Virtual Insanity Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 An interesting one this. Hicks and Gillett are seeking a court order to block the purchase even though they were outvoted 3 to 2 at boardroom level and it seems that the reason for their angst is that they won't make back the £140m that they placed in a holding company as the terms of the £300m purchase only covers £200m of RBS debt and the rest going to associated purchase costs. I see that Martin Broughton, who was brought in by Hicks and Gillett to find a buyer, has today said in the press that he is "disappointed that Hicks and Gillett aren't taking this opportunity to be the good guys". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 I would have able to seen where hicks and gillett were coming from, if they hadnt got greedy. Who would want to come out of a deal £70 million down for the both of them? so I guess it would be understandable if they wanted to recoup their cash. But instead of asking for maybe around £450 million to break even they asked for a ridiculous amount in £800 and then £600 million(which even then, would give them £75 million each if such an offer was made). The fact of the matter is that they got the club into this mess in the first place, and then asked for a well over-the-odds money to reward their failures. If they come out of this £70million down each, then it will be imo, everything they deserve for putting the club at risk, and getting too greedy in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I would have able to seen where hicks and gillett were coming from, if they hadnt got greedy. Who would want to come out of a deal £70 million down for the both of them? so I guess it would be understandable if they wanted to recoup their cash. But instead of asking for maybe around £450 million to break even they asked for a ridiculous amount in £800 and then £600 million(which even then, would give them £75 million each if such an offer was made). The fact of the matter is that they got the club into this mess in the first place, and then asked for a well over-the-odds money to reward their failures. If they come out of this £70million down each, then it will be imo, everything they deserve for putting the club at risk, and getting too greedy in the first place. It's a ridiculous situation to be in all round. The owners can't afford to keep the club on but the bank won't re-finance to help them and they can't sell because they're pricing the club out of the market. It's a mental situation of their own making. I only hope that due diligence has been carried out thoroughly on John W Henry and his company in order to prevent another situation of a similar nature transpiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted October 11, 2010 Share Posted October 11, 2010 Would a state-owned institution like RBS put Liverpool FC into administration? It would be a massive story - teh biggest football club ever to go into administration. Reading the paper today, it seems that Broughton is arguing that Hicks and Mill Financials (who own Gilelt's part of the club now) waived their rights to veto any sale. HIcks etc are arguing that they didn't and that legally they still own the club. There must be more to this than meets the eye - if Hicks wins his case the next step is probably administration and then the club would be auctioned off on teh cheap and he wouldn't get any of this money back. I suppose he won't have to pay back the money he borrowed either. Hicks and Gillet have to be up there with Hugh Scott and that Doncaster chairman who tried to burn the ground down as the worst football club owners ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted October 11, 2010 Share Posted October 11, 2010 Hicks and Gillet have to be up there with Hugh Scott and that Doncaster chairman who tried to burn the ground down as the worst football club owners ever. To be fair to the Yanks they seem 'only' to be wanting a return on their investment, Scott's return was based on the land minus the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiG Posted October 11, 2010 Share Posted October 11, 2010 Hicks and Gillet have to be up there with Hugh Scott and that Doncaster chairman who tried to burn the ground down as the worst football club owners ever. I was reading in 442 about the mad American guy Terry Smith who took over Chester and appointed himself manager despite having no experience in the role whatsoever as well as having three captains in the first team. One for offence, one for defence and another for midfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 11, 2010 Share Posted October 11, 2010 Would a state-owned institution like RBS put Liverpool FC into administration? Very doubtful when it is them that are actually taking Hicks to court tomorrow. Strange timing about this Lim character to announce his bid for the club. I don't like this for some reason. I've been on top of this like a rash for months, feels like years, but even I am confused now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Ahoj! Would a state-owned institution like RBS put Liverpool FC into administration? It would be a massive story - teh biggest football club ever to go into administration. If I understand things correctly (not that I claim I do), the RBS would prefer to avoid "repossession". Selling LFC before the 15th - over the heads of the greedy b*****ds - does not incurr the 9 point penalty. Taking ownership of the club by the bank could land LFC with a nine point deduction - thus making a sale more difficult/bring down the price. That is how I understand things ATM. The 6 points Liverpool has at present puts them (most probably) out of the title race, and leaves them 5 points adrift of the CL and EL. Standing at minus 3 points after 7 games - playing in Europe next year is very, very unlikely. This is VERY bad for business. Borys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 The 6 points Liverpool has at present puts them (most probably) out of the title race, and leaves them 5 points adrift of the CL and EL. Standing at minus 3 points after 7 games - playing in Europe next year is very, very unlikely. Ahoj Borys Liverpool were out of the title and CL races before the season kicked off. It'll probably be at least 5 years before they make the Top 4 ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Ahoj! I was talking with my "I've got a good club to sell" hat on. Borys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 i don't understand why everyone seems to think liverpool are going to win this case. this isn't stevie g being tried on merseyside and the judge isn't going to be swayed by the fact that the yanks are shite owners. it's a question of whether or not the major shareholders have the right to remove individuals from the board of their company and you'd have to imagine that based on english law and precedent the judge will find they will. also hicks and this hedge fund must have some sort of plan in place for if they win the case. it seems unlikely they're fighting the case just to lose the club on friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Likewise, RBS wouldn't go into this either if they didn't think they would win. Anyway, live updates here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Key moments for me. 11.38am: Hicks and Gillett representative admits to breach of contract but feels there is no urge for board to be reconstituted before Friday. RBS dismisses this as 'absurd' given the company needs to repay £200m to the bank by Friday. No rush? What a p***k! 12.56pm: Back to court, H&G's representatives: "Claims there was no meeting of the Kop Holdings board to discuss NESV deal and this should have happened. 'This was a matter for the Kop Holdings board and the entire board.' (ie it should have included Hicks and Gillett) Claims that this in itself is a breach of the sales agreement " Lot of hot air later.... 3.28pm: Lord Grabiner says correspondence between board and owner prove that H&G knew of the meeting on 5 October and instead they simply refused to turn up and not, as their QC says, that they were excluded from it by the "sub-committee". Lord Grabiner describes the owners as "slippery" because they wanted a one week adjournment to that meeting knowing full well that NESV's deadline for their offer to expired on 5 October. Also, G&H had a lawyer, Bruce Toth, listening to that meeting via telephone as an observer, destroying their argument that they were excluded from that crucial meeting. Well, someone is not telling the truth. It could be the man that promised a spade in the ground in 60 days, or it could be everyone else. You decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Hicks loses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Can someone explain to me why a sale can be forced if Hicks and Gillett are the "owners"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted October 13, 2010 Author Share Posted October 13, 2010 Can someone explain to me why a sale can be forced if Hicks and Gillett are the "owners"? Because the decision of the sale ultimately came down to a board of directors vote. Hicks and Gillett only counted towards two of the five votes against, while the other three led by broughton voted for the sale. This is why hicks and gillett tried to replace two of the board to bring the vote towards a 4-1 swing in their favour and stop the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Because the decision of the sale ultimately came down to a board of directors vote. Hicks and Gillett only counted towards two of the five votes against, while the other three led by broughton voted for the sale. This is why hicks and gillett tried to replace two of the board to bring the vote towards a 4-1 swing in their favour and stop the deal. So does shareholding not have an impact on voting weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trgf Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 So does shareholding not have an impact on voting weight? Not when you owe 200m and can't repay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Miners and Scousers celebrating on the same day. Is Thatcher dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.