Hicks to target Liverpool buyout
- Thread starter BBC Sport
- Start date
- Replies 32
- Views 2K
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Just read this.
That would be worse than Gillette & Hicks. Surely common sense will prevail from the banks.But these Americans are just squeezing onto one of England's best clubs and sucking it dry. Fckers.
That would be worse than Gillette & Hicks. Surely common sense will prevail from the banks.But these Americans are just squeezing onto one of England's best clubs and sucking it dry. Fckers.
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Broughton, Purslow, save us please.
IMO, Hicks has got either Broughton or Purslow in his pocket - one of them is on the take & jumping whenever that basterd Hicks twitches his string. This latest rumour has got hidden agenda written all over it. Don't expect a fair & sensible descision, re a sale, from this gang of 5.
Last edited:
Fixed
This just can't happen, he and Gillette have already ****** us over, we just can't let him carry on with the destroying of the club. Why don't they listen to us, we want them out!
B
Blynd1
Guest
Better then chineses...
This is in now way better than a Chinese takeover :S
Fixed
This just can't happen, he and Gillette have already ****** us over, we just can't let him carry on with the destroying of the club. Why don't they listen to us, we want them out!
What do you suggest - a mafia hit ? ( just joking ) The fans don't mean **** to D & D. When it comes to getting them out, the only thing that will work, until RBS steps in, will be for a buyer to come in whose daft enough to buy the club on THEIR ( the wanks ) terms ie: pay stupid money, & as all of us now know ( exxcept Hicks it seems ), that is never gonna happen.
I really cant believe how this has happened to a club like Liverpool. It just goes from bad to worse. I really hope this whole sorry story as with the Glazers at Manchester United has put off other potential Americans from buying into English clubs and putting them in the ****.
Why are you joking? I'm setting up a fund, everyone donate a pound and I'll hire an ex-KGB agent to do the deed.
Honestly, both of them are just disgusting people. No respect for one of the biggest football clubs in the world, no respect for history, no respect for football. They're just milking Liverpool for all they can. Despicable.
A fund?!
Give me £40 fee, £15 for a disguise and £30 petrol money and I'll do it myself.
Somehow, I don't think Hicks or his stooges read the FM forums on a regular basis, unfortunately.
Respect for the sentiment expressed though.
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
LFC, BarCap and Re-Financing
Friday 17th September 2010
The Spirit of Shankly Supporters' Union have had sight of an internal Barclays Capital document that supplies information about the state of Liverpool Football Club's finances over the Summer of 2010. While the original copy document is not in the Union's possession, a full and accurate copy of it has been made and is attached here.
The document throws up many questions about the public messages coming from Martin Broughton, the Club and Barclays Capital underlining again that Liverpool Football Club teeters on the edge of a financial abyss.
From the documents the Spirit of Shankly have gleaned the following main points:
•Up until at least the beginning of August, if Barcap were indeed serious about seeking a buyer they had also been seeking to re-finance the debt. So much so that they refer to approaching around 25 potential investors.
•The Executive Directors (Broughton, Purslow and Ayre) sought advice from Slaughter and May (a large international legal practice) concerning whether re-financing by RBS should be approved in light of their fiduciary responsibilities. Their duties as Directors are to act in the interests of the club. The club in this instance is Hicks and Gillett. Their appears to be legal argument about how they can act in the best interests of the club and therefore the shareholders, considering the circumstances.
•On the basis of Slaughter and May's advice, RBS subsequently made an amended re-financing proposal. It is not clear from this document whether that amendment was sufficient for Slaughter and May to have since indicated that the changes were sufficient to allay the Executive Directors' reservations.
•The firms identified as being willing to be involved in re-financing the Club’s debt are identified as FBR, Beach Point, Halcyon, Blackrock, DK Partners, Stonetower, Trimaran, DE Shaw, Avenue, Centrebridge and GSO.
•In the period July to August the Club’s debt was increased in the following sums:
15/07/2010 Ticking Fee: £5.0m
15/08/2010 Ticking Fee: £7.5m
31/08/2010 Ticking Fee: £7.5m
PIK Increase (Aug): £0.8m
Total: £20.8m
•The sum currently required to re-finance the Club is £300m. However, this can be reduced to £187.5m through using the proceeds of a £75m loan to the holding company in Delaware and by rolling £37.5m into the proposed loan for the new stadium. This plan for securing debt against the as yet unbuilt stadium, means should the stadium finally come to fruition, revenue it generates would contribute towards the ownership debt as opposed to its construction.
•FBR propose to lend £75m to Kop Delaware. Delaware is a "deregulated" haven in the USA, along the same lines as Cayman. As such, it would not be unreasonable to think that a similar mechanism to the Kop Cayman loan could take place in due course, i.e. Kop Delaware could "lend" this money to LFC. (FBR is a top ten rated US investment bank)
The questions that this document raises, among others, are:
•Why did Martin Broughton say the club would be sold "before the end of the transfer season" when BarCap were proposing re-financing "solutions" until at least the end of July?
•Did the changes proposed by BarCap , in line with Slaughter & May's advice, sufficiently address the Executive Directors' questions regarding their fiduciary responsibilities, and as a result prevent them from using this argument to continue to stop re-financing?
•In light of the apparent position that the Executive Directors appear to have powers vested in them by means of conditions attached to the RBS debt, what would the position of the Executive Directors be if either or both of the owners could raise sufficient to debt to repay RBS?
•Could they refuse to allow RBS to be repaid? Would RBS accept payment with the result of removing the current powers apparently held by the Executive Directors?
•So, the major question to be answered is are Barcap currently engaged with any prospective buyers or is it pursuing a re-financing or both?
The document is clearly very technical and for Spirit of Shankly members and supporters it is another in a long line of pieces of information that make little sense to the average supporter. We feel it is in supporters' best interests to be aware of this information, and we will endeavour to keep you fully updated of any further developments, along with our plans for action to follow on from recent developments.
The Spirit of Shankly are urging the senior management of LFC to engage with the supporters in using the supporters who are the only solution to this problem. We will be ensuring that those at LFC are fully aware of our views and we will be planning for all potential outcomes.
RBS need to bring this issue to a close as far as they can, without leaving a vacuum behind. They will not be forgiven, after bleeding the Club for two years or more, if they do not also take steps to secure Liverpool Football Club’s long term future.
The Spirit of Shankly has proposed action by supporters following its EGM on the 25th September 2010 .
In addition Spirit of Shankly-Share LiverpoolFC are seeking to engage in the sale process and this information merely underlines again that it is the supporters and only the supporters who can solve this problem.
Friday 17th September 2010
The Spirit of Shankly Supporters' Union have had sight of an internal Barclays Capital document that supplies information about the state of Liverpool Football Club's finances over the Summer of 2010. While the original copy document is not in the Union's possession, a full and accurate copy of it has been made and is attached here.
The document throws up many questions about the public messages coming from Martin Broughton, the Club and Barclays Capital underlining again that Liverpool Football Club teeters on the edge of a financial abyss.
From the documents the Spirit of Shankly have gleaned the following main points:
•Up until at least the beginning of August, if Barcap were indeed serious about seeking a buyer they had also been seeking to re-finance the debt. So much so that they refer to approaching around 25 potential investors.
•The Executive Directors (Broughton, Purslow and Ayre) sought advice from Slaughter and May (a large international legal practice) concerning whether re-financing by RBS should be approved in light of their fiduciary responsibilities. Their duties as Directors are to act in the interests of the club. The club in this instance is Hicks and Gillett. Their appears to be legal argument about how they can act in the best interests of the club and therefore the shareholders, considering the circumstances.
•On the basis of Slaughter and May's advice, RBS subsequently made an amended re-financing proposal. It is not clear from this document whether that amendment was sufficient for Slaughter and May to have since indicated that the changes were sufficient to allay the Executive Directors' reservations.
•The firms identified as being willing to be involved in re-financing the Club’s debt are identified as FBR, Beach Point, Halcyon, Blackrock, DK Partners, Stonetower, Trimaran, DE Shaw, Avenue, Centrebridge and GSO.
•In the period July to August the Club’s debt was increased in the following sums:
15/07/2010 Ticking Fee: £5.0m
15/08/2010 Ticking Fee: £7.5m
31/08/2010 Ticking Fee: £7.5m
PIK Increase (Aug): £0.8m
Total: £20.8m
•The sum currently required to re-finance the Club is £300m. However, this can be reduced to £187.5m through using the proceeds of a £75m loan to the holding company in Delaware and by rolling £37.5m into the proposed loan for the new stadium. This plan for securing debt against the as yet unbuilt stadium, means should the stadium finally come to fruition, revenue it generates would contribute towards the ownership debt as opposed to its construction.
•FBR propose to lend £75m to Kop Delaware. Delaware is a "deregulated" haven in the USA, along the same lines as Cayman. As such, it would not be unreasonable to think that a similar mechanism to the Kop Cayman loan could take place in due course, i.e. Kop Delaware could "lend" this money to LFC. (FBR is a top ten rated US investment bank)
The questions that this document raises, among others, are:
•Why did Martin Broughton say the club would be sold "before the end of the transfer season" when BarCap were proposing re-financing "solutions" until at least the end of July?
•Did the changes proposed by BarCap , in line with Slaughter & May's advice, sufficiently address the Executive Directors' questions regarding their fiduciary responsibilities, and as a result prevent them from using this argument to continue to stop re-financing?
•In light of the apparent position that the Executive Directors appear to have powers vested in them by means of conditions attached to the RBS debt, what would the position of the Executive Directors be if either or both of the owners could raise sufficient to debt to repay RBS?
•Could they refuse to allow RBS to be repaid? Would RBS accept payment with the result of removing the current powers apparently held by the Executive Directors?
•So, the major question to be answered is are Barcap currently engaged with any prospective buyers or is it pursuing a re-financing or both?
The document is clearly very technical and for Spirit of Shankly members and supporters it is another in a long line of pieces of information that make little sense to the average supporter. We feel it is in supporters' best interests to be aware of this information, and we will endeavour to keep you fully updated of any further developments, along with our plans for action to follow on from recent developments.
The Spirit of Shankly are urging the senior management of LFC to engage with the supporters in using the supporters who are the only solution to this problem. We will be ensuring that those at LFC are fully aware of our views and we will be planning for all potential outcomes.
RBS need to bring this issue to a close as far as they can, without leaving a vacuum behind. They will not be forgiven, after bleeding the Club for two years or more, if they do not also take steps to secure Liverpool Football Club’s long term future.
The Spirit of Shankly has proposed action by supporters following its EGM on the 25th September 2010 .
In addition Spirit of Shankly-Share LiverpoolFC are seeking to engage in the sale process and this information merely underlines again that it is the supporters and only the supporters who can solve this problem.
Paulamey1991
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well ... Hicks taking over ... that would make a massive difference ...
Both the yank liars need to get the **** out
Both the yank liars need to get the **** out
It looks like the board has given him a big "WTF" to this plan
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=823998&sec=england&cc=3436
"Liverpool have rejected a proposed refinancing strategy from co-owner Tom Hicks that could have given the American increased control at Anfield.
Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton turned down Tom Hick's proposal.
Hicks personally delivered his proposal direct to the Liverpool board in a showdown meeting ahead of the club's Europa League tie, and was told that his plans were not acceptable"
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=823998&sec=england&cc=3436
"Liverpool have rejected a proposed refinancing strategy from co-owner Tom Hicks that could have given the American increased control at Anfield.
Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton turned down Tom Hick's proposal.
Hicks personally delivered his proposal direct to the Liverpool board in a showdown meeting ahead of the club's Europa League tie, and was told that his plans were not acceptable"
If the board has given the evil Hicks a ***'s rush over his outrageous attempt to take control, then all I can say is - Well I'll be buggered !
I didn't think the had it in them. If this report is kosher then it's a reason to be cheerfull.