Coup under way at Liverpool FC

mike65

How stupid are they? The club will be sold for the value of the highest bid, after RBS call in the loan.

Its like they have their fingers in their ears and are singing "Ting-a-Ling-a-Loo" (look it up!)

8-10

The statement sounded like everything we've heard before.

Dr Galen

****er uses terms like " undervalue their significant investment" and "committed to the sale of the club" and expects to be taken seriously. FFS the fat **** need to be taken out and introduced to the thick end of a cricket bat.

NukaCola

Surely their resistance to the sale is meaningless seeing as they cant pay the debt off? Am i wrong?
Undervalue their investment? Investing their bull**** more like, they can take that with them too......

Hicks and Gillette
GTFO

whatawaster

Interesting that it appears that the owner of 50% of the club's shares can't (or didn't want to) communicate through the clubs website.

His power is fading

GEM_13

Dr Galen wrote: »

****er uses terms like " undervalue their significant investment" and "committed to the sale of the club" and expects to be taken seriously. FFS the fat **** need to be taken out and introduced to the thick end of a cricket bat.

With a neck like his,he would probably crack it.

scudzilla

What is the worse case scenario that could happen tonight to Liverpool?

Jesus Wept

**** all is going to happen tonight, time for bed I reckon.

K-9

8-10 wrote: »

The statement sounded like everything we've heard before.

Yep, same crap as a couple of months ago. Sounded verbatim, increased revenues, profits etc. etc.

No mention of massive losses.

I think this is it lads. They have no new cards to play. The viral video goes out the same day.

My understanding is the legal action is against the owners? i.e. the board are now taking legal action against the owners.

DOC09UNAM

When I hear that Texan talking, I think of this.

NabyLadistheman

scudzilla wrote: »

What is the worse case scenario that could happen tonight to Liverpool?

H&G get control of the boardroom, hopefully legally that can never happen

Dr Galen

whatawaster wrote: »

Interesting that it appears that the owner of 50% of the club's shares can't (or didn't want to) communicate through the clubs website.

His power is fading

I'd agree with that alright. I think we are witnessing the last desperate death throws of hicks tbh. Typical blustery bull**** from him. He knows the game is up now.

scudzilla

torresistheman wrote: »

H&G get control of the boardroom, hopefully legally that can never happen

Why not, they OWN the club.

whatawaster

torresistheman wrote: »

H&G get control of the boardroom, hopefully legally that can never happen

they still have to find 280m by next friday.

One thing is for sure - Broughton will not be recommending an extension to RBS now. The deal is on the table. Either Hicks and Gillett take it, or they pay off the loan.

8-10

Statement from H&G:

"In April we confirmed our joint agreement to sell Liverpool Football Club and appointed a new chairman and advisors to oversee the process. At that time, we and Martin Broughton stated our committment to find the right buyer for LFC, one that could support and sustain the club in the future. We remain committed to that goal.

The board have been presented with offers which we believe dramatically undervalue the club. To be clear there is no change in our committment to finding a buyer for Liverpool Football Club at a fair price which reflects the very significant investment we've made. We will however resist any attempt to sell the club without due process or agreement from the owners"

Ok I'm paraphrasing a little, transcribed from SSN.

K-9

scudzilla wrote: »

Why not, they OWN the club.

They don't control the Board though, even now, before RBS takes over.

NabyLadistheman

H&G say

"In April we confirmed our agreement to sell Liverpool, and appointed a new chairman & advisors to oversee the process. At that time we and Martin Broughan stated our commitment to finding the right buyer for LFC, one that could support and sustain the club in the future. We remain commited to that goal.

The owners have invested more than $270 million in cash into the club, and during their tenure revenues have nearly doubled. Investments in players has increased and the club is one of the post profitable in the EPL. As such, the board has been presented with offers that we believe dramatically undervalue the club. To be clear, there is no change to our commitment to finding a buyer for Liverpool Football Club at a fair price that reflects the very significant investment we have made. We will however resist to sell the club without due process or agreement by the owners"


What a shower of shams. Lie Lies Lies since day one & they still spout this crap. I hope they are ruined forever once this is over. Scum

K-9

8-10 wrote: »

Statement from H&G:

"In April we confirmed our joint agreement to sell Liverpool Football Club and appointed a new chairman and advisors to oversee the process. At that time, we and Martin Broughton stated our committment to find the right buyer for LFC, one that could support and sustain the club in the future. We remain committed to that goal.

The board have been presented with offers which we believe dramatically undervalue the club. To be clear there is no change in our committment to finding a buyer for Liverpool Football Club at a fair price which reflects the very significant investment we've made. We will however resist any attempt to sell the club without due process or agreement from the owners"

Ok I'm paraphrasing a little, transcribed from SSN.

It sounds like they seen Broughton as an ally. I've my doubts that was the case but it definitely isn't, after all the recent shenanigans.

Broughton and RBS have lost whatever patience they had at the start.

8-10

I'm curious, would Liverpool fans take to the American bid if it got through? The NESV one I mean

NabyLadistheman

8-10 wrote: »

I'm curious, would Liverpool fans take to the American bid if it got through? The NESV one I mean

All depends what they bring to the table. New stadium being priority along with injection of cash for players

Fr Tod Umptious

I would not be getting too excited about John Henry and New England Sports Venture interest here.

They are by no means loaded in the way the guys who look over City are, or Abramovich (sp) is.

They took over the Red Sox in 2002 and they have since won 2 championships. However the owners did not plough money in and snap up all the free agents out there for big money.

They got luck with a lot of players that paid off.

As soon as they took over they scrapped the plan of building a new ball park and ended up retrofitting Fenway Park (the oldest in the league, built in 1912) with seats on the roof, seats closer to the field etc.
Plus these new seats were the highly priced also so they were not exactly for the regular fan.

Even though the owners are well liked in Boston I believe that there is an underlying feeling that they are milking the club name and thus the fans for every penny they can.

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I would not be getting too excited about John Henry and New England Sports Venture interest here.

They are by no means loaded in the way the guys who look over City are, or Abramovich (sp) is.

They took over the Red Sox in 2002 and they have since won 2 championships. However the owners did not plough money in and snap up all the free agents out there for big money.

They got luck with a lot of players that paid off.

As soon as they took over they scrapped the plan of building a new ball park and ended up retrofitting Fenway Park (the oldest in the league, built in 1912) with seats on the roof, seats closer to the field etc.
Plus these new seats were the highly priced also so they were not exactly for the regular fan.

Even though the owners are well liked in Boston I believe that there is an underlying feeling that they are milking the club name and thus the fans for every penny they can.

That success without Abromhavic or City would be fantastic.

We keep Anfield and still are successful? Win, win.

Most pool fans just want to be a top 4 club, anything else is a bonus. Challenging for top 4 was our aim this year.

As for the feeling of milking it, unfortunately that is the era we are in, new owners or not.

Jesus Wept

Meh to being content to challenge for 4th every year. I'd rather a relegation battle.

8-10

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I would not be getting too excited about John Henry and New England Sports Venture interest here.

They are by no means loaded in the way the guys who look over City are, or Abramovich (sp) is.

They took over the Red Sox in 2002 and they have since won 2 championships. However the owners did not plough money in and snap up all the free agents out there for big money.

They got luck with a lot of players that paid off.

As soon as they took over they scrapped the plan of building a new ball park and ended up retrofitting Fenway Park (the oldest in the league, built in 1912) with seats on the roof, seats closer to the field etc.
Plus these new seats were the highly priced also so they were not exactly for the regular fan.

Even though the owners are well liked in Boston I believe that there is an underlying feeling that they are milking the club name and thus the fans for every penny they can.

Some interesting points. You can't deny the difference in the team since about 2003 though. Not wholly down to the new owners, but a core group of players came together on 2 occasions throughout the decade to make the team one of the most successful over the period. I'm not goint to go on about it as it's off-topic. Basically there needs to be a hugely-different strategic plan with regards owning a soccer team but brand-wise, I think they're similar organizations.

My point was more just the basic "would the average Pool fan be happy to replace the American owners with more American owners?"

Fr Tod Umptious

8-10 wrote: »

Some interesting points. You can't deny the difference in the team since about 2003 though. Not wholly down to the new owners, but a core group of players came together on 2 occasions throughout the decade to make the team one of the most successful over the period. I'm not goint to go on about it as it's off-topic. Basically there needs to be a hugely-different strategic plan with regards owning a soccer team but brand-wise, I think they're similar organizations.

My point was more just the basic "would the average Pool fan be happy to replace the American owners with more American owners?"

Well if history is anything to go by the pool fans will be excited about the new overs now and they p***ed off with them in a few years if they are not pumping cash into the club, as was the case with Hicks and Gillet

murpho999

What an amazing turn of events.

Just like in a coup, the rebels go after the communications, usually TV & Radio and I find it amazing that Purslow & Co are issuing statements through official website and current owners can't do that...bizzare, but shows that the rebels seem to have more control than G&H which is good.

Anyhow, if in April a new board was appointed with Broughton etc, how is that Hicks & Gillett can now block a sale?

H&G's attempt to remove Purslow & Ayres, not a company law expert but I thought this can only be done by an EGM, which must have plenty of notice and not at a general board meeting? Any legal eagles out there know more?

Really looks like the end is near, will be interesting to see what the bidders have to offer, especially the alleged Asian one.

D'Agger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well if history is anything to go by the pool fans will be excited about the new overs now and they p***ed off with them in a few years if they are destroying the club by saddling it with massive debts, as was the case with Hicks and Gillet

FYP there for you

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well if history is anything to go by the pool fans will be excited about the new overs now and they p***ed off with them in a few years if they are not pumping cash into the club, as was the case with Hicks and Gillet

You sure about that?

Where did the owners promise that to the fans?

K-9

murpho999 wrote: »

What an amazing turn of events.

Just like in a coup, the rebels go after the communications, usually TV & Radio and I find it amazing that Purslow & Co are issuing statements through official website and current owners can't do that...bizzare, but shows that the rebels seem to have more control than G&H which is good.

Anyhow, if in April a new board was appointed with Broughton etc, how is that Hicks & Gillett can now block a sale?

H&G's attempt to remove Purslow & Ayres, not a company law expert but I thought this can only be done by an EGM, which must have plenty of notice and not at a general board meeting? Any legal eagles out there know more?

Really looks like the end is near, will be interesting to see what the bidders have to offer, especially the alleged Asian one.

Not sure on the legalities, but in simple terms, G&H don't control the board anymore. I'd say, as G&H agreed to the sale last May, there probably are loads of T&C's in that agreement.

G&H would have had their lawyers all over it, but then so would RBS and LFC.

Fr Tod Umptious

K-9 wrote: »

You sure about that?

Where did the owners promise that to the fans?

I had a look at the archive of the BBC page a few weeks back and the majority of the messages on 606 were positive about the Hicks and Gillette takeover.

The assumption was that they would plough money into the club.

Right now people are all excited about this 'coup', but what are any new owner going to bring ? Top 4 security as one poster suggested ?

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I had a look at the archive of the BBC page a few weeks back and the majority of the messages on 606 were positive about the Hicks and Gillette takeover.

The assumption was that they would plough money into the club.

Right now people are all excited about this 'coup', but what are any new owner going to bring ? Top 4 security as one poster suggested ?

Indeed, the fans were lied to.

The current situation is different and strange. The Board (i.e. Purslow et al) are calling for due diligence.

We were burned the last time, it will not happen again.

NukaCola

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Right now people are all excited about this 'coup', but what are any new owner going to bring ?

Financial stability. No debts on the club and hopefully a new stadium. Like what we were promised by the current owners. The majority of Liverpool fans would be delighted with that IMO........

Your draining the positivity here. Let me enjoy this news just for a bit :P

Warper

Well as G&H own the club I presume they can change the board members as they see fit. It is their club atm and they can accept or not accept any offers.

What I find so stupid is Liverpool fans still going to Anfield crying G & H out when they are just after putting 50 quid into their pockets by actually going to the match. Same situation as Man Utd. You dont protest against someone by giving them money every week :rolleyes:

K-9

Warper wrote: »

Well as G&H own the club I presume they can change the board members as they see fit. It is their club atm and they can accept or not accept any offers.

What I find so stupid is Liverpool fans still going to Anfield crying G & H out when they are just after putting 50 quid into their pockets by actually going to the match. Same situation as Man Utd. You dont protest against someone by giving them money every week :rolleyes:

Read the thread and links provided. They can't, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist!

NukaCola

Warper wrote: »

Well as G&H own the club I presume they can change the board members as they see fit. It is their club atm and they can accept or not accept any offers.

Dont think they can. They need to repay the debt, and have 9 days to do it or else RBS take Liverpool off their hands.....

Hazys

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I would not be getting too excited about John Henry and New England Sports Venture interest here.

They are by no means loaded in the way the guys who look over City are, or Abramovich (sp) is.

They took over the Red Sox in 2002 and they have since won 2 championships. However the owners did not plough money in and snap up all the free agents out there for big money.

The have the second highest payroll in the MLB?!?!?
Of course they didnt go out and spend ridiculous on players that are not worth it, they basis of Epstein's strategy is not to over pay and get value. Id prefer to have a good few good players for a above average wages versus gambling on a few great players paying excellent level money. Again you can do this in baseball, but it wouldnt translate well to soccer because of the lack of the same rotation.

They got luck with a lot of players that paid off.

Luck? Seriously? 2X World Series and they are average 90 wins a season pre the owners versus 80 or so before their ownership.

As soon as they took over they scrapped the plan of building a new ball park and ended up retrofitting Fenway Park (the oldest in the league, built in 1912) with seats on the roof, seats closer to the field etc.
Plus these new seats were the highly priced also so they were not exactly for the regular fan.

Fans didnt want to get rid of Fenway, the tradition was too important. As for ticket price increases they are pretty honest about it and still have a lot of cheap tickets available, see below...

Even though the owners are well liked in Boston I believe that there is an underlying feeling that they are milking the club name and thus the fans for every penny they can.
There is a small feeling of that but compare the fans happiness pre their ownership and after there is no comparison. Also the stadium still sells out every game.

"I think the fans are more interested in whether they have a competitive team than in whether or not they're paying a little more," Henry said.
The owner made that comment after one of the new group's first acts, raising ticket prices, something the previous Sox caretaker, John Harrington, had done in each of the previous six years.
In 2002, the Henry group kept the price of the cheapest seats between $18 and $25, while raising the price of the most expensive seats to $60.
Fast-forward to 2010 and the most recent ticket increase, one in which the cheapest seats can be had for $12, the most expensive -- dugout field seats that didn't exist in '02 -- are $328, and field box seats are $130, more than double what they cost back in '02."
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/columns/story?columnist=edes_gordon&id=4943885

Xavi6

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, the fans were lied to.

The current situation is different and strange. The Board (i.e. Purslow et al) are calling for due diligence.

We were burned the last time, it will not happen again.

I hope for the sake of the fans you're right. Doubt many could handle it twice.

K-9

Xavi6 wrote: »

I hope for the sake of the fans you're right. Doubt many could handle it twice.

And I'm sure you are following this with interest too Xavi6. That isn't a dig btw, just I'm sure you have a self interest here too and rightly so.

If the debt was cleared alone, nothing else, no investment, no new stadium, we'd be one of the best run clubs in the Premiership, if not the best.

Something for everybody else to think about!

Fr Tod Umptious

Hazys wrote: »

"I think the fans are more interested in whether they have a competitive team than in whether or not they're paying a little more," Henry said.
The owner made that comment after one of the new group's first acts, raising ticket prices, something the previous Sox caretaker, John Harrington, had done in each of the previous six years.
In 2002, the Henry group kept the price of the cheapest seats between $18 and $25, while raising the price of the most expensive seats to $60.
Fast-forward to 2010 and the most recent ticket increase, one in which the cheapest seats can be had for $12, the most expensive -- dugout field seats that didn't exist in '02 -- are $328, and field box seats are $130, more than double what they cost back in '02."
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/columns/story?columnist=edes_gordon&id=4943885

I don't know why you embedded your comments in bold into the quote from my origional post but here I'll reply to them anyway

1. They had one of the highest payrolls before Henry and Co took over

2. They did not go out a spend like crazy on Free Agents al la Texas or Mets or Yankees over the past 8 years

3. Only the arty farty groups wanted to keep Fenway, the 'save fenway' group etc., they types that live in the South End and have this romatic view of the place.
The majority of 'real fans', and I hate the term, would have preferred to see the place town down and re-built across the street as was planned.
Especially in a time when new parks were springing up all over the country.

Anyway that is all off topic, my point is John Henry is no knight in shining armour with a wad of cash

8-10

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

2. They did not go out a spend like crazy on Free Agents al la Texas or Mets or Yankees over the past 8 years

Number of World Series wins over past 8yrs, yankees, mets, Texas combined: 1

Number of World Series wins over past 8yrs, Red Sox alone: 2.

Hazys

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't know why you embedded your comments in bold into the quote from my origional post but here I'll reply to them anyway

1. They had one of the highest payrolls before Henry and Co took over

2. They did not go out a spend like crazy on Free Agents al la Texas or Mets or Yankees over the past 8 years

3. Only the arty farty groups wanted to keep Fenway, the 'save fenway' group etc., they types that live in the South End and have this romatic view of the place.
The majority of 'real fans', and I hate the term, would have preferred to see the place town down and re-built across the street as was planned.
Especially in a time when new parks were springing up all over the country.

Anyway that is all off topic, my point is John Henry is no knight in shining armour with a wad of cash

1&2. I dont understand what you are saying you want them to go out and slash the cash like the Mets or the Rangers? The Rangers are bankrupt and the Mets just fired half their staff. The Yankees only won just last year. I rather them make sound investments and properly manage the club and than splash the cash on free agents and throw money at the problem.

3. The South End arty fartsy groups? My god i doubt the people in the South End arty fartsy groups even know who the Red Sox are.


I think you extremely belittleing what the Red Sox have achieved in the last 8 years...the owners are in no way perfect, but for crying out loud if you are saying they are poor business men and dont know how to run a successful baseball franchise, your having a laugh.


Also I'm in no way saying John Henry will defly turn Liverpool into the Red Sox, but be fair he has done a good job with the Red Sox. A lot of obstacles stand in his way if he is to be succesful at Liverpool, does he know soccer? can he devote a good chunk of his time to the club with his Red Sox commitments? how much of this bid is related to promoting the Red Sox?


Again off topic, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

NabyLadistheman

Holy **** Apparently the deal has been done with NESV! Liverpool FC could soon have new owners. The deal is subject to legal issues with the owners & premier league clearance but it's done!!!

PFL

Deal complete statement on Club website in next thirty mins NESV new owners. Must have been an all nighter for the Lawyers and LFC board.

NabyLadistheman

SOLD!! Boom!

PFL

From LFC Website;

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/board-agree-proposed-sale

Liverpool Football Club today announces that the Board has agreed the sale of the Club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV).

New England Sports Ventures currently owns a portfolio of companies including the Boston Red Sox, New England Sports Network, Fenway Sports Group and Rousch Fenway Racing.

Martin Broughton, Liverpool FC Chairman, said:

"I am delighted that we have been able to successfully conclude the sale process which has been thorough and extensive. The Board decided to accept NESV's proposal on the basis that it best met the criteria we set out originally for a suitable new owner. NESV's philosophy is all about winning and they have fully demonstrated that at Red Sox.

"We've met them in Boston, London and Liverpool over several weeks and I am immensely impressed with what they have achieved and with their vision for Liverpool Football Club.

"By removing the burden of acquisition debt, this offer allows us to focus on investment in the team. I am only disappointed that the owners have tried everything to prevent the deal from happening and that we need to go through legal proceedings in order to complete the sale."

Note to editors:

The sale is conditional on Premier League approval, resolution of the dispute concerning Board membership and other matters.*

Liam O

torresistheman wrote: »

SOLD!! Boom!

no, it's not sold, there's a lot of crap that has to be dealt with first.

monkey9

Wow, sale agreed!!!!!!!!!

K-9

Liam O wrote: »

no, it's not sold, there's a lot of crap that has to be dealt with first.

Be interesting to hear the G&H response. Can't imagine the Board would do this without feeling they have strong grounds. Going to be a busy day on twitter!

jaykay74

Yanks OUT Yanks OUT !!!!

Yanks in, Yanks in...

NabyLadistheman

300m apparently, no wonder the 2 will dig their heals to the death