• Liverpool Message Board

  • OLD DOG OLD DOG Oct 11, 2010 23:05 Flag

    Its not LFC against Hicks

    A High Court hearing scheduled for tomorrow that could shape the future ownership of Liverpool pits RBS bank against Tom Hicks “and others”, and is NOT Liverpool’s legal action Hicks and George Gillett, which could yet happen separately, sportingintelligence has learned.

    The case of ‘Royal Bank of Scotland v Hicks & others’ has been listed among a group of cases to be heard tomorrow by Mr Justice Floyd, sometime after 10.30am. In this case, RBS as the bank that loaned Hicks and Gillett money (via their Liverpool holding company), will be seeking judgement that undertakings given by Hicks and Gillett to RBS under the terms of their loan extension earlier this year are legally binding.

    There were multiple undertakings and sportingintelligence is not party to all the details, but this website has been told that the key decision for the judge is: Were Hicks and Gillett in breach of undertakings given to RBS by trying remove Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre from Liverpool’s board last week?

    RBS will argue Hicks and Gillett were in breach. If the judge agrees, then effectively Hicks and Gillett can do nothing more (pending appeal) to prevent the sale of Liverpool, as agreed by Liverpool’s board last week, to New England Sports Ventures. An RBS statement on this is expected soon, and will be linked here when it drops.

    Liverpool, ie: Liverpool FC and / or its “independent” board members Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, will still, separately, pursue a “declaratory” judgement against Hicks and Gillett, effectively seeking the same end goal as RBS, namely the legal right to sell to NESV.

    But the significance of RBS and Liverpool / Broughton seeking separate judgements shouldn’t be underestimated: it means, and emphasises, that Liverpool / Broughton on the one hand, and RBS, independently, on the other hand, are now working to force through the NESV deal – and force Hicks and Gillett out.

    Sportingintelligence further understands – as reflected to some extent in this article yesterday – that RBS has little appetite for putting in train any course of events that would plunge Liverpool into administration.

    While there is a 15 October deadline for repayment of loans owed by Hicks & Gillett to the bank, it is entirely within RBS’s powers to be flexible with that deadline. RBS ultimately wants the outcome that is in the best interests for the stability of Liverpool, because ultimately the stability of Liverpool enhances the chances of RBS getting back all the money it leant. For now, administration remains more of a theoretical possibility than a probability.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Plastic , what did I tell you about not speaking until spoken to ?

      Thats right , its the only way I like ya .

      Now be a good girl & go finish washing the dishes & then do my shirts .

      Its not like they can Iron themselves ya kno ?

    • Good God Plastic, you must be a real clever girl! i bet you are great company (Looser)

    • ......hahhahahaaaaaaa.....fwck off BUM.....

      ...you and your fake ids are soooo easy to spot....... captain america my hole.......perfect choice for a plastic prik like you whose never been to a game.....

      ,....hahhhahaahaaa........QUNT.....hows yer ma?....




    • I cant see what you find so hard to understand in my stating what I object to or mind in the behavior of another that should know better or why you think it worth repeating ? Unless English isnt your first language ?

      So once again , to clarify , although no doubt I find you obnoxious I at no time claimed to find you offensive & I at this time still dont find you offensive and thanks ever so much for your permission to continue to walk on (All over you) .

    • Like a said strange one. "You mind" and you "object to", but you’re not offended. So be it I'm glad I've not offended, and now I'll let you walk on.

    • I'm not one bit offended by you & never claimed to be so I can only conclude that you are either trying to somehow save face after realizing your embarrassment which I kindly pointed out to you or you are once again indulging your pursuit of ignoring reality & pleasuring yourself by publishing your deluded notions .

      That said I thank you for your well intended advice & assure you that if ever in need of such I will call upon you but until then ?

      Lets play ball eh ?

    • You’re offended because I don't agree with your opinion?

      No offense mate, but your post history shows you've not been here long (who knows if you post under different names), but I might suggest if you are offended by people differing with your opinions, you might want to find a different past time other than posting on an non moderated message board. If I offend you, then others are really going to drive you nuts.

      btw, I post my opinions, and my reading of the situation. If you've got a different view, so be it. Sometimes I'll debate sometimes I won't. But, please no need to slag someone off just because you think what I'm saying is not correct.

    • What I find objectionable is you over simplifying & comparing the club to a terraced house being repossessed by the bank .

      I also object to you not acknowledging that RBS would be shooting themselves in the foot by taking action against an institution like our club who has an unequaled record of success this past 40 + years .

      You dont know who is liable for the debts of Kop holdings or the legal ramifications of persuing those debts in a worst case scenario but you are bleating on like you know your ar*e from your elbow when its very clear all you are doing is repeating mindless newspaper talk .

      I don't mind anyone , fan or not , commenting on any situation but I do mind A**holes pretending they are in the kno or have privileged information .

    • Someone really put a bee up your bonnet today I think. Surely not me, I did call your Mr. Hatton on my reply which I thought was rather polite, although I see you've become a Captain now!

      IF you care to enter the discussion feel free, but not sure what point your trying to make with your “Not a local, national & international cultural institution?” comment. I used a simple analogy, so I’m sorry if you did not understand it.

      But as for your specific questions, I am calling into question, as is RBS, the credit risk of the current owners of LFC. Since they've yet to make a dent in the principle of their original loan, and have built up interest, charges and penalties, I'm not sure why others would disagree. I'm sure RBS would be happy with H&G having to pay massive amounts of interest, if in fact they were seeing real money from them. But since they are not, I think they'd be happy with almost any scenario, so long as it resulted in them getting paid.

    • " If the judge agrees, then effectively Hicks and Gillett can do nothing more (pending appeal) to prevent the sale of Liverpool"

      I disagree. As shareholders they can appeal to a court that the action of selling the club at an allegedly low price is not in the best interests of the shareholders. That's a separate issue to whether H&G have the right to hire and fire directors.


      • 4 Replies to Robert M
      • Robert, that might be the basis of an appeal, but as I understand it, if the understanding that Broughton alone controls the make up of the board legally stands; it’s really beside the point. Since the case is about who effectively controls the company not who owns the company. There have been plenty of cases of owners loosing control of their companies, and this would be no different at that point.

        If Hicks cannot prove he legally has the right to control the make up of the board, everything else he does is nothing more than spinning his wheels in a desperate attempt to drag this out. His only hope at that point is he finds some fool willing to lend him the money he needs to pay off RBS, or (and this is very unlikely understanding what type of businessman Hicks is) he actually puts his own money into the equation.

      • Your right robert, the most crucial argument is whther they can prove that the club is undervalued at that price. However the counter argument is that Liverpool FC was open to all bids and so the value of the club in its current form and in this current economic climate has been determined by the bidders. Afterall if the club was going for a song then why did someone else not oubid NESV.
        I , like most people , am ot familiar with business law but from what I have read I am confident that Hicks and Gillete will lose the case, and whilst an appeal will undoubtedly happen apparantly such appeals are dealt with extremely quickly.

      • £600 million inclusive of the debt seems like a bargain basement price for one of the most recognizable international sporting brands on the planet .

        £900 million is cheap when you look at the value of lesser clubs such as Arsenal & Chelsea who before this past 10 years had zero brand recognition internationally .

        Forget about trophies , globally we are shoulder to shoulder with Utd (if not bigger) just like they were shoulder to shoulder with us when we were in pole position & they were having a dry spell .

      • RBS want their money, without administration, its that simple, we are going to be OK (I Hope) Y.N.W.A.