Liverpool FC Forum

by **Benny The Noon** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:45 pm

Hicks is trying every under handed trick in the book to get as much money as possible - all of his actions will count for nothing when the court rules - I'm trusting Broughton has all the t's crossed and i's dotted to ensure he has covered everything . He is a clever businessman who is using intelligence to get this sorted - Hicks is trying the only way he knows and that is to force things and bully his way with threats which I believe are hollow and have no backing . Even if he does win no bank are going to touch him now - he is damaged goods and I think the prem will be stepping in along with RBS to get this guy out of our club and out of the prem . Broughton has a lot of weight behind him with RBS and Barcap - Hicks is fighting a lonely battle . The only worry for me is the unknown quantity of Gillete and the company that has seized his stake - they surely want some value to his stake and this deal will leave them with nothing so his stake is worthless . Oh and I see Lakes is still trying to create headlines - admit defeat Lakes and accept you didn't have the first clue about what happened and what's going on .

by **Thewaykokid** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:49 pm

I can't seriously see why Hicks is doing this, surely if he does get a decision in favour in the high court he won't leave the city with his life?......I'm not joking btw, assasination is a very serious threat for him given circumstances.....

by **stmichael** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:54 pm

just on a sidenote, does anyone know anymore about where this rival bid came from? was it from the far east?

by **supersub** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:54 pm

lakes10 wrote:what hicks is asking the court to do is to block the sale of the club by person no longer at the club, in a clever way he has set up a new board at liverpool, as owner he has the right to do this.......sort of.

he will ask the club to be frozen untill the 23rd nov, giving him time to get a new loan (looks like with citibank) to pay rbs off.

its danger all the way.

and the source being .......welsh wizard !

by **Benny The Noon** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:55 pm

Hicks latest statement is that he gave no assurances to Broughton and he certainly didn't give only him the power to change the board - hicks is getting desperate - if Broughton has the contract and the terms of the board were changed then Hicks is really trying to scrape the barrel

by **stmichael** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:55 pm

supersub wrote: and the source being .......welsh wizard !

by **Benny The Noon** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:56 pm

stmichael wrote:just on a sidenote, does anyone know anymore about where this rival bid came from? was it from the far east?

Consortium led by a Singapore billionaire

by **boodiddy1** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:58 pm

Lakes mates at ML are now saying its 50-50! Priceless you lad. 1080 pages of nonesense and most of it from you. As for hicks arguing that Forbes values it at 800m! If that was the case, then why would all the bidders be so close with their evaluations after so much due diligence?

He's desperate for sure. Almost as desperate as Lakes is to get something right before this topic is closed next week.

by **Homebooby** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:58 pm

Ciggy wrote:Well it gets even more interesting Financial Experts on SSN then NESV will buy the debt off RBS if Hicks tries to block the sale, then he will have to deal with them instead of the banks and they will pull the rug from under him.

Barclays owner Bob Diamond told NESV to buy us.

I think the whole thing is equivalent to being down to 1 pawn and moving around the board whilst being stalked by a queen, knight and a couple of rooks...there's only so many moves left until checkmate. That's why Broughton is speaking publicly too...adds even more impact and he must be certain of success else he'll look like a pr1ck too.

Sad that we should be deriving any sense of pleasure out of the whole debacle really, but at the same time it sure beats seeing those 2 walking away without a loss, or worse still a profit.

We've suffered but I think we'll recover and the brand/image/legend will live on. Hopefully those 2 will never come back from this.

by **Reg** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:02 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Hicks latest statement is that he gave no assurances to Broughton and he certainly didn't give only him the power to change the board - hicks is getting desperate - if Broughton has the contract and the terms of the board were changed then Hicks is really trying to scrape the barrel

MB said it is documented with RBS as a condition of the commitment to sell the club. Only the chairman can change the board.

This will boil down to what is a fair valuation of the club, either a realistic value based on the recession, lack of buyers and brand damage associated with T&T's ownership, or the valuation Hicks is clinging to from a 2008 copy of 'The Beano'.

by **Reg** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:09 pm

Fauxy wrote:For people worrying about weather John Henry is rich enough to give us big transfer budgets etc, he is worth $800 Million or so.

Not a lot. But we have to remember that he is the head owner of the New England Sports Ventures consortium which is buying us. And that is worth billions. So we will be debt free and have an owner with a lot of money. This guy isnt afraid to spend a lot of money either.

JH has made it abundantly clear he is fully focused on his baseball franchise (if thats what it is, I honestly dont know, nor care to know) and that NESV as a consortium vehicle has bought LFC so, whilst its nice to know that JH can pay his bills, its the commitment of NESV that we need to latch onto, not him as an individual.

Now then (here we go...) no one from NESV nor LFC has indicated what was contained within their 5 year plan for the club that had to be submitted to LFC as part of the bid document nor what guarantees were contained to ensure the (potential) lying, thieving and corrupt barstools keep to it and dont whack the purchase price back onto us as debt for example or charge us another 60 million for a non existant stadium!

We need to get into the mentality now of 'ok what went wrong with T&T and how to do avoid it this time round?'.

Early days amigos, early days.

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:13 pm

Here they are again in the articals of the club , anyone can access them in companies house .

Look what it clearly states in artical 81a , .

Appointment and Retirement of Directors

81. (a) Each director appointed to the office of chairman of the board of directors of the Company may appoint any person as director of the Company and may remove and director (other than George N. Gillett Jnr and/or Thomas O Hicks). Any appointment or removal shall be made in writing and signed by the then current chairman.
82. (a) No director shall vacate his office or be ineligible for re-appointment as a director nor shall be any person be ineligible for appointment as a director, by reason only of his having attained a particular age.
(b) No special notice is required of any resolution appointing or approving the appointment of such a director nor is any notice required to state the age of the person to whom the resolution relates.

REMOVAL AND DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORS
83 The office of a director shall be vacated if
(a) he ceases to be a director by virtue of any provision of the Act or he becomes prohibited by law from being a director, or
(b) he becomes bankrupt or makes any arrangement or composition with his creditors generally, or
© he is, or may be, suffering from mental disorder and either
(i) he is admitted to hospital m pursuance of an application for admission for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 or, in Scotland, an application for admission under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960, or
(ii) an order is made by a court having jurisdiction (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in matters concerning mental disorder for h is detention or for the appointment of a receiver, curator bonis or other person to exercise powers with respect to his property or affairs, or

(d) he resigns his office by notice to the Company, or
(e) he shall for more than six consecutive months have been absent without
permission of the directors from meetings of directors held during that
period and the directors resolve that his office be vacated, or
(f) he 1s subject to a decision of the Football Association that such director be
suspended from holding office or from taking part in any football activity
relating to the administration or management of a football club, or
(g) he 1s removed from office in accordance with article 81 above

by **Reg** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:13 pm

Homebooby wrote:
Ciggy wrote:Well it gets even more interesting Financial Experts on SSN then NESV will buy the debt off RBS if Hicks tries to block the sale, then he will have to deal with them instead of the banks and they will pull the rug from under him.

Barclays owner Bob Diamond told NESV to buy us.

I think the whole thing is equivalent to being down to 1 pawn and moving around the board whilst being stalked by a queen, knight and a couple of rooks...there's only so many moves left until checkmate. That's why Broughton is speaking publicly too...adds even more impact and he must be certain of success else he'll look like a pr1ck too.

Sad that we should be deriving any sense of pleasure out of the whole debacle really, but at the same time it sure beats seeing those 2 walking away without a loss, or worse still a profit.

We've suffered but I think we'll recover and the brand/image/legend will live on. Hopefully those 2 will never come back from this.

Good post mate however if T&T do lose 140 million then its the best possible start for the club to recover. New owners get in at bargain basement price and can start to invest real money in repairing the damage.

Fingers crossed Broughton pulls this off - its way over Parry's head !!

by **devaney** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:23 pm

red till i die!! wrote:
lakes10 wrote:what hicks is asking the court to do is to block the sale of the club by person no longer at the club, in a clever way he has set up a new board at liverpool, as owner he has the right to do this.......sort of.

he will ask the club to be frozen untill the 23rd nov, giving him time to get a new loan (looks like with citibank) to pay rbs off.

its danger all the way.

how do you know this lakes??
or are you speculating??

I hate to say this Lakes but you are way off the mark. The new board was put together at the insistence of RBS. I am virtually certain with a loan of this magnitude that RBS will have written numerous conditions into the loan contract to protect their interests and if Liverpool Football Club or Kop Holdings to not fulfil their obligations RBS will have the right to take action. Given that they failed in their obligations RBS insisted on a new board and the sale of LFC together with the effective removal of Hicks and Gillette. Unless Hicks and Gillette are prepared to utilise their own money to repay the debt they will not be allowed to change the board of directors to satisfy their own greed!

by **bigmick** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:44 pm

Lakes despite posting 569 times on here and making 487 predictions, you never once mentioned these lot as a possibility to the best of my knowledge. That's point one, my second point is that this new lot look OK to me. My third point is that I think the thing will go through, and Hicks and Gillette will get feck all, rightly so.

It finally only remains for me to say Mick was ere :buttrock

.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online