The Anfield Saga

  • Thread starter Thread starter BBC Sport
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 1K
  • Views Views 79K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hicks court document says Texas court has jurisdiction 'over the parties and jurisdiction is proper in this court.'
 
10.15pm: Owen Gibson has passed on the following report about the latest classy move by Hicks & Gillett. It's a long read, but it's worth it.

The owners of Liverpool Football Club today reported that a Texas State District Court has granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Board of Liverpool Football Club (LFC) from executing a sale of the Club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The court set a hearing date of October 25, 2010.

The TRO request, signed by Judge Jim Jordan of the 160th District Court in Dallas, was part of a lawsuit filed today by the owners of LFC against Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow, Ian Ayre, NESV and Philip Nash. The lawsuit also seeks temporary and permanent injunctions, and damages totaling approximately $1.6 billion (over £1 billion).

The suit lays out the defendants' "epic swindle" in which they conspired to devise and execute a scheme to sell LFC to NESV at a price they know to be hundreds of millions of dollars below true market value (and well below Forbes magazine's recent independent $822 million valuation of the club) - and below multiple expressions of interest and offers to buy either the club in its entirety or make minority investments (including Meriton and Mill Financial). It describes how the defendants excluded the owners from meetings, discussions and communications regarding the potential sale to NESV and interfered with efforts by the owners to obtain financing for Liverpool FC.

The Club's owners are represented by attorneys from the international law firm of Fish & Richardson.

The following are some of the key points in the complaint, which details the roles of RBS and the other defendants, and also describes previously undisclosed offers to purchase LFC:

"The Director Defendants were acting merely as pawns of RBS, wholly abdicating the fiduciary responsibilities that they owed in the sale."

"RBS has been complicit in this scheme with the Director Defendants. For example, in letters from RBS to potential investors obtained just within the past few days, RBS has informed investors that it will approve of a deal only if there is "no economic return to equity" for Messrs. Hicks and Gillett. In furtherance of this grand conspiracy, on information and belief, RBS has improperly used its influence as the club's creditor and as a worldwide banking leader to prevent any transaction that would permit Messrs. Hicks and Gillett to recover any of their initial investment in the club, much less share in the substantial appreciation in the value of Liverpool FC that their investments have created."

"On or about October 4, 2010, Mr. Hicks received a letter of interest from a third potential purchaser represented by FBR Capital Markets ("FBR"), offering to purchase Liverpool FC for £375 to £400 million ($595 to $635 million). The letter informed Mr. Hicks that the potential purchaser would not need financing, possessed the funds to close the transaction, and intended to build a new stadium for Liverpool FC."

"Additionally, the Plaintiffs learned just days ago about another potential investor that made a similar offer in the £350 to £400 million range that was communicated to Defendant Broughton and another unnamed co-conspirator in late August. According to this investor, Mr. Broughton never responded to the offer. Moreover, when the purported sale to NESV was announced, this investor again contacted Mr. Broughton and informed him that the offer, which significantly exceeded the NESV offer, was still on the table. Again, Mr. Broughton brushed this offer aside without further discussion."
 
Ride The Walrus said:
10.15pm: Owen Gibson has passed on the following report about the latest classy move by Hicks & Gillett. It's a long read, but it's worth it.

The owners of Liverpool Football Club today reported that a Texas State District Court has granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Board of Liverpool Football Club (LFC) from executing a sale of the Club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The court set a hearing date of October 25, 2010.

The TRO request, signed by Judge Jim Jordan of the 160th District Court in Dallas, was part of a lawsuit filed today by the owners of LFC against Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow, Ian Ayre, NESV and Philip Nash. The lawsuit also seeks temporary and permanent injunctions, and damages totaling approximately $1.6 billion (over £1 billion).

The suit lays out the defendants' "epic swindle" in which they conspired to devise and execute a scheme to sell LFC to NESV at a price they know to be hundreds of millions of dollars below true market value (and well below Forbes magazine's recent independent $822 million valuation of the club) - and below multiple expressions of interest and offers to buy either the club in its entirety or make minority investments (including Meriton and Mill Financial). It describes how the defendants excluded the owners from meetings, discussions and communications regarding the potential sale to NESV and interfered with efforts by the owners to obtain financing for Liverpool FC.

The Club's owners are represented by attorneys from the international law firm of Fish & Richardson.

The following are some of the key points in the complaint, which details the roles of RBS and the other defendants, and also describes previously undisclosed offers to purchase LFC:

"The Director Defendants were acting merely as pawns of RBS, wholly abdicating the fiduciary responsibilities that they owed in the sale."

"RBS has been complicit in this scheme with the Director Defendants. For example, in letters from RBS to potential investors obtained just within the past few days, RBS has informed investors that it will approve of a deal only if there is "no economic return to equity" for Messrs. Hicks and Gillett. In furtherance of this grand conspiracy, on information and belief, RBS has improperly used its influence as the club's creditor and as a worldwide banking leader to prevent any transaction that would permit Messrs. Hicks and Gillett to recover any of their initial investment in the club, much less share in the substantial appreciation in the value of Liverpool FC that their investments have created."

"On or about October 4, 2010, Mr. Hicks received a letter of interest from a third potential purchaser represented by FBR Capital Markets ("FBR"), offering to purchase Liverpool FC for £375 to £400 million ($595 to $635 million). The letter informed Mr. Hicks that the potential purchaser would not need financing, possessed the funds to close the transaction, and intended to build a new stadium for Liverpool FC."

"Additionally, the Plaintiffs learned just days ago about another potential investor that made a similar offer in the £350 to £400 million range that was communicated to Defendant Broughton and another unnamed co-conspirator in late August. According to this investor, Mr. Broughton never responded to the offer. Moreover, when the purported sale to NESV was announced, this investor again contacted Mr. Broughton and informed him that the offer, which significantly exceeded the NESV offer, was still on the table. Again, Mr. Broughton brushed this offer aside without further discussion."
Click to expand...

Now i can see where H & G are coming from, being cut out of talks and tht, i would normally have sympathy with them, but they truly are *****, so i will not.
 
Well i would take what Hicks says with a very small pinch of salt, he was caught lying in court yesterday and now hes even more desperate to get some money back. I dont see how a Texan court can rule against something that the High court here has ruled.
 
This is seen as a delay tactic,
The concern here is he potentially lining up a court battle with NESV... which will then force NESV to get a declatory judgement in the UK to fight off legal battle in US... the US system makes it very easy to sue... but I see it as a delay tactic... nothing more
 
Ok, I understand the fustration Liverpool fans, but try to tone down the language in some of the posts. :)
 
Liverpool skipper Steven Gerrard is thrilled by the High Court verdict which has paved the way for the club's takeover.

Reds co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett failed in their bid to block a possible takeover by New England Sports Ventures.

The American co-owners tried to remove managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre from the board last week in an attempt to prevent the sale.

But Reds chairman Martin Broughton claimed he had the right to sell the club to NESV because Hicks and Gillett had signed agreements not to oppose the sale when they received an extension to their refinancing deal with Royal Bank of Scotland earlier this year.

Mr Justice Floyd ruled Hicks and Gillett did not have the power to do so, meaning Liverpool's board could now push through a deal with NESV which was agreed last week.

Gerrard believes the ruling is positive news for the club and he hopes the whole club can now move forward, starting with this weekend's Merseyside derby at Everton.

"It's a fantastic result and credit needs to go to Christian, Ian and the chairman who have worked so hard on this," Gerrard told the club's official website.

"It seems things are nearly sorted off the pitch so we need to start getting them right on it by getting three points at Goodison on Sunday.

"I know how frustrated the fans have been with what has been going on and I can understand their feelings.

"But we've all suffered in this, especially the supporters, and now it's time for us all to pull together and help move the club forward."
 
My god these 2 want to take this club down. I mean somthing isen't right here, the pair still own the club so even now its looking bleak for pool.
 
From the bbc


A Texas court has granted a temporary restraining order stopping the sale of Liverpool Football Club, owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have claimed.
It comes hours after the American pair saw their challenge against the club's sale thrown out by the High Court.
Hicks and Gillett issued a statement as the Liverpool board met to ratify the sale to New England Sports Ventures.
The American duo are unhappy at the proposed £300m sale, which they described as "an epic swindle".
More to follow.



Jeez this could turn into a holywood film.
 
Right, lets sit down a moment and think about what legal position they have.

If you are allowed to do this overseas then what about the following?

Last year, the Lockerbie bomber Megrahi was released from jail in Scotland to the opposition of the US. The US could not do anything (other than voice concern) as it was overseas, yet, if possible, it would have been in the interest to do so. If the legal system was how Toot & Ploot now believe, then the US could have taken an injunction against the Scottish government to halt the release of Megrahi?

I know it isnt an ideal comparison, but surely proof that when anything happens overseas, you have little to do other than "shout" and hope they will listen.

Taken from LFC Forum
 
Ride The Walrus said:
Right, lets sit down a moment and think about what legal position they have.

If you are allowed to do this overseas then what about the following?

Last year, the Lockerbie bomber Megrahi was released from jail in Scotland to the opposition of the US. The US could not do anything (other than voice concern) as it was overseas, yet, if possible, it would have been in the interest to do so. If the legal system was how Toot & Ploot now believe, then the US could have taken an injunction against the Scottish government to halt the release of Megrahi?

I know it isnt an ideal comparison, but surely proof that when anything happens overseas, you have little to do other than "shout" and hope they will listen.

Taken from LFC Forum
Click to expand...

You have to be one of the most committed Pool fans I know, good on you ;)
 
Ride The Walrus said:
Right, lets sit down a moment and think about what legal position they have.

If you are allowed to do this overseas then what about the following?

Last year, the Lockerbie bomber Megrahi was released from jail in Scotland to the opposition of the US. The US could not do anything (other than voice concern) as it was overseas, yet, if possible, it would have been in the interest to do so. If the legal system was how Toot & Ploot now believe, then the US could have taken an injunction against the Scottish government to halt the release of Megrahi?

I know it isnt an ideal comparison, but surely proof that when anything happens overseas, you have little to do other than "shout" and hope they will listen.

Taken from LFC Forum
Click to expand...

I understand all of that, and i agree with you, But i think the problem is that John Henry and his crew are based in the States, so a state ruling can affect them whether it is overseas deals or not, i am not 100% sure on the law, but i think that is the road H 7 G are taking
 
I mean im not saying i am on H+G side but surely they deserve some money out of this?
 
no. pure and simple.

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

CJACKO11 said:
I mean im not saying i am on H+G side but surely they deserve some money out of this?
Click to expand...
their business plan was a joke, and its not the first time. last time they did this Hicks got Corinthians, a massive brazilian side, relegated for the first time in their history
 
Why dosnt he just realise that its over he and Gillete have made a massive mistake and ruined the lifes of not just them, their familys but the lifes of every Liverpool fan in the world. Prehaps dementia has started to set in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top