Talk:Tom Hicks/Archives/2015

selling the Stars and A-Rod

It was said years ago (maybe 2002–2003) that Hicks wanted to sell the Stars and the Star Centers because he "knew more about baseball than hockey and wanted to concentrate on that." This coupled with his signed of "Pay-Rod" has added to his dislike amongst many North Dallas sports fans. --ProdigySportsman 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How is Hicks generally percieved amongst dallas stars and texas rangers fans?Musungu jim 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I answered most of that in my above post. --ProdigySportsman 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The local sports media has a mostly negative view of him and the general impression is that he doesn't know or care enough about the teams to make good decisions. The Rangers, for example, are one of the worst run teams in the league. Ever since the A-Rod debacle, he seems gunshy about spending money, to the point that the Rangers seem to lose promising talent on a regular basis. The Stars have been the same way recently as well. I think there is some resentment locally about the big money that is being spent improving Liverpool while the Rangers and Stars are crumbling.

Big money being spent on Liverpool?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortspend (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Relious persuasion

Is he Jewish ?

Doubtful. Jews in the South (and Texas) are about as common as an ice cube in the summer.--ProdigySportsman 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish perhaps.

Jews are not at all uncommon in the Dallas area. That said, I don't believe that Hicks is among them.

Liverpool 'Reds' & 'Franchise' gaffe

The article states that it was Hicks who made the gaffe of referring to his new club Liverpool as the Liverpool Reds and also calling them a Franchise instead of a club. I'm not certain but was it not Gillete who made the comment, later claiming iot to be an ill advised joke.

Hicks's behavior has led to several fan protests from Liverpool supporters. The latest of which demanding that Hicks and Gillett sell the team to Dubai International Consortium. Fans have become increasingly frustrated with Hicks's efforts to undermine beloved manager Rafa Benitez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstcskr (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

removal

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the entire neutrality of this article should be questioned. Reading the sections on Corinthians, in particular, it's pretty clear much of this was written by (a) disgruntled Liverpool fan(s). There's plenty of objective evidence that his ownership of Corinthians and Liverpool had negative effects; there's no reason for the editorial here. Wnorton (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that disgruntled Liverpool fans should not be able to write things on here which are untrue or not backed up by evidence and that in putting forward material they should try to consider Mr Hicks' viewpoint. However, the editors need to bear in mind that, objectively, the ownership of at least two of the sports 'franchises' owned by Hicks has been disastrous for the clubs involved. This is well documented and if editors try to prevent well documented criticism on the page just because it is likely to paint Mr Hicks in a negative light then you are guilty of bias in the other direction. Hicks deserves to be painted in a negative light. You wouldn't expect Josef Stalin to come out of his Wikipedia page smelling of roses and, although I make no comparison between Stalin and Hicks, it is clear that there is a great deal of negative criticism that should be directed at people who make levereged buy outs of sports clubs, take no account of the history of the club or the feelings of fans and end up leaving the club in a mess. How can that be defended? So you need to allow these negative criticisms to be expressed in a well documented way and in a neutral tone. Not to recognise those criticisms is just to offer a hagiography of the subject of the article and is biased the other way. --Shortspend (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You have done some good work on this article, Shortspend. All I would add is the quote from Broughton warning Hicks of his impending "humiliation". I certainly think "humiliation" is the most appropriate word of all in the circumstances. 90.203.70.188 (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Hicks bias of page

There's an obvious Pro-Hicks bias in the editorial staff of Wikipedia. Are you part owned by Hicks or something? Why do you keep removing the section on the 'Dear Mr Hicks' video? I have framed this in a very neutral way just reporting that as part of fans' protests a viral video was released featuring celebrities asking for a change of ownership. This YouTube video was watched by more than 400 000 people in 42 hours- it received newspaper coverage- why is that not a valid thing to add to the article? No one can seriously contest that Hicks has been a disaster for the sports teams he's owned, so why are Wikipedia preventing even neutral comments coming through. I fully understand that you don't want people writing 'Get Hicks out of our Club!' but by not allowing people to report in neutral ways on well documented opposition to Hicks' reign you are in effect being guilty of pro-Hicks bias. Why? --Shortspend (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand it either really. I know we can be averse to putting in links to youtube videos, they not generally considered to be reliable sources. But this (terrible in my opinion) video has been reported on all over the place.

There may be an argument that it would be better placed in the LFC article itself, rather than here, but I'm not sure the relevance is so strong. GedUK  10:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the sourcing is all three references you provide just link to the video itself. If it is news worthy then you can provide a link to an actual news story covering the video?Red3biggs (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I have added in some newspaper sources to the references. On the question of the reliability of youtube, yes that is a valid point in most cases but in this case the youtube video must be seen as reliable because it is at the heart of the story. The story is about how fans in their thousands have mobilised to put an end to the rather bizarre ownership of Hicks and Gillett. The fact that the fans are so angry is a valid news story- it may not make Hicks look good but that is surely Hicks's fault. Not to report on this campaign because it is negative for Hicks would end up as a form of pro-Hicks bias. After all, whilst I am not making a comparison between Hicks and Hitler, you wouldn't remove from Adolf Hitler's page references to his criminal acts just because they cast Hitler in a (justifiably) negative light. So why should Hicks be let off the hook when he has behaved so shamelessly? --Shortspend (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shortspend. Criticism of Hicks, properly cited, should not be deliberately kept off this article. In particular the judgement of the High Court in London should be fully described. 90.203.70.188 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Estimated Wealth

Why are you allowing the statement that he has an estimated wealth of $1 billion to go unchallenged? Estimated by whom? If it were true surely he would simply be redirecting some of this wealth to stave off the imminent take-over of Liverpool. --Shortspend (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The estimated wealth is provided by Forbes. This should include all assets, stocks, and other non-liquid forms of value.Red3biggs (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can a proper citation be provided which links to a page in Forbes where it says this? Otherwise I could just as easily make up a reference for Forbes 2010 saying that his estimated value is $0 which in current circumstances seems more likely. So please give a proper reference or remove the estimated value. --Shortspend (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This should be removed immediately under the BLP policy, unless a reliable source is forthcoming. In any case the wording should be changed to "..on such-and-such a date Tom Hicks was reported as being worth $1bn". Clearly he's nowhere near being a billionaire, otherwise he wouldn't be begging venture capitalists to let him pile yet more debt on Liverpool. 90.203.70.188 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have provided a source for the estimated wealth.Red3biggs (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the sentence read that he had (past tense) an estimated wealth of $1bn? As well as being a year old, the source also claims Liverpool FC are worth a billion - we now know that was totally false since it was sold today for less than half of that. 90.203.70.188 (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Forbes 2008 had him listed as having a $1.4 bn fortune. It also said he was 'shrewd'- losing $0.4 bn in a year doesn't sound very shrewd to me! --Shortspend (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

questioning this sentence

The plans to build the stadium were edited and currently the stadium is not being built. What is it trying to say? 05:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.215.245 (talk)

The ******'person' is being 'removed' as we speak kicking and screaming it seems.

In reference to the question about the stadium- what I think they are referring to is that when Hicks and Gillett came in they cancelled the stadium plans which were already in existence and called for a review. They then came back with a much more ambitious revised version which left everyone gasping with admiration. The only small problem? It never moved beyond a computer generated image. I have changed their text from 'edited' to 'revised' to make this clear. --Shortspend (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

HMTF - CORINTHIANS

The article is absolutely wrong in the HTMF - CORINTHIANS partnership subject (Yes! partnership) The S.C. Corinthians Paulista, was never sold to a private owner in its history (This is really uncommon between the big clubs in brazilian football). HTMF made a partnership with Corinthians in wich the company would manage the marketing and finances of the club, manage the signing of new players. A new stadium would be built, managed by HMTF and sold to Corinthians for a simbolic value of USD$ 1,00. The partnership went bad around 2001

Correct, Hicks Muse never bought Corinthians. Corinthians is a club, much like Barcelona. The whole section appears to be utter baloney, considering it says the fans were angered by Hicks' placement of corporate sponsors on the team jersey- when in fact the team had had jersey sponsors for a long long time before Hicks ever came around. And the part about changing team colors? Also completely untrue. Maybe some disgruntled Liverpool fan is skewing things here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.173.248 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth

{{Edit semi-protected}} 7 February 1946

Source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/interactive/2010/oct/14/liverpool-business

Someone with editing privileges update please!90.203.70.188 (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Also, the source provided appears not to mention anything of that date. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read the source? Scroll down to page 4/6, company director 4, "Thomas Ollis Hicks". Date of Birth is published as 7 February 1946. Therefore the field "birth date" in the article should be changed from "1946 (age 77–78)" to " (1946-02-07) February 7, 1946". Hope this is clear enough, thanks 90.203.70.188 (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Done That is appropriately specific, thanks. Please remember that your fellow editors are just acting as your proxy and take the time to detail the change in the initial request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

LFC must be veiwed as failure

Without doubt, Tom Hicks has sullied his reputation in europe because of the Liverpool FC debacle. The fans have turned on himself & George Gillett, but mostly Mr.Hicks as he put himself forward in every nuance of the transactions with the football club. His underestimation of the soul of the club, but not the possible commercial value, ultimately lead to his downfall as Liverpool FC joint owner. ````Konman01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konman01 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Blow me, fuck face"

{{Edit semi-protected}} Whoever put the asterisks in the word fuck is in breach of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:MOSQUOTE. When quoting a vulgarity or obscenity, it should appear exactly as it does in the cited source; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. Please restore the correct quote and remove the asterisks. 90.203.70.188 (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)