Liverpool Message Board
A legal entity with no ties to the court case, speaking on terms of anonymity has weighed in with the following: (This may be produced, or already been circulated in the UK, if so, my apologies for redundant information).
The court hearing is expected to last approximately 2 days, after all evidence reviewed. If the hearing, which is expected to go in favor of LFC s appealed by Hicks, the process could add an additional 72 hours, which would push it up to the Friday deadline. It is expected that should the original ruling go in favor of the club, the appeals process would simply be a ploy at delaying the inevitable and be a futile attempt and failure again by Hicks, with Liverpool / Broughton successful, and NESV to complete the sale.
Though the cards look stacked in LFC favor, anything can happen, and should Hicks be successful, Liverpool apparently have a back up contingency plan, which they are not prepared to make publicly known until or unless needed.
Fingers crossed everything is sorted quickly and painlessly Tuesday, and concluded Wednesday! I will celebrate with a nice tall pint of Carlsberg!
Try the stella mate, its far nicer, and far more effective :) oh & yeah its already been aired here.
There does seem to be alot of mis-information being banded around as well between the fans (on facebook etc etc), i think alot of people are worried etc
Jesus man !
Expecting immediate results from managers & squads that are among the highest paid in the world is the very least we deserve & you want to take a player with no coaching experience put him in charge for 5 years & expect us to sit on our hands for the duration ?
I think I've heard it all now !!!!
Dont forget that when Kenny was made manager he was considered the greatest British Player of all time of world renown & globally acknowledged as a footballing genius .
Carra or any player since Kenny is hardly that .
Robert, take your point that it’s not uncommon for football clubs to have financial issues, and the system in which they do business often seems stacked against them, but that does not make it normal, anymore than having rich oilmen run your clubs until they get bored and go onto something else.
There is only one simple reason why clubs like Liverpool and Man U have been bought and loaded up with debt; simply because the market allowed it. The market allowed it because it’s potentially hugely profitable to do so, and before the credit markets all but seized up this type of transaction was happening the world over in businesses outside of sport. Private equity and the leverage take over is not something unique to the football world.
But its effects are also well known. It can generate huge profits for the brokers and investors in these schemes, but has a limited record of actually turning business around. Fact is many businesses are worth more either by being broken up, or bled out. IMO if it was not for the credit crunch and RBS calling the note, H&G would have kept going bleeding off an annual return either until they were able to flip the club for a profit to someone else, or until there was nothing left to bleed. Same thing IMO will happen to the Mancs (and honestly I don't take pleasure from that). While they keep winning they keep generating record earnings, but as soon as that ends, the Glazners are unlikely to reinvest. Instead they'll try to sell if they can, or let it whither away, taking their own slice of the pie as it declines.
What you describe as normal is local charity to stroke the ego of the local big wig. And I'd agree it’s been the model of the football league for well over a 100 years. But within that model there have also been many clubs who have made money, which is what all those poor saps you talk about have been chasing all those years.
But what is happening now is raiding, as the owners are making money. Not from a model of let me invest to make this club successful on the pitch so it will put money in my account. But more this club is successful so let me buy it with someone else’s money and siphon off its value.
It’s up to you to decide which you really think is normal, but its pretty clear to me which one is right.
I'm not sure the housing market analogy helps your case. We have booms and busts in the housing market, encouraged by what you would probably call speculators and I would call investors.
You're right - even if there were ageement that nasty evil speculators should be kept out, the regulation of it would be pretty much impossible on your terms. Someone is going to be set up as a regulator and he gets to approve deals based on the prospective buyer promising to be a good boy and buy some new strikers? It's not going to happen, is it.
I think you have contradicted your objection to H&G. Plainly there was great risk to them. When you leverage purchases you are expanding your buying power at the expense of higher risk. There is also risk to the lender of the debt and this ought to act as a brake on investors making silly purchases.
In the end, I don't think that leveraged buyouts are the general problem, or indeed your problem. LFC doesn't really suffer from the financial agreement between H&G and the bank. Either H&G or the bank does or a buyer is found who funds it all. What LFC is suffering from is simply having owners who don't want to, or can't, invest further in the club. And that's nothing to do with the leverage per se.
Actually I think using the housing market is the appropriate analogy, which is why I used it. I'm most familiar to what has happened in the states, but don't think it’s much different from the UK experience. The ability to buy homes with zero down and with exotic financing has encouraged much more speculation, and driven up home values, at least until the bust. Therefore it’s fair to as the question if the market had not been so artificially inflated by cheap credit and speculation, would the crash have been so hard? Better regulation of how a house can be financed might not have prevented the housing bubble, but I think its clear it could have at least reduced the size of the bubble.
Requiring football teams not to leverage debt beyond a certain percent of revenue might achieve a similar outcome. It won't stop people from speculating, but it should limit it, and if your risking your own cash, rather than credit you maybe much less likely to make as risky decisions. If H&G had been forced to put in for example at least 20% of their own cash instead of being able to borrow 100%, they would have at least been on the hook of loosing their own money rather than now being able to walk away from the deal, which is in effect what they are doing now. A big deal has been made that even if H&G loose and the NESV deal goes through they stand to loose money, but that is still not their own money. In fact Gillett has already lost his share, as he personally defaulted on a 75M which he took out to refinance the original acquisition loan. Yes he's taken a paper loss, but since he never put in a penny he's lost nothing he had before he walked through the doors at Anfield.
I agree with you that ultimately we've been hurt by owners that were unwilling to continue to invest in the club. But that is because they never had an intention of investing in going concern, but were only trying to realize an increased asset value. But, in the process, the way they financed, via a leveraged buy out, they handicapped the club from investing in itself. Because the debt the owners loaded on the club took away the strong margins LFC could produce, reinvesting operating costs was impossible as those funds were required to cover the owner’s acquisition loans.
Why thank you.
If a quality player became available at the right price, then of course we should look at it. Can't remember too many quality players being available in Jan.
I like your next bit, and again I make reference to the current state of the club, that new players are thrust straight into the team, because of the dire mis-management of our club.
The quicker there is a strategic review of personnel and purchasing from academy level through to the main team, the better we will be in the long run.
My view is that we have enough "flair" players in Torres , "G" & Cole & that they would be generally regarded as "quality" .
For me , the less spectacular , consistent , two touch pass & move men like Kuyt & Lucas are no less "Quality" & are what we need more of , men that can be relied upon to come into the team when needs be & make sure we hammer out a victory when our more notable names are missing .
In that respect the pedigree of our summer signings I am happy with apart from maybe Joke-anovic who yet may turn out to be a good squad man .
A month or two from now Joe Cole should be partying on the pitch linking up with G & Torres like they are the holy trinity with Poulsen & Meireles settled & capable of nailing down a first team place when an opportunity arises .
I think we need an experienced jobber to cover for Johnson at RB & I think we need a proven EPL experienced left footer like Gamst Pedersen at Blackburn or Downing at Villa to come in & pressurize the LM position for Cole or Kuyt .
I'm happy with big N'Gog as a jobber , he has an excellent first touch , good pace & honest work rate , good close control & brings players into the game , he knows where the back of the net is too .
Sling the malingering sympathy seeking Aurielio along with the similarly despicable Babel , bring in Baines at LB from Everton or even recall the very poorly treated Insua to genuinely compete with Konchesky & theres no reason why we shouldn't be challenging for the title with that squad .
Unless Woy remains in charge of course & then its a case of theres no reason we cant avoid relegation & get a cup run with that squad .
Little January squad tweaks like that are more than plausible but I take your point that as a rule its no time to be making a major signing .
The distinction I'd make is that an investor is looking to buy a business so it can earn him a profit as a going concern. A speculator on the other hand is not interested in the business as a going concern, but only as an asset that will be sold on at a higher value.
I admit it maybe splitting hairs, but it comes down to what is the motivation of the purchasing party. Do they want to run a business, or flip an asset?
Now that maybe very hard to determine, and therefore even harder to regulate. However a simple principle of putting "skin in the game" is a way of at least trying to separate pure speculators versus longer term investors. Therefore I'd suggest while it can't eliminate people like H&G and the Glazners coming in and hollowing out clubs, limiting leverage buy outs would go a long way in limiting it.
The fact of the matter is H&G loaded the entire cost of buying LFC back onto the club via the holding company. In essence they purchased the club using the clubs own money (or actually collateral for the loans), so the risk to the owners all but disappeared. In fact the only reason H&G stand to loose any money is that they allowed the debt to balloon higher than what the club is worth, but its still a paper loss in that they never put their own money into the club.
All I’m suggesting is that at a minimum a down payment should be required (in cash) for any owner to buy a club. It’s a standard in the housing market, why not in the buying and selling of football clubs
- View More Messages