Liverpool FC Forum

by **ste123lfc** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:21 pm

email address for the CEO of Citibank is vikram.pandit@citi.com

by **Thommo's perm** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:27 pm

Is there a template for the message to send?

by **Igor Zidane** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:41 pm

NANNY RED wrote:Igor was that you at the meeting sitting in front of John who got up and spoke . he was with Pat the sec from London sos,

Have a look at the vid part 9

Not guilty , i was at the back out of the way , err by the bar .

by **Igor Zidane** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:45 pm

Ok have you watched the video of the meeting yet and HAVE YOU VOTED ?

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/September-2010-EGM-_-Video.html

by **Benny The Noon** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:16 am

Sky's Jeff Stelling Comes Out on the Wrong Side in Liverpool's Uncivil War

* 2Comments
* Say Something »

27/9/2010 12:03 PM GMT By Scott Murray
PrintAText Size
E-mail More

*
o Scott Murray
o

Comrades! On Saturday afternoon, two brave left-wing struggles were played out in front of the nation. These ideological battles weren't held on the nation's streets – these were no poll-tax riots, no Jarrow Marches – but instead they occurred on Sky Television. They were very revealing, all the same.

The first brouhaha raged on Sky News. As 'Red' Ed Miliband won the leadership of the Labour Party, the channel's commentary team spluttered in disbelief. How did the anointed Blairite wonk David Miliband fail to win, they wondered? This didn't correspond with the gossip in the Westminster village! What were these people doing?! It didn't seem to cross their minds that the leadership of a party which grew out of the trade-union movement might be influenced in some way by, er, votes from workers in trade unions.

Over on Sky Sports News, there would be a similar detachment from reality on display. After Liverpool and Sunderland's annual circus act – that free-kick farce wasn't quite the comedic tour de force the beach ball was, incidentally, on account of it being totally legitimate – thousands of fans stayed behind on the Kop to register their wish for Anfield co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr to up sticks and bugger off. Back in the studio, one of the club's most famous sons had been moved to impassioned oratory.

Phil Thompson, the man who picked up the 1981 European Cup for Liverpool, popped his head above the parapet and stated that RBS, to whom Hicks and Gillett owe hundreds of millions, "cannot allow them to refinance this football club". Referring to the demonstration as "a huge thing", he made a "plea for anybody who makes decisions not to allow the refinance to happen because ... it will kill Liverpool Football Club and it will kill football." Thompson then suggested that boycotts might be the way forward, albeit obliquely: "People say if you go and support the club, purchasing tickets, then you are supporting the owners, so no, I won't do it, I am not going to go because the more money I put into the club the longer I could possibly keep them there." Excellent stuff.

But as the cameras swooped across the famous one-time terrace, and mics picked up the protest songs, a Sky presenter once again missed the point spectacularly. "Maybe they should concentrate on what's happening on the football pitch," opined Jeff Stelling. Exactly why Liverpool's fans should remain silent while their club runs up over £200 million debt simply for the pleasure of Hicks and Gillett's company went unexplained by Stelling. But the implication was clear: the common supporter, just like the union member, should leave well alone and sit on the sidelines quietly, as the big boys get on with playing their big-boy games.

To be fair to Stelling, a genuinely nice man who usually positions himself on the side of all that is good and righteous, he seems guilty here of little more than lazy thinking. Folk in the media love to paint football fans as mouth-breathing numbskulls standing outside the stadium cheering as a new player is signed; as groups of testosterone-fuelled morons leering lasciviously at scantily clad "soccerettes"; as obsessive knowledge freaks answering questions about Derby County's 1969 promotion-winning side for a massive £15 cash jackpot.

But they're not so comfortable when the fans mobilise and challenge the status quo. Instead of painting them as bolshie troublemakers who can't love their club if they act up like that – which was effectively Stelling's unthinking angle – they should spend awhile discussing the issues, and questioning exactly how it's come to this. Happily for Sky Sports News viewers, Thompson was on hand to grab the mic, because financial chicanery affects fans across the board. As he explained, the minute the good results stop, Manchester United – nearly £800 million in debt – will be flailing around just like Liverpool. And of course implosion has already occurred at giants such as Leeds United, Sheffield Wednesday, Newcastle United, and two-time European champions Nottingham Forest – as well as at smaller clubs across the land for decades now.

Yet – rightly or wrongly – it's going to take a behemoth to topple before attention is paid. Liverpool and Manchester United are the two best-supported clubs in the country. Both are in a parlous financial state. Yet television all but totally ignores their plight, the odd filibuster from the likes of Thompson excepted. Instead of patronising the protestors, television should allow them to proselytise. Because the way things are going, unless their voices are heard loud and clear, in ten years time there'll be precious little left on the football pitch for Stelling to concentrate on.

by **jacdaniel** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:18 am

I have a suggestion in relation to the email campaign but im unsure if its been thought of already. Why don't we create a large document, prefarbly filled with images of great Liverpool players/managers or anti Tom and George images, and attach it to the emails? This would make all emails approx 10MB.

The point is, the larger emails would quickly disrupt their exchange servers and crash their email systems. And hence, have a great impact.
100 large mails could potentially have the same impact as 1000 are currently having.

by **mart** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:52 am

jacdaniel wrote:I have a suggestion in relation to the email campaign but im unsure if its been thought of already. Why don't we create a large document, prefarbly filled with images of great Liverpool players/managers or anti Tom and George images, and attach it to the emails? This would make all emails approx 10MB.

The point is, the larger emails would quickly disrupt their exchange servers and crash their email systems. And hence, have a great impact.
100 large mails could potentially have the same impact as 1000 are currently having.

Intentionally crashing their servers will just reflect badly on those doing it. Thats not the kind of media attention we want.

by **jacdaniel** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:56 am

mart wrote:
jacdaniel wrote:I have a suggestion in relation to the email campaign but im unsure if its been thought of already. Why don't we create a large document, prefarbly filled with images of great Liverpool players/managers or anti Tom and George images, and attach it to the emails? This would make all emails approx 10MB.

The point is, the larger emails would quickly disrupt their exchange servers and crash their email systems. And hence, have a great impact.
100 large mails could potentially have the same impact as 1000 are currently having.

Intentionally crashing their servers will just reflect badly on those doing it. Thats not the kind of media attention we want.

Fair point. feedback appreciated.

by **NewRed** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:49 am

why dont we email all the newspapers in texas and Illinois complaining about them. might be a silly idea i know but its where they grew up so i imagine family there might get a bit pi~~y if local repoters start annoying the family. Plus we would know that the message would get back to them

by **yellsub66** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:04 pm

This is what I emailed to Citibank's CEO about ten minutes ago!

To the CEO of Citibank.

I am contacting you as a passionate supporter of Liverpool FC, the most successful football club in British football history. Please, don't consider even for a minute REFINANCING that disgusting and evil scum bag...Mr Tom Hicks. He is destroying one of England's most famous clubs and his and Mr Gillett's leveraged buy out of the club over three years ago has pushed us into terminal decline.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT be responsible for helping to destroy one of Britain's greatest sporting institutions. Tom Hicks is a parasite and doesn't give a flying f**k about either Liverpool FC or the people of this proud and unique city.

If Citibank support Tom Hicks by refinancing the loan, then Liverpool FC will be doomed and Citibank will be held responsible by ALL Liverpool FC fans around the globe!!

Do you really believe that Tom Hicks deserves to make ANY profit from selling Liverpool FC? He has put NOTHING into the club and borrowed money to buy the club in the first place. This debt has been placed upon the club and placed us in an awful and precarious position. HOW CAN THIS BE RIGHT AND JUST???

There are a number of interested parties waiting in the wings to buy Liverpool FC...but not for the ridiculous sum of £600 million pounds that Hicks laughably demands.

If Hicks fails in his attempts to obtain re-finance then Liverpool FC will prevail. If he succeeds then we are DOOMED.

Please don't financially support this criminal.

Signed

Paul L**** - Liverpool FC fan for 37 years!

by **Redman in wales** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:33 pm

Standard Chartered Can Rescue Its Disastrous Deal With Liverpool F.C.
By Jim Edwards | September 27, 2010

Standard Chartered (STAN.L), the investment bank that paid £80 million to sponsor Liverpool F.C. At the time, the deal set a new benchmark for top-flight football sponsorships and StanChart’s money was welcomed as a warchest for Liverpool to use for new players. Success seemed assured.

A year later, and the deal is looking like a disaster: The club is mired in debt; it’s engaged in a civil war with American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett; the team crashed out of the League Cup to lowly Northampton Town F.C. and have won only six points from the first six games of the season: Technically, StanChart have hitched their flag to a club that’s fighting relegation to the second rung of English professional football (although that fate remains unlikely).

Worse, fans have started selling protest shirts with “Standards Corrupted” on the chest and the bank’s logo — two intertwined ropes — represented as snakes. American reporters’ in-boxes are being flooded with Liverpool fans’ email demanding the ouster of the club’s owners:

How would you like it if a British “businessman” came over to the USA and destroyed the New York Yankees. Or the LA Lakers. Or the Washington Redskins?

None of this is StanChart’s fault, of course; it’s merely the sponsor. But the bank could execute a solution that might rescue its investment: It could help force Hicks and Gillett to sell the club at a loss.

Some background: Hicks and Gillett bought the club in 2007 with a £237 million loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland, and used the club itself as collateral to secure the note. That loan, plus interest and penalties, is now due. Hicks and Gillett would like to refinance it — or better yet sell the club to new owners at a premium. (The club was bought at the height of the asset bubble and is currently classified as a “toxic asset,” so selling it at a profit is highly unlikely.) RBS also knows that extra debt incurred either by the current owners refinancing or by new owners taking out a mortgage will only worsen its position and increase the likelihood of Liverpool going into “administration,” a sort of structured bankruptcy. (The English Premier League imposes a nine-point penalty on any club that does this; Portsmouth F.C. was relegated from the league as a result of that maneuver last year.) It would also increase the likelihood of RBS having to take possession of the club to recover its loan — and banks don’t generally want to be in the business of sports franchise ownership.

The alternative is for StanChart to quietly encourage RBS to enforce an Oct. 6 deadline that — absent new funding from Hicks and Gillett — would allow the Scottish bank to take over the club and sell it at a loss on the value of the loans outstanding. All parties concerned would lose money on the deal, but they might lose less money than if they refloated the club on more loans.

If StanChart were feeling especially brave, it could suggest to RBS that Hicks and Gillett’s ownership be divided into 10 tranches, and that each tranche be sold off separately in a sequence of share offerings to fans who wanted to own the club. (There’s already a group of fans with banking counsel who want to do something like this, and other clubs such as F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid are already owned by their fans.) That way, each offering would only need to raise £24 million or more from buyers before the bank could move to the next one. If more fans wanted to buy shares, then RBS could charge a premium on each tranche and actually make a profit on some parts of the defaulted loan or it could add an 11th and 12th tranche as demand required.

At the end of the day, such a scheme could transfer Liverpool into ownership that has the bottomless pockets necessary to run a club — its fans. RBS could get its money back and maybe even profit. StanChart could even handle the public/private offering, and take a fee, and emerge as the bank that rescued the club. Everybody wins.

link

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:58 pm

Redman in wales wrote: Standard Chartered Can Rescue Its Disastrous Deal With Liverpool F.C.
By Jim Edwards | September 27, 2010

Standard Chartered (STAN.L), the investment bank that paid £80 million to sponsor Liverpool F.C. At the time, the deal set a new benchmark for top-flight football sponsorships and StanChart’s money was welcomed as a warchest for Liverpool to use for new players. Success seemed assured.

A year later, and the deal is looking like a disaster: The club is mired in debt; it’s engaged in a civil war with American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett; the team crashed out of the League Cup to lowly Northampton Town F.C. and have won only six points from the first six games of the season: Technically, StanChart have hitched their flag to a club that’s fighting relegation to the second rung of English professional football (although that fate remains unlikely).

Worse, fans have started selling protest shirts with “Standards Corrupted” on the chest and the bank’s logo — two intertwined ropes — represented as snakes. American reporters’ in-boxes are being flooded with Liverpool fans’ email demanding the ouster of the club’s owners:

How would you like it if a British “businessman” came over to the USA and destroyed the New York Yankees. Or the LA Lakers. Or the Washington Redskins?

None of this is StanChart’s fault, of course; it’s merely the sponsor. But the bank could execute a solution that might rescue its investment: It could help force Hicks and Gillett to sell the club at a loss.

Some background: Hicks and Gillett bought the club in 2007 with a £237 million loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland, and used the club itself as collateral to secure the note. That loan, plus interest and penalties, is now due. Hicks and Gillett would like to refinance it — or better yet sell the club to new owners at a premium. (The club was bought at the height of the asset bubble and is currently classified as a “toxic asset,” so selling it at a profit is highly unlikely.) RBS also knows that extra debt incurred either by the current owners refinancing or by new owners taking out a mortgage will only worsen its position and increase the likelihood of Liverpool going into “administration,” a sort of structured bankruptcy. (The English Premier League imposes a nine-point penalty on any club that does this; Portsmouth F.C. was relegated from the league as a result of that maneuver last year.) It would also increase the likelihood of RBS having to take possession of the club to recover its loan — and banks don’t generally want to be in the business of sports franchise ownership.

The alternative is for StanChart to quietly encourage RBS to enforce an Oct. 6 deadline that — absent new funding from Hicks and Gillett — would allow the Scottish bank to take over the club and sell it at a loss on the value of the loans outstanding. All parties concerned would lose money on the deal, but they might lose less money than if they refloated the club on more loans.

If StanChart were feeling especially brave, it could suggest to RBS that Hicks and Gillett’s ownership be divided into 10 tranches, and that each tranche be sold off separately in a sequence of share offerings to fans who wanted to own the club. (There’s already a group of fans with banking counsel who want to do something like this, and other clubs such as F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid are already owned by their fans.) That way, each offering would only need to raise £24 million or more from buyers before the bank could move to the next one. If more fans wanted to buy shares, then RBS could charge a premium on each tranche and actually make a profit on some parts of the defaulted loan or it could add an 11th and 12th tranche as demand required.

At the end of the day, such a scheme could transfer Liverpool into ownership that has the bottomless pockets necessary to run a club — its fans. RBS could get its money back and maybe even profit. StanChart could even handle the public/private offering, and take a fee, and emerge as the bank that rescued the club. Everybody wins.

link

IMO that suggestion is ludicrous.

It is clear now that fans have not got £240m to spend on a buyout without leveraging debt against the club. It makes no difference whatsoever that the debt is split into tranches, it just means that RBS would be selling chunks of the club at a time.

They want to get rid ASAP. It would take years for supporters to generate enough cash to buy all tranches from RBS.

by **Reg** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:41 pm

Rule of thumb theres no smoke without fire. You´d only need to make 2 tranches available to the fans and other strategic partners take others.

by **tommycockles** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:51 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:
Redman in wales wrote: Standard Chartered Can Rescue Its Disastrous Deal With Liverpool F.C.
By Jim Edwards | September 27, 2010

Standard Chartered (STAN.L), the investment bank that paid £80 million to sponsor Liverpool F.C. At the time, the deal set a new benchmark for top-flight football sponsorships and StanChart’s money was welcomed as a warchest for Liverpool to use for new players. Success seemed assured.

A year later, and the deal is looking like a disaster: The club is mired in debt; it’s engaged in a civil war with American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett; the team crashed out of the League Cup to lowly Northampton Town F.C. and have won only six points from the first six games of the season: Technically, StanChart have hitched their flag to a club that’s fighting relegation to the second rung of English professional football (although that fate remains unlikely).

Worse, fans have started selling protest shirts with “Standards Corrupted” on the chest and the bank’s logo — two intertwined ropes — represented as snakes. American reporters’ in-boxes are being flooded with Liverpool fans’ email demanding the ouster of the club’s owners:

How would you like it if a British “businessman” came over to the USA and destroyed the New York Yankees. Or the LA Lakers. Or the Washington Redskins?

None of this is StanChart’s fault, of course; it’s merely the sponsor. But the bank could execute a solution that might rescue its investment: It could help force Hicks and Gillett to sell the club at a loss.

Some background: Hicks and Gillett bought the club in 2007 with a £237 million loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland, and used the club itself as collateral to secure the note. That loan, plus interest and penalties, is now due. Hicks and Gillett would like to refinance it — or better yet sell the club to new owners at a premium. (The club was bought at the height of the asset bubble and is currently classified as a “toxic asset,” so selling it at a profit is highly unlikely.) RBS also knows that extra debt incurred either by the current owners refinancing or by new owners taking out a mortgage will only worsen its position and increase the likelihood of Liverpool going into “administration,” a sort of structured bankruptcy. (The English Premier League imposes a nine-point penalty on any club that does this; Portsmouth F.C. was relegated from the league as a result of that maneuver last year.) It would also increase the likelihood of RBS having to take possession of the club to recover its loan — and banks don’t generally want to be in the business of sports franchise ownership.

The alternative is for StanChart to quietly encourage RBS to enforce an Oct. 6 deadline that — absent new funding from Hicks and Gillett — would allow the Scottish bank to take over the club and sell it at a loss on the value of the loans outstanding. All parties concerned would lose money on the deal, but they might lose less money than if they refloated the club on more loans.

If StanChart were feeling especially brave, it could suggest to RBS that Hicks and Gillett’s ownership be divided into 10 tranches, and that each tranche be sold off separately in a sequence of share offerings to fans who wanted to own the club. (There’s already a group of fans with banking counsel who want to do something like this, and other clubs such as F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid are already owned by their fans.) That way, each offering would only need to raise £24 million or more from buyers before the bank could move to the next one. If more fans wanted to buy shares, then RBS could charge a premium on each tranche and actually make a profit on some parts of the defaulted loan or it could add an 11th and 12th tranche as demand required.

At the end of the day, such a scheme could transfer Liverpool into ownership that has the bottomless pockets necessary to run a club — its fans. RBS could get its money back and maybe even profit. StanChart could even handle the public/private offering, and take a fee, and emerge as the bank that rescued the club. Everybody wins.

link

IMO that suggestion is ludicrous.

It is clear now that fans have not got £240m to spend on a buyout without leveraging debt against the club. It makes no difference whatsoever that the debt is split into tranches, it just means that RBS would be selling chunks of the club at a time.

They want to get rid ASAP. It would take years for supporters to generate enough cash to buy all tranches from RBS.

If Barcelona and Real Madrid can do it then why can't we? In all reality it wouldn't be us buying it, but rich fans or businesses that want to own a bit of Liverpool because they love it and want to see our profits go into players and not to pay off debt. At £24million a pop it's a bargain to a guy who'd pay more for his private yaught or jet.

There are people that would pay this to see Liverpool back to the glory years, and then they can sell at any time as i'm sure there'll be other takers waiting.

by **NANNY RED** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:26 pm

Good vid this from Sunday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YAZGxGXPDE&feature=player_embedded

In bulk at the pi.ss take Hicks interview ha ha ,

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online