Coup under way at Liverpool FC

Thanx 4 The Fish

Liverpool have not been selling out on the hospitality either though. I have been at the expense of corporate entities many times over the last 5 or 6 seasons and the numbers around about in there have been falling. In fact you could probably get corporate for the niext home game now if you wanted.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Liverpool have not been selling out on the hospitality either though. I have been at the expense of corporate entities many times over the last 5 or 6 seasons and the numbers around about in there have been falling. In fact you could probably get corporate for the niext home game now if you wanted.

Also Liverpool is not London,London clubs are at a clear advntage regards corporate hospitality.I never thought about that.

budgemook

Tony Fluffy Desk wrote: »

A question thrown open to all teams fans I have is do you think its possible to win the premier league without sugar daddy or piling the debts on to buy players.

Obviously Liverpool are a massive club who can generate substantial off field revenues.
I think if this is what they are planning to do,they will need to build stadium substantially bigger than 60k,I think spurs are building a similar sized one?

How big a stadium could Liverpool fill?

Screw the sugar daddies I will say again. The way to win a league is to earn it properly. Anything else would leave a sour taste in my mouth. I think this should be done by bringing through youth (like Arsenal do - Liverpool have made steps in that direction but are probably 3 or 4 years behind Arsenal) and buying the right players when needed (like Arsenal don't).

If we could bring through another couple of Gerrards, Owens, Carraghers etc. and buy a few decent players for around 20 million I would be very happy even without winning the league so long as we gave a proper challenge. Obviously I would love to win it but only like above, not by spending 300m of some investors money in 3 years or something like that.

flahavaj

niallo27 wrote: »

How did he get owned, Sir gallagher made him look quite the fool if you ask me, you lot are obsessed with anything liverpool

United fans are naturally going to be interested in something thats fundamental to the future of their greatest historical rivals. I don't know why it bothers you so much tbh.

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

United fans are naturally going to be interested in something thats fundamental to the future of their greatest historical rivals. I don't know why it bothers you so much tbh.

I would have said they are interested in something that's fundamental to the future of their own club ... Getting rid of the debt ridden current owners of MUFC , which is something (hopefully) we have done .

flahavaj

mixednuts wrote: »

I would have said they are interested in something that's fundamental to the future of their own club ... Getting rid of the debt ridden current owners of MUFC , which is something (hopefully) we have done .

Well yes that too. Unfortunately United's pair will be around for the forseeable future.

Diggy78

Le King wrote: »

Did anybody see the warped desperate charity appeal posted on the Red Sox forum?

Dear. Mr Hicks

Quite sad to be honest. Even the Sox fans are calling the Liverpool fans posting on their site delusional.

I hope the sale goes through for the sake of football, but when people sound so desperate and weak it's a shame.

Ah hang on. 'charity appeal'? Since the title is 'Dear Mr Hicks', I'm sure you're aware that this is not aimed at any prospective owners, hardly a charity appeal.
You may call it sad if you like, doesn't make it so.

I've no problem with fans of other clubs being interested in Liverpool's business, I'd be interested in how other clubs are getting on, but let's be fair, dont go calling it 'warped' when people actually try another avenue of apporaching the owners.

I'll be brutally honest in admitting that I've done f**k all other than piss and moan about the owners, and have even paid them by going over to games. At least these guys people have tried something, and for that I wouldn't brand them as 'weak'.

K-9

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I refuse to believe there is not a Liverpool fan out there who would not choose a sugar daddy over any other option, organic, free range, gluten free football club - whatever you want to call it.

While we'd take anything atm, there have been repeated calls by fans for an Arsenal type situation.

Yes, eg. when the Chinese bid came in, people were over the moon, but even then, plenty questioned it and preferred the Arsenal option, so the above isn't true.

I'm more pragmatic about it because the fans don't have any say over the sale, so it's rather pointless getting all sanctimonious, one way or the other, about it. There is a romance about achieving it without sugar Daddy types though, always will be, rather like Blackpool getting to the Premiership and staying there!

flahavaj wrote:

United fans are naturally going to be interested in something thats fundamental to the future of their greatest historical rivals. I don't know why it bothers you so much tbh.

We all have our embarassing fans! Have to say the reaction has been brilliant, barring the few usual suspects that ye are ashamed of yourselves anyway.

Leiva

Le King wrote: »

Did anybody see the warped desperate charity appeal posted on the Red Sox forum?

Dear. Mr Hicks

Quite sad to be honest. Even the Sox fans are calling the Liverpool fans posting on their site delusional.

I hope the sale goes through for the sake of football, but when people sound so desperate and weak it's a shame.

IMO I think a similar well constructed video by the Green & Gold campaign aiming at the Glazers would go down well with the majority of UTD supporters .

Hopefully UTD can rid themselves of the debt ridden scourge from a leveraged buy out in the near future also.
The EPL will be a better place for it .

thebullkf

my faith is restored!


great to see opposing fans genuinely happy for pool fans,

kudos to ye.

i tip my hat to you.:)

K-9

BBC5L doing a special on it now, some new stuff to emerge.

Dan Roan - BBC Correspondent.

mike65

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_five_live

Why are they talking about the 9 point deduction, when thats already been sorted.

K-9

mike65 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_five_live

Why are they talking about the 9 point deduction, when thats already been sorted.

True, I'd assume they are aware of it. I suppose until a final decision is made, if the need arises, it isn't final.

mike65

Its a deeply stupid chat so far, but I guess plenty of people listening don't know one end of this saga from the other.

K-9

mike65 wrote: »

Its a deeply stupid chat so far, but I guess plenty of people listening don't know one end of this saga from the other.

I'd say alot of people would find it hard to believe, especially the shareholders being out voted.

Le King

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Ok i've my hands up, your a baseball fan, who just so happened to find himself on the opposition fans forum, i see a pattern emerging here. I for one just can't get my head around the voyeuristic nature of some opposition fans on forums.

The video you posted was put together by people who care for the club, people who have been sent to the brink and want to see an end to current ownership regime, yet you call them warped and desperate? It's not me who's on the high horse here.

No maybe your getting me wrong here, what I meant was the original post on the Red Sox forum was like selling a charity to the Sox fans.

Yet you proceed to have another pop at me. I think reading any forum could potentially be described as voyeuristic. However, on that particular post which I'm describing, it was a desperate plea of charity for LFC.

Regardless of what you think my agenda is here, I certainly am happy that another club will be run in the right manner. The Red Sox are run right, a fine example of how to run a sports club. John Henry is a cautious man. This is a very good deal for Liverpool if it goes through.

You and others of you ilk think that everybody is obsessed with Liverpool FC, obviously everybody in the Premier League will be keeping a close eye on what's unfolding here. It's really nothing short of a cliché at this stage that anybody passing a negative remark on LFC is perceived as being obsessed or voyeuristic. This is nothing short of pure rubbish. I, for one, am certainly not obsessed with LFC, nor are the majority of people you smear as being voyeuristic on LFC.

I don't think LFC is a charity case, but the way certain fans have conveyed Liverpool FC looks as if the club is some sort of joke. That's what I was describing.

But, hey, I'm not a voyeur, just an interested football fan.

I hope all goes well for Liverpool, I don't want to see LFC on it's knee's through financial means. I want to see LFC on it's knee's after a good hammering from United at Old Trafford.

You see, there is an unwritten respect between the two clubs as together we make the majority of British football history. Secretly, we want to see you guys fine because the biggest matches of the year, for us, are Liverpool and United and what would be the fun in hammering a poor Liverpool or United side due to finances. You don't see Liverpool fans throwing paper aeroplanes around. That sort of shíte only comes from scum. We have to respect each other, while hating each other at the same time.

I hope we get new owners now, surely we are next in line. Only if Dave Whelan had enough money:cool:.

Hopefully John Henry can do the right job.
Now ye are nearly sorted, do you want to help us get rid of the Glazers? :pac:

K-9

Le King wrote: »

No maybe your getting me wrong here, what I meant was the original post on the Red Sox forum was like selling a charity to the Sox fans.

Yet you proceed to have another pop at me. I think reading any forum could potentially be described as voyeuristic. However, on that particular post which I'm describing, it was a desperate plea of charity for LFC.

Regardless of what you think my agenda is here, I certainly am happy that another club will be run in the right manner. The Red Sox are run right, a fine example of how to run a sports club. John Henry is a cautious man. This is a very good deal for Liverpool if it goes through.

You and others of you ilk think that everybody is obsessed with Liverpool FC, obviously everybody in the Premier League will be keeping a close eye on what's unfolding here. It's really nothing short of a cliché at this stage that anybody passing a negative remark on LFC is perceived as being obsessed or voyeuristic. This is nothing short of pure rubbish. I, for one, am certainly not obsessed with LFC, nor are the majority of people you smear as being voyeuristic on LFC.

I don't think LFC is a charity case, but the way certain fans have conveyed Liverpool FC looks as if the club is some sort of joke. That's what I was describing.

But, hey, I'm not a voyeur, just an interested football fan.

I hope all goes well for Liverpool, I don't want to see LFC on it's knee's through financial means. I want to see LFC on it's knee's after a good hammering from United at Old Trafford.

You see, there is an unwritten respect between the two clubs as together we make the majority of British football history. Secretly, we want to see you guys fine because the biggest matches of the year, for us, are Liverpool and United and what would be the fun in hammering a poor Liverpool or United side due to finances. You don't see Liverpool fans throwing paper aeroplanes around. That sort of shíte only comes from scum. We have to respect each other, while hating each other at the same time.

I hope we get new owners now, surely we are next in line. Only if Dave Whelan had enough money:cool:.

Hopefully John Henry can do the right job.
Now ye are nearly sorted, do you want to help us get rid of the Glazers? :pac:

Well said.

The majority of fans just want to get back to being competitive again. G&H was a massive mistake and I'm sure fans of clubs other than United and Liverpool, wouldn't mind us being relegated.

After all, what right do Liverpool or for that matter, United, expect to have an automatic right to be top 4 clubs? especially with the mess both clubs are in.

The video was a viral video sent out. Bad timing, it wasn't tied to the Red Sox in anyway, timing meant the boardroom battle happened a couple of hours afterwards. The video was flagged a few days ago, nothing to do with the Red Sox.

Nobody thinks United fans or others are fascinated with Liverpool, SOME fans are, as was well demonstrated on this thread. Some Pool fans are obsessed with United too, that is fine too, all part of the fun of the game.

We all have our fans we are embarased about! Nothing neither club can do about that.

TL;DR This isn't about United and Liverpool, it is more important than that.

ShaneU

thebullkf wrote: »

my faith is restored!


great to see opposing fans genuinely happy for pool fans,

kudos to ye.

i tip my hat to you.:)

Wouldn't say I'm happy, will be glad to see the end of the OTT flag burning protests though.

The Rooster

Tony Fluffy Desk wrote: »

City are in horendous debt the same as Chelsea,its just in the form of an IOU to the Sheik than banks,watch what happens when he sells the club whenever that is.

Not sure how City's summer spending was funded, but up to that the Sheikh has put his money into City in the form of share capital, rather than loans like Abramovich. So its likely the summer spending was funded in the same manner, so while Chelsea owe Roman almost £600M, City don't owe the Sheikh anything and most of their historic debt has been wiped out (interest costs reduced from £17m to £3m).

jenno86

ShaneU wrote: »

Wouldn't say I'm happy, will be glad to see the end of the OTT flag burning protests though.

I cant wait for the Glazers to be gone from United too. Its funny to see all the fans with the Green and Yellow scarfs on yet they sit there in the brand new kit. Slightly hypocritical?


Hopefully, if G&H píss off Liverpool can get back to the way we used to be run, with dignity and respect.

LuckyLloyd

Re: sugar-daddies and the "right" way to win

As I have said elsewhere before, Liverpool and Utd have never competed on an equal footing with the big two in Spain when it comes to players. When you really examine the biggest signings either club has made over the past twenty years, in the vast majority of cases the player concerned has left Anfield or Old Trafford with a sharply elevated status and profile relative to when they joined.

Hamann, Hyppia, Vidic: there wasn't a furious and expensive bidding war before they went to the North West of England. Vidic would go for so much more money now were he to leave, and between 2003 - 2005 Hamann and Hyppia would have commanded far greater interest levels on the open market than they did pre Liverpool.

Even the likes of Van Nisteelroy, Alonso, Mascherano and Tevez were greatly amplified in stature - going from top prospects to top players in their position in the world type players.

We've NEVER been in the running for Figo, Zidane, Kaka, Villa type purchases - i.e. the top players at their very peak. The reasons for this are insurmountable - climate, geography, language, etc. Success has been based on a combination of great coaching, smart purchases of players on the up and the nurture of top notch players through the youth system.

As such, while simply removing a debt burden and operating within the confines of generated revenue doesn't sound sexy - that very formula brought us a UEFA cup, Champions League, and competitive relevance. The leveraged takeover of the club has served to strangle us from that level to where we are now: getting outplayed at home by Blackpool and Northampton.

Clearing the debt, and installing good people with experience of squeezing revenue streams for all they're worth will bring stability, and maybe allow for a net investment in the playing squad of ~£15m a year or so. Maybe that won't be enough to trump the likes of City and Real Madrid. But we'll be right there giving it a go.

As it stands, we are miles down the mountain. I'll take the feeling of climbing up over tumbling down any day of the week.

Dempsey

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9069040.stm

Tom Hicks has vowed to fight the £300m sale of Liverpool in the High Court.

Hicks and Gillett believe that the deal with NESV undervalues the Merseyside outfit and, if it were to go through, would see them lose about £140m.

However, Broughton, who was brought in to oversee the sale of the club in April 2007, insisted on Wednesday that he and the rest of the board have the authority to push through a sale.

"When I took the role they gave a couple of written undertakings to Royal Bank of Scotland - that I was the only person entitled to change the board and that they would take no action to frustrate any reasonable sale," said Broughton.

"I think they flagrantly abused both of those written undertakings. I have the casting vote."

Despite the other shenanigans, I dont know how Broughton thinks that a bid that sees Gillette and Hick loose £140m would be a reasonable sale. I dont think even a kangaroo court would agree with him.

super_furry

Tom Hicks is pretty much a fancier version of Cork's Tom Coughlan.

Dont be at yourself

Dempsey wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9069040.stm

Tom Hicks has vowed to fight the £300m sale of Liverpool in the High Court.



Despite the other shenanigans, I dont know how Broughton thinks that a bid that sees Gillette and Hick loose £140m would be a reasonable sale. I dont think even a kangaroo court would agree with him.

Well, what's the alternative? They can either lose the club to the banks in a couple of weeks, accept the bid on the table, pay off the loans themselves, or hope that someone offers them what they want.

Only the first two options are likely to happen.

super_furry

Broughton really hasn't missed a trick here. Under UK law, it takes 10 days for a change of board to come into effect. Even if Hicks did have the right to change the board, it wouldn't take effect until October 16 - the day after the RBS deadline.

Dempsey

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Well, what's the alternative? They can either lose the club to the banks in a couple of weeks, accept the bid on the table, pay off the loans themselves, or hope that someone offers them what they want.

Only the first two options are likely to happen.

RBS dont want to own/run the club and the terms of the April refinancing deal was never made public. If G/H decide to dig their heals in, they'll make it difficult and neither RBS or G/H want to see Liverpool in Administration so they'll both be at negotiations again and whats likely to happen is the very same outcome that of Lloyds/Rangers.

Dont be at yourself

Dempsey wrote: »

RBS dont want to own/run the club

They won't have to. They already have two willing buyers who are ready to take it out of their hands. The ink wouldn't be dry on the Administration documents before the club would be sold.

If G/H decide to dig their heals in, they'll make it difficult and neither RBS or G/H want to see Liverpool in Administration so they'll both be at negotiations again and whats likely to happen is the very same outcome that of Lloyds/Rangers.

I think we're a bit further down the line than that. When G&H last refinanced, it was last chance saloon. They had no choice but to surrender control of the board and of the sale process to Broughton - it was the only way the bank would deal with them. They then had a chance to scrabble around and look for money to pay off the loan, but they don't have two pennies to rub together.

And for the record, Liverpool FC wouldn't be put in administration. G&H's holding company would be. Liverpool FC is the collateral which would be seized.

RBS have an easy choice:

- Push for the sale of the club, thereby getting their money back and getting thousands of angry Liverpool fans off their case.

- Refinance G&H, hope that Liverpool can somehow stay afloat and that the two virtually bankrupt owners will raise money to pay off their debt in another six months, and bring a huge supporter-led campaign right to their doorstep.

K-9

The Rooster wrote: »

Not sure how City's summer spending was funded, but up to that the Sheikh has put his money into City in the form of share capital, rather than loans like Abramovich. So its likely the summer spending was funded in the same manner, so while Chelsea owe Roman almost £600M, City don't owe the Sheikh anything and most of their historic debt has been wiped out (interest costs reduced from £17m to £3m).

Did Abramovich not wipe out a lot of the loans? Just wrote them of?

Dempsey wrote:

RBS dont want to own/run the club and the terms of the April refinancing deal was never made public. If G/H decide to dig their heals in, they'll make it difficult and neither RBS or G/H want to see Liverpool in Administration so they'll both be at negotiations again and whats likely to happen is the very same outcome that of Lloyds/Rangers.

I think there is a clause about selling for market value. Thing is, £300 Million is the market value now. Nobody wants to pay £5/600 Million now.

Lukker-

K-9 wrote: »

Did Abramovich not wipe out a lot of the loans? Just wrote them of?

He did, the debt was converted into shares pretty much meaning he just absorbed the debt.

Le King

Lukker- wrote: »

He did, the debt was converted into shares pretty much meaning he just absorbed the debt.

Means nothing when he can give 18 months notice and ask for all his money back. Fordstam Limited (Chelsea) still owe Abramovich £726M. Either way the day Abramovich leaves Chelsea will be in serious trouble, especially considering the club couldn't make a profit for the life of it.

Bottom line the debt is written off in accounts, but it's still there.

The Rooster

Lukker- wrote: »

He did, the debt was converted into shares pretty much meaning he just absorbed the debt.

Turns out Roman has now given loans amounting to more than £700M to Chelsea Limited (a holding company), which in turn on-loaned the £700M to Chelsea FC plc (the club).

The loan from Limited to plc was converted to capital, therefore making plc "debt free".

However Limited still owes Abramovich £700M, so he has not given up his debt as Chelsea initially led people to believe. He has to give 18 months notice to get the debt repaid, but if he does then the money will still have to come from the club itself or from a new owner who buys the club.

Looks like the capitalisation was just an attempt at creative accounting to get around the new UEFA rules that will be coming in re debt. As said back at the time by Bruce Buck "The reduction will enable the club to comply with any regulations on debt levels which are being discussed by the football community."

Unfortunately UEFA have since come out and said they will look at consolidated accounts of holding companies and subsidiaries, so they will still consider Chelsea to be 700M in debt unless he also converts his loan with the holding company.

spockety

Dempsey wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9069040.stm

Tom Hicks has vowed to fight the £300m sale of Liverpool in the High Court.



Despite the other shenanigans, I dont know how Broughton thinks that a bid that sees Gillette and Hick loose £140m would be a reasonable sale. I dont think even a kangaroo court would agree with him.

The loss of £140M is irrelevant. The only fact that should matter is if Liverpool are being sold at their market value or not. If that market value (i.e. the highest price that a willing buyer is willing to pay a willing seller) is being achieved, then the sale should go through in the interests of the club/company.

If that transaction results in a £140M loss for the existing owners, it means they took a punt, and lost. There are no guarantees in business or shares. Everything is a risk. The risk is rewarded when things go well, the risk is punished when things to badly (as they have with Liverpool).

At £300M, the club would still be getting sold for about £120M than it was bought for only 3 years ago, which is a pretty damn good return.

Dempsey

spockety wrote: »

The loss of £140M is irrelevant. The only fact that should matter is if Liverpool are being sold at their market value or not. If that market value (i.e. the highest price that a willing buyer is willing to pay a willing seller) is being achieved, then the sale should go through in the interests of the club/company.

If that transaction results in a £140M loss for the existing owners, it means they took a punt, and lost. There are no guarantees in business or shares. Everything is a risk. The risk is rewarded when things go well, the risk is punished when things to badly (as they have with Liverpool).

At £300M, the club would still be getting sold for about £120M than it was bought for only 3 years ago, which is a pretty damn good return.

There is a significant chance that the courts will not agree with that.

Where you pulling this sold at market value rule out of? Owners can sell at whatever price they like and if they can successfully argue that their price is reasonable then Purslow and Ayre will be put off the board by court order too

spockety

Dempsey wrote: »

There is a significant chance that the courts will not agree with that.

Where you pulling this sold at market value rule out of? Owners can sell at whatever price they like and if they can successfully argue that their price is reasonable then Purslow and Ayre will be put off the board by court order too

I haven't pulled any rule from anywhere. My definition of market value stands. If you accept that, and you accept that an exhaustive sales process has resulted in market value being offered for the club, then it does not matter one iota if £140M is 'lost' by the owners. When you play the investment game, there are no guarantees.

Either the owners want to sell the club, in which case they have to accept market value for it, or they do not.

Given that they are no longer in control of the process because of guarantees they gave their bank after the last round of refinancing, then I'm not sure they are in a position to do anything about it as it appears that those guarantees include an acceptance that the club must be sold.

The £140M is irrelevant I say again. I can only imagine that a judge will raise eyebrows if he feels that £300M is not market value for the club. But given the exhaustive lengths that Martin Broughton has gone to to secure a sale, I would expect he has plenty of answers for any judge on what the market is willing to pay for an asset like Liverpool FC.

Dont be at yourself

Dempsey wrote: »

There is a significant chance that the courts will not agree with that.

Where you pulling this sold at market value rule out of? Owners can sell at whatever price they like and if they can successfully argue that their price is reasonable then Purslow and Ayre will be put off the board by court order too

The value of your investment may go down as well as up.

The courts are not there to ensure that investors get paid what they put in. At the end of the day, with the club being up for sale, numerous parties expressing interest and virtually everyone in the world with an interest in sports investment aware of the club being up for sale, we have arrived at the market value.

Broughton didn't refuse a substantially higher bid. He received two bids of around the same value, which suggests that they reflect the market value.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Re: sugar-daddies and the "right" way to win

As I have said elsewhere before, Liverpool and Utd have never competed on an equal footing with the big two in Spain when it comes to players. When you really examine the biggest signings either club has made over the past twenty years, in the vast majority of cases the player concerned has left Anfield or Old Trafford with a sharply elevated status and profile relative to when they joined.

Djibril Cisse
El Hadji Diouf
Robbie Keane
Alberto Aquilani

Juan Veron
Michael Carrick
Owen Hargreaves
Anderson
Louis Saha

Dempsey

spockety wrote: »

I haven't pulled any rule from anywhere. My definition of market value stands. If you accept that, and you accept that an exhaustive sales process has resulted in market value being offered for the club, then it does not matter one iota if £140M is 'lost' by the owners. When you play the investment game, there are no guarantees.

Either the owners want to sell the club, in which case they have to accept market value for it, or they do not.

Given that they are no longer in control of the process because of guarantees they gave their bank after the last round of refinancing, then I'm not sure they are in a position to do anything about it as it appears that those guarantees include an acceptance that the club must be sold.

The £140M is irrelevant I say again. I can only imagine that a judge will raise eyebrows if he feels that £300M is not market value for the club. But given the exhaustive lengths that Martin Broughton has gone to to secure a sale, I would expect he has plenty of answers for any judge on what the market is willing to pay for an asset like Liverpool FC.

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

The value of your investment may go down as well as up.

The courts are not there to ensure that investors get paid what they put in. At the end of the day, with the club being up for sale, numerous parties expressing interest and virtually everyone in the world with an interest in sports investment aware of the club being up for sale, we have arrived at the market value.

Broughton didn't refuse a substantially higher bid. He received two bids of around the same value, which suggests that they reflect the market value.

Well you have 2 board member (owners) who disagree with the others assessment and they just happen to be the 2 people that you all want out. The courts will not rule in the best interests of the fans, they'll rule in favour of who's legally correct even if it sends the club into D-Day with RBS.

spockety

Dempsey wrote: »

Well you have 2 board member (owners) who disagree with the others assessment and they just happen to be the 2 people that you all want out. The courts will not rule in the best interests of the fans, they'll rule in favour of who's legally correct even if it sends them into D-Day with RBS.

Yes, and unless he is outright lying to the press and fans, Martin Broughton has got a written contract with Hicks and Gillett which says that:

1) They will not interfere in any way with the sale of the club

2) All changes to the board of directors require the approval of the Chairman (Broughton)

That is what the judge will be ruling on next week, not the value of the sale etc. From what I've read, the court ruling is actually being sought by the LFC Board, not Hicks and Gillett.

If the judge is happy that the contract Broughton has is watertight, then the sale will go through. If he is not satisfied with that agreement, he will allow Hicks and Gillett to proceed with replacing members of the board as they desire.

But again, the value being placed on the sale is utterly irrelevant and in coming up with a ruling on those two points above the judge does not even need to take it into account.

Nailz

eagle eye wrote: »

Djibril Cisse
El Hadji Diouf
Robbie Keane
Alberto Aquilani

Juan Veron
Michael Carrick
Owen Hargreaves
Anderson
Louis Saha

I resent having Hargreaves there.

K-9

Dempsey wrote: »

There is a significant chance that the courts will not agree with that.

Where you pulling this sold at market value rule out of? Owners can sell at whatever price they like and if they can successfully argue that their price is reasonable then Purslow and Ayre will be put off the board by court order too

The whole point is nobody is offering the £800 Million they were looking for, not even the £450 Million odd they need to break even.

What's even more important is, nobody will now when they can pick it up for £2/300 Million in a weeks time. Why would anybody want to bail out G&H now, out of their own pockets? They are up sh*t creek and nobody cares.

Le King

K-9 wrote: »

The whole point is nobody is offering the £800 Million they were looking for, not even the £450 Million odd they need to break even.

What's even more important is, nobody will now when they can pick it up for £2/300 Million in a weeks time. Why would anybody want to bail out G&H now, out of their own pockets? They are up sh*t creek and nobody cares.

Problem is for any new potential owner is that Liverpool needs a bigger stadium and I think when developers looked at re-developing Anfield it worked out cheaper to build a new stadium. This has to be factored in, in the price the owners would have to pay to acquire the club and it's assets. G + H would be very lucky to come out with half of what they put in. Personally, I hope they make a huge loss.

The stadium has to be a huge point here. Anfield isn't creating near the revenue Liverpool would potentially take in from a new stadium. Look at what a new stadium has done for Arsenal. A new stadium has to be second priority to the debt.

Lukker-

The Rooster wrote: »

Turns out Roman has now given loans amounting to more than £700M to Chelsea Limited (a holding company), which in turn on-loaned the £700M to Chelsea FC plc (the club).

The loan from Limited to plc was converted to capital, therefore making plc "debt free".

However Limited still owes Abramovich £700M, so he has not given up his debt as Chelsea initially led people to believe. He has to give 18 months notice to get the debt repaid, but if he does then the money will still have to come from the club itself or from a new owner who buys the club.

Looks like the capitalisation was just an attempt at creative accounting to get around the new UEFA rules that will be coming in re debt. As said back at the time by Bruce Buck "The reduction will enable the club to comply with any regulations on debt levels which are being discussed by the football community."

Unfortunately UEFA have since come out and said they will look at consolidated accounts of holding companies and subsidiaries, so they will still consider Chelsea to be 700M in debt unless he also converts his loan with the holding company.

Sounds like you are just going by a Guardian article a few months ago that gave absolutely no sources and was contrary to a club statement in response to it that stated that there is no clause that enables Abramovich to re-call directly or indirectly through Fordstam ltd his loans.

Either way, do you sincerely think that Abramovich would just shut up shop and go when he obviously knows that if he did he would stand to make a much much greater loss... Doesn't make financial sense.

K-9

Le King wrote: »

Problem is for any new potential owner is that Liverpool needs a bigger stadium and I think when developers looked at re-developing Anfield it worked out cheaper to build a new stadium. This has to be factored in, in the price the owners would have to pay to acquire the club and it's assets. G + H would be very lucky to come out with half of what they put in. Personally, I hope they make a huge loss.

The stadium has to be a huge point here. Anfield isn't creating near the revenue Liverpool would potentially take in from a new stadium. Look at what a new stadium has done for Arsenal. A new stadium has to be second priority to the debt.

It is as it will increase revenues, it's an investment.

Any extra anybody would pay G&H means more money is needed to build the stadium and invest in players. Why would anybody pay G&H their £140 Million now that they need to pay back the loan?

Anyway, even if G&H win that case, RBS will have called in the loan, so it's a rather pointless debate. LFC are taking the case, not G&H, just to confirm they can sell the club. RBS are waiting in the wings if they do get lucky.

Le King

Lukker- wrote: »

Sounds like you are just going by a Guardian article a few months ago that gave absolutely no sources and was contrary to a club statement in response to it that stated that there is no clause that enables Abramovich to re-call directly or indirectly through Fordstam ltd his loans.

Either way, do you sincerely think that Abramovich would just shut up shop and go when he obviously knows that if he did he would stand to make a much much greater loss... Doesn't make financial sense.

Again, your spouting lies.

The club has always used the line "effectively debt free". That's a load of rubbish, if Chelsea lose Abramovich, and they haven't broke even, they lose it all. Chelsea Limited was re-branded as Fordstam Ltd. Fordstam Ltd owes Roman Abramovich £726 Million through loans provided by Abramovich without interest.

Do you really think Abramovich is stupid enough to invest that much money without any kind of security for himself? Do you think he made his money by being naive?

If Abramovich really was this wonderful man with no care for the money he puts into Chelsea why would he secure his loans and re-brand Chelsea to avoid UEFA Financial restrictions on debt?

Don't be daft lad, Roman Abramovich is a very astute Business man, while he's not at Chelsea for the money, he certainly isn't there to blow a fortune. He has lost an estimated £3 Billion since the start of the Economic downturn and he's not going to be at Chelsea forever.

That's not to say he'll ask for the money back either.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

Djibril Cisse
El Hadji Diouf
Robbie Keane
Alberto Aquilani

Juan Veron
Michael Carrick
Owen Hargreaves
Anderson
Louis Saha

Did you have a burning desire to prove my point for me or something?

Lukker-

Le King wrote: »

Again, your spouting lies.

The club has always used the line "effectively debt free". That's a load of rubbish, if Chelsea lose Abramovich, and they haven't broke even, they lose it all. Chelsea Limited was re-branded as Fordstam Ltd. Fordstam Ltd owes Roman Abramovich £726 Million through loans provided by Abramovich without interest.

Do you really think Abramovich is stupid enough to invest that much money without any kind of security for himself? Do you think he made his money by being naive?

If Abramovich really was this wonderful man with no care for the money he puts into Chelsea why would he secure his loans and re-brand Chelsea to avoid UEFA Financial restrictions on debt?

Don't be daft lad, Roman Abramovich is a very astute Business man, while he's not at Chelsea for the money, he certainly isn't there to blow a fortune. He has lost an estimated £3 Billion since the start of the Economic downturn and he's not going to be at Chelsea forever.

That's not to say he'll ask for the money back either.

Spouting lies again? The fact is no-one has access to the clubs legal structure so unless you provide a source I'm going to believe the club over a couple of sensationalist articles.

Le King

Lukker- wrote: »

Spouting lies again? The fact is no-one has access to the clubs legal structure so unless you provide a source I'm going to believe the club over a couple of sensationalist articles.

What's legal structure of a club got to do with anything. UK Limited Company law is law. These are facts buddy. UEFA legal requirements caused Abramovich to re-brand his loans.

For the record I don't think Abramovich will ever call back these loans, unless his other Assets continually decrease.

But to say Chelsea is debt free is naive.

DOC09UNAM

eagle eye wrote: »

Djibril Cisse
El Hadji Diouf
Robbie Keane
Alberto Aquilani

Juan Veron
Michael Carrick
Owen Hargreaves
Anderson
Louis Saha

Great list there for united mate, on a discussion of how players are perceived after they leave teams, you have listed 5 players, 3 of which are actually still with united.

good job buddy.

The Rooster

Le King wrote: »

What's legal structure of a club got to do with anything. UK Limited Company law is law. These are facts buddy. UEFA legal requirements caused Abramovich to re-brand his loans.

For the record I don't think Abramovich will ever call back these loans, unless his other Assets continually decrease.

But to say Chelsea is debt free is naive.

And if Roman does call back the loans, then as the club is the holding company's main asset, the money can only come from the club or from a sale of the club.

The real danger to Chelsea in the short term is Roman dropping dead. Then the wife or girlfriend or children will presumably get the asset (the loan), and no doubt they'll call it in sooner than he would have.

Unless his will says the loan is forgiven if he hits the bucket. But I doubt that's the case given he didnt capitalise his loan. He clearly wants to keep his options open for himself and his family

Mental Mickey

I honestly can't see how these new guys are gonna be any better than George & Mildred??

After all they are still Yanks with one thing in mind - personal profit. IMO anyone who thinks otherwise, is in dreamworld.