Liverpool FC Forum

by **supersub** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:52 pm

bigmick wrote:Since i didn't menton Rafa in my last post to many peoples disappointment, I will in this one. I say this in jest (mostly), but if Rafa were still the manager some people would have already claimed that he was setting the team out to play sh!t on purpose so as to lower the asking price .

The worst part about it is, you KNOW it's true.

funny you should say that, because an old codger said that on Radio Merseyside today

by **Thommo's perm** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:55 pm

supersub wrote:
bigmick wrote:Since i didn't menton Rafa in my last post to many peoples disappointment, I will in this one. I say this in jest (mostly), but if Rafa were still the manager some people would have already claimed that he was setting the team out to play sh!t on purpose so as to lower the asking price .

The worst part about it is, you KNOW it's true.

funny you should say that, because an old codger said that on Radio Merseyside today

Reg?

by **LFC2007** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:14 pm

Redman in wales wrote:
bavlondon wrote:Lakes I thought Hicks signed an agreement that he couldn't block any sale of the club? Isn't he in breach of that?

Hicks signed an agreement that he couldn't block any sale of the club... for a reasonable fee.

Thats the key. Hicks will claim / attempt to prove that the fee accepted by the board is not a reasonable amount. Hence what Ciggy's just written above

"The Board has no interest in selling the club at less than 50 percent of Forbes value. The court will decide"

He beleives he CAN block the sale if the judge agrees that that £300m is considerably less than the club is presently worth

Yes, this seems to be the key issue and it's a judgment call. The board issue is a technical point, that even if proven in favour of Broughton, wouldn't appear to be enough to validate the sale.

The only objective basis for establishing whether the sale is a reasonable one is to ask whether it reflects market value, and whether it's in the best interests of the club. The only way to establish whether the bid reflects market value is to ask whether there was enough opportunity to achieve market value. Six months and a timetable, as much press coverage as you could imagine, a team at BARCAP dedicated to the search and a major figurehead of British business employed to oversee the whole process. Any interested party was aware of and had the opportunity to bid. What Hicks means is that it didn't meet his valuation which was a galaxy apart from the market value.

by **Dundalk** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:16 pm

Whod have known we would need a masters in banking and law to follow Liverpool Football Club

by **Number 9** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:42 pm

Dundalk wrote:Whod have known we would need a masters in banking and law to follow Liverpool Football Club

Its a whole fuc'k up isn't DD!

We need rubbed out and drew again....it's just a mess! :no

by **bigmick** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:46 pm

As for the fee being "reasonable", well the clubs been on the market for a couple of years and it's the best offer we've had so therefore surely it must be "reasonable"? If Hicks had 250 mill in his back pocket he could wait until the market picks up, but he hasn't so feck him. He who lives by the sword etc etc.

by **Reg** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:55 pm

Thommo's perm wrote:
supersub wrote:
bigmick wrote:Since i didn't menton Rafa in my last post to many peoples disappointment, I will in this one. I say this in jest (mostly), but if Rafa were still the manager some people would have already claimed that he was setting the team out to play sh!t on purpose so as to lower the asking price .

The worst part about it is, you KNOW it's true.

funny you should say that, because an old codger said that on Radio Merseyside today

Reg?

Cheeky sod!

I'll have you know I'm young enough to be Nan's fancy boy!

by **roberto green** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:55 pm

Dundalk wrote:Whod have known we would need a masters in banking and law to follow Liverpool Football Club

I know I was explaining to someone in work today who doesn't know too much about football what it all means because he didn't understand how the owners could not have the say on who the club was sold too, I was there explaining and explaining about the situation, at one point I was very impressed (and so was the others in the canteen) of my in depth in knowledge of the financial goings on and the legal terms of it.

If only I paid that much attention when I was in school

by **Ciggy** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:02 pm

bigmick wrote:As for the fee being "reasonable", well the clubs been on the market for a couple of years and it's the best offer we've had so therefore surely it must be "reasonable"? If Hicks had 250 mill in his back pocket he could wait until the market picks up, but he hasn't so feck him. He who lives by the sword etc etc.

The feckin idiots turned down 500 million for DIC two years ago. Bet they wish they would have taken that offer now, and theres probably a lot of other bids hiigher than 300 million that they have turned down.

He can mouth off all he wants about Forbes's valuation but as The Dragon would say "How much money has forbes put in?"

by **Reg** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 pm

bigmick wrote:As for the fee being "reasonable", well the clubs been on the market for a couple of years and it's the best offer we've had so therefore surely it must be "reasonable"? If Hicks had 250 mill in his back pocket he could wait until the market picks up, but he hasn't so feck him. He who lives by the sword etc etc.

I'd focus on the recession, the high working capital requirements of a football club and the need to raise capital for the new stadium, combined economic/bank liquidity issues -all the things that killed off T&T to show the fee is 'realistic' as well as reasonable!

T&T will ignore all that and solely focus on the claim they have 'added value' through improved marketing and sponsership deals.

Must say its asking a lot that the value of the club is less than 140 million less than they've pumped in... until you pick the accounts to pieces and show how they stole 60 million for a fake stadium and milked us for exorbitant interest on dodgy loans.

The judge will be no fool, Broughton is a very capable businessman and I pray T&T's memory will be shredded along with their worthless lawsuit.

PS: How come it took these tw@ts 2 days to get into a courtroom yet took me 3 years when I sued the council? :blush:

by **sixbuster** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:17 pm

Reg wrote:
bigmick wrote:As for the fee being "reasonable", well the clubs been on the market for a couple of years and it's the best offer we've had so therefore surely it must be "reasonable"? If Hicks had 250 mill in his back pocket he could wait until the market picks up, but he hasn't so feck him. He who lives by the sword etc etc.

I'd focus on the recession, the high working capital requirements of a football club and the need to raise capital for the new stadium, combined economic/bank liquidity issues -all the things that killed off T&T to show the fee is 'realistic' as well as reasonable!

T&T will ignore all that and solely focus on the claim they have 'added value' through improved marketing and sponsership deals.

Must say its asking a lot that the value of the club is less than 140 million less than they've pumped in... until you pick the accounts to pieces and show how they stole 60 million for a fake stadium and milked us for exorbitant interest on dodgy loans.

The judge will be no fool, Broughton is a very capable businessman and I pray T&T's memory will be shredded along with their worthless lawsuit.

PS: How come it took these tw@ts 2 days to get into a courtroom yet took me 3 years when I sued the council?

Something about commercial law where I think if over 1million is involved the case is fast tracked......and tahnk f... for that when you consider how the :censored:

could manipulate that

by **burjennio** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:18 pm

Im pretty sure that £140m is in borrowed money too. How much have these f*ckers actually taken out of their own pockets and put into the club?

by **yellsub66** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:35 pm

As there is a very important court hearing taking place next week in London...does anyone think it is possible that the scumbag Hicks will be in attendance???

Maybe a number of Liverpool fans that live in the capital could go along and hurl abuse/eggs/red paint/ :censored:

/bricks* (*delete as appropriate) in the direction of Hicks as he arrives at the court. It would be worth it just to see the look on his face when it dawns on him he has lost £140 million!!

Just a thought!!

by **metalhead** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:45 pm

so its tomorrow or next week?

by **Number 9** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:52 pm

yellsub66 wrote:As there is a very important court hearing taking place next week in London...does anyone think it is possible that the scumbag Hicks will be in attendance???

Maybe a number of Liverpool fans that live in the capital could go along and hurl abuse/eggs/red paint/ /bricks* (*delete as appropriate) in the direction of Hicks as he arrives at the court. It would be worth it just to see the look on his face when it dawns on him he has lost £140 million!!

Just a thought!!

He won't be near it......ain't got the balls!

Too afraid of Nan beating him to death with her walking stick!!

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online