Liverpool FC Forum

devaney wrote:What however followed was a leverage process that has endangered the very existence of LFC. On that basis let's never use the phrase we'll cross that bridge when we come to it because it will be too late!

If you read what I said properly I said to Lakes lets cross that bridge when we come to it about Human Rights protestors running on the pitch, not about the actual take over.

People only have to check the labels on their clothes and things in the house to see where they are made nearly everything is made in China, should we boycott everything made in China we would have nothing left.
im not clued up on their human rights, but the sharia law in the middle east is of the dinosaur ages in some parts, no ones complaining about Citys owner.

Birminghams owner is from China no ones complaining about the human rights and him, our current owner Hicks was behind George Bush getting into power look at the devistation that horrible b@stard has caused in the Middle East and our soliders being killed because HE decided to invade Iraq.

Who is clean these days in business/money? Hicks didnt get rich helping old ladies cross the road this b@stard hasnt cared who he has hurt/hurts in the process of earning a quick buck, the same goes for Abramovich he earned his money from erm "U know what"

This Ambani fella whos interested look at the poor people in India, Mumbai and the likes, we could go on and on about it all day we just have to wait and see how it pans out before we get panic stricken over China's, India, Saudi Arabia's Human Right.

There is no 'clean' money anywhere. Someone, somewhere, had to suffer for it.

Scottbot wrote:Read between the lines on the article above:

- Not one mention of clearing or paying the debt, talks of taking it on. Sounds to me like a bid that would still involve a significant element of debt plus (no doubt) a tidy equity profit for the two c...u...n...t...s. I suspect it will be another leveraged buyout, only less so which is of absolutely no use to us.

Scottbot wrote:He did say that they have agreed a fee with the Americans that includes taking on the £237m loan from RBS, providing funding for a new stadium and some transfer activity, and an equity consideration for Hicks and Gillett.


“The enthusiasm of the investors will also ensure that there are sufficient funds to allow the owners to get the best possible help that can be found and execute an intelligent program to advance the club up the league table.”

Benny The Noon wrote:Liverpool board divided over whether to accept stunning Chinese government takeover bid


The Liverpool boardroom is deeply divided over whether the club should accept a stunning takeover bid from the Chinese government.

Goal.com UK understands that American owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks are desperate to obstruct a swift deal in order to hold out for as big a profit as possible from the sale of the club.

This has angered the other three board members - chairman Martin Broughton, managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre – who want to find the most sustainable owner for the club and believe that the bid fronted by sports entrepreneur Kenny Huang is the only serious contender.

It comes amid reports that China’s foreign investment arm China Investment Corporation (CIC) is the mystery backer behind Huang and could hand Liverpool manager Roy Hodgson a formidable £150 million transfer kitty to spend on new players.

Liverpool, who have debts of £237m, are expected to change hands later this month and the Chinese appear to be in pole position to win a takeover battle that also includes the American private equity consortium the Rhone Group and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi.

It is believed that Kirdi has a close working relationship with Gillett’s son, which has prompted speculation that the Syrian’s involvement is being used as a stalling tactic by the Anfield co-owner.

Yet the broker for Kirdi said today that the Syrian and his investment group are negotiating directly with the Americans – not with Broughton or Barclays Capital - and want to agree on a deal that would allow the pair to “walk away with a profit” before Liverpool open their Premier League campaign on 15 August.

“We are prepared to take as long as it takes to get the deal done properly but all the participants would be pleased if we could have it in place for Liverpool’s home Premier League opener against Arsenal,” said Dan Diamond, president of Montreal-based GameDay Leadership Management Consultants.

It is Gillett and Hicks’ decision to negotiate above the heads of their fellow directors that has angered Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, who share three of the five boardroom votes.

Broughton and Barclays Capital – the investment arm of Barclays Bank – were appointed on 16 April to handle the sale of the club and are aiming to make a final decision on a preferred bidder by the end of next week.

It is not known who Broughton feels is the strongest bid but it is understood that the non-executive chairman would want a consensus in the boardroom.

A source close to the process says that Purslow and Ayre favour the Huang-led Chinese consortium, which has assets of £209 billion under management. Most of the cash is tied up in equity and bond markets, although China Daily, the English language arm of the Chinese state media, reported yesterday that CIC has spent the past fortnight selling shares that would, coincidentally, raise precisely the amount of cash required to finance a bid for Liverpool.

Huang values Liverpool at around £325m, less than half Hicks’ £800m asking price. To break even on a sale, the American owners would need to fetch a price of £362m. They paid £218m for the club in 2007 and invested a further £144m.

Incorrect - They lent the money through Kop Caymen and expect the money to be paid back to them

So Broughton, Purslow and Aire are keen on the chinaman's bid and dumb and dumber the Syrian's bid...this has the potential to get very messy.

That being said if 3 of the 5 board members support the idea of the chinese bid then that is a majority. That is on the premise that each board member has equal voting power, which is the worry with the yanks...

bigmick wrote:It would be the supremest of ironies if the cronies who the two c...s brought in (Ayres, Broughton and Purslow) actually voted against them and sent them packing with next to no profit  Now that would be funny.