Liverpool Rumours Archive September 17 2010

 

Use our rumours form to send us liverpool transfer rumours.


17 Sep 2010 22:56:35
{Editor's Note: The worry is that if we do not have an orderly sale the future could be at way more risk. If Hicks refinances and gets an extra year, there is a good chance everything will be resolved by the new year. If not, we have the potential for chaos and court cases. I know which I would prefer.}


100% agree with this statement, I think a lot of people on this forum do not understand or under estimate the consequences of RBS taking over on 6th october . .I for one hope that Hicks manage to finance for another 6 months at least.

Roy

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 21:40:05
* 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, BarCap 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?

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 21:20:43
Does anyone know who Harry Harris, Football Correspondent, is? Is he areal person and how does he know that Hicks' proposals were rejected?
RHI {ed's note - he used to write for the Mirror a few years back.}

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 20:45:51
I posted on here a few days ago regarding 2 bids for Liverpool f.c., those being Al Kharafi group & Q.I.A. My friend who works in Middle East banking has assured me that Q.I.A. are definitely bidding circa £350 million for the club by the second week of October. Please take this at face value, i am only passing on what i myself have been told. Q.I A. are anxious to buy to raise their profile for 2022 World cup bid apparently & they see Liverpool as a fantastic world-wide advertising opportunity. James.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 20:36:26
What's to stop a genuine new owner buying up Gilletts share of the club for a knockdown £75 million when he fails to repay his re-structured debt?
Maybe that's what will happen and the Board numbers will go to 4-1 against Hicks - Oh Joy!

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 20:13:33
Liverpool reject Hicks power play

By Harry Harris, Football Correspondent


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.

In fact, Hicks was left in no doubt of the board's resolve to find new owners and end his turbulent reign - alongside fellow American George Gillett - at the Premier League giants.

Hicks wants to buy out the £237 million Royal Bank of Scotland debt which is threatening to end his joint ownership of the club when the facility expires on deadline of October 6. He is hoping to raise funds from US banks to raise the funds to buy out RBS, possibly using the players and stadium as collateral.

Hicks has moved to thwart the possibility of RBS temporarily taking control of Liverpool and selling it off at a rock bottom price, far less than Hicks and Gillett believed it to be worth when they originally put the club up for sale at £800 million a year ago.

The price has since plummeted and might now be worth as little as £150 million. With no creditable buyer yet in public sight, Hicks is trying desperately to retain control, if not total control, and hold out in the hope of finding someone who will pay more later.

With Gillett's finances in a parlous state, and with the possibility that he might default on other loans and ultimately lose his 50% stake in Liverpool, his partner Hicks is attempting to refinance alone and gain total control.

The Liverpool board are having none of that, believing an extension of the Hicks and Gillett ownership, even if it reverts to Hicks, would only prolong the financial misery.

Meanwhile, to ESPNsoccernet, Liverpool have refuted claims that they have sought advance funding from the Premier League from TV revenues and sponsorship payments as their financial situation is starting to alarm fiscal experts.

A fire sale of players in the January transfer window cannot be ruled out, according to ESPNsoccernet sources, but that would be one of the last resorts to shore up the ailing finances.

Under the circumstances Liverpool have already given assurances to the Premier League that they can fulfil all their fixtures for this season. A similar undertaking has been given to UEFA about the club's participation in the Europa League.

ESPNsoccernet approached Liverpool to ask: "Can the club still afford the players' huge monthly wage bill, considering the club are now in the red?"

A club spokesman said: "Liverpool FC has prudent working capital facilities that allow the Club to make proper provision for outgoings as and when they arise. These working capital facilities are totally satisfactory to both the Premier League and UEFA."

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 19:51:35
GILLETT is almost certainly finished at the club, with HICKS trying to gain sole control.HICKS is going to ask the global investment firm BLACKSTONE (GSO) for £280M.HICKS will offer GSO the assets of the club as security.BROUGHTON PURSLOW and AYRE can and will vote against such a proposal, and will stay committed to finding a buyer for the club.

NICE TRY HICKS NOW F* * *F

REDMAN

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 19:47:47
Wow what's going to happen next in this liverpool takeover saga, first the owners want too much money for the club, next huang saying he wants it before august deadline then kirdi saying he's going to complete the deal asap then broughton saying there's several bidders on the table and now hicks says he wants to take full control of the club. This sounds like an episode from eastenders let's just hope he can't refinance the debt and am I the only lfc fan who can't wait for the 6th of october its like being a little kid and waiting for christmas. Ed I know you been asked this question a hundred times but is there and info about the takeover and what do you think of d* k I mean hicks taking over the club ? {ed's note - there isn't any new news from me sorry. I really can't see anything coming of Hicks' attempts though, him and Gillett can't even speak civilly to each other, let alone agree a price.}

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 18:38:16
WTF - Hicks to buy LFC! Couldn't think of anything worse. If we read into this, it tells us that H&G aren't happy with the sums of money being offered by potential owners (greedy). Personally I think Hicks being the stubborn SOB he is, is trying to generate higher bids by going on the offensive.
Please for the love of LFC don't let this saga finish like this! !

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 17:02:48
I felt that we could have got more out of our set pieces yesterday. I mean, why was Martin Kelly, the tallest player on the pitch at 1.91m, now up in the box when we were taking corners?

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 17:01:04
17 Sep 2010 16:42:44

Pity that some eds seem to disrespect the legitimate views of some contributors. {ed's note - what, giving a different viewpoint is disrespecting someone else's view these days is it? You never heard of a debate?}

SAME AS LAST FRIDAY REF SHEIKH MOHAMMED GOODBYE TIL OCTOBER 6!

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 16:55:55
My mate works in the financial sector and is fully aware of the issues surrounding ownerships etc. If Hicks can find finance he would be in a position to take control of Liverpool FC. RBS are only interested in receiving the repayment of the loan.

If Hicks does receive the finance he will just try and get a better deal (interest rates etc) and consider the bank they will still consider selling.

Broughton will resign I believe over the next few days as he was only brought in to sell the club

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 16:49:46
{ed's note - like all EPL clubs we have picked up a bunch of glory seekers who fail to understand the history and culture of the club and city of Liverpool. Shankly built us as a club using his principles of Socialism, he would never have condoned the idea of spending beyond the club's means.}

Topic of the day - What is socialism? Surely if someone wants to buy the club, build a new stadium and develop the area around the ground probably creating jobs and bringing other investment into Liverpool, that surely can only be good thing. This should have been done at least 10 years ago. I wonder which 'ism' stopped this happening?

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 16:20:08
To the person who wrote this:-

"-Just heard about H&G if it happens im off to MAN CITY at least they have owners who care about the club & they will win things this year we wont.-"

This is a Liverpool F C forum. It has been set up for supporters of Liverpool Football Club. Supporters of other clubs such as yourself should go somewhere else.

Now, Hicks only wants control for a brief time. He is I am sure on his way out. But who will be buying? Someone somewhere must know something. .

Rormac
15th April 1989.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 16:11:09
YNWA {ed's note - you are not reading what I am saying at all. I was pointing out that Chelsea are no longer big spending so your logic is nonsense. Money should come from within, not from a sugar daddy, Liverpool as a club are extremely rich, they do not need someone else to provide funds.}

NO ED you are not reading what i am saying, they don't spend big because they ALREADY HAVE, don't you get it yet? If you spend big for one or two seasons and you spend WISELY, then you shouldn't need to buy big again, just evaluate what you need each season, but at the moment our squad needs a huge amount of money spending on it (WISELY) and then each year we can evaluate the team and use the money from within, but to get our squad up to the standard of Man U and Chealsea then unfortunately in todays footballing world because of Abramovich and Monsour that will take alot of money, to do it your way is a very romantic way of doing it but unfortunately not realistic!

{Editor's Note: We'll have to see if you get your way then. Maybe the sugar daddies are queuing up out there. The Manchester City owners have already spent more than the club is worth - so if they were to put it up for sale now they would not get their money back.}

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 16:06:53
Arsenal never buy big but still, they never miss top 4 n always doing well in CL. ed is rite.the important thing is management, money come 2nd. wenger know how to manage big club without using much money. btw, myb u think im being bias coz im arsenal fan. but still, dat old man wenger r great manager. never buy big but got great team.

YNWA
(You'll Never Win Again)

Mr.E

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 16:01:31
. {ed's note - you still make no sense, Chelsea have a more valuable squad because they have better players, yet they have spent less than Spurs in recent years. Spurs have always suffered because they have always bought big rather than wisely. You seem to think we need to spend big, it makes no sense, there is no need to go out and buy big, we just need to strengthen. Great teams do not necessarily have great players, they have great team players. Dalglish was not as good as Best was as a player, but he won far more because he was a better team player. Buy a team of great players and they will be mid table at best, every great team has a mix of players, you are looking to have a team of greats, it just doesn't work, again I say look at Real Madrid. I would rather we were in the lower leagues than became like Chelsea or City.}

No Ed, it's you that makes no sense. Look, why do you think Chealsea have better players? SIMPLE because when Abramovich came in he spent hundreds of millions on buying them that's why they have not needed to spend big in recent years because they ALREADY have done, and AGAIN you make out i want us to spend unwisely, WHY WOULD I WANT THAT! I believe because of Abramovich and Monsour that football is different now than when Dalglish and Best was playing, now you need two squads of great players to compete in all competitions yes we just need to strengthen, but what do you think this will cost? Let's say we need five top players, in today's market because of the spending power of Man C and Chealsea you could need 100 million minimum but how do we do this if all the people are against someone spending big money? And i'm sorry but if you would rather us be in the lower leagues than see us be like Chealsea, i don't think you would find many Lverpool fans that would agree with you!

{Editor's Note: You are continuing to miss the point. Rafa spent a lot of money - it didn't work.}

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 16:00:57
17 Sep 2010 15:34:20

Unsigned said at 17 Sep 2010 15:14:52:

"{ed's note - not all of us Sharkey, some of us would hate to see a rich sugar daddy, some of us remember what happened to Blackburn when Jack Walker died. Some of us remember how Chelsea were on the verge of extinction when Roman rescued them, simply because of the death of Matthew Harding and the loss of him pumping money in. We need a well run and managed club that spends within its means, we don't need to rush out now and spend millions on players with huge wages. We would then have a huge wage bill stopping us from spending money in the future.}

I agree with this - 'we don't need to rush out now and spend millions on players with huge wages' (the mercenary footballer/ carlos kickaballs). But we are in a this financial situation because of the H&G leveraged buyout. We need the best possible new custodian to clear LFC debts and build the new Anfield, so we can produce enough money to invest in the club and the development of local community area around the new ground.
I think we may have had a little disagreement last friday over the suitability of Sheikh Mohammed as the new owner because of 'issues outside football' . I don't want a 'sugar daddy', but all most Liverpool football fans want is stability, because once stable, this club will effectively run itself. We don't have stability now and the rest of the football world know this and are laughing at us."

I of course never suggested that "all" Liverpool supporters wanted the sugar daddy spending spree. And clearly the Editor who replied and the most recent respondent are not in that category. However, if you go back to my original point and then look at some of the responses, there is clearly considerable support for the free-spending ultra-wealthy sugar daddy to come on board and save the club.

Sharkey. {ed's note - like all EPL clubs we have picked up a bunch of glory seekers who fail to understand the history and culture of the club and city of Liverpool. Shankly built us as a club using his principles of Socialism, he would never have condoned the idea of spending beyond the club's means.}

I hope ed you are not suggsting from my contribution that i am a glory seeker who has just got on the the EPL bandwagon. I go back to the days of Tommy Smith, Emlyn Hughes and Joey Jones. I just want stability. 'They are laughing at us.' As i said this club will run itself once we have stability.

{Editor's Note: I don't think Ed was suggesting that at all - just that there seems to be a split between those fans happy with responsible ownership and a secure future and those who must have Aguero and Turan in January and then Iniesta and Tevez in the summer after we don't win the league.}

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 15:55:34

ED it seems that ayre, brougton and purslow can still block hicks plan to re finance with another bank.hat do you think they will do? {ed's note - I don't believe they can block him, but I also don't believe he will do anyway. I think it is posturing to try and get the money he wants for the club. He now has a reputation as a bad risk for loans, at a time when banks are not so keen on loaning money, I very much doubt anyone will give him the money he would need to buy the rest of the shares and pay off RBS.}

i hope so mate or someone needs to hire a hitman!

{Editor's Note: The worry is that if we do not have an orderly sale the future could be at way more risk. If Hicks refinances and gets an extra year, there is a good chance everything will be resolved by the new year. If not, we have the potential for chaos and court cases. I know which I would prefer.}

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 15:53:07
Clearly distressed, YNWA said at 17 Sep 2010 14:43:35

17 Sep 2010 13:41:55:

After suggesting that Man City, Man U, and Chealsea (sic) are worth £400-500 million and my questioning these figures:

"So what your saying is a team worth 10 million can be better than a team worth £500 million?"

No, I did not say that. And I also think that Liverpool are worth more than £10 million. I also think that your valuation of teams such as Chelsea at £500M are somewhat wide of the mark.

On the new financial rules:

"It's simple, because the money is already in the squad, so if we are only allowed to spend what we sell then there's more money there isn't there. Are you THICK!"

I am probably "thick", but I do at least understand the new rules; which seemingly you don't. They have nothing whatsoever to do with being able to spend what you sell.

"Again are you THICK"

I refer you to my previous answer; if you do not understand the new rules, perhaps it would be better to read them before abusing others.

"EXACTLY, this is what i am saying you only have to spend big once or twice, then the money is already in the squad before the new rules come into force, look how good they are now compared to us, THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!"

You are absolutely correct, it is not rocket science. However, you do not understand the rules and seem to see that the value of the squad you start with under the new rules are the basis for future spending. Perhaps you would not be so angry of you took the time to understand that changes that are to be made.

"YES, and was i jealous last year when Chealsea won the league when we came seventh! Why wasn't you!"

It seems that others do not suffer from the green-eyed monster in the same way that you do. I am guessing this annual jealousy when other sides win the league must go back to whenever Liverpool last won it. This must be very stressful for you.

"And i was jealous this summer when Man City was buying Millner, Silva, Bolitelli, etc and we was buying Poulsen, Konchesky and who ever we could get for free! !"

My point, exactly.

Sharkey.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 15:26:28
Just heard about H&G if it happens im off to MAN CITY at least they have owners who care about the club & they will win things this year we wont.

Or you could jump ship to Barcelona like Mascherano. .

ired

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 15:03:21
I have loved and supported Liverpool football club for thirty years now. Whilst it is true that their success was a motivating factor in my initial support for them, it is undeniable that once you support this great team of ours, that support will last through thick and thin. I would love to see us being taken over by funds that will make the world's best players at Anfield a reality. But if it never eventuates, so what? I will still be as proud of this great team as I always have been. All true fans will understand what I mean. I do hope that we realise that when all things are said and done, that the colours that matter are as red as the blood that courses through our veins. Support our great club, our team and the great fans that will ensure that we'll never walk alone.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 14:42:33
Two points, again it is clear that the driving factor is jealousy and the need for vast sums of money. Your example of Spurs is poor. Spending by Spurs over recent years has been right up there with Liverpool - and probably more than Chelsea over the last three years. In real terms, Liverpool have spent large sums of money - just not terribly well.

Sharkey.


Sharkey, you seem unable to understand the simple fact of a club being financially hamstrung by the owners' debts. Debts which were the owners responsibility to cover, not the fans' or club's.

Do you actually understand the difference between jealousy and frustration? Why would any Liverpool fan want the club to spend ridiculous sums of money on players who's only motivation is money?

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 14:34:37
Hicks on his own could do us good.we only need two top players.Lets all just wait and c.


Wrong, Tommy Jnr. Your Dad would be an absolute disaster, as he's been with the Dallas Stars and Texas Rangers.
His 'one size fits all' leveraged buyout model simply doesn't work in many types of businesses and football is the most obvious one.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 14:29:00
Unsigned wrote about sugar daddies and spending sprees at 17 Sep 2010 14:18:17:

"Why should we care? All Liverpool fans love this club and want success, there's nothing wrong with that, and what is so great about achieving success slowly? The ball park has changed now thanks to Chealsea and Man City and to compete we need big money, that's just the way it is, look at Villa, Everton, Tottenham they've been trying for years without heavy investment but what have they achieved compared to Chealsea! This is reality!"

Two points, again it is clear that the driving factor is jealousy and the need for vast sums of money. Your example of Spurs is poor. Spending by Spurs over recent years has been right up there with Liverpool - and probably more than Chelsea over the last three years. In real terms, Liverpool have spent large sums of money - just not terribly well.

Sharkey.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 14:18:17
I think it is way more important to decide on what you want next as a Liverpool fan before the orgasmic fervour takes a hold for removing the existing owners. It is very clear that, if the posters here represent a cross-section of the Liverpool fan base, the main concern is not so much the owners leveraging loans against the club, but that they have not provided the financing for a Manchester City style spending spree. The fans want the money now to spend on Arda, Aguero, Forlan, and others - and they don't seem to care where it comes from

Why should we care? All Liverpool fans love this club and want success, there's nothing wrong with that, and what is so great about achieving success slowly? The ball park has changed now thanks to Chealsea and Man City and to compete we need big money, that's just the way it is, look at Villa, Everton, Tottenham they've been trying for years without heavy investment but what have they achieved compared to Chealsea! This is reality!

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 14:14:06
YNWA said at 17 Sep 2010 13:41:55:

"The trouble is, if i'm right, the next summer transfer season is the last chance any club has to spend big before the new rules come into place, . ."

Next season's finances are the first that could be subject to scrutiny - so in theory the opportunity has passed for the big spending spree. In reality, these rules will be amended and/ or modified and within a few years will be a thing of the past. I would not worry about them at all.

"so if the squads of Man City, Man U, and Chealsea are worth £400-500 million then it will take a VERY long time for Liverpool to be able to compete if all they are allowed to spend is what they earn plus player sales, "

I have no idea how you came up with these figures nor what relevance they have.

". .the fact is the more money spent on players this summer then the more money we will have to spend on players in the future, . ."

I don't understand the thought process behind this at all. Whatever it is though, it is wrong.

". .and the less money we spend now then the less chance we have to compete financialy will the three said clubs in the future."

Again, this makes no sense.

"A lot of people like to think that Liverpool can do it without big financial investment but with sustained growth but the massive spending power of City and Chealsea make it to difficult to compete . . "

Chelsea have spend "big" twice - and not for some years.

". .and i fear it could take many many years to get back to being a top club again if ever, so i don't understand why you say it's sensible to not spend, surely especialy with the new rules coming into force it's sensible to spend and spend big now while we can, i'm not saying i agree with this or not, but Abramovich and Monsour changed football and if you believe we can do it without money, well how do you attract the big players when the three mentioned clubs can paying double the transfer fee and double the wages, like it or not this is just being realistic, now a days it's all about money!"

This conclusion sums it up for me. You really must get a sugar daddy who never expects to get his money back - good responsible ownership. You are jealous of Manchester City, and seemingly Chelsea, and want to go on a spending spree. This was my original point.

Sharkey.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 14:02:43
Can anyone come up with a good reason why Mr Hicks should want to own the club 100%. I think for him it would only be a poison chalice. I cannot think of anything worse owning a club where all the supporters hate you. If anyone like to comment could they please do it it good, concise, readable and respectful English.
Mal 6

{Editor's Note: I would suggest that it is a means to an end. It seems that Gillett needs to regroup and is not in a position to hang on longer. Hicks is looking to refinance probably just to give himself enough time to sell the club for what he considers a reasonable return (whatever that may be). I don't think that he is considering a longer term relationship with the club.}

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 14:00:15
Blair Mayne YNWA explicated at 17 Sep 2010 13:19:50:

"It strikes me that those seemingly sensible Liverpool fans who want stability for the club, sustained growth and success are being overrun by those who just wish to see a massive spending spree carried out. That probably equates to the need for a sugar daddy and perhaps jealousy of Manchester City.

Sharkey

We are not jealous of Man.City Sharkey! We just want these two b*stards out."

Blair

I think it is way more important to decide on what you want next as a Liverpool fan before the orgasmic fervour takes a hold for removing the existing owners. It is very clear that, if the posters here represent a cross-section of the Liverpool fan base, the main concern is not so much the owners leveraging loans against the club, but that they have not provided the financing for a Manchester City style spending spree. The fans want the money now to spend on Arda, Aguero, Forlan, and others - and they don't seem to care where it comes from.

Options available for the sale are well understood, but perhaps not so well understood are the types of buyer that that may take over. Again, most fans seem to expect Sheikh (insert any name here) or a Forbes' list Hong Kong based internet tycoon or pretty much any individual who's "Wiki" page has his personal wealth measured in billions. In reality, there are a number of other very viable options - and this is why a Canadian or American owner/ consortium is still a possibility. Media exposure of sports remains the money-spinner in the United States and, off the record so don't tell anyone, Stan Kroenke is working hard to strike a long term deal which could potentially provide very significant revenue for Arsenal. You cannot underestimate the magnitude of these potential returns and clearly people in both the United States and Canada have considered such options for Liverpool. No doubt such considerations are part of the considerations for buyers from other parts of the world as well.

What should matter are the long term interests of the club, not the short term views of the fans.

Sharkey.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 13:58:41
Just heard about H&G if it happens im off to MAN CITY at least they have owners who care about the club & they will win things this year we wont.

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 13:41:55
It strikes me that those seemingly sensible Liverpool fans who want stability for the club, sustained growth and success are being overrun by those who just wish to see a massive spending spree carried out. That probably equates to the need for a sugar daddy and perhaps jealousy of Manchester City.

REPLY

The trouble is, if i'm right, the next summer transfer season is the last chance any club has to spend big before the new rules come into place, so if the squads of Man City, Man U, and Chealsea are worth £400-500 million then it will take a VERY long time for Liverpool to be able to compete if all they are allowed to spend is what they earn plus player sales, the fact is the more money spent on players this summer then the more money we will have to spend on players in the future, and the less money we spend now then the less chance we have to compete financialy will the three said clubs in the future. A lot of people like to think that Liverpool can do it without big financial investment but with sustained growth but the massive spending power of City and Chealsea make it to difficult to compete and i fear it could take many many years to get back to being a top club again if ever, so i don't understand why you say it's sensible to not spend, surely especialy with the new rules coming into force it's sensible to spend and spend big now while we can, i'm not saying i agree with this or not, but Abramovich and Monsour changed football and if you believe we can do it without money, well how do you attract the big players when the three mentioned clubs can paying double the transfer fee and double the wages, like it or not this is just being realistic, now a days it's all about money!

YNWA

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 13:32:05
Make of this what you will, but I once also saw a foreign-looking dude at Anfield. Quite fat, goatee. . anyone else spot him?

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 13:22:43
A short term deal will be agreed by RBS to extend the finance for H&G - The banks only alternative would be to put the borrowing into default which, following the legel process, will result in the owners being given 14 days to pay up in full, or the bank will have little alternative but to put the 'business' i.e. Liverpool Football Club, into formal administration.

RBS are aware a sale will be complete by January, and are willing to extend accordingly, although this will be on their 'increased' terms, which will further weaken the yonks position.

Do not expect a Chelsea / Man City revolution. We are not attracting mega rich individuals - but we are attracting good solid business investment, who will have an equal interest in investing in the club and making profits.

Liverpool FC have the potential to be one of the worlds largest global brands and it is only down to poor management of the club (dating back way before H&G) that we have not tapped into markets that, alone, could generate the income to keep the club alive and kicking.

Asia, the America's etc. are still very much untouched by the clubs marketing machine.

So, expect an annoucement around Xmas - and, thereafter, steady growth

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 13:19:50
It strikes me that those seemingly sensible Liverpool fans who want stability for the club, sustained growth and success are being overrun by those who just wish to see a massive spending spree carried out. That probably equates to the need for a sugar daddy and perhaps jealousy of Manchester City.

Sharkey

We are not jealous of Man.City Sharkey! We just want these two b*stards out.

Blair Mayne YNWA

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 12:58:54
I posted testerday that G&H have agreed to sell, and have accepted bid.It is true that hicks did try to refinance his loan but gillete was not in a position finiacially to do the same, and hicks did offer to buy him out! But he declined the offer.Gillete has still been trying to refinance for the full loan, but he is also finiacially cash strapped aswell.This will not happen, even in the US theyve got a bad name for the way they conduct their buisness, nobody will touch them. the matter of the fact is this news is weeks old, i heard this at the begining of august.H&G like i said will be gone by the last week in september and new owners unvield.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 12:56:05
Unsigned and the Ed discussed at 17 Sep 2010 10:50:49:

"I think that if Hck's made a play for the club on his own, there's a good chance that he would face a 'fit and proper person' test that was introduced after his original takeover. That was as a double act (think Abbot & Costello) so I would assume it would be defined as new ownership. Ed - what do you think? {ed's note - that is a very good point, if he did face it he should fail due to the mess he made of Corinthians and Texas Rangers. But we all know the FA is made up of incompetent old fools and he would probably pass with flying colours and be held up as a shining example to others.}"

I think it is most unlikely that such a test could be applied to an existing owner who is refinancing an existing loan and possibly extending the loan to buy out his partner - do doubt at a discount.

So what if the FA did apply such a test and Hicks failed - what would happen? Obviously RBS have a far worse financial track record than Hicks and Gillett - remember the business going bust a couple of years ago and it now being owned 85% by the Treasury? So on that basis, Hicks and Gillett could not sell to Hicks, nor could RBS take over.

It really seems that folks are clutching at straws over this whole matter - most probably having forgotten why by now. The club is up for sale and there are a number of options available. Efforts are being made to sell the club and clearly Tom Hicks is looking to do whatever he can to get a good return for himself - which any businessman would do. I am sure that he does not want long term control but perhaps some breathing space.

It strikes me that those seemingly sensible Liverpool fans who want stability for the club, sustained growth and success are being overrun by those who just wish to see a massive spending spree carried out. That probably equates to the need for a sugar daddy and perhaps jealousy of Manchester City.

Sharkey.

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 12:52:40
Bad news all around for lfc i believe hicks will be granted his refinancing deal, there was and is no intention to sell the club from the yonks, could it be ay clearer. Why would you want to refinance a club that is "up for sale" what a joke. Since the announcement that the club was "for sale" fans have given the yonks an easy enough time, its time now for more protests, they are taking us for a ride!
i agree with a previous post RIP LFC.
dcg

{Editor's Note: The reason for refinancing is likely just to be to gain additional time for the club to be sold - nothing else. You seem to be reading something entirely different in to this.}

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 12:48:52
Guys please don't be blinded with all the H&G bo* * *s. Yes I want them out as fast as the most avid red, but it still doesn't mask over the under performing team. these players get thousands of pounds a week to play for a club we all would play for for free. The spine of the team is up there with the best of them Reina, Carragher, Agger, Skyrtl, Gerrard and now Miereles, Cole and Torres. It's not bad is it? Back that up with Johnson and Konchesky in defence and it looks pretty solid.
Ed you are the voice of reason and the only one I listen to. Do you post your own or just respond to the others?

{Editor's Note: You may have a different Ed in mind - I would unlikely be considered the "voice of reason". Some Ed's do post themselves and some may not.}

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 12:37:35
Hicks on his own could do us good.we only need two top players.Lets all just wait and c.

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 12:31:59
I am 95% certain ( not saying 100% anymore) that Americans will not be able to refinance the debt. We will be owned by the bank or new owners.

If it is the bank then the new buyers will deal with them direct and achieve a better price.

Again i have been assured that all is good with regards the club.

Macca

{Editor's Note: I disagree very much about your assertion that the owners not being able to refinance the loans. At the very least all they are looking for is breathing room to carry on with the sales process. Short term loans will come with a premium and finance houses will normally be happy to oblige.

And you now think that the bank might be the new owners as well I see?}

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 11:54:07
I don't believe this really:

Firstly why would Gillet leave now and why would he sell directly to Hicks?

Broughton and the board will surely fight this anyway they can as it potentially harms the process of selling the club.

Isn't Hicks incredibly close to bankruptcy? Taking in more debt, the only thing i can think is that he's going to make little to no money out of the club if it taken over by RBS so he's trying to hold onto it as long as possible. Ok, good reason but why isn't Gillet following this route to?

If the club is a toxic asset then the bank won't loan it more money and will look to take control instead.

I just think it is more paper talk ahead of the weekend. I believe the club will be taken over before Jan, allowing some room for transfers. However its going to take a couple of seasons and a bit of stability to get back where we historically should be.

Realistic Red

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 10:54:21
"17 Sep 2010 10:11:32
Done deal Hicks wins the day and LFCs debt mountain set to grow. Tom has taken advice from the Glaziers and decided to cling on.

RIP LFC"

That's shocking news. . . did they recommend sash windows or double glazing?

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 10:50:49
I think that if Hck's made a play for the club on his own, there's a good chance that he would face a 'fit and proper person' test that was introduced after his original takeover. That was as a double act (think Abbot & Costello) so I would assume it would be defined as new ownership. Ed - what do you think? {ed's note - that is a very good point, if he did face it he should fail due to the mess he made of Corinthians and Texas Rangers. But we all know the FA is made up of incompetent old fools and he would probably pass with flying colours and be held up as a shining example to others.}

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 10:26:09
ED it seems that ayre, brougton and purslow can still block hicks plan to re finance with another bank.hat do you think they will do? {ed's note - I don't believe they can block him, but I also don't believe he will do anyway. I think it is posturing to try and get the money he wants for the club. He now has a reputation as a bad risk for loans, at a time when banks are not so keen on loaning money, I very much doubt anyone will give him the money he would need to buy the rest of the shares and pay off RBS.}

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 10:11:32
Done deal Hicks wins the day and LFCs debt mountain set to grow. Tom has taken advice from the Glaziers and decided to cling on.

RIP LFC

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 09:31:05
Macca/ The Turdz are saying the deal is done and Macca's source is Possibly Ian Ayres, yet the rest of the world are claiming Hicks is refinancing (or trying to ) with FBR capital markets now, after its looks as if Gillett has no option but to default after finacing his share of LFC with another company, so Macca/ The Turdz I guess people will see if you are just another WuM and if you are I would expect no1 to ever reply to your posts again as they will know you are full of BS.

Wait and see folks, i am passing on the info i am given. I am very sure the yanks will be gone soon.

Macca

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 09:26:17
I posted two nights ago theat Hicks had found a way of paying the debt and getting RBS out then I heard it was citibank . . bad news it is happening just look at the interview George Soros did for NBC

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 09:15:23
The Guardian Thur 16 Sep:-
"Tom Hicks has launched a last-ditch bid to retain control of Liverpool by looking to secure another refinancing deal as his co-owner, George Gillett, attempts to avoid defaulting on a $75m loan that could cost him his involvement in the Anfield club.

Hicks and Gillett face losing the club to the Royal Bank of Scotland next month when the deadline for refinancing loans of at least £237.4m - according to club accounts to July 2009 - expire. But despite fierce opposition from the majority of the Anfield board to any further attempts at refinancing by the Americans, who are now believed to owe approximately £280m under the terms of their arrangement with the bank in April, the Texan businessman is attempting to strengthen his interest in the club.

The Liverpool co-owner arrived in London on Wednesday and has discussed refinancing options with, among others, the investment bank FBR Capital Markets. Liverpool would face further damaging interest repayments should Hicks succeed in preventing RBS from taking control and selling the club on for much less than the Americans' original £800m valuation. However, Hicks would require majority approval from the Liverpool board to secure a deal and, so far, the chairman Martin Broughton, managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre have all opposed his attempts to remain at the helm.

It is understood Hicks met FBR Capital Markets and Broughton alone, with Gillett in danger of defaulting on a loan acquired to meet personal guarantees in a previous deal with RBS. Gillett secured a $75m loan in 2008 with Mill Financial, who have now called the loan in, and is currently trying to extend that loan in order to protect his 50% stake in Anfield.

Broughton has yet to find a buyer for the Anfield club five months after his appointment as chairman with that specific brief."

MY COMMENT
This actually appears to be the last-ditch attempt of a vain man as opposed to anything serious. Bit like Hitler in the Berlin Bunker in 1945 moving divisions that no longer exist around the map watched by Generals who know it's just a matter of time. . . .

RED LENIN

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 08:48:02
Liverpool to sign Arda Turan in Jan ;)
YNWA

()()

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 08:14:05
I saw an ethnic fella

I saw an arab looking guy

I saw some foreign dude! !

Come on people, that is really clutching at straws.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 07:20:05
Im not going into the details, But all this hicks taking full control of our club is scare mongering, PR stunts call it the last throw of the dice, The yanks are hanging on, The battle is coming to an end, Liverpool football club has taken on the yanks and is forcing them out. May i also add a very important match is just but 2 days away same old negative crap before a big game relax fellow reds the storm is clearing and that golden sky is breaking walk on with hope in your heart.

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 03:09:22
RE
17 Sep 2010 00:46:52
Macca/ T*e***** are saying the deal is done and Macca's source is Possibly Ian Ayres, yet the rest of the world are claiming Hicks is refinancing (or trying to ) with FBR capital markets now, after its looks as if Gillett has no option but to default after finacing his share of LFC with another company, so Macca/ **e***** I guess people will see if you are just another WuM and if you are I would expect no1 to ever reply to your posts again as they will know you are full of BS

lads, there is no deal done and if there was. .nobody would know except those involved. . from what ive heard, there are buyers. .theres just no bids lodged yet. . and another bit of prosperous news i heard tonight is that hicks has failed to re-finance so far. .he still has time though so i am not counting my chickens. .
hopefully come say oct 8-12th we should have a clearer picture, but don't expect any kind of announcment before then!

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 02:21:12
When the cameras zoomed in on King Kenny, Rushy etc tonight there was a foreign looking chap on the right behind them. Anyone know who he was? Looked rather like an Arab type dude to me.

[[ i saw him as well m8. i was thinking the same thing. he had short hair ish, and looked ethnic (light brown ish skin tone)
i hope he was a arab type dude. he looked a bit like man city's owner don't ya think?
harry5

Ya but guys it could also mean h*ck All too so don't be getting yourselves too excited.
I personally am worried about the future now.
But at least things can't get too much worse & can only get better mainly!
Do people out there believe we'll make top 4 this season, Yes = Believable. No = Unbelievable

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 01:22:02
16 Sep 2010 23:56:10
When the cameras zoomed in on King Kenny, Rushy etc tonight there was a foreign looking chap on the right behind them. Anyone know who he was? Looked rather like an Arab type dude to me.

[[ i saw him as well m8. i was thinking the same thing. he had short hair ish, and looked ethnic (light brown ish skin tone)
i hope he was a arab type dude. he looked a bit like man city's owner don't ya think?
harry5

()()

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2010 00:46:52
Macca/ The Turdz are saying the deal is done and Macca's source is Possibly Ian Ayres, yet the rest of the world are claiming Hicks is refinancing (or trying to ) with FBR capital markets now, after its looks as if Gillett has no option but to default after finacing his share of LFC with another company, so Macca/ The Turdz I guess people will see if you are just another WuM and if you are I would expect no1 to ever reply to your posts again as they will know you are full of BS

()()

 

 

 

 

 

16 Sep 2010 23:56:10
When the cameras zoomed in on King Kenny, Rushy etc tonight there was a foreign looking chap on the right behind them. Anyone know who he was? Looked rather like an Arab type dude to me.

()()