Liverpool FC Forum

[Reg]

Sent:

Dear Judge Jim.

The city of Liverpool has fought for 3 years to get rid of the biggest shyster from Texas, Tom Hicks and now we've finally done it you're trying to protect him?

I dont believe you know the full facts of the matter and if you did you'd give Hicks short change for wasting both your and the courts time. Hicks is a thief, he has raped Liverpool Football Club of hundreds of millions of dollars - $100 million usd alone in non existant new stadium consultancy fees when 3 years later we still havent had a single spade in the earth? And you're protecting him?

He's led our club into bankruptcy yet claims the 'brand' as he calls it is worth more than $1 billion? We are a hollow shell, as he has tainted us, we're worth half that, without prospects - and you're protecting him?

Football in the city of Liverpool is our religion, its in the blood. We're working class people, football is our focal point and Hicks has abused us with his arrogance and greed. And you protect him?

Judge Jim - Tom Hicks has come to the end of his run. he's finished. let him go, caste him aside, repeal this worthless injunction based on fraudulent misinformation - stop protecting him.

Conmen get their upence - its Hicks' turn, time for him to go.

Judge Jim, the integrity of the US legal system is on trial - do the right thing.

Yours faithfully,

[maguskwt]

It seems like in the US lawsuits are bread and butter of everyday life. Everyone is suing anyone for something...

[Penguins]

So some Texas jugde living in Hicks backyard and is in his backpocket has ruled that LFC can't be sold....

Zero juristriction... Trying to claim RBS does business in Texas and NEVS is a us based company... talk about grasping for straws.


If Texas want war I wouldn't mind the european Union wipe their ***** 

[maypaxvobiscum]

Not sure what power a district court in the US could have over the highest court in the UK.

Anyone know anything about international law?

the highest court in UK is the Supreme Court mate. i was in class discussing this with my contract law lecturer (she also does company law)  last night and we did talk about jurisdiction. i suggested they might secure an injunction to prevent or delay the sale. i didnt know it would've really happened

[maypaxvobiscum]

Aright, I've gotta laugh this one off, no matter how long the sale to NESV is delayed.

This is the America that I've known - where you could sue for millions when you drop hot coffee on your lap....

exactly! the case you're talking about is Liebeck v Mcdonald's Restaurants. a similar thing happened in UK but the courts denied that the fastfood chain held any responsibility for the consumer's carelessness - Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants. its very different the way judges see things in the UK and the States.

[Johnny Boy]

Elation to Despair.

I only hope it gets sorted today, and that NESV don't decide they have had enough of all the hassle and publicity this is producing and just walk away.

If we have to go to court in the US then anything could happen.

[maypaxvobiscum]

Kop Investment LLC - headquartered in Dallas, but registered in Delaware for tax reasons, this is the ultimate holding company and is jointly owned by George Gillett and Tom Hicks

owns

Kop Football (Cayman) Ltd - about which little is known, other than that it has loaned money its subsidiaries: this may be equity from G&H

owns

Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd (6032200)(KFHL) - is the UK parent company and has filed consolidated accounts derived from its two subsidiaries

owns

Kop Football Ltd (6032198)(KFL) - would appear to be the company that was used for the actual purchase of LFC and is effectively a only a holding company which does not otherwise trade.

owns

Liverpool Football Club & Athletic Grounds Ltd (35668)(LFC) - is what we would think of as "Liverpool FC": this is the original company sold by David Moores to G&H and which is now owned by them through a series of holding companies as above.

is this structure correct? and from what i know, the 2 yanks are merely directors. Purslow and Broughton are above them in the hierarchy while Nash and Ayres are directors too. so....if Broughton and Purslow have more powers based on their appointments, who are G&H to stop them?

[devaney]

In an absurd sort of a way I am pleased about this! It was never going to be straight forward. Hicks and the equally obnoxious Gilette who for some reason gets considerably less of the well deserved criticism are very desperate men looking at a very meaningful loss which could have a catastrophic affect on their other business interests. Who will ever lend them money in the future? How can they successfully continue to behave in the same despicable manner? They know that no English or European court will take them seriously so they have tried to escape to their own backyard. BY THEIR VERY LATEST ACTIONS THEY HAVE SIMPLY DEMONSTRATED TO ANYBODY THAT HAD ANY DOUBTS THAT THEY WILL GO TO ANY MEASURES CORRUPT OR OTHERWISE TO SATISFY THEIR INSATIABLE GREED!

I make no excuses for originally defending in 2007 the principal of businesses borrowing money and I stand by that. Hicks and Gillette however have exceeded all the usual parameters and their actions together with the lenders are nothing short of disgusting. The frightening thing is that Hicks and Gillette have behaved in the same cavalier manner for many years and yet Moores still agreed to sell to them. I know it has been said before but wasn't David aware of the internet in 2007 or was he also motivated by greed.

[Ciggy]

FOL

danroan Dan Roan:
Hearing US billionaire Dwight Schar, owner of Mill Financial (who own Gillett's shares) and co-owner of Wash Redskins is about to play key role.

[Homebooby]

Quite appropriate...shameful is the word

[maypaxvobiscum]

i dont think there's anything to worry about. the sale to NESV will proceed as planned because the English courts have said so. and if the American courts feel otherwise, it could result in political and jurisdictional clashes. but there's nothing to worry about, just another small obstacle in Henry's path to owning us. besides, the TRO is very vague and i fear the American judge had been misled.

[TarnRed]

US lawyer Tom Cruise explains temporary LFC injunction

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9090471.stm

[andy_g]

Hicks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihIfM5VVcjk

this one is more appropriate...

[tubby]

Good article here on the situation.

http://bit.ly/9uyhsp

[Anfield rapper]

If all these offers were coming in as Hicks says they were. Why were they going to him rather than the board. Why was he forwarding them to Broughton. Surely even a Texan court can see something fishy going on.