The Anfield Saga
- Thread starter BBC Sport
- Start date
- Replies 1K
- Views 79K
- Status
good to see you back zeb
Please shut up, I'm a Liverpool fan as much as the next guy but that was brilliant from Scott. Have a sense of humour and lighten up lads, we'll need it to get through the next week or so.
Scott: Take a bew son. You are the don of trolls
It's a legal 'game'.
The court case will rest on the independant board members doing their best for the 'company' and the shareholders (ie Hicks and whoever now controls Gillett's interests given the strong rumours he's applied for chapter 12 bankruptcy protection in the States).
This is part of the background to that.
Losing 140mil when you're supposedly "bankrupt" is worth fighting for-I can understand why gillet and hicks are doing it. Even if they're doing it to delay execution execution day.
An interesting article
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...d-from-Kop-to-bottom-in-hunt-for-magic-mogul#
This i think is the most imposrtant thing to remember for Anfield hopefuls even if they get new owners
“With Liverpool, whatever the price to buy it, came a heavy obligation to spend something like £300m on a new stadium and £350m of debt or an obligation to turn that into equity.
“Liverpool came with some heavy numbers, whereas Abramovich paid very little to gain control of Chelsea. So, no matter how far and wide we looked, there was no evidence of a sugar daddy around.”
I think that'd be the same story with Man City, The Shieks paid less for the club and were able to pump in more $$$ into other areas of the club ie transfer kitty. Chelsea was bought for $200 mil and wasn't as crippled with debt. Man City was bought for a similar price and also wasn't crippled with as much debt..
You pay for the Liverpool name and tradition but as a money making enterprise and all teams are a business how much is that tradition and and goodwill really worth over say, Everton (from what I read as supposedly having a value around 100mil)? Especially considering if you gave a club like Everton a 100mil transfer budget what they'd be like.
An interesting article
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...d-from-Kop-to-bottom-in-hunt-for-magic-mogul#
This i think is the most imposrtant thing to remember for Anfield hopefuls even if they get new owners
“With Liverpool, whatever the price to buy it, came a heavy obligation to spend something like £300m on a new stadium and £350m of debt or an obligation to turn that into equity.
“Liverpool came with some heavy numbers, whereas Abramovich paid very little to gain control of Chelsea. So, no matter how far and wide we looked, there was no evidence of a sugar daddy around.”
I think that'd be the same story with Man City, The Shieks paid less for the club and were able to pump in more $$$ into other areas of the club ie transfer kitty. Chelsea was bought for $200 mil and wasn't as crippled with debt. Man City was bought for a similar price and also wasn't crippled with as much debt..
You pay for the Liverpool name and tradition but as a money making enterprise and all teams are a business how much is that tradition and and goodwill really worth over say, Everton (from what I read as supposedly having a value around 100mil)? Especially considering if you gave a club like Everton a 100mil transfer budget what they'd be like.
Suprise Surprise: Another twist
Posted as Dan Roan has been close to the money in the last week - Same story as Basc but a source we can use
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9077048.stm
Liverpool's proposed takeover by New England Sports Ventures (NESV) could be jeopardised if the club is docked nine points, BBC Sport understands.
An NESV source said the penalty, which is likely if the club's parent company goes into administration, would be "a deal breaker".
Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton told BBC Sport that the threat of NESV walking away "is not my understanding".
But he has admitted that administration would be "catastrophic" for the club.
NESV's proposed £300m takeover is set to be opposed in the High Court next week by Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
Their parent company Kop Holdings owe £280m to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and must pay by 15 October.
If the American duo are successful in blocking the proposed sale, or if it is delayed beyond next Friday, RBS may place Kop Holdings into administration to release the money owed to them.
Because the club is the only asset of Kop Holdings, the Premier League would then be likely to deduct nine points, leaving Liverpool on -3 points and bottom of the table after a dismal start to the season.
It now appears this could dissuade NESV from concluding any sale but if for some reason a deal with the American group is scuppered, BBC Sport sources have learned that the Asian consortium that has also tabled a bid for the Merseysiders could then be in a position to proceed.
Broughton said on Friday he fears the club is at risk of entering administration, leaving it devalued and "wide open to predators".
"Setting aside the nine-point deduction, it would have an impact on Liverpool's value and be wide open to predators, whereas we have what we believe is the right new owners to take the club forward," he told ESPN.
"This is all part of why it is important that we made the decision on Tuesday to accept one or the other of two very acceptable bids.
"Heading into administration was a very likely outcome if we didn't. Even now with the court case looming, administration cannot be ruled out."
Reds co-owners Hicks and Gillett oppose the sale as they value Liverpool at double NESV's bid, but they have been outvoted by the rest of the board.
BBC Sport understands that RBS is pushing to have the owners' opposition to the sale heard in the High Court on Tuesday, in order to leave as much time as possible before the deadline.
Whenever Hicks and Gillett's case is eventually heard, thousands of Liverpool fans are expected to make the journey to London to voice their protest over the duo's ownership of the club.
Should the pair be unsuccessful in court and NESV go ahead with their bid to buy Liverpool - a proposal which has been approved by the Premier League - Reds boss Roy Hodgson could expect to face discussions on his future.
Broughton has said that is a situation Hodgson was aware of when he arrived at Anfield and that a break clause in his contract addresses the possibility that new owners may want to bring in their own man.
"Provisions were made in Roy's contract to relate specifically to any change in ownership," Broughton stated.
The Reds chairman said he expected Hodgson to continue as manager, but added: "He came to the club knowing full well the circumstances and the risks attached to it."
Broughton said he believed that in NESV, who own the Boston Red Sox baseball team, he had found the right buyers to take the club forward.
And he also admitted to having searched the world looking for potential suitors such as those at Premier League rivals Chelsea, owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich.
"We hoped for someone who wanted a 'trophy asset', but having scoured the world without finding one, the conclusion is that there are no more Romans out there," he said.
---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 AM ----------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ton-match-looms-with-certainty-no-closer.html
Steven Gerrard will wear the captain's armband, Fernando Torres, injury permitting, will lead the line. For the 214th time, red will face blue. Everything else is shades of grey.
Liverpool, perhaps for as much as the next seven days, exist in a state of duality. The side that Hodgson picks to face Everton may have six Premier League points, or they may have, in effect, minus three. Their wages may be paid from Dallas, from Boston, from Gogarburn or from points unknown.
Related Articles
Nine-point penalty may scupper £300m deal
No red carpet for new owners
NESV consult former exec over £300m bid
Broughton: points loss fear 'catastrophic'
Liverpool debt at heart of court battle
Why would anyone want to buy Liverpool? They may be supported from the Paddock by fans relieved that the nightmare of the last three years, the toxic reign of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, is over and a new era under New England Sports Ventures (NESV) has begun. They may find the protest songs which have replaced more traditional serenades are spat with greater ferocity than ever.
They may have a bright future, or they may seem to have no future. It may all be over, or it may all just have begun. Liverpool are the Premier League's version of Schrodinger's Cat. They are a club caught in existential limbo, simultaneously alive and dead.
How it came to this is well documented. On Monday, Liverpool's three non-owner directors, Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre, convened a meeting of the board. At it, they intended to recommend that NESV's £300 million offer to buy the club – wiping Anfield free of debt – be accepted.
Except that before they had the chance, Hicks, via telephone, raised a motion supported by Gillett to dismiss Purslow and Ayre from the board and replace them with the Texan's son, Mack Hicks, and assistant at Hicks Holdings, Lori Kay McCutcheon.
All **** broke loose. The British side of the board announced their intention to sell the club regardless, in accordance with undertakings offered by the Americans to the Royal Bank of Scotland – holders of Liverpool's £282 million debt, due this Friday – upon Broughton's appointment in April.
Hicks and Gillett responded with a statement of their belief that the NESV offer "dramatically undervalued" the club. Their meaning was clear: Broughton's offer would see them lose the £144 million they have invested of their own funds in Anfield. Unacceptable.
Broughton, in an attempt to force the deal through, decided to seek a declaratory judgment from the High Court, a ruling that would prove he has a legal right to sell Liverpool, regardless of the wishes of Hicks and Gillett.
That much is known. NESV has completed the deal, the Premier League has approved it. The past, the recent past, is certain. The future is no-man's land.
At the High Court this week, Broughton must prove that Hicks and Gillett not only signed over to him the right to appoint and remove directors, but agreed he could sell the club for what he felt was the best offer.
Hicks and Gillett, in turn, must prove the NESV offer is not reasonable, and both that their higher valuation of the club is realistic and that someone may be willing to pay it.
Which Liverpool side – the one imbued with purpose, or the one mired in doubt – attends Goodison Park on Sunday may well be decided on the Strand.
If Broughton is proved correct then it is likely to be the former, as a club inspired by the sight of its new owners in the directors' box finally feels the gloom has lifted. If Hicks and Gillett win, even after an appeal that will be heard within 72 hours of the original case, then it will be the latter.
It is here that Liverpool's future becomes complicated. If Broughton is unsuccessful, then the sale will not proceed. On Friday, RBS will call in their debts. Unless Hicks and Gillett can pay back around £200 million – and all attempts to raise that funding has failed – then the club, or, more accurately, its holding company Kop Football, will be taken into administration.
That, too, has dual ramifications. It is positive, in that it would effectively force Hicks and Gillett out as RBS seize control and look to complete a quick sale, perhaps costing the Americans a further £110 million in personal guarantees and most likely presenting the club to NESV. It is negative, though, because the Premier League would be minded to dock Liverpool nine points, three more than they have.
It is not nearly so simple as that, though. Regardless of how the court finds, if Hicks and Gillett pay back their debts in the next six days – however hypothetical that seems – then they remove much of the bank's leverage. They would be able to stop the sale, buying crucial time to remove directors.
Yet even that is a shorthand. Hicks and Gillett as a dual entity no longer exist. The latter has been replaced by Mill Financial, the company with whom he took out a $75 million (£47 million) loan in Dec 2008 with his 50 per cent share in the partnership that owns Liverpool as security. He has defaulted on that loan, and Mill, a division of Springfield Financial, have called it in.
Sources in the United States insist that is simply a legal measure; Liverpool and RBS believe it is not a complicating factor. Yet both sides are concerned enough to have had contact with Mill in the past few days. That Hicks's two would-be directors are both his loyalists indicates he cannot be sure of Gillett's place on the board.
That is how unclear Liverpool's future is: not only is Broughton trying to sell a club he does not own, not only is Hicks trying to hold on to a club he did not pay for, half of that club belongs to a real estate company based in Arlington, Virginia, and their intentions – though most likely simply to recoup their money – are shaded in grey. Liverpool can only hope that, by the time red and blue face each other, everything else is black and white.
Liverpool’s future may turn on two clauses in the Articles of Association of the club and its parent company, Kop Football Holdings (KFHL), writes Rory Smith.
Article 81a of the club’s constitution hands chairman Martin Broughton alone the right to appoint and remove directors of the club’s board - making the attempt from George Gillett and Tom Hicks to remove two directors, Ian Ayre and Christian Purslow, in an effort to block a sale to New England Sports Ventures, invalid.
Yet article 7a of KFHL’s constitution - last amended as a public record in Jan 08 - suggests that the board can only be appointed by Hicks and Gillett. If that constitution has not changed, then Hicks and Gillett would seem to have a case to stay at Anfield.
Where the court case will be won and lost
Liverpool’s future may turn on two clauses in the Articles of Association of the club and its parent company, Kop Football Holdings (KFHL).
Article 81a of the club’s constitution hands chairman Martin Broughton alone the right to appoint and remove directors of the club’s board - making the attempt from George Gillett and Tom Hicks to remove two directors, Ian Ayre and Christian Purslow, in an effort to block a sale to New England Sports Ventures, invalid.
Yet article 7a of KFHL’s constitution - last amended as a public record in Jan 08 - suggests that the board can only be appointed by Hicks and Gillett. If that constitution has not changed, then Hicks and Gillett would seem to have a case to stay at Anfield.
Each director appointed to the office of chairman of the board of directors of the Company may appoint any person as a director of the Company and may remove any other director (other than George N Gillett Jnr and/or Thomas O Hicks). Any appointment shall be made in writing and signed by the then current chairman.
(Article 81a, LFC constitution)
The holders of a majority of the ordinary shares in the Company in issue may appoint any person as a director of the Company and may remove any director.
Any appointment or removal shall be made in writing, signed by the holders of a majority of the ordinary shares in the Company in issue and, in the case of a body corporate holding any of those shares, the signature of any officer or other duly appointed representative shall suffice.
Any appointment or removal shall take effect when it is lodged at the office or produced at any meeting of the directors.
(Article 7a, KFHL constitution)
---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 AM ----------
Re: TAKEOVER: Boardroom Battle Over Potential Sale (NESV)
just in from bloomberg:
Liverpool Co-Owner Hicks Seeks Fund Help to Repay RBS Loan, Times Reports
By Michelle E. Frazer - Oct 10, 2010 8:21 AM GMT+0100
Liverpool FC co-owner Tom Hicks is working with American hedge fund Mill Financial to raise funds to repay a 280 million-pound ($447 million) loan from Royal Bank of Scotland Plc due on Friday, the Sunday Times reported, without saying where it got the information.
Mill Financial effectively controls 50 percent of shares in Liverpool as co-owner George Gillett defaulted on the loan the fund provided for Gillett’s part in the 2007 takeover, according to the newspaper.
In addition to securing the RBS loan repayment, Hicks will have to win the case currently in the High Court to prevent Liverpool’s sale to New England Sports Venture, the newspaper reported, citing an unidentified source close to the club.
Posted as Dan Roan has been close to the money in the last week - Same story as Basc but a source we can use
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9077048.stm
Liverpool's proposed takeover by New England Sports Ventures (NESV) could be jeopardised if the club is docked nine points, BBC Sport understands.
An NESV source said the penalty, which is likely if the club's parent company goes into administration, would be "a deal breaker".
Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton told BBC Sport that the threat of NESV walking away "is not my understanding".
But he has admitted that administration would be "catastrophic" for the club.
NESV's proposed £300m takeover is set to be opposed in the High Court next week by Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
Their parent company Kop Holdings owe £280m to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and must pay by 15 October.
If the American duo are successful in blocking the proposed sale, or if it is delayed beyond next Friday, RBS may place Kop Holdings into administration to release the money owed to them.
Because the club is the only asset of Kop Holdings, the Premier League would then be likely to deduct nine points, leaving Liverpool on -3 points and bottom of the table after a dismal start to the season.
It now appears this could dissuade NESV from concluding any sale but if for some reason a deal with the American group is scuppered, BBC Sport sources have learned that the Asian consortium that has also tabled a bid for the Merseysiders could then be in a position to proceed.
Broughton said on Friday he fears the club is at risk of entering administration, leaving it devalued and "wide open to predators".
"Setting aside the nine-point deduction, it would have an impact on Liverpool's value and be wide open to predators, whereas we have what we believe is the right new owners to take the club forward," he told ESPN.
"This is all part of why it is important that we made the decision on Tuesday to accept one or the other of two very acceptable bids.
"Heading into administration was a very likely outcome if we didn't. Even now with the court case looming, administration cannot be ruled out."
Reds co-owners Hicks and Gillett oppose the sale as they value Liverpool at double NESV's bid, but they have been outvoted by the rest of the board.
BBC Sport understands that RBS is pushing to have the owners' opposition to the sale heard in the High Court on Tuesday, in order to leave as much time as possible before the deadline.
Whenever Hicks and Gillett's case is eventually heard, thousands of Liverpool fans are expected to make the journey to London to voice their protest over the duo's ownership of the club.
Should the pair be unsuccessful in court and NESV go ahead with their bid to buy Liverpool - a proposal which has been approved by the Premier League - Reds boss Roy Hodgson could expect to face discussions on his future.
Broughton has said that is a situation Hodgson was aware of when he arrived at Anfield and that a break clause in his contract addresses the possibility that new owners may want to bring in their own man.
"Provisions were made in Roy's contract to relate specifically to any change in ownership," Broughton stated.
The Reds chairman said he expected Hodgson to continue as manager, but added: "He came to the club knowing full well the circumstances and the risks attached to it."
Broughton said he believed that in NESV, who own the Boston Red Sox baseball team, he had found the right buyers to take the club forward.
And he also admitted to having searched the world looking for potential suitors such as those at Premier League rivals Chelsea, owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich.
"We hoped for someone who wanted a 'trophy asset', but having scoured the world without finding one, the conclusion is that there are no more Romans out there," he said.
---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 AM ----------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ton-match-looms-with-certainty-no-closer.html
Steven Gerrard will wear the captain's armband, Fernando Torres, injury permitting, will lead the line. For the 214th time, red will face blue. Everything else is shades of grey.
Liverpool, perhaps for as much as the next seven days, exist in a state of duality. The side that Hodgson picks to face Everton may have six Premier League points, or they may have, in effect, minus three. Their wages may be paid from Dallas, from Boston, from Gogarburn or from points unknown.
Related Articles
Nine-point penalty may scupper £300m deal
No red carpet for new owners
NESV consult former exec over £300m bid
Broughton: points loss fear 'catastrophic'
Liverpool debt at heart of court battle
Why would anyone want to buy Liverpool? They may be supported from the Paddock by fans relieved that the nightmare of the last three years, the toxic reign of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, is over and a new era under New England Sports Ventures (NESV) has begun. They may find the protest songs which have replaced more traditional serenades are spat with greater ferocity than ever.
They may have a bright future, or they may seem to have no future. It may all be over, or it may all just have begun. Liverpool are the Premier League's version of Schrodinger's Cat. They are a club caught in existential limbo, simultaneously alive and dead.
How it came to this is well documented. On Monday, Liverpool's three non-owner directors, Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre, convened a meeting of the board. At it, they intended to recommend that NESV's £300 million offer to buy the club – wiping Anfield free of debt – be accepted.
Except that before they had the chance, Hicks, via telephone, raised a motion supported by Gillett to dismiss Purslow and Ayre from the board and replace them with the Texan's son, Mack Hicks, and assistant at Hicks Holdings, Lori Kay McCutcheon.
All **** broke loose. The British side of the board announced their intention to sell the club regardless, in accordance with undertakings offered by the Americans to the Royal Bank of Scotland – holders of Liverpool's £282 million debt, due this Friday – upon Broughton's appointment in April.
Hicks and Gillett responded with a statement of their belief that the NESV offer "dramatically undervalued" the club. Their meaning was clear: Broughton's offer would see them lose the £144 million they have invested of their own funds in Anfield. Unacceptable.
Broughton, in an attempt to force the deal through, decided to seek a declaratory judgment from the High Court, a ruling that would prove he has a legal right to sell Liverpool, regardless of the wishes of Hicks and Gillett.
That much is known. NESV has completed the deal, the Premier League has approved it. The past, the recent past, is certain. The future is no-man's land.
At the High Court this week, Broughton must prove that Hicks and Gillett not only signed over to him the right to appoint and remove directors, but agreed he could sell the club for what he felt was the best offer.
Hicks and Gillett, in turn, must prove the NESV offer is not reasonable, and both that their higher valuation of the club is realistic and that someone may be willing to pay it.
Which Liverpool side – the one imbued with purpose, or the one mired in doubt – attends Goodison Park on Sunday may well be decided on the Strand.
If Broughton is proved correct then it is likely to be the former, as a club inspired by the sight of its new owners in the directors' box finally feels the gloom has lifted. If Hicks and Gillett win, even after an appeal that will be heard within 72 hours of the original case, then it will be the latter.
It is here that Liverpool's future becomes complicated. If Broughton is unsuccessful, then the sale will not proceed. On Friday, RBS will call in their debts. Unless Hicks and Gillett can pay back around £200 million – and all attempts to raise that funding has failed – then the club, or, more accurately, its holding company Kop Football, will be taken into administration.
That, too, has dual ramifications. It is positive, in that it would effectively force Hicks and Gillett out as RBS seize control and look to complete a quick sale, perhaps costing the Americans a further £110 million in personal guarantees and most likely presenting the club to NESV. It is negative, though, because the Premier League would be minded to dock Liverpool nine points, three more than they have.
It is not nearly so simple as that, though. Regardless of how the court finds, if Hicks and Gillett pay back their debts in the next six days – however hypothetical that seems – then they remove much of the bank's leverage. They would be able to stop the sale, buying crucial time to remove directors.
Yet even that is a shorthand. Hicks and Gillett as a dual entity no longer exist. The latter has been replaced by Mill Financial, the company with whom he took out a $75 million (£47 million) loan in Dec 2008 with his 50 per cent share in the partnership that owns Liverpool as security. He has defaulted on that loan, and Mill, a division of Springfield Financial, have called it in.
Sources in the United States insist that is simply a legal measure; Liverpool and RBS believe it is not a complicating factor. Yet both sides are concerned enough to have had contact with Mill in the past few days. That Hicks's two would-be directors are both his loyalists indicates he cannot be sure of Gillett's place on the board.
That is how unclear Liverpool's future is: not only is Broughton trying to sell a club he does not own, not only is Hicks trying to hold on to a club he did not pay for, half of that club belongs to a real estate company based in Arlington, Virginia, and their intentions – though most likely simply to recoup their money – are shaded in grey. Liverpool can only hope that, by the time red and blue face each other, everything else is black and white.
Liverpool’s future may turn on two clauses in the Articles of Association of the club and its parent company, Kop Football Holdings (KFHL), writes Rory Smith.
Article 81a of the club’s constitution hands chairman Martin Broughton alone the right to appoint and remove directors of the club’s board - making the attempt from George Gillett and Tom Hicks to remove two directors, Ian Ayre and Christian Purslow, in an effort to block a sale to New England Sports Ventures, invalid.
Yet article 7a of KFHL’s constitution - last amended as a public record in Jan 08 - suggests that the board can only be appointed by Hicks and Gillett. If that constitution has not changed, then Hicks and Gillett would seem to have a case to stay at Anfield.
Where the court case will be won and lost
Liverpool’s future may turn on two clauses in the Articles of Association of the club and its parent company, Kop Football Holdings (KFHL).
Article 81a of the club’s constitution hands chairman Martin Broughton alone the right to appoint and remove directors of the club’s board - making the attempt from George Gillett and Tom Hicks to remove two directors, Ian Ayre and Christian Purslow, in an effort to block a sale to New England Sports Ventures, invalid.
Yet article 7a of KFHL’s constitution - last amended as a public record in Jan 08 - suggests that the board can only be appointed by Hicks and Gillett. If that constitution has not changed, then Hicks and Gillett would seem to have a case to stay at Anfield.
Each director appointed to the office of chairman of the board of directors of the Company may appoint any person as a director of the Company and may remove any other director (other than George N Gillett Jnr and/or Thomas O Hicks). Any appointment shall be made in writing and signed by the then current chairman.
(Article 81a, LFC constitution)
The holders of a majority of the ordinary shares in the Company in issue may appoint any person as a director of the Company and may remove any director.
Any appointment or removal shall be made in writing, signed by the holders of a majority of the ordinary shares in the Company in issue and, in the case of a body corporate holding any of those shares, the signature of any officer or other duly appointed representative shall suffice.
Any appointment or removal shall take effect when it is lodged at the office or produced at any meeting of the directors.
(Article 7a, KFHL constitution)
---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 AM ----------
Re: TAKEOVER: Boardroom Battle Over Potential Sale (NESV)
just in from bloomberg:
Liverpool Co-Owner Hicks Seeks Fund Help to Repay RBS Loan, Times Reports
By Michelle E. Frazer - Oct 10, 2010 8:21 AM GMT+0100
Liverpool FC co-owner Tom Hicks is working with American hedge fund Mill Financial to raise funds to repay a 280 million-pound ($447 million) loan from Royal Bank of Scotland Plc due on Friday, the Sunday Times reported, without saying where it got the information.
Mill Financial effectively controls 50 percent of shares in Liverpool as co-owner George Gillett defaulted on the loan the fund provided for Gillett’s part in the 2007 takeover, according to the newspaper.
In addition to securing the RBS loan repayment, Hicks will have to win the case currently in the High Court to prevent Liverpool’s sale to New England Sports Venture, the newspaper reported, citing an unidentified source close to the club.
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Lord Grabiner QC, one of Britain's most eminent legal brains, is being lined up to represent Liverpool Football Club in the court battle that could determine the club’s future.
I have learned that Martin Broughton, Liverpool's chairman, is set to call on Lord Grabiner to help secure a so-called declaratory judgement from the High Court that last week's deal to sell the club was legitimate.
The case, which is likely to be heard on Tuesday or Wednesday, has acquired additional significance since New England Sports Ventures (NESV) indicated this weekend that it may pull out of the deal if Liverpool are docked nine Premier League points as a consequence of going into administration.
To recap the drama since I revealed last week that Liverpool was to be sold to the owner of the Boston Red Sox: Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the club’s current owners, are seeking to block the £300m sale to NESV on the grounds that the agreement to do so was not valid; and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Liverpool’s main creditor, is working frantically on a way to avoid placing the club’s parent company into administration even as it prepares to call in the loans it is owed by the two Americans.
It’s far from clear whether NESV, owner of the Boston Red Sox baseball team, would walk away from a deal about which it says it is passionate to complete.
Let me explain why. Liverpool’s torrid start to the season has left it with just six points and in the relegation zone. While it’s still early days, a nine-point penalty would leave it on minus three points.
That would clearly make qualifying for next season’s Champions League a tall order. But I would still wager that few football experts would expect Liverpool not to escape relegation over the course of another thirty games.
In that case, the immediate quantifiable cost of administration may be the £20m of revenue or so that clubs derive from Champions League participation. And it may be that NESV is able to negotiate with RBS and Broughton some form of price cut which still makes the deal economically attractive to it.
Still, it would be foolish to dismiss the idea that NESV will walk away, a move that would plunge Liverpool into even further chaos.
So it’s certainly possible to argue that Liverpool’s most important player during the next week will be a 65 year-old lawyer, rather than its talismanic 26 year-old Spanish striker Fernando Torres.
Liverpool fans will be hoping that Lord Grabiner is more successful in the High Court than Torres has been on the pitch so far this season.
Liverpool declined to comment today.
I have learned that Martin Broughton, Liverpool's chairman, is set to call on Lord Grabiner to help secure a so-called declaratory judgement from the High Court that last week's deal to sell the club was legitimate.
The case, which is likely to be heard on Tuesday or Wednesday, has acquired additional significance since New England Sports Ventures (NESV) indicated this weekend that it may pull out of the deal if Liverpool are docked nine Premier League points as a consequence of going into administration.
To recap the drama since I revealed last week that Liverpool was to be sold to the owner of the Boston Red Sox: Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the club’s current owners, are seeking to block the £300m sale to NESV on the grounds that the agreement to do so was not valid; and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Liverpool’s main creditor, is working frantically on a way to avoid placing the club’s parent company into administration even as it prepares to call in the loans it is owed by the two Americans.
It’s far from clear whether NESV, owner of the Boston Red Sox baseball team, would walk away from a deal about which it says it is passionate to complete.
Let me explain why. Liverpool’s torrid start to the season has left it with just six points and in the relegation zone. While it’s still early days, a nine-point penalty would leave it on minus three points.
That would clearly make qualifying for next season’s Champions League a tall order. But I would still wager that few football experts would expect Liverpool not to escape relegation over the course of another thirty games.
In that case, the immediate quantifiable cost of administration may be the £20m of revenue or so that clubs derive from Champions League participation. And it may be that NESV is able to negotiate with RBS and Broughton some form of price cut which still makes the deal economically attractive to it.
Still, it would be foolish to dismiss the idea that NESV will walk away, a move that would plunge Liverpool into even further chaos.
So it’s certainly possible to argue that Liverpool’s most important player during the next week will be a 65 year-old lawyer, rather than its talismanic 26 year-old Spanish striker Fernando Torres.
Liverpool fans will be hoping that Lord Grabiner is more successful in the High Court than Torres has been on the pitch so far this season.
Liverpool declined to comment today.
The five ways Tom Hicks and George Gillett got it wrong at Liverpool
The five ways Tom Hicks and George Gillett got it wrong at Liverpool
By Dan Ripley
By Dan Ripley
In a little over three-and-a-half years, the reign of Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett has transformed from sparkling potential to abject failure. But with the board accepting a takeover deal from American tycoon John Henry against their will, the duo are now staring at the exit door. And before they are dragged out of Anfield kicking and screaming, Sportsmail looks at the five big mistakes that have led to their demise.
Stanley Park
The wheels were already in motion over a move to Stanley Park before Hicks and Gillett were around. The club had been given a 999-year lease of the land in 2006 and work on the site was due to start a year later. When the co-owners arrived, Gillett insisted there would be ‘a spade in the ground within 60 days’ of the new ownership coming in. Instead they ordered a new design of the stadium, effectively killing all the previous plans and creating delays.
Stanley Park
The wheels were already in motion over a move to Stanley Park before Hicks and Gillett were around. The club had been given a 999-year lease of the land in 2006 and work on the site was due to start a year later. When the co-owners arrived, Gillett insisted there would be ‘a spade in the ground within 60 days’ of the new ownership coming in. Instead they ordered a new design of the stadium, effectively killing all the previous plans and creating delays.
Embarrassingly, there had to be a further redesign after the new owners’ own plans went beyond budget. After gaining planning permission from Liverpool council in 2008, work was finally due to start on the site until the recession kicked in and cash to fund the project dried up. Liverpool had hoped to be playing in their new ground in time for the 2011-12 season. With that date now less than a year away, Stanley Park resembles anything but a football stadium.
Handing Benitez a new deal
The saga dragged on for months. Having failed in a bid for Gareth Barry in 2008, Rafa Benitez was furious at the lack of financial backing by the board. With his contract running down, Benitez was considering his options, especially after the owners’ attempts to lure Jurgen Klinsmann. Liverpool’s storming start to the season saw them top going into 2009, strengthening Benitez’s negotiation power and after hammering Real Madrid and Manchester United, the co-owners agreed with the Spaniard on a deal worth £5million a year until 2014.
They shouldn’t have bothered. Despite ending the 2008-9 season without a trophy, Liverpool were hotly tipped for the title the next campaign, but came nowhere near as they limped home in seventh. Further embarrassments included being knocked out at home by Reading in the FA Cup and a group stage exit in the Champions League. Just a year over agreeing a deal with Benitez, the co-owners had lost patience and agreed a settlement deal with the Spaniard to terminate his contract. Something they could have done for much cheaper just a year before and without having to sign £17m flop Alberto Aquilani first.
The saga dragged on for months. Having failed in a bid for Gareth Barry in 2008, Rafa Benitez was furious at the lack of financial backing by the board. With his contract running down, Benitez was considering his options, especially after the owners’ attempts to lure Jurgen Klinsmann. Liverpool’s storming start to the season saw them top going into 2009, strengthening Benitez’s negotiation power and after hammering Real Madrid and Manchester United, the co-owners agreed with the Spaniard on a deal worth £5million a year until 2014.
They shouldn’t have bothered. Despite ending the 2008-9 season without a trophy, Liverpool were hotly tipped for the title the next campaign, but came nowhere near as they limped home in seventh. Further embarrassments included being knocked out at home by Reading in the FA Cup and a group stage exit in the Champions League. Just a year over agreeing a deal with Benitez, the co-owners had lost patience and agreed a settlement deal with the Spaniard to terminate his contract. Something they could have done for much cheaper just a year before and without having to sign £17m flop Alberto Aquilani first.
Re-financing of loan
Upon arriving at Anfield, Hicks and Gillett made clear that they had purchased the club with no debt saddled on top. However, Just a year on from the takeover, the co-owners had already agreed on loans, most notably with Royal Bank of Scotland. In 2009, with their RBS loan repayment due, there were fears that the club could go bankrupt from the debt incurred by the loans from the bank.
Poor public relations
If relations between the American owners and their fans were frosty, it was to get a whole lot worse after an extraordinary outburst by Tom Hicks son. As a Liverpool director, Tom Hicks Jr responded to a fan’s letter to the club concerning the finances by telling the supporter through an email, to ‘blow me f*** face’ and calling him an ‘idiot’ After an angry response from fans at the clubs next home game, Hicks Jr resigned with an apology to the club, its supporters and even the fan in question. But the damage had been done and the American duo became even more unpopular.
***
Upon arriving at Anfield, Hicks and Gillett made clear that they had purchased the club with no debt saddled on top. However, Just a year on from the takeover, the co-owners had already agreed on loans, most notably with Royal Bank of Scotland. In 2009, with their RBS loan repayment due, there were fears that the club could go bankrupt from the debt incurred by the loans from the bank.
Just a month before their July deadline, Hicks and Gillett managed to agree a deal with the bank to re-finance the deal for another year, with Gillett selling one of his biggest stakes in Canada to help finance an agreement. Last month and with the loan due for repayment looming, Hicks made a last-ditch attempt to remain in control of the club when he thought he received backing from the Blackstone Group to help finance the debt. After the group received thousands of protests from fans, the deal never went through and the co-owners' position again became fragile.
Poor public relations
If relations between the American owners and their fans were frosty, it was to get a whole lot worse after an extraordinary outburst by Tom Hicks son. As a Liverpool director, Tom Hicks Jr responded to a fan’s letter to the club concerning the finances by telling the supporter through an email, to ‘blow me f*** face’ and calling him an ‘idiot’ After an angry response from fans at the clubs next home game, Hicks Jr resigned with an apology to the club, its supporters and even the fan in question. But the damage had been done and the American duo became even more unpopular.
Civil war in the boardroom
Just a year into their ownership, Hicks and Gillett had a massive fall-out over the running of the club which left the pair refusing to speak to each other. Hicks was in favour of ditching chief executive Rick Parry, claiming that he had not done enough to bring in major sponsors and make progress with the Stanley Park plans. Gillett, a Parry supporter, was angered by the decision not to raise concerns with him or the board first. Hicks also revealed he would make an ‘attractive offer’ to buy his share of the club and at the height of the fall-out Gillett accused his partner of bringing ‘turmoil’ to the club. Although the pair later patched up their differences, the spat did nothing to enhance their reputation among supporters.
Just a year into their ownership, Hicks and Gillett had a massive fall-out over the running of the club which left the pair refusing to speak to each other. Hicks was in favour of ditching chief executive Rick Parry, claiming that he had not done enough to bring in major sponsors and make progress with the Stanley Park plans. Gillett, a Parry supporter, was angered by the decision not to raise concerns with him or the board first. Hicks also revealed he would make an ‘attractive offer’ to buy his share of the club and at the height of the fall-out Gillett accused his partner of bringing ‘turmoil’ to the club. Although the pair later patched up their differences, the spat did nothing to enhance their reputation among supporters.
***
Last edited:
martinbissett
The Blue Named Mod !
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 864
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Don't be so pessimistic. After all:
"The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), the club's major creditors, have submitted an application to the court against co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett."
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Wish I'd be able to travel down there and show support D:. **** English & Maths mocks! :3
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
CorvetteC3
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
LIVERPOOL COURT CASE
RBS obtains injunction against Hicks and Gillett
By ESPNsoccernet staff
October 11, 2010
Royal Bank of Scotland has secured an injunction preventing Tom Hicks and George Gillett from removing independent chairman Martin Broughton or any other Liverpool board members ahead of Tuesday's court case.
• Court case to expose finances
• NESV could buy from RBS
• Premier League gives go-ahead
• Should sport and law be kept separate?
RBS said in a statement: "RBS in its capacity as lender to the Kop group of companies received the benefit of various contractual undertakings from Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett in relation to the corporate governance arrangements that Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett agreed would apply to the Kop group of companies with effect from April 2010.
"Those undertakings provided for the appointment of Mr Broughton as chairman of the board and the appointment of the chief executive and commercial director of LFC to the Kop boards.
"As is well known, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett purported to make changes to those corporate governance arrangements on 4 October. This was in breach of those contractual undertakings.
"In light of that purported breach of contract RBS sought and obtained on Friday 8 October 2010 an interim injunction against Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett until a further hearing scheduled for tomorrow [Tuesday].
"Among other things, that interim injunction prevents Mr. Hicks or Mr. Gillett taking any steps to remove or replace Mr. Broughton from his position as chairman of the board of the Kop companies or from taking any other steps to appoint or remove any directors from the board of the Kop companies.
"The proceedings tomorrow represent the continuation of Friday's proceedings and relates to breach of contract only. These proceedings do not represent steps by RBS to enforce its security or to appoint an administrator. We are unable to provide any visibility on timing for resolution of these proceedings at this stage."
More to follow
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=831430&sec=england&cc=5739
RBS obtains injunction against Hicks and Gillett
By ESPNsoccernet staff
October 11, 2010
Royal Bank of Scotland has secured an injunction preventing Tom Hicks and George Gillett from removing independent chairman Martin Broughton or any other Liverpool board members ahead of Tuesday's court case.
• Court case to expose finances
• NESV could buy from RBS
• Premier League gives go-ahead
• Should sport and law be kept separate?
RBS said in a statement: "RBS in its capacity as lender to the Kop group of companies received the benefit of various contractual undertakings from Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett in relation to the corporate governance arrangements that Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett agreed would apply to the Kop group of companies with effect from April 2010.
"Those undertakings provided for the appointment of Mr Broughton as chairman of the board and the appointment of the chief executive and commercial director of LFC to the Kop boards.
"As is well known, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett purported to make changes to those corporate governance arrangements on 4 October. This was in breach of those contractual undertakings.
"In light of that purported breach of contract RBS sought and obtained on Friday 8 October 2010 an interim injunction against Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett until a further hearing scheduled for tomorrow [Tuesday].
"Among other things, that interim injunction prevents Mr. Hicks or Mr. Gillett taking any steps to remove or replace Mr. Broughton from his position as chairman of the board of the Kop companies or from taking any other steps to appoint or remove any directors from the board of the Kop companies.
"The proceedings tomorrow represent the continuation of Friday's proceedings and relates to breach of contract only. These proceedings do not represent steps by RBS to enforce its security or to appoint an administrator. We are unable to provide any visibility on timing for resolution of these proceedings at this stage."
More to follow
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=831430&sec=england&cc=5739
B
Blynd1
Guest
Liverpool... what's happening to you 
- Status