Liverpool FC Forum

by **RED BEERGOGGLES** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:34 pm

Reg wrote:RGB > "I see no ships...." But I would make an observation which might explain RBS's sqeaky bottom attitude.

RBS are owed 237 million out of a mooted 350 million club valuation.

If your loan was 68% of the club value, wouldnt you be looking to take control of the situation?

As RBG suggests, in the world of the blind, the one eyed man rules, however even blind people can hear the one eyed man's squeaky bottom........

R.B.S are positively twitching over this one ... if they do succeed in finding a candidate who has the best interests of the club at heart with the relevant capitol ,then it will be a veritable miracle ....but it will still serve only to discredit R.B.S in the Banking world.... their name will be synonymous with the most shameful episode in Liverpool's History and their fall from grace will be complete .....At the moment the eyes of the watching world are firmly fixed on the farce that the owners tenure has now become, and any emotive decision will be dissected and sifted through with a fine tooth comb ..... their simply is no room for error Reg ....twitchy sphincters all round mate

by **fivecups** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:39 pm

puroresu wrote:Kidri may well not be the solution but Huang has done nothing to show the fans he is. Contacting SOS was a PR move, plain and simple.

Yep, wary of them all. Not that keen on the sheer force of the PR coming from the Huang camp. They seem to have got some influential supporters on their side. I wonder who it is thats guiding their campaign?

by **red187** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:56 pm

I haven't seen this posted yet, I am less sceptical about Rory Smiths motives than most journo's out there at the moment so tend to geive him the benefit.

Liverpool will spend the coming days conducting forensic investigations into the financing of the handful of "formal bids" submitted by contenders to buy the club last Thursday, managing director Christian Purslow has revealed.

By Rory Smith
Published: 7:30AM BST 16 Aug 2010

Rory's Twitter

Ready for a new regime: Roy Hodgson talks to Steven Gerrard during Liverpool's match with Arsenal Photo: GETTY IMAGES
The club confirmed on Friday night that several formal offers to complete a takeover at Anfield and bring an end to the three-year tenure of owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have been received by the board, led by chairman Martin Broughton.

Though those offers do not include a formal "proof of funds", initial background checks on all candidates have been completed by both the club and Barclays Capital, the bank appointed to find a buyer, and results on all those parties to have tabled bids are thought to be positive.

Liverpool will not rush takeover "We have a number of bids for the club and the board is going to take its time to examine those extremely carefully," Purslow said. "Our number one priority is to make sure we know what we would be getting into with any new owner. We take that deadly seriously.

"To know who they are, where the money is coming from, what their plans are and to establish that there is a real commitment for a very long-term stable and secure financial position for the club. Second to that priority – and it's a very close second – is to sell the club as soon as possible."

Purslow insisted there is no leading contender to complete a buy-out and moved to dampen expectations that a deal could be arranged by the close of the transfer window. "It will not take a lifetime but I would not expect it to happen tomorrow," he said.

The fact that a number of bids have been received, though, and have satisfied initial checks, suggests that the Hicks and Gillett regime is reaching its conclusion.

The Americans, who were not present at the board meeting held in London to assess the offers submitted, are believed to have attempted to refinance the £237 million of bank debt held with the Royal Bank of Scotland with a number of other banks as recently as June, though they were blocked by a legal challenge from their own board.

Hicks and Gillett retain a 100 per cent shareholding in the club but ceded management control to Broughton and the board as a condition of their last refinancing deal with RBS in April, after rejecting an offer to take a 40 per cent stake in the club from the New York-based private equity firm the Rhone Group.

Rhone was initially mooted as a potential contender to launch a full buy-out of the club but it is not believed to be one of the parties to have tabled an offer. The firm, run by the billionaires Steven Langman and Robert Agostinelli, is not thought to have had any contact with Liverpool for almost two weeks.

Kenny Huang, the Chinese entrepreneur, remains a contender, while it is thought the Emirate of Sharjah retains some interest. The Kuwaiti Al-Kharafi family, first linked with a takeover of the club 18 months ago, are also believed to have been in contact with Barcap.

Sahara, the conglomerate owned by the Indian billionaire Subrata Roy, has said it is no longer considering a takeover.

by **Reg** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:57 pm

RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:
Reg wrote:RGB > "I see no ships...." But I would make an observation which might explain RBS's sqeaky bottom attitude.

RBS are owed 237 million out of a mooted 350 million club valuation.

If your loan was 68% of the club value, wouldnt you be looking to take control of the situation?

As RBG suggests, in the world of the blind, the one eyed man rules, however even blind people can hear the one eyed man's squeaky bottom........

R.B.S are positively twitching over this one ... if they do succeed in finding a candidate who has the best interests of the club at heart with the relevant capitol ,then it will be a veritable miracle ....but it will still serve only to discredit R.B.S in the Banking world.... their name will be synonymous with the most shameful episode in Liverpool's History and their fall from grace will be complete .....At the moment the eyes of the watching world are firmly fixed on the farce that the owners tenure has now become, and any emotive decision will be dissected and sifted through with a fine tooth comb ..... their simply is no room for error Reg ....twitchy sphincters all round mate

Good post mate. A precedent has been set with the Hicks owned Dallas Rangers going into receivership and being sold off last week by the executors. You could say the writing is on the wall so it would not affect RBS´s reputation to take control of the club, it is their obligation. If you recall Hicks defaulted on a $25 million payment with the Rangers so RBS would be unprofessional if they weren't preparing to, and able, to take over the ownership of the club. They can also demonstrate they've given the incumbent owners more than sufficient time and opportunity to restructure their loans and business plan to adapt to the changing economic climate but on the Rangers evidence, Hicks is unable to survive, so time to face facts and act.

The role of the executor of a bankrupt or forfeited company is to sell it ideally as a going concern, whilst maximising the value to repay creditors - banks, supplies, employee wages etc.. and minimise the loses of those creditors. LFC is a going concern and under Purslow and Ayres the marketability and value of the club has increased so the working capital required on a monthly basis is there to operate 'business as norm'. What isnt there, is the 40 million a year to service the debt and the additional capital injection to pay off the RBS loans. So the problem is narrowed down to 2 values, the loan outstanding and creditor values and the value of the brand. This is the source of the action.

Kenny Huang approached RBS to pay off the loans and therefore take control of the club for zero brand value premium. This is the rudest, most aggressive tactic T&T must have feared. T&T introduced the Syrian to create brand premium over and above the loan value. Both bids have apparantly failed at the first hurdle.

RBS´s responsibility is not to create brand value over and above a value that pays off the creditors. So if Kenny´s 350 million bid covers RBS´s $237 million debt and the balance the other creditors claims, then my undertsanding is that RBS have the right to accept such a deal, regardless of the fact it undervalues teh brand - leaves T&T with zero brand premium and zero profit.

Of course thats only of use if the buyer would have additional available cash which he would be willing to pump into the business to build the stadium, rather than force a cheap price and not make additional funds available.

I'm pretty sure RBS and Broughton are working very closely together and will continue their relationship with any new owners to secure the stadium financing. Commercially it makes sense from both sides. The RBS/LFC relationship is going through difficult times but both fully know the other and the attractiveness or not, of remaining together.

Finally, RBS would like to find a sympathetic owner however that is not their domain, nor role. Broughton and BarCap are doing that. RBS just hand over the keys.

by **Reg** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:00 pm

Two suitors remain in pursuit of Dallas Stars

Having disposed of his baseball team, Dallas Stars owner Tom Hicks now turns his focus to sale of his NHL franchise. Both Hicks and the league expect a deal before the NHL season opens Oct. 8.

Hicks is disposing of his Texas sports empire amid collapse of his financial empire. Sale of the Texas Rangers was completed last week when Major League Baseball approved the $593 million deal that turned that team over to a group that includes Nolan Ryan.

Now it's the Stars' turn. The franchise is rebuilding and not as attractive to investors as the baseball team, which is in the thick of the American League championship discussion.

One bidder dropped out this week: News Corp., the monster media conglomerate whose headline operation is the Fox TV domain. A spokesman for Fox Sports told the Dallas Morning News that News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch decided that buying sports franchises is not the best way to help his business.

Earlier, NBA Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban had expressed interest, but that has waned.

For now, two Canadian businessmen with hockey connections remain in the bidding, according to the Morning News. They are Bill Gallacher, a Calgary oilman who owns WHL Portland; and Tom Gaglardi, a restaurateur and hotelier whose family operations are based in Vancouver.

Creditors forced Hicks to sell his teams to cover $600 million in debts by his Hicks Sports. It's not clear what Gallacher and Gaglardi are offering, but a source close to the sale told the Morning News that the two bidders are expected to make competitive offers until team creditors are satisfied.

The Stars are among teams facing ownership changes. Most notable of those is the Phoenix Coyotes, who continue to await wrangling between Ice Edge Holdings, a Canadian-American syndicate, and the city of Glendale, Ariz., which owns the team's venue.

Also seeking investors are the St. Louis Blues and Carolina Hurricanes. The NHL purchased the Coyotes out of bankruptcy for $140 million rather than allow Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie to purchase it with the intent of moving the franchise to Ontario. Balsillie had offered $212.5 million for the Coyotes.

Hicks likely will get a bid near what Balsillie offered for the Coyotes -- even with the package including the team and 50 percent of American Airlines Center, the team's venue. Forbes.com reported before the Rangers sale that Hicks' goal was $300 million.

When Boston financier Jeff Vinik bought the Tampa Bay Lightning earlier this year, he paid about $110 million, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Previous owners Oren Koules and Len Barrie had paid nearly twice that in June 2008.
++

Ciggy posted a few pages back the HSG websites are down. To me the guy's bust, he's outta business. RBS will do the necessary.

by **Redman in wales** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:10 pm

RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:
Reg wrote:RGB > "I see no ships...." But I would make an observation which might explain RBS's sqeaky bottom attitude.

RBS are owed 237 million out of a mooted 350 million club valuation.

If your loan was 68% of the club value, wouldnt you be looking to take control of the situation?

As RBG suggests, in the world of the blind, the one eyed man rules, however even blind people can hear the one eyed man's squeaky bottom........

R.B.S are positively twitching over this one ... if they do succeed in finding a candidate who has the best interests of the club at heart with the relevant capitol ,then it will be a veritable miracle ....but it will still serve only to discredit R.B.S in the Banking world.... their name will be synonymous with the most shameful episode in Liverpool's History and their fall from grace will be complete .....At the moment the eyes of the watching world are firmly fixed on the farce that the owners tenure has now become, and any emotive decision will be dissected and sifted through with a fine tooth comb ..... their simply is no room for error Reg ....twitchy sphincters all round mate

I take a different view on it. I think publicly RBS want to call in the loan, and want Liverpool to find a buyer so that they can get their £238m back. But they seem to be doing okay (not brilliantly but okay) without it after announcing £1.1bn profits. I think that they secretly like to hold onto the loan, as its providing them with soooo much income in interest payments they’re laughing all the way to the bank (excuse the pun)

by **RED BEERGOGGLES** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:13 pm

Reg wrote:
RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:
Reg wrote:RGB > "I see no ships...." But I would make an observation which might explain RBS's sqeaky bottom attitude.

RBS are owed 237 million out of a mooted 350 million club valuation.

If your loan was 68% of the club value, wouldnt you be looking to take control of the situation?

As RBG suggests, in the world of the blind, the one eyed man rules, however even blind people can hear the one eyed man's squeaky bottom........

R.B.S are positively twitching over this one ... if they do succeed in finding a candidate who has the best interests of the club at heart with the relevant capitol ,then it will be a veritable miracle ....but it will still serve only to discredit R.B.S in the Banking world.... their name will be synonymous with the most shameful episode in Liverpool's History and their fall from grace will be complete .....At the moment the eyes of the watching world are firmly fixed on the farce that the owners tenure has now become, and any emotive decision will be dissected and sifted through with a fine tooth comb ..... their simply is no room for error Reg ....twitchy sphincters all round mate

Good post mate. A precedent has been set with the Hicks owned Dallas Rangers going into receivership and being sold off last week by the executors. You could say the writing is on the wall so it would not affect RBS´s reputation to take control of the club, it is their obligation. If you recall Hicks defaulted on a $25 million payment with the Rangers so RBS would be unprofessional if they weren't preparing to, and able, to take over the ownership of the club. They can also demonstrate they've given the incumbent owners more than sufficient time and opportunity to restructure their loans and business plan to adapt to the changing economic climate but on the Rangers evidence, Hicks is unable to survive, so time to face facts and act.

The role of the executor of a bankrupt or forfeited company is to sell it ideally as a going concern, whilst maximising the value to repay creditors - banks, supplies, employee wages etc.. and minimise the loses of those creditors. LFC is a going concern and under Purslow and Ayres the marketability and value of the club has increased so the working capital required on a monthly basis is there to operate 'business as norm'. What isnt there, is the 40 million a year to service the debt and the additional capital injection to pay off the RBS loans. So the problem is narrowed down to 2 values, the loan outstanding and creditor values and the value of the brand. This is the source of the action.

Kenny Huang approached RBS to pay off the loans and therefore take control of the club for zero brand value premium. This is the rudest, most aggressive tactic T&T must have feared. T&T introduced the Syrian to create brand premium over and above the loan value. Both bids have apparantly failed at the first hurdle.

RBS´s responsibility is not to create brand value over and above a value that pays off the creditors. So if Kenny´s 350 million bid covers RBS´s $237 million debt and the balance the other creditors claims, then my undertsanding is that RBS have the right to accept such a deal, regardless of the fact it undervalues teh brand - leaves T&T with zero brand premium and zero profit.

Of course thats only of use if the buyer would have additional available cash which he would be willing to pump into the business to build the stadium, rather than force a cheap price and not make additional funds available.

I'm pretty sure RBS and Broughton are working very closely together and will continue their relationship with any new owners to secure the stadium financing. Commercially it makes sense from both sides. The RBS/LFC relationship is going through difficult times but both fully know the other and the attractiveness or not, of remaining together.

Finally, RBS would like to find a sympathetic owner however that is not their domain, nor role. Broughton and BarCap are doing that. RBS just hand over the keys.

I confess I do not have the business acumen you possess Reg ,but your post explains clearly and precisely in layman's terms just what will eventually come to fruition and the now unavoidable outcome for our heinous proprietors and indeed those who have
supplemented their greed ....
Excellent post mate ....

by **Bermenstein** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:01 am

You've probably seeen this already, but Blackburn will be taken over before Lpool by the looks of things.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport....03.html

by **7_Kewell** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:00 pm

Bermenstein wrote:You've probably seeen this already, but Blackburn will be taken over before Lpool by the looks of things.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport....03.html

Big Sam with Big Money.

it's a disaster waiting to happen

by **matt_liverpool** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:11 pm

7_Kewell wrote:
Bermenstein wrote:You've probably seeen this already, but Blackburn will be taken over before Lpool by the looks of things.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport....03.html

Big Sam with Big Money.

it's a disaster waiting to happen

Blackburn squad will be full of boxers and wrestlers.

by **Reg** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:51 pm

Tom Hicks Gets a Whole Chapter in Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love By Robert Wilonsky,
Tue., Aug. 17 2010

Based on Friend of Unfair Park Peter K's morning e-mail, I tracked down a copy of Dave Zirin's Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love. Peter hadn't seen the book but wondered whether Tom Hicks makes a cameo. It's much more than that: Chapter 15 is titled "'What's a Scouser?' Tom Hicks Goes European" and offers a terrific history of Hicks's rocky ownership of Liverpool FC.

It begins with a familiar tale that still sounds like the set-up for a bad joke: Tom Hicks Jr. walks into a Liverpool bar ... At which point Tommy, believing he would be greeted with hugs and huzzahs following the team's victory over Middlesbrough, was instead showered with beer and spittle. "This wasn't a Liverpudlian male bonding ritual," writes Zirin. "It happened because Junior forgot, in the words of one Liverpool FC-loving blogger, 'that his father is the most hated man in Liverpool.'" Zirin then spends the rest of chapter explaining why, offering a detailed history of the team -- its previous ownership, its working-class roots -- and occasionally quoting from Unfair Park's coverage of Hicks's soccer-team ownership debacle (ah, so that's what pride feels like).

A brief excerpt that sums up Scousers' sentiments:

As one longtime fan said to me, "I don't think that Hicks got that Liverpool has never been about making money. Liverpool's a modest club in a poor city. You have to act with a certain kind of modesty, and, most important, humor, and you also have to be able to muster the same amount, if not a great amount, of passion. And Hicks has never, at any moment, given himself over to that team. This is the thing about Texans, right? It's a place big on everything except self-deprecation. I mean, have you heard Texans laugh at themselves? If you wear cowboys boots and a pair of Levi's or Wranglers that are three sizes too small and crotch-hugging, how can you not laugh at yourself?"

Book Link

by **Reg** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:18 pm

Club-fan links added to UEFA licensing criteria 26 July 2010,

From the 2012/13 campaign onwards, all clubs must have an operating supporter liaison officer (SLO) as a new UEFA licensing requirement – marking a new step in club-supporter relations.

The introduction of a new UEFA licensing requirement from season 2012/13 for all clubs to have an operating supporter liaison officer (SLO) marks an important new chapter in club-supporter relations and emphasises how important this relationship is considered.

Under Article 35 of the new UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, clubs will have the obligation to appoint an SLO to ensure a proper and constructive dialogue between a club and its fans. The move is the result of close cooperation between European football's governing body and Supporters Direct – the body that provides guidance and backing to fan groups in 17 countries throughout Europe.

The SLO concept, which has been under consideration for some time, has gained full approval from the national associations represented in the UEFA Club Licensing Committee and has been drawn up with the strong cooperation of Supporters Direct.

The concept, aimed at building a consensual and harmonious relationship with supporters, was presented and discussed at the European Football Fans' Congress in Barcelona last weekend organised by Football Supporters Europe (FSE). This event, the third of its kind, was attended by hundreds of fan representatives from around Europe who were given an opening address by William Gaillard, the personal adviser to the UEFA president, before a series of workshops where thoughts were exchanged between supporters and UEFA on a number of important projects including financial fair play and SLOs.

Supporter liaison officers at clubs already exist in a limited number of European countries and primarily help improve the dialogue between the fans and the clubs they follow. Most importantly, SLOs must be credible with supporters, and therefore should have experience with, and contacts to, the networks in the club's fan base.

They inform supporters about relevant decisions made by the club's management board and, in the other direction, communicate the needs of the fans to the board, as well as building relationships – not just with various fan groups and initiatives, but with the police and security officers. They will also engage with fan liaison officers of other clubs before matches to ensure that fans behave in accordance with security guidelines.

To implement the new requirements, a network of SLO project contacts from each national governing body across Europe will be created and work together with the UEFA club licensing team and Supporters Direct to assist clubs and supporter groups in improving communication in each of the 53 UEFA member associations. This year more than 600 clubs applied for a UEFA licence with many more applying for domestic licences based on the same or similar principles. Hence, the broad scope and significance of the SLO project.

Like the licensing system itself, the implementation and development of supporter liaison officers will be a tool to raise minimum standards – a dynamic system changing over time, and focusing on developing and improving the dialogue between fans and clubs.

For further information on the supporter liaison officer project please contact Antonia.hagemann@supporters-direct.org and in relation to the UEFA club licensing regulations, Sefton Perry at [email]clublicensing@uefa.ch.[/email]

UEFA Link

by **RED BEERGOGGLES** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:38 pm

Reg wrote:Tom Hicks Gets a Whole Chapter in Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love By Robert Wilonsky,
Tue., Aug. 17 2010

Based on Friend of Unfair Park Peter K's morning e-mail, I tracked down a copy of Dave Zirin's Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love. Peter hadn't seen the book but wondered whether Tom Hicks makes a cameo. It's much more than that: Chapter 15 is titled "'What's a Scouser?' Tom Hicks Goes European" and offers a terrific history of Hicks's rocky ownership of Liverpool FC.

It begins with a familiar tale that still sounds like the set-up for a bad joke: Tom Hicks Jr. walks into a Liverpool bar ... At which point Tommy, believing he would be greeted with hugs and huzzahs following the team's victory over Middlesbrough, was instead showered with beer and spittle. "This wasn't a Liverpudlian male bonding ritual," writes Zirin. "It happened because Junior forgot, in the words of one Liverpool FC-loving blogger, 'that his father is the most hated man in Liverpool.'" Zirin then spends the rest of chapter explaining why, offering a detailed history of the team -- its previous ownership, its working-class roots -- and occasionally quoting from Unfair Park's coverage of Hicks's soccer-team ownership debacle (ah, so that's what pride feels like).

A brief excerpt that sums up Scousers' sentiments:

As one longtime fan said to me, "I don't think that Hicks got that Liverpool has never been about making money. Liverpool's a modest club in a poor city. You have to act with a certain kind of modesty, and, most important, humor, and you also have to be able to muster the same amount, if not a great amount, of passion. And Hicks has never, at any moment, given himself over to that team. This is the thing about Texans, right? It's a place big on everything except self-deprecation. I mean, have you heard Texans laugh at themselves? If you wear cowboys boots and a pair of Levi's or Wranglers that are three sizes too small and crotch-hugging, how can you not laugh at yourself?"

Book Link

That made for good reading..... cheers Reg ...

by **Igor Zidane** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:46 pm

Latest from BAMBA on RAWK .

Just to bring a little sanity to the guessing-games as to who I’m ‘working for’. No-one. I’m certainly not cheerleading one particular bid. I salute the work Jack Slater and others are doing in urging caution and proper detailed scrutiny before we welcome a new bunch of well-heeled saviours through the Shankly Gates. That said, the Huang bid is the one I know a lot about; have done for a while; and am satisfied, via friends, colleagues and contacts inside and outside LFC and the City of London financial community, that his bid and his proposal for the future development of the club stacks up. If there’s another bid of substance that is currently on the table complete with proof of funding, then neither myself or anyone I rely upon for a credible inside track knows about it.

There was definitely a feeling on Friday afternoon that Huang was to be named preferred bidder. It remains a mystery as to why the club advised, around tea-time last Friday, that an official statement was coming within the hour, only for the non-committal statement we all saw to be issued some three or four hours later. It was also odd listening to Christian Purslow state on 5Live that no bid was jumping out as being particularly attractive at the moment, and none had supplied proof of funding. Huang’s bid came complete with the necessary proofs, though a well-placed financial journalist thinks the club has asked for more documentation.

The same journo is convinced that Huang’s proposed takeover has come down to a blinking match. Martin Broughton is looking for a richer valuation than Huang is prepared to pay. Huang is adamant he’ll put as little profit as possible in the current owners’ pockets. Something has to give, and it could be that Huang retires for the time being, if a deal can’t be concluded in time for Roy Hodgson to invest in the current transfer market.

In terms of my gagging, Alan F has it spot on. By a process of elimination, those closest to the sale process will work out who is giving classified information to the likes of myself. For my part, I’ve passed some of that on to the moderators of this site, so they’re satisfied there’s no skulduggery or stealth PR going on. There’s a lot of fascinating detail to reveal, and in time it will all come out. For now, I really am going to shut it. I want Hicks and Gillett gone, and I’m not saying anything more that might in any way stop, or delay that happening.

Keep checking The Times. The two Tonys speak to the same people, and they’re the only journalists who keep calling this takeover accurately.

So keep yer eyes peeled for articals in the times or telegraph in the coming hours.

by **Igor Zidane** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:04 pm

Here's the 1st artical from Tony Evans of the times.

Chinese on the verge of walking out on Liverpool takeover deal

Tony Evans, Football Editor, Helen Power, Business Correspondent

Exclusive

The Liverpool takeover saga was plunged into crisis last night when Kenny Huang delivered a take-it-or-leave it message to Martin Broughton.

Huang, the Hong Kong-based businessman, has grown frustrated by what he perceives as delaying tactics by the Liverpool chairman and will walk away unless the Chinese bid is accepted.

Despite Liverpool’s assertions that there are other bidders, Huang believes that his offer is the only viable one on the table. Senior members of the hierarchy at Liverpool have also expressed concern at the pace of the sales process.

After the Chinese interest was revealed in these pages two weeks ago, Broughton said that he expected the club to be sold by the end of last week. However, the deadline passed with Anfield sources claiming that there were still as many as five bids. Huang — who has China Investment Corporation, one of the world’s biggest sovereign wealth funds, among his backers — believes that this is a ploy to push up the price.

Liverpool have suggested that Huang has not offered proof of funds but The Times understands that the Chinese bid has supplied all the necessary documentation required by the memorandum of sale, a legal framework for potential buyers.

A source close to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) — which is owed £237 million by Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, Liverpool’s owners — said last night that Huang was “there or thereabouts” on providing proof of funding to Barclays Capital, the investment bank brokering the deal. The Chinese offer would make the club debt-free and also bring large-scale investment as part of a total outlay of about £800 million.

Huang is eager to complete the deal before the transfer window closes. The Chinese are concerned that without investment in the squad Liverpool could finish outside the top four this season and want to be in place to provide funds for Roy Hodgson, the manager, as quickly as possible.

Huang has a transfer war chest and has put aside cash to build a new stadium. The Chinese will not dip into these budgets to increase their offer and benefit Hicks and Gillett at the expense of investment in Anfield.

Huang’s stance will heap pressure on Broughton. The chairman of British Airways was brought into the club in April to oversee the sale. The 63-year-old arrived at Anfield with impeccable credentials in the City. However, Broughton has struggled to fulfil this role and is in danger of damaging his reputation.

RBS believes that Huang has the most credible bid and played down the notion of five potential buyers. Sources close to the bank said it was possible that GameDay, the Montreal-based group behind Yahya Kirdi, the Syrian businessman, may become a serious contender if it can show proof of funds.

Rhône Capital, the American private equity group, is still in discussions with Barclays Capital but has not been able to raise sufficient funds to bid.

It has also emerged that RBS could, if necessary, seize control of Liverpool without putting the club into administration, a move that would result in an automatic nine-point deduction by the Premier League.

The bank has been charging Hicks and Gillett £2.5 million a week in penalty fees and could threaten to pursue the Americans for the money if they fail to hand over the keys to Liverpool as part of a debt-for-equity swap.

Other options would include removing Hicks and Gillett from the club’s board.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/foo ... 692843.ece

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online