Could Liverpool Fans Shortly Be Seeing the Back of George Gillett
If Liverpool fans were asked if they would welcome seeing the back of George Gillett, I would venture to say that a vast majority would.
So it is not soon enough for Reds fans when they read that Liverpool co-owner George Gillett is finally giving in to the wishes of Prince Faisal bin Fahd of Saudi Arabia and selling his 50 percent stake in the club.
Welcome, indeed, following his comments recently that fans should look to Rafa Benitez when pointing the finger of blame for the team’s poor start to its current campaign.
Whether there is any truth in his comments was not the point. Such incendiary and provocative remarks were not going to improve his stock in the eyes of the supports, most of whom embrace the ideal of “In Rafa We Trust.”
Maybe it has just been bad luck that the ‘Gillett and Hicks’ reign saw the world plunge into the worst recession in decades pulling with it any hopes of major investments in the club in the form of big money signings and a new stadium.
However, what began as a seemingly positive partnership for the club has been eaten away from the inside with rifts and divisions between the co-owners and rumoured boardroom spats with Benitez himself.
It may be as early as the next week that Liverpool Football Club could well see new Saudi owners take over half of the club. And it could ultimately be only a matter of time that Prince Faisal bin Fahd’s investment firm of F6 Sports buys out complete control of the Reds.
Even a 50 percent stake at this stage would see the club and Benitez get a major cash injection which could be used to fund team building as well as possibly kick starting the stalled works on the new stadium.
A complete take over by F6 Sports could be the best thing to happen to Liverpool Football Club since installing Rafa Benitez as manager.
If Liverpool fans were asked if they would endorse a complete take over by Prince Faisal bin Fahd, I would venture to say that a vast majority would and it would not come soon enough.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?