club. But by far biggest reality check came when we got down to the practicalities of planning a schedule of works on the new stadium. Under strict terms we had negotiated with the various agencies, local and European, with whom we had to deal over grants, planning permissions etc, we were on course to complete the stadium in time for the 2009/10 season, but we had to keep resolutely to the timetable. Therefore (also in December 2006), the club put it to DIC that it was essential we placed an immediate order for the steel required for the new ground’s infrastructure. The steel was going cost in the region of £12 million. Deadlines passed before and after Christmas. New Year 2007 came and still no steel, and quite frankly (and, I think, justifiably) we began to have misgivings.

At this juncture – January 2007 – George Gillett returned with a new proposal. We asked to hear more, and George introduced his partnership with the Hicks family. On 30th January 2007 (the day we played West Ham away) we put the Gillett/Hicks proposal to the board, and they voted in favour. . I was conscious of the fact I’d agreed a deal with DIC, and telephoned Sameer Al Ansari to tell him that the board preferred Gillett and Hicks’s offer, and I wanted 48 hours to think things through. DIC representatives confronted me prior to the game and put it to me that I had to sign off on their offer immediately or the deal would be withdrawn. I told them I wouldn’t be held to ransom – and they withdrew the offer. With hindsight, we may have had a lucky escape there as Dubai is not the buoyant market it was in 2007.

We moved ahead with Gillett and Hicks with all due speed (even now I can not accept that we were hasty) – and here is an element of the process I accept we could have handled better. We had looked into George Gillett’s affairs in detail, and he came up to scratch. To a great extent, we took Tom Hicks on trust, on George’s say-so. There was still the very real business of obtaining approval of the shareholders, however. I was the 51% majority stakeholder, but I was obliged to -and I wanted to – obtain a mandate from Liverpool’s shareholders great and small. Gillett and Hicks produced a very substantial offer document containing all the key assurances re debt, the stadium, investment in the squad and respect for Liverpool F.C’s unique culture, traditions and legacy. It was impressive stuff – and it did the trick. For the motion to be carried we needed around 90% in favour. Over 1700 shareholders voted and the result was 100% in favour of accepting Gillett & Hicks’s offer.

So many times I have had people ask me, and write to me, and quiz the people who are close to me:

“Wouldn’t a simple Google search have told you all you needed to know about Tom Hicks?”

I could be flippant and tell you I don’t know what Google is (I have never used a computer in my life). I could point out that internet searches are as likely to mislead as to inform. But the truth is that we went way beyond Google in our check-ups. We retained Price Waterhouse Coopers to advise us on the fabric of the deal, and they received assurances from Rothschilds, one of the most respected and respectable names in global finance, who vouched for both Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Indeed, Rothschilds – who were representing Gillett and Hicks – telephoned a non-executive director of LFC, Keith Clayton, to assure him that both were good for the money. Could we have done more? Probably – though under those circumstances, in that time-frame, probably not. We did our due diligence on Messrs Gillett and Hicks and if we’re guilty of anything it is that, after four years searching, we may have been too keen, too ready to hear the good news that George and Tom had passed their tests.

The Google question, along with any suggestion that the shareholders and I preferred the Gillett/Hicks bid because it promised to net us more money, is a source of anger to me. Internet culture is inexact and gossip-driven… to suggest anyone at our football club would run a financial health-check via a search engine is just silly. Don’t forget that everyone was delighted with their takeover at the time. Significant shareholders like Granada and Steve Morgan were insistent the board of LFC should accept the G&H offer, and left me in no doubt about my legal duty to accept the offer. George and Tom were carried shoulder high through the city centre on the afternoon of the Barcelona game in March 2007 – it wasn’t just me who was taken in. And as for the extra money I netted from the G&H deal – you really don’t know me if you think that was a factor. Ultimately, the deal we signed up to was laid it in unambiguous terms in the share offer document. That is a matter of fact. But at the end of the day you can carry out any number of checks with infinite degrees of scrutiny and certainty, but I doubt there’s any procedure available that will legislate for a guy you’ve come to trust looking you in the eye, telling you one thing and doing the exact opposite.

As I’ve already said, I feel no duty to justify myself and in writing to you now there is much I’ve withheld out of decency, more than duty. There’s also the very real possibility that, in speaking out, I might derail the process that many believe I can positively effect. But it has been hard for me, sitting mute on the sidelines as the club I love suffers one blow after another. Since resigning from the board I have not set foot inside Anfield – and it hurts. I hugely regret selling the club to George Gillett and Tom Hicks. I believe that, at best, they have bitten off much more than they can chew. Giving them that benefit of the doubt – that they started off with grand ideals that they were never realistically going to achieve – I call upon them now to stand back, accept their limitations as joint owners of Liverpool Football Club, acknowledge their role in the club‘s current demise, and stand aside, with dignity, to allow someone else to take up the challenge. Don’t punish the club’s supporters any more – God knows they’ve taken enough. Take an offer, be realistic over the price, make it possible. Let the club go. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to concede for the greater good.

Yours faithfully,

David Moores

22 Comments

  1. Mjög athyglisvert bréf. Moores er enn að verja sína menn (heldur t.a.m. fram að Rick Parry hafi engin mistök gert) en viðurkennir að hafa ekki framkvæmt nógu gott background-check á Tom Hicks heldur þess í stað treyst orðum Gillett (sem þeir voru búnir að kanna í kjölinn áður) um að Hicks væri góður.

    Þegar öllu er á botninn hvolft trúi ég því engan veginn að Moores hafi viljandi valið eitthvað slæmt fyrir klúbbinn af því að hann fékk meira borgað sjálfur. Hann er og hefur alltaf verið Liverpool-aðdáandi og ég trúi því að hann hafi í alvöru haldið að Hicks & Gillett væru besti kosturinn á sínum tíma. Hins vegar er ljóst á lýsingum hans að þeir flýttu sér allt of mikið með söluferlið til Hicks & Gillett og könnuðu málin þar ekki eins vel og þeir hefðu þurft.

    Og því fór sem fór.

    Samt athyglisvert bréf og verður athyglisvert að sjá hvaða pressu þetta setur á Hicks & Gillett, þar sem Moores hvetur þá klárlega til að vera raunsæir varðandi verðmiða klúbbsins.

  2. FRÁBÆRT innlegg hjá Moores.

    Maðurinn viðurkennir mistök og bendir á, réttilega, að við féllum öll fyrir sömu frösum og hann. Allir fréttamiðlar bentu á að við værum komnir í góð mál með þessa menn og það er líka hárrétt hjá honum að við værum í verri málum með DIC sem er í verulegum kröggum, mun stærri en Hicks og Gillett.

    Þessir amerísku menn eru skammarblettur í sögu LFC og Moores karlinn situr uppi með það að hafa hleypt þeim inn. Hann hætti í stjórninni í fyrra og hefur síðan þá dregið sig frá félaginu, sem segir í raun margt.

    Ég fer á hverjum degi á NewsNow með það að markmiði að finna frétt um brotthvarf þessara manna.

    Með allri virðingu fyrir leikmannakaupum, sölum og þjálfaramálum. Þetta er það sem skiptir máli. Ef við losnum ekki við eigendurna í sumar er framtíð LFC verulega óljós og það VERÐUR að fara að byrja á nýja vellinum, annars erum við 3-5 ár frá því að verða næsta Newcastlelið…

  3. Það er sorglegt að hugsa til þess að eftir 4 ára leit Moores að nýjum eigendum sitji Liverpool FC uppi með Gillet & Hicks.

    Ég tek undir með nafna að Moores var ekki viljandi að velja einhvern slæman kost til að hagnast sem mest á þessari sölu. Gillet & Hicks seldu hluthöfum LFC hugmyndina svo um munaði eins og okkur aðdáendum, á þeim tíma vissi enginn hversu hraðlygnir þeir væru. Eins og Moores bendir á þá horfðu þeir beint í augun á honum og lugu hann fullan af tómu bulli og skít.

    Þeir sem velta fyrir sér afhverju salan gengur svona hægt fyrir sig núna ættu að lesa síðustu línurnar í bréfinu. Ástæðan er einföld, þessir kúrekar frá USA vilja einfaldlega fá allt of mikinn pening fyrir klúbbinn, á meðan staðan er þannig mun söluferlið taka LANGAN tíma.

    Krizzi

  4. Flottur póstur hjá Moores þó mér finnist ekki margt koma mikið á óvart þarna.

    Þetta er sorgarsaga og styrkir mig enn meira í þeirri bjargföstu trú minni að það á ekki að treysta Bandaríkjamönnum fyrir nokkrum sköpuðum hlut þegar fótbolti er annarsvegar! Ekki frekar en öðrum þjóðum sem kalla ruddalega útgáfu af handbolta, fótbolta!

  5. Þessir amerísku menn eru skammarblettur í sögu LFC og Moores karlinn situr uppi með það að hafa hleypt þeim inn. Hann hætti í stjórninni í fyrra og hefur síðan þá dregið sig frá félaginu, sem segir í raun margt.

    Eins og það að hann kjósi frekar að njóta milljóna tuganna sem hann fékk fyrir að selja liðið en að sitja inni í loftlausum fundaherbergjum…?

  6. Það tekur um 2 mínútur að komast að því að Tom Hicks rústaði Corinthians bara með því að googla nafnið hans.

    Gríðarlega faglega unnið þarna hjá Moores. Öruggt að peningarnir réðu engu hjá honum. Annars hefði hann varla farið að leggja alla þessa vinnu í backround check á Tom Hicks er það nokkuð?

  7. Áhugaverð lesning og sýnir að ekki er um villst að þetta eru algjörir fábjánar þessir kanar. Minna algjörlega á þessa 30 glæpamenn sem settu Ísland á hausinn hvorki meira né minna.
    Það er þó merkilegast að lesa um Corinthians og lesa líka í bréfi Moores að Price Waterhouse Coopers gera áreiðanleikakönnun á Hicks 2007 og komast ekki að þessu! Maður trúir svosem ekki öllu sem sett er á netið en maður myndi ætla að ábyggilegt fyrirtæki hafi spottað þetta.
    Hinir hluthafarnir eru svo alveg jafn “sekir” og Moores. Þ.e.a.s. ef marka er bréfið þá vildu þeir líka selja klúbbinn til kananna.
    Vonandi kemst skikkur á þetta í vetur.

  8. Hér kemur áhugavert komment á Echo frá ScouserTommy:

    Mr Moores if you are a ‘person’ above a business’person’ i.e. having morals or a pyschotic need for dollars above anything else – then I have a plan for you.

    If you want credibility then give up the extra dollar these people bought you for (and parry should do the same) and donate to something like:
    a) supporting sos campaign
    b) set up a new evict owners campaign (with sos and other groups) – funding staff, websites, media links , lawyers etc.
    c) create a bursary fund for fans to buy into share liverpool who normally couldn’t afford
    d) pay top lawyers to file a lawsuit against Rothschild for misadvice, against the owners for failing to honour commitments when purchased (i.e. no debt, investment and stadium) or even to pressure banks to stop raping our club with interest payments on a loan we didn’t want or need.

    Just a few starting ideas for how to clean up your conscience and your tainted excess profits. Something to think about in your pool in barbados and a little more proactive?

    Mitt álit á svona fjármálaspekúlöntum (Moores er líklega í þeim hópi) er það að þeir eiga ekkert endilega að vera að tjá sig vegna þess að þeir gera það með þeim einum tilgangi að fría sig ábyrgð. Ég held að enginn telji Moores vilja Liverpool illa en hann vann þetta ekki nógu vel. Eina raunhæfa lausnin í þessu er að stuðningsmenn úti um allan heim safni fé til að kaupa hlut í félaginu af Knoll og Tott og losi þá út. John Aldridge nefndi það hérna um árið og það er sennilega eina leiðin.

    http://www.knattspyrna.bloggar.is

  9. Ég er ekki alveg að skilja þetta, Moores skrifar langt bréf þar sem hann beisiklí játar að hafa gert mistök og klúðrað sölunni á Liverpool í hendurnar á Hicks og Gilette, sem virkar einlægt á mig. Samt finnst mér eins og margir séu að halda því fram að hann sé í einhverri sjálfsneitun?

  10. Ég er ekki alveg að skilja þetta, Moores skrifar langt bréf þar sem hann beisiklí játar að hafa gert mistök og klúðrað sölunni á Liverpool í hendurnar á Hicks og Gilette, sem virkar einlægt á mig. Samt finnst mér eins og margir séu að halda því fram að hann sé í einhverri sjálfsneitun?

    Mönnum fyrirgefst kannski að taka með fyrirvara orðum manns sem fékk 88 milljónir punda fyrir að selja sömu mönnum og hann þvær nú hendur sínar af. Honum hefði verið í lófa lagt að gera raunverulega úttekt á hugsanlegum kaupendum og krefjast fullnægjandi skýringa á hvaðan peningarnir kæmu frekar en að selja bara hæstbjóðanda umhugsunarlaust bara því þeir voru ekki með arabískt eftirnafn.

  11. Nr 11. Verst að það skuli vera 2 tímabil þangað til að þessar reglur taki gildi.

    Nr 12 “Honum hefði verið í lófa lagt að gera raunverulega úttekt á hugsanlegum kaupendum og krefjast fullnægjandi skýringa á hvaðan peningarnir kæmu frekar en að selja bara hæstbjóðanda umhugsunarlaust bara því þeir voru ekki með arabískt eftirnafn”

    Já, var hann ekki að játa mistök sín í þessum efnum eða?

  12. “To a great extent, we took Tom Hicks on trust, on George’s say-so.”

    og

    Moores, 65, sees no need to apologise but admits to making “honest mistakes” while acting in the “best interests of the club”. Nevertheless, he “hugely regrets selling the club” to the American pair.

    “Honest mistake” er taka óvart handklæði einhvers annars í sturtu í sundlaugunum, “honest mistake” er gleyma að borga reikning á réttum tíma. Að ákveða að treysta einhverjum gaur afþvíbara þegar kemur að margra milljarða sölu á fyrirtæki er ekki “honest mistake” heldur gróf vanhæfni. Hann er ekki að biðjast afsökunar heldur aðeins að reyna að PR-stunt til að bæta eigin ímynd. Talk is cheap!

  13. “To give just one example, we responded to overtures from Thailand – the figures discussed were so enormous we were obliged to take a closer look. We had just persuaded Rafa to join the club as manager and were eager to back him in the transfer market. No matter how dizzying their wealth though, we would never simply rush into a relationship with an unsuitable partner, and so it transpired with Thailand. After looking closely at the deal we withdraw from the proposition, and did so for all the honourable reasons you’d expect from our club. So it was ironic that Manchester City was subsequently sold to the same entity, without so much as a murmur of disapproval from their fan base.”

  14. Afar athyglisvert. En ég tek undir það sem Ívar #9 setti hérna inn … Ef Moore er alvara þá tala peningar hærra en orð!

  15. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_6173791,00.html

    We have a substantial transfer budget in place. There is so much misinformation about transfer spending – it has more then doubled under the ownership of George and myself over the past three years.

    “We will make a considerable investment this summer, but it is really about getting the right players.”

    Hvað segja menn við þessu ? Er þessi kúreki ennþá að ljúga af sér rassgatið og að reyna að friða ftuðningsmennina ?

  16. Jæja…er þá Moores kallinn búinn að fá syndaaflausn hjá kop-verjum?
    Eftir lestur bréfsins þykir mér enn minna til D.Moores koma en áður og var þá ekki mikið eftir. Maðurinn er í besta falli einfeldingur og versta falli fábjáni.
    Ég hef tjáð mig áður um David Moores og stend við þau ummæli. Eða á kannski að eyða mínum skrifum því ég sagði eitthvað ljótt um David Moores?
    Liverpool FC mun lifa alla fábjána sem eiga liðið..sagan verður ekki tekin af okkur..ást okkar á anfield og stuðningur við LFC er það sem mun koma okkur í gegnum ólgusjóinn. Við erum í tímabundinni lægð en LFC er einfaldlega það stórt fyrirbæri í knattspyrnuheiminum að ekki einu sinni Gillette og Hicks munu geta eyðilagt félagið…tafið fyrir og þvælst fyrir en LFC lifir.

25.05.2005

Stöðumat: Vinstri bakverðir