
Found here: Studs Up
Reg wrote:Bad Bob wrote:Reg wrote:Hicks and Gillett were dropping the claim to comply with an English court order.
Not that I'm really all that hung up on the legal minutae at the moment but what's this bit referring to? Did I miss another High Court decision today or is this something that came as part of yesterday's ruling?
Its part of the day 2, anti-suit casewhen they were refused leave to take further action in connection with blocking the sale of the club. They had to drop the suit to comply with the court order.
Bob, the best explanations are contained within the 2 links I posted on page 1204, the shorthand taken actual words of Justice Floyd.
Bad Bob wrote:Bob, the best explanations are contained within the 2 links I posted on page 1204, the shorthand taken actual words of Justice Floyd.
hawkmoon269 wrote:Does anyone know what happens to the 50% share(s) that Mill Financial got of Gillett
Reg wrote:Bad Bob wrote:Bob, the best explanations are contained within the 2 links I posted on page 1204, the shorthand taken actual words of Justice Floyd.
Cheers, Reg. Your executive summary will do me just fine at the mo...don't have a head to be pouring through Pink's rulings tonight!
NorfolkRed wrote:SSN reporting having an interview with Hicks later tonight - not sure i want to spoil the mood by watching it
badgermit wrote:More importantly - the current Red Sox ownership took an old, dilapidated dump of a ballpark - Fenway park, built in 1912 - and turned it into a place that people actually want to go to now. They made gradual changes, keeping with the theme of the oldest ballpark in America...all very tastefully done. And they gradually increased the seating capacity from ~32K people to almost 40K people. The downside of this is that they are on average the most expensive tickets in baseball. But they do this because (1) demand and (2) they need to charge more in order to sign the best players.
Fenway has been sold out for something like 8 years....and that means 81 home games per year. That is a lot of sellouts.
These guys are good....they find creative ways to make money, they stay true to community and the original purpose of the team. They put smart people in positions for them to excel. They think outside the box - building excellence throughout the organization to try to sign younger players and develop them as a way to competing with the giants more effectively. They put ruthless business people in positions where they are needed. And they know that only winning will bring success and money. Not only that, but these guys are FANS.
my $.02 - speaking as a huge Red Sox fan and lifelong Boston resident - and someone who has followed Liverpool for years now (I chose Liverpool as the team most like the Sox and the team that I would support when we first started getting English football over here). This is the best thing for Liverpool, I just know it.
Getting money/free-of-debt is one thing. But getting management and an organization that knows what it is doing is something MUCH MUCH more valuable.
Reg wrote:Lord Grabiner QC steals show with a match-winning cameo
Thursday, 14th October 2010
HIGH COURT SKETCH
FRANK DALLERES
IT WASN’T quite Athens 2005, but Liverpool’s High Court victory represented an exhilarating comeback of sorts. And the match-winner this week was not Steven Gerrard but the more scholarly, if less athletic, figure of Lord Grabiner QC.
The legal heavyweight, reputed to be the second highest paid barrister in the land, merely watched from the bench in the early stages of Tuesday’s hearing, as Richard Snowden QC outlined Royal Bank of Scotland’s case against Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
Matters took a surprising turn when the American pair’s barrister, Paul Girolami QC, skilfully began to sow seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of the bank’s case and sought to unpick the threads of its argument, swinging momentum in his clients’ favour.
Were Hicks and Gillett, who stood accused of trying to delay or scupper a sale, really going to snatch victory and dash the Liverpool board’s plans to sell the club to New England Sports Ventures in Court 16?
Enter Grabiner. Liverpool’s QC chose his moment to pipe up and began to bulldoze the objections one by one. He showed wit, flair and a remarkable knowledge of case law, even if he did consider its use vulgar, referencing cases from 1974 and, in one crowd-pleasing move, 1896.
Only the judge Mr Justice Floyd knows how much Grabiner’s intervention influenced his judgement in Liverpool’s favour, but from the gallery he looked the clear man of the match.
Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 78 guests