i see where you are coming from, but im pretty a sure texas court (remember state court, not federal) doesnt even have jurisdiction over other states, let alone in another country
The Anfield Saga
- Thread starter BBC Sport
- Start date
- Replies 1K
- Views 79K
- Status
Probaly, i am not big on law, just probaly what they are trying to do, Hopefully they lose.
im not 100% certain, but thats how i remember it. But you can never be sure when it comes to lawyers.
No but surely they put some of their own money in the club and you can understand why they want their money back. They are businessman you knew that when they took over the club and everyone was saying how happy they were. You don't take over a football club is your main intrest is to make money. I think the saying goes '' how does a billionaire become a millionaire'' buy a football club. Look if you had put money in to somthing and it was getting sold behind you back then surely you would want atleast the money you put in.
Plus i will add that maybe for the better of the game for the future i think a big club like Liverpool are needs to hit rock bottem for the PremierLeague to take notice and install harder rules if people want to buy clubs. It happend last season with Portsmouth and many Pompey fans will agree they got awful treatment from the PL and with all respect to Pompey its because it was Pompey not a big club.
I think Pool fans really have to take a look at the man that sold the club in the first place i think it was Moors, because surely he would have known that the money being used to fund Liverpool was loaned money. Also you can point fingers at past managers because if Liverpool had been successful in the last 20 years then they would have gained more reputation, tournement prize money which would bring in bigger players and keep them winning things. I believe there is many people to blame in this not just Hicks and Gillette.
Plus i will add that maybe for the better of the game for the future i think a big club like Liverpool are needs to hit rock bottem for the PremierLeague to take notice and install harder rules if people want to buy clubs. It happend last season with Portsmouth and many Pompey fans will agree they got awful treatment from the PL and with all respect to Pompey its because it was Pompey not a big club.
I think Pool fans really have to take a look at the man that sold the club in the first place i think it was Moors, because surely he would have known that the money being used to fund Liverpool was loaned money. Also you can point fingers at past managers because if Liverpool had been successful in the last 20 years then they would have gained more reputation, tournement prize money which would bring in bigger players and keep them winning things. I believe there is many people to blame in this not just Hicks and Gillette.
Liverpool FC AFAIK is registered as business in the UK. It is bound by British rules and regulations. It's registered to trade in the UK. It has no obligation to heed this injunction from a backwater Texas court. It is not like a airline or multinational bank which trades in US currency or requires entrance into US sovereign territory to trade.
This is a hit and hope. It contravenes every accepted standard of international commercial law. It's only note worthy because it's an American court. Had it been a Ethiopian court, it would've been laughed at. It's only a **** your pants moment if it's the Texas Supreme Court (which AFAIK it isn't and is only a district court ie your local magistrate ie not an expert on international commercial law). They're well up the food chain and tend to be fairly on the ball with decisions in regard to multinational trade.
This is a hit and hope. It contravenes every accepted standard of international commercial law. It's only note worthy because it's an American court. Had it been a Ethiopian court, it would've been laughed at. It's only a **** your pants moment if it's the Texas Supreme Court (which AFAIK it isn't and is only a district court ie your local magistrate ie not an expert on international commercial law). They're well up the food chain and tend to be fairly on the ball with decisions in regard to multinational trade.
Last edited:
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 5,888
- Reaction score
- 181
- Points
- 63
I just spoke to my dad, and he said that they arent allowed to do this because they have nothing to do with Liverpool.
Its like an Australian court deciding in favour of Hicks walking through liverpool naked, with only the european cup covering up his saggy balls.
Because he is not in Australia, Their laws have no effect over him.
In the same way, This Texan court should have no legal rights over it
Its like an Australian court deciding in favour of Hicks walking through liverpool naked, with only the european cup covering up his saggy balls.
Because he is not in Australia, Their laws have no effect over him.
In the same way, This Texan court should have no legal rights over it
I'm sure there must be something linked that can stop it, because I cannot see why Hicks would try this unless he knew there was some hope. He is a businessmen, all be-it not a very good one. He must have a plan of action.
i would like to see H & G block the sale http://www.sportinglife.com/footbal...ER_Liverpool_3rd_Nightlead.html&TEAMHD=soccer would be more interesting !
also madsheep never seen a united fan sooo defensive over liverpool
also madsheep never seen a united fan sooo defensive over liverpool
D
Deleted member 79730
Guest
Depends on where the kop holdings are, if they are in texas it is completely the business of the American court.
And unless your dad is a lawyer his word is as reliable as that of a random drunk down the pub
this goes well beyond any football rivalry. dont get me wrong, i love it when they lose on the pitch. but this is something completely different. And on a selfish level we (united fans) could be looking at our own future herei would like to see H & G block the sale http://www.sportinglife.com/footbal...ER_Liverpool_3rd_Nightlead.html&TEAMHD=soccer would be more interesting !
also madsheep never seen a united fan sooo defensive over liverpool
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
And your dad is a lawyer? legal worker? What?
Surely this all depends on where Kop Holdings are based, if they are based in Texas they may have the right but surely not if it is based in Britain.
Off topic: Got an email today and was told I shouldn't renew my season ticket and buy cup tickets for the remainder of the season to try and force the Glazers out. Just reminded me this will probably be us in a few years.
Off topic: Got an email today and was told I shouldn't renew my season ticket and buy cup tickets for the remainder of the season to try and force the Glazers out. Just reminded me this will probably be us in a few years.
why is that,(united fans future)
Yeah right, Secret Liverpool fan Madsheep? Only joking i would be the same if it was Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea or any other club.
Still cant get over how much they want for damages $1.6 billion are they stupid?
Last edited:
Liverpool owners say they have court order to stop sale and are seeking 1.6 billion in damages
http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfield/?p=23195Just when we thought we got rid of him the Texan came up with an injunction from a Texas court. Here is the official statement below.
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.”
http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfield/?p=23195Just when we thought we got rid of him the Texan came up with an injunction from a Texas court. Here is the official statement below.
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
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
I'm not going to bed until the meeting's over, and we get some sort of statement.
Given we're talking about a league increasingly funded by foreign cash, a club owned by 2 foreigners and about to be sold to one of a number of possible other foreigners, who are predominantly represented by foreign players and who are predominantly interested in the commercial possibilities of foreign markets - the intervention of a foreign court seems incredibly apt.
Cuz dey in big debt init
- Status