KopTalk’s latest self-professed “insider” is Pilkington.
He presents himself as the man with the inside track on the investment saga, and from time to time he likes to imply that he’s actually Christian Purslow.
As you’ll see, in truth he knows nothing about the club’s ownership that isn’t already in the public domain.
In a nutshell, Pilkington/Dunk is a guy who claims to know what Saturday’s lottery numbers will be, but he won’t tell anybody what they are until Sunday morning. In other words, he’s a lot like Dunk/Wallet/The Informer.
He announced himself on KopTalk in December amidst a fanfare of Oldham-esque horseshit. Do the following posts remind you of a certain morbidly obese con artist who loves to rip off Liverpool fans?
20/12/09 05:24 PM Liverpool SUPPORTERS???
Guys as you will see I have just joined the site. I joined because a friend of a friend gave me 2 names of posters and told me to look out for there posts in the next few weeks to a month as they will be posting about something that indirectly affects me. Dont ask because i wont say.
20/12/09 07:44 PM Re: Liverpool SUPPORTERS??? [Re: Cameroony]
I don’t intend on getting some sort of insider status on here guys. Don’t forget I’m here to get info.
All I would say is I think we’d all be surprised who are members on here. I know this because of who told me to join.
He certainly sounds a lot like Duncan Oldham – he likes to make out he’s an intelligent guy but constantly reveals himself to be as thick as pigshit; his “insider” information is either hopelessly vague or a rehash of what is already in the public domain; and he’s prone to arrogance and abrasiveness. He uses several turns of phrase that Oldham employs as well, but pointing them out would just help the fat con artist to cover his tracks.
He also claims to regularly attend home games. For any match-going current KopTalk members reading this, why don’t you ask him to meet up with you at a game? That should make for interesting reading.
We’ll start off with the really embarrassing stuff:
01/02/10 04:08 PM Re: Guillem on meeting with Anfield officials [Re: Pilkington]
I thought at the time Purslow came on board everybody agreed he was an RBS appointment. No?
01/02/10 05:01 PM Re: Guillem on meeting with Anfield officials [Re: Charlie]
Who’s evrybody? I wasn’t a member here when I was appointed.
If its known to be fact then excuse my ignorance.
01/02/10 06:40 PM Re: Guillem on meeting with Anfield officials [Re: Pilkington]
Sorry typo replace ‘I’ for he.
He really did post this. Pressing the “i” key instead of the “h” and “e” keys – it’s an easy mistake to make. It must happen all the time…
Just for the record, Purslow was educated at Cambridge and Harvard. Pilkington is a semi-literate moron who can’t spell the word “assets” correctly and doesn’t know what “negative equity” means. Even so, some KopTalk members did seem to fall for this infantile, cringeworthy nonsense.
Thankfully, not everyone on there is so gullible:
02/02/10 10:16 PM Re: SOS Minutes re Purslow meeting! [Re: redtothebone]
Like i said, i respect SOS but there are ways and means. They could have put all the information out there without getting anyone in trouble.
02/02/10 10:29 PM Re: SOS Minutes re Purslow meeting! [Re: redtothebone]
CP wont be in trouble. He is in a very strong position within the club, possibly untouchable.
02/02/10 10:35 PM Re: SOS Minutes re Purslow meeting! [Re: Pilkington]
You say CP won’t be in trouble which directly contradicts your assertion that by naming names SOS have got people in trouble.
02/02/10 10:48 PM Re: SOS Minutes re Purslow meeting! [Re: redtothebone]
Fair point i have directly contradicted myself.
By saying he wont be in trouble i meant serious trouble. This whole thing will have caused trouble for him though.
You would be very surprised who frequents internet chat rooms. Some things have to be said and some problems have to be created.
Call it politics.
Then there are the occasions when Pilkington gets things very wrong and makes a complete fool of himself.
On January 17th, a report in the Sunday Times stated that:
Hicks and Gillett continue to cast around for a new investor to buy a 25% stake in their club, on offer for £100m.
Pilkington/Dunk read this and decided to start passing it off as “insider” information:
01/02/10 03:11 PM Re: Guillem on meeting with Anfield officials [Re: mmob65]
I also said there is plenty of interest in taking a 25% stake.
01/02/10 06:44 PM Re: Interested Parties invited for discussions [Re: Porch]
I have said on numerous occasions that there is interest in 25% share.
Unfortunately for Dunkington, the following day SOS finally published the minutes of their meeting with Christian Purslow. In them, Purslow said that:
“Some investors may have issues with working with the present owners, but some don’t just want a percentage, some want 100%. No investor is going to want to invest £100 million and have a smaller stake than the present owners.“
So there had been no interest in a 25% stake after all. A week later, he humiliated himself again:
11/02/10 06:17 PM Re: Sheikh Mohammed [Re: Magsman]
What makes you think that a company has to be leveraged before it can go bust?
Every company has operating costs, if these at any point are higher than the generated profit the company is trading in negative equity and needs an injection of capital (exactly my point about them protecting their assests) or they go bust? Its day 1 in business management mate.
Pilkington/Oldham clearly skipped his first day at business school, as the above statement is embarrassingly incorrect. See here for a true definition of the term: “Negative equity occurs when the value of an asset used to secure a loan is less than the outstanding balance on the loan”.
As we’ve seen above, the release of the Purslow-SOS minutes showed Pilkington to be a bullshitter who had no idea what was actually happening on the investment front. So Dunk/Pilk came up with a cunning ruse: he’d pass off information contained in the minutes as his own “insider” knowledge. He obviously views KopTalk members with such contempt that he didn’t think they’d have the gumption to read the SOS minutes themselves.
Compare this quote from Purslow in the SOS minutes released on February 2nd:
CP, Feb 2nd – There are now around five or six potential investors with whom we are talking.
to these later posts from Pilkington:
27/02/10 10:04 AM Re: All gone quiet! [Re: Locin]
There are 5 or 6 interested parties. I’d say they have all been in the press.
14/03/10 05:45 PM Re: NOTW [Re: RedJon]
There are 5 or 6 seriously interested parties but they are only interested at realistic rates.
04/04/10 09:04 PM Re: From elsewhere… [Re: Charlie]
By the way, there are definately at least 5 potential investors who are keeping an eye on things (ie interested) which may be what the original poster was refering to. I would say 6 but I fear the sixth may be too [oops] off to care.
And now look at this quote from Pilkington:
25/03/10 12:06 PM Re: SOS [Re: Paul Jackson]
I do know Purslow is very frustrated at lack of progress and lack of flexibility from the owners on their highly unrealistic demands. That’s what’s concerning.
Who would have thought Purslow was frustrated after reading these comments in the SOS minutes at the beginning of February:
SOS – Do Hicks and Gillett value the club too high?
CP, Feb 2nd – No one would invest at the level they want.
RBS are annoyed and unhappy with Hicks and Gillett and they want a change of ownership… I am not the owners, I am the management… They have no money now to invest; they… cannot borrow further… I hated what I saw from the outside looking in… The owners have to sell, they are out of money… The promises of Hicks and Gillett are unforgivable… Hicks and Gillett cannot hang onto the club.
Anybody with half a brain could see what Dunkington was doing, but he carried on regardless:
CP, Feb 2nd – No investor is going to want to invest £100 million and have a smaller stake than the present owners… Some investors may have issues with working with the present owners, but some don’t just want a percentage, some want 100%.
24/03/10 04:59 PM Major Concern
Apparently out of the 6 interested parties most want full takeover or a minimum of 51% controlling interest
CP, Feb 2nd – There had been around 25-30 investors interested, although some were clearly not seriously interested once we had spoken with them. There are now around five or six potential investors with whom we are talking.
24/03/10 04:59 PM Major Concern
End of last year upwards of 25 parties registered an interest, that was narrowed down to around 6/7 by the club. These people were believed to be capable of investing.
SOS, Feb 2nd – On the 25th October 2009 you said that you expected there to be new investment in the Club between three to six months from that date. As we are now in the period you indicated can you confirm that you still expect this time frame to be achieved?
CP, Feb 2nd – There are no promises, just an expectation and hope that it can be done in that time. I cannot guarantee it. I had expected it to be completed by February, but now I expect it to be around Easter.
20/03/2010 01:26 PM Re: Buyout Tycoon Lined Up For Liverpool Bid [Re: Easystrider71]
They don’t need by then. There will be a review meeting to discuss progress (or lack of if that’s the case) on the clubs pursuit of new finances.
I’m not even sure if its april the 6th but I do know its just after easter.
This wasn’t a new trick by Dunkington – he’s been trying it on all year. Look at this quote from Purslow in an interview published on the offal on January 13th:
Christian Purslow, Jan 13th:
Much of the challenge in these processes is to sort out the serious and the real interest from people who are unlikely to make an investment.
And now read this piece of “insider” info from Pilkington a fortnight later:
27/01/10 12:07 PM Re: Interested Parties invited for discussions [Re: 4EverReddy]
Idont know if anyone has gone through any vetting process yet but the talks would be aimed at finding out both who is serious about investing and who seriously can invest.
Back in September, a member on The Liverpool Way, one of the numerous free Liverpool forums out there which have genuine contacts within the club, made the following post about the Standard Chartered sponsorship deal:
14th September 2009, 02:54 PM
Ulysses Everett McGill
Join Date: May 2003
Re: New MD
Strange one this, as the deal is essentially Ayre’s baby and was more or less agreed before Purslow was officially appointed.
The Echo ran a report confirming this on January 13th:
“during which time Anfield’s Kirkdale-born Commercial Director Ian Ayre pulled off the biggest shirt sponsorship deal in British football history – an agreement with Standard Chartered Bank worth £80m.”
A few days later – and a mere four months after the news had broken on other LFC sites – Pilkington had this “insider” scoop:
18/01/10 10:56 PM Re: Purslow on Investment, Owners, Stadium and Transfer Fund [Re: Pilkington]
By the way the deal with standard charted bank was being negotiated before purslow arrive so its unfair to the team that sealed this deal to attribute it to purslow. Ian Ayre was the main driving force behind this.
28/01/10 03:22 PM Re: Interested Parties invited for discussions [Re: Pilkington]
By the way, the Standard Chartered deal was Ian Ayres.
Note that Pilkington is so “inside” that he can’t even spell the name of the club’s commercial director correctly.
He also uses some of Oldham’s other favourite tricks. There’s the “I knew all along but I didn’t say anything” ruse, one of Dunk’s regular get-out clauses:
28/03/10 10:13 AM Re: Bascombe’s latest – Sunday 28th March [Re: kingofkop]
No one knows the full story, I don’t even think hicks knows what he is doing?
But I expected all the news this weekend but like I saidn don’t believe everything you read. People have motives for leaking stuff.
And the ever-reliable “I haven’t read the article everyone on this thread is discussing, honestly, but I am aware of the information it contains via my own sources”:
12/01/10 03:26 PM Re: Article in todays Mirror [Re: kingofkop]
Did he say that there might even be new owners by the end of the season or at least that he has it on good authority that 100m investment might be brought in and that talks are under way by any chance?
Dunkington makes out that knowing the contents of an article that has been online for almost 18 hours constitutes insider knowledge.
As with all of Oldham’s aliases, most of what he presents as “insider” info is hopelessly vague:
11/02/10 01:54 PM Re: Sheikh Mohammed [Re: RedExpat]
I suspect there will be a bit more press on the matter over the next few weeks.
Meetings are arranged and i dont see much changing between now and then, anything you read in the press will be from the club and for a reason. No idea what the reason is just saying dont believe everything you read.
24/03/10 04:59 PM Major Concern
There are meetings planned for the week after next with representatives of the club and RBS/Wachovia.
In this period i would imagine that a few things will come to light in the media and also a few fictitious stories may be put out by people with an agenda both from the club and outside.
25/02/10 06:43 PM Re: All gone quiet! [Re: Jorcon3018]
Meetings have taken place. You could describe as positive one meeting with representatives from a group only interested in fulltakover.
I don’t think all meetings have been concluded.
I wouldn’t advise anyone to be holding their breath. These things take a long time to conclude IF an agreement is reached.
Finally, there are the numerous occasions when Pilkington reveals himself to be as stupid as, well, Duncan Oldham:
11/02/10 05:47 PM Re: Sheikh Mohammed [Re: Magsman]
Sorry mate there seems to be some confusion. I didn’t say there assests were protected, I said there were reluctant to release any capital and the reason was so that they could protect their assests (as in put money into the assest if required rather than it going bust. So protecting it from going bust (Protected)).
24/03/10 05:53 PM Re: Major Concern [Re: archie_s]
The added presure came from the government when they asked the bank to review all their lending srategies following the bank bubble popping.
11/02/10 07:30 PM Re: Sheikh Mohammed [Re: Magsman]
The term ‘personal wealth’ refers to money that is seperated from the government. So let’s say the shiekh for some reason no longer wants to rule and retire in Hartlepoole, this money is his and all know that the Shiekh controls this money and that it is effectively his but this is not considered part of his ‘personal Wealth’.
Its almost like saying the british government is in 100bn debt and they have assest worth 50bn and gordon browns personal wealth is 500 quid, so the uk is bankrupt.
I know that gordon brown doesn’t rule or have control of the uks finances like a Shiekh does but the shiekhs personal wealth is as much his as gordon brown owns his own.
12/01/10 06:32 PM Re: Tom Hicks promises big Summer splash [Re: billyliddell46]
I’m not sure that someone that has no agenda would be as sturn in their biased view.
20/03/2010 04:34 AM Re: Buyout Tycoon Lined Up For Liverpool Bid [Re: Mars0634]
Be weary of interest from friends of Hicks.
We’ll finish with the one Pilk/Dunk post which sums the man up perfectly:
12/01/10 08:33 PM Re: £25million to spend [Re: Pilkington]
Any insider knowledge Pilko??????
12/01/10 08:35 PM Re: £25million to spend [Re: Cameroony]
Absolutely none mate. Sorry, wish I did. I would say.