´óÏó´«Ã½

This could have been an update to the previous post, ironically with little by way of actual update though

litigation is boardroom negotiation conducted by other means but at the expense of the club. If Liverpool are put into administration with 9 points deducted what is the right value for the club for a prospective buyer? Less than what it is now.

I write as a Man Utd fan.

The obscenity of Liverpool FC being in this position is a gross indictment of the Premier League/FA and their laissez-faire approach to our national game. Sadly they are more interested in attracting money from grasping foreign businesmen that they are in either the game or the fan.

Many Utd fans are sending me gleeful jokes about this current situation. They have no imagination. The Glazer situation will be exactly the same in two years time.

The Liverpool Daily Post is reporting that Hicks has issued a statement denying that Mill Financial have his shares. That being the case, and given that NESV have already said they'll wait until the courts are finished, it would seem logical for RBS to extend the loan until the legal stuff is sorted. If it puts LFC into administration it will risk getting far less for it than it would from NESV.

Robert

To summarise todays blog (using your own words): you have no idea what's going on at Liverpool Football Club.

And you wrote a blog about it.

Thanks.For.That.

This could go on like eastenders...

The next step will be, RBS does not actually have entitlement to put the club into administration, since they repackaged the loan and sold it as a CLO. Investors around the world all own a small chunk of LFC... This is gripping stuff! (yawn)

Could anyone explain why a Texan court has jurisdiction to intervene in this matter? Is it because NESV is a US company?

In all honesty I really couldn't care less who owns this football club or indeed any other. I do however care very much who owns our industry. You know what industry is. It's where all those mid week football fans should be working.

OK, just for a moment lets permit Mr Peston journalistic licence in his writing, when he suggest that RBS won't care where the money comes from to feed Hicks liability account.

I think, and this would count heavily given the amount involved, that the money laundering rules, which RBS have to follow, would cause them to very much care where the money comes from.

And all of this speculation is totally ignoring whether the EPL would actually approved Mill financial as an owner of a premiership team, however short term their remaining tenure in the prem might be.

Furthermore, there seems to be spewculation that Mill financial is actually owned by Springfiled financail, and now we are getting closer to who is actually behind this - Montgomery Burns.

Being a Sheffield Wednesday supporter, I am not surprised by any of this and will be very surprised if a takeover happens at our own club. I would rather there be a merger of both clubs in the City, rather than an organisation outside the City getting their hands on us. I think it will be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire.

I am not surprised by anything that happens in the Premier League, as our ex chairman is in charge Dave Richards and he has a lot to answer for closer at home.

Not putting a restriction on foreign players at our clubs, is to the demise of the game. I am sure other EEC countries, wouldn't have allowed things to get out of hand, as much as we have done in this country. Same with the ownership of our clubs.

Yorkshire Cricket Club, still only allow a single foreigner to play in their side.

It is about time football got real and woke up.

@Mike2010_81

The Texan court's jurisdiction exists because the current owner's holding company is registered there.

Could RBS personnel find themselves in a dangerous situation should they call in the administrators; "banksters" got away with resuming their bonuses so soon after massive financial bailouts - will they escape the wrath of from football fans if the club is forced into the Championship league due to deducted points ?

As a Sheffield Wednesday supporter I am not surprised what is happening in Liverpool. I am concerned about a takeover of our club, by foreign investors, I would prefer a merger between Wednesday and United. Will the takeover ever happen at Hilsborough? It could be out of the frying pan, into the fire.

The Premier League could have done more to prevent, this Russian Roulette, by foreign owners and had a limit on foreign players in our game. Then again Dave Richards our ex chairman is in charge of the Premier League which says it all.

Using EEC law as a reason not to put a cap on players is rubbish, no other European country would have allowed things to get as out of hand as this. Yorkshire Cricket Club, limit foreign players to one and the EEC hasn't prevented them.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"I'm about to disappear into an edit suite for a bit"

Robert - is that a euphamism for you need the toilet? - we don't need that sort of detail thanks.

"Peter Lim says he is withdrawing his offer to buy Liverpool, because it has become clear to him (he says) that "the board is intent on selling the club to NESV to the exclusion of all other parties, regardless of the merits of their bids"."

Yeah - sure, sure, we believe you Lim - or maybe you were another 'offer' like the Kenny Huang / Chinese one that odddly evaporated.

These Billionaires - so fickle aren't they - are these the sort of 'fit and proper' people to be running football?

- Sorry, I made myself laugh again with that line, still can't get over 'fit and proper' rule for the premiership.

Note - there is an idea of such a rule in football, but notice there is no such criteria for becoming an MP or even Prime Minister!

Is football really more important that life or death?

9. At 3:37pm on 14 Oct 2010, toryandproud

Is that an oxymoron?

There are unexplained issues in this blog which hinder understanding. Whatever one thinks of Messrs Hicks and Gillet, do they not have legal rights to have their interests protected by obtaining the best price? If Mr Lim is stating that the Board are not interested in his higher bid, what does that suggest about the Board's interests and motives? Too many unanswered questions to understand what is really going on.

#9 ToryandProud

The comment is almost as outrageous as it is infuriating! Some corrections first...

OK, just for a moment lets permit Mr Peston journalistic licence in his writing, when he suggest that RBS won't care where the money comes from to feed Hicks liability account.

Ok, just for a moment, let's permit Mr Peston (some) journalistic licence (with his pertinent suggestion) that RBS won't care where the money (owed is sourced) to feed Hicks' liability account.

I think, and this would count heavily given the amount involved, that the money laundering rules, which RBS have to follow, would cause them to very much care where the money comes from.

(Given the amount involved, I think that RBS should be legally obliged to strictly follow laws and rules in relation to money laundering.)

And all of this speculation is totally ignoring whether the EPL would actually approved Mill financial as an owner of a premiership team, however short term their remaining tenure in the prem might be.

(Despite speculation, it remains unclear whether the English Premier League would indeed approve a takeover by Mill Financial)

Furthermore, there seems to be spewculation that Mill financial is actually owned by Springfiled financail, and now we are getting closer to who is actually behind this - Montgomery Burns.

Furthermore, there seems to be speculation that Mill Financial is actually owned by Springfield Financial, lead by the ideological dogma of David Cameron!

Is this an example of grammar in Thatcher's children's children?

11. At 3:52pm on 14 Oct 2010, uncle-carl wrote:

"@Mike2010_81

The Texan court's jurisdiction exists because the current owner's holding company is registered there."

G&H have been dasterdly clever there (like Dick Dasterdly and Mutley) - because RBS also have American (Texan) interests and just like most Capitalists - they don't want to rock the boat if there is money and future business at stake!

Got to hand it to G&H - even if you hate them - they're simply not going to let this £130 Million go without a fight.

I'm just waiting for the Human rights appeal to be lodged with the EU court - now that will waste some time.

Robert will be writing blogs on this until he retires if that happens!

Here we go again. "Barbarians at the (Shankley) gate(s) - The Fall of LFC".

LFC have an estimated 42 million fans. Football is a business. Wouldn't it be better if the contributers who don't like football stopped boring us with their complaints?

WOTW:

"Dozens of workers" when you consider the % unemployment in Greece, dozens of workers doesn't sound like that big a deal. Surely you can find something more doom worthy than that? Does it really qualify as being referred to as "that revolution"? I reckon the upcoming tube strikes are an order of magnitude more disruptive.


Also, when you say the "world is about to engage in" a battle. Can you be more specific, so that you predictions can be confirmed/falsified in due course. Thanks.

RBS does not have a hideous decision to make

This will be handled in the courts

Before commenting, carefully read the petition and the TRO.

In judgement, b) states

Without Plaintiffs consent, taking any action to modify, pledge, sell, transfer, SEIZE, FORECLOSE on or DISPOSE of the Plaintiffs ownership interest in Liverpool FC.

The plaintiffs are not Hicks and Gillett. They are KOP Investment LLC, KOP Football (Cayman) Ltd., Kop Football (Holding) Ltd and Kop Football Ltd.


Furthermore, the judge issued the TRO and repetitively inserted 'BASED SOLELY ON' into the TRO agreed in his court. This is 'BASED SOLELY ON' evidence presented in the court. Based on other and/or additional evidence, the judge or a higher court could well make a completely different decision.

Finally, if RBS accept that it should not foreclose because of legal action, whatever the issues regarding jurisdiction, then there won't be administration until the legal issues are completed.

If Hicks and Gillette have already sold their shares how is it that they can get an injunction stopping the sale and claim they have been defrauded.

9. At 3:37pm on 14 Oct 2010, toryandproud wrote:

> now we are getting closer to who is actually behind this - Montgomery Burns.

Excellent!

#23

Bob

As stated in #22

The plaintiffs are not Hicks and Gillett. They are KOP Investment LLC, KOP Football (Cayman) Ltd., Kop Football (Holding) Ltd and Kop Football Ltd. Hicks and Gillett may or may not be shareholders in these legal entities.

The petition and the TRO can be read on the Dallas News website

wotw @14

"...and the revolution continues....

/news/world-europe-11539758"

That's no revolution, or overthrow of capitalist tyranny - it's just a bunch of blokes who know they're on to a good thing, and don't want to face reality. Corruption and sleaze are (apparently) as hard to give up as fags.

I cannot see a Texan District Court taking on the High Court in London. even if it did, it would be quashed by a higher court.

Meantime, the deal can proceed on the High Court ruling.

27:

Interesting point. However, have you ever seen the bumper stickers saying "Don't mess with Texas"?

20. At 4:24pm on 14 Oct 2010, i wrote:
LFC have an estimated 42 million fans. Football is a business. Wouldn't it be better if the contributers who don't like football stopped boring us with their complaints?

If LFC has 42 millions fans, why don't you each contribute a tenner and put an end to this soap opera. Everyones getting bored with it. Why do fans put up with this BS. Doen't it make you feel sort of.. impotent?

why dosn't the Uk judge just put the 2 Americans in comtempt of court here in the Uk for not abiding by his decision which is LEGALLY binding???

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

14. At 4:06pm on 14 Oct 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
...and the revolution continues....

Where the religious fanatical right wing attempt to destroy the state which provides for the poor claiming that removing this will induce 'freedom' - whilst warning of the ills of socialism (not that the average tea party activist knows the first thing about socialism - they are confusing it with fascism)

==============================

There are only 3 things you need to know about Socialism and Socialists

1. They believe in the maxim
'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'

2. the ones who believe in 1 above have great needs, and few abilities.

3. Socialists claim Stalin wasn't Socialist, Mao Tse Tung wasn't socialist and Pol Pot wasn't Socialist- they were all Fascists apparently. Which could be true, but if so, do we really want to risk starting a Socialist revolution?

18. At 4:13pm on 14 Oct 2010, rowerdave1 wrote:
#9 ToryandProud

Is this an example of grammar in Thatcher's children's children?
=================

I think you'll find they are now Brown's Children

20. At 4:24pm on 14 Oct 2010, i wrote:
Here we go again. "Barbarians at the (Shankley) gate(s) - The Fall of LFC".

LFC have an estimated 42 million fans.

==================

If all 42 Million chipped in a fiver .........

32. At 7:02pm on 14 Oct 2010, DevilsAdvocate wrote:
"There are only 3 things you need to know about Socialism and Socialists

1. They believe in the maxim
'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'

2. the ones who believe in 1 above have great needs, and few abilities.

3. Socialists claim Stalin wasn't Socialist, Mao Tse Tung wasn't socialist and Pol Pot wasn't Socialist- they were all Fascists apparently. Which could be true, but if so, do we really want to risk starting a Socialist revolution?"

ok, 1. is wrong, that is what Communists believe about the fair distribution of goods, not what Socialists believe.
2. Well that is a good soundbite and may raise a few titters amongst those who oppose the doctrine, but is, fairly obviously, totally inaccurate.
3. Those guys we're not Socialists in the way that pretty much any Socialist would come close to understanding, but saying they are I guess makes good anti-Socialist propoganda for those who don't quite get what the term means.

Please do not go yet, we need you to explain to us what is going on. In terms of other finacial matters, now that they are out safe, and more important than any footy club, even ours Bill, as this was a matter of life and death; did anyone hear the rumour that one of the miner's wives is furious that he forgot to clock on at the start of the shift. She had calculated that he had earned enough to buy the mine, or at least borrow enough from from an 'edge fund. No fellow scouser would ever admit to missing that. But if she does come across a large gold nugget please remember our dying club.
Brian

I think administration is the best solution for all;

1. RBS will get most of their cash (Not all)
2. The new owners won't need to borrow as much to buy , £150 m should do it
3. Avoids further legal action - The Yanks have defaulted, no issue there.
4. Install Dalglish as the manager and on to winning ways.(No compo req'd for RH)

Simples....

let's face it Robert this is not your finest hour. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been consistently wrong on this story.

I am surprised that everybody is surprised

Once Broughton issued the words "we changed the articles" the result was inevitable. The speed of the judiciary compared with the angst of the 4th estate, and your report, tells how little journalists understand the real world,

As part of the mediorce reporting - your report on Mill "bid" ignored the "fit and proper" rules on ownership. Astonished the ´óÏó´«Ã½ even ran this story. In respect to the Lim "offer" presumably you understand the BAFO procedure, again astonished by your coverage. In respect to the Texas injunction the ´óÏó´«Ã½ did at least refer to the courts irritation of "jurisdiction competition". Judges really get annoyed on this issue!

However in respect to LFC job done

Now, Robert, are you going to report on the next court case - Manchester United. Their debt to EBITDA ratios are worse than LFC and they have PIK deals. I know a banker who described their bond issue last year as a "Ponzi deal"

Hope you and your colleagues do better on that - inevitable - story.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Absurdity101 @35

Are there *any* examples of true socialists out there then? Or do they all get corrupted as soon as they get a chance to run a socialist state?

40. At 10:28pm on 14 Oct 2010, PercyPants wrote:

Are there *any* examples of true socialists out there then? Or do they all get corrupted as soon as they get a chance to run a socialist state?

As Absurdity said none of those leaders were Socalist, they were supposedly Communist. Although the drive and ruthlessness needed to become head of state in these shame Communist countries normaly ends in a form of fascism.

If you want examples of Socalist states you only have to look at South America . Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador all consider themselves to be Socalist.

40. At 10:28pm on 14 Oct 2010, PercyPants wrote:
"Absurdity101 @35

Are there *any* examples of true socialists out there then? Or do they all get corrupted as soon as they get a chance to run a socialist state?"

I think your point is a completely valid one...once you get the chance to REALLY run something do your politics 'cooperate'. However I don't think this HAS to be the truth and I do think that it is possible that people or persons unknown might be able to find a way to run things along Socialist lines, unadulterated by the stench of power. That is my hope anyway, naive as it may be. Am I wrong to wish for that?

Surely a mechanism must exist for RBS to sell the debt of Liverpool to NESV in order to prevent the club being placed into administration if legal challenges preclude the club from being sold in its entirety prior to the payment deadline?

This whole Liverpool business sounds confusing. There are the actual shares, the debts, whatever security there might be on those debts, and a whole set of apparently overlapping rights.

There's no problem if the deals work out and the club makes the money to pay the debt. But one has to wonder if the bankers were competent when they agreed to the loans.

I wonder if Hicks and Gillett have ended up defrauding lenders. Both Mills and RBS seem to have some sort of claim on the shares, direct or indirect. If RBS has a claim against assets, are the shares worth anything? What gives them their value?

In many ways, this affair amounts to an indictment of the abilities and standards of the financiers. How on earth, we can ask, did RBS think this was a decent investment?

It's not just about football.

It's about time this happened to one of our Premier teams.

Shame it's Liverpool rather than Chelsea, but ultimately if this means the FA sit down and have a serious look at how the game is financed then it will be for the best.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Liverpool = Lehman Brothers.

44. At 09:17am on 15 Oct 2010, WolfBaginski wrote:

In many ways, this affair amounts to an indictment of the abilities and standards of the financiers. How on earth, we can ask, did RBS think this was a decent investment?

=========================================================================

I don't have any time for bankers as a rule, but in this specific case RBS seem to have covered all the bases in securing their loans in a very competent manner.

It looks certain that RBS will be repaid in full no matter what the outcome for Liverpool FC. If all else fails, they just put the companies into administration, and sell the football club, and there is no doubt that they would get a quick sale for more than they are owed. I am sure this would have happened 6 months ago, if anything other than a Premiership club was involved- RBS have extended life support for political, rather than commercial reasons.

Since repayment will include interest and possibly 60 million penalties, I don't see how you can say that this was a bad bit of business for the bank. Whoever did their legal work on drawing up the loan agreements, guarantees,charges etc, clearly did an excellent job- they now have Messrs Hicks and Gillett firmly over a barrel, which accounts for the loud shrieking sounds coming from that direction.

It was refreshing to see good old British common sense in our highly respected judicial system throwing out H&G's silly attempt to prevent the sale, and rightly threatening them with contempt of court.

The US courts should do the same for lying to the judge about the facts of the case. They inflated the clubs value to between $600m and $1.03b and blatantly lied by stating Martin Broughton is attempting to sell the club to NESV for £250m.

Gordon Brown must be so proud of his New World Order and what Globalisation has come to. US & UK courts in legal tangles with each other, British banks loaning money to foreign investers who don't invest a penny and pile the debt onto the business they buy, be it LFC or Cadbury's. Offshoring all our manufacturing jobs abroad and leaving just a service and banking industry which is offshoring all their back office and customer service departments to Asia.

The world has been rocked by bubbles, be it housing or financial but when the globalisation bubble bursts it's going to get very nasty very quick.

#46

If RBS do put the club into administration they will certainly face a run on their bank from all the Liverpool supporters.