Liverpool FC Forum

by **crim cram** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:41 pm

stmichael wrote:If I'm perfectly honest I still think the 9 point penalty is unlikely. Defaulting on the loan doesnt mean you are insolvent. RBS would need to specifically request to put us into administration. There's no need to put into administration an asset that is already under your control.

I was trying to make that point earlier, well put!

by **crim cram** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:18 pm

The Good Yank wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:Interesting baseball news these days but not about the Red Sox. The Texas Rangers are in the playoffs for the first time in 11 years and doing well. It seems that they are in the process of rising from the ashes left by another Tom Hicks scorched earth project. For someone so minted this cowboy is f.ucking clueless and everything he touches turns to absolute sh!te. If a 9-point deduction is the only way to get shot of this cancer at the end of the day, I'd take it. Short term pain for a massive long term gain.

In fairness, the Texas Rangers led their division from almost the start of the season and coasted the whole way. They didn't let the Bankruptcy, lawsuits and takeover affect them. And they didn't make any major player moves in the off season prior to this season. But the players didn't moan about it. The players did their jobs, play the game.

While agree the Rangers were on an upward trend, it wasn't until the new ownership got in that things were put in place to make a proper pennant run - they got Cliff Lee in a big trade over the Summer and without him wouldn't be in the post season.

One of the new owners is a former legend at the club Nolan Ryan, and puts winning first. I think the mentality of the ownership matters but the thing that's hard to compare is the fan pressure and reaction. In English Football the fans are more involved, more vocal and have more influence on decisions regarding the club. The players are more connected to the fans in England and football in general (as opposed to baseball), that has to affect the players somewhat. And you can't say Hicks ever had a winning mentality at Liverpool or in North America, he only wanted the "brand" to be successful enough to make him money.

by **Kopite25** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:25 pm

Everyone seems to have forgotten that West Hams holding company that Icelandic bank went into administration the other year and they wern't deducted 9 points.

Pompy were as the CLUB itself was insolvent

by **Reg** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:27 pm

We're going to 1,500 pages, no sweat. :;):

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:29 pm

stmichael wrote:here's what a sport's lawyer thinks about our available options:

http://link.brightcove.com/service....1911001

he is spot on. he mentioned performances of the squad effecting the price of the club which explains our disastrous season doesnt it? its definitely a possible reason.

traditionally, the courts will not be concerned with motives. Hicks' motive is to sell the club for a larger amount to what is being offered. but alot of weight will be placed on whether or not the undertaking that states the powers Broughton has been given is being violated by Hicks. if it is in black and white, with the signatures, then its in our favor. and i will not be surprised to see Broughton have backing from RBS and Barclay and even the FA in court. it appears to me that this has been planned for a long time now.

with regards to selling the club, Hicks rejected the invitation by Broughton to join in a meeting with regards to the sale. he hung up on the phone i think. his overall conduct of not just the past week, but the past 3 years will come under scrutiny - failing to clear debt time and time again, diggin on hole to bury another. believe me, Hicks will not win this case. he wants to delay the sale of the club so he can find a higher bidder but there is zero evidence of a higher bidder existing.

and in looking to dismiss Ayres and Purslow, the burden of proof in proving that there was a fair reason to dismiss them would be on Hicks. one of the errors committed by Hicks was that he failed to produce any warning letter, he failed to disclose reasons for termination and Ayres and Purslow are not being given the chance to "improve" on themselves. and there was not even sufficient notice either contrary to s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

the "sacking" which Hicks apparently conducted, i feel, is very unprofessional and will not be accepted by the courts. it should not. there is no basis other then to replace them with another 2 who would be working in Hick's favor.

.. there was another point raised, on whether or not the case should be heard in UK or USA. as far as i know, it will not be brought to the American courts.

by **Redman in wales** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:08 pm

Premier League rubber-stamp NESV's proposed takeover of LFC after passing directors and owners test

(bbc / Richard Buxton, Dan Roan, Paul Kelso on twitter)

by **Dundalk** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:08 pm

Paul Kelso

Premier League confirms NESV proposed directors pass owners and directors test

:buttrock

by **Reg** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:11 pm

Pretty hard to fail that test isnt it?

by **jono** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:13 pm

Premier League Statement - Liverpool FC
The Premier League has released a statement regarding the latest developments at Liverpool Football Club.

The Premier League has met with the owners and directors of New England Sports Ventures (NESV) regarding their proposed takeover of Liverpool FC and has received details, in accordance with Premier League Rules, of the proposed company and ownership structure as well as the make-up of the new Board.

The Premier League is satisfied, with the information provided, that the individuals NESV intend to put in place in the event they complete their takeover of Liverpool FC meet the criteria set out in our Owners' and Directors' Test.

The Board of the Premier League will continue working with Liverpool FC in regard to this process, however, we are aware that the formal completion of this takeover is yet to be resolved and it is therefore inappropriate for us to offer any further comment at this time.

by **crim cram** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:14 pm

Reg wrote:Pretty hard to fail that test isnt it?

If they didn't then all of the back story to their financial clout would have been rather bad journalism. Not that that doesn't happen, of course.

by **Dundalk** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:15 pm

Reg wrote:Pretty hard to fail that test isnt it?

wonder if Hicks and Gillett would still pass PL 'Owners and Directors' test

by **Ciggy** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:17 pm

Reg wrote:Pretty hard to fail that test isnt it?

by **Ciggy** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:23 pm

Gillett defaults on 75 million loan.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpo....?

by **lakes10** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:36 pm

Ciggy wrote:
Dundalk wrote:
Ciggy wrote:I have zero confidence of us not being relegated if this happens and he stays. seriously.

Ciggy cop on

Come on!

So you think we will survive if Roys stays and we are deducted 9 points? Be honest?

yes

by **lakes10** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:39 pm

Kopite25 wrote:Everyone seems to have forgotten that West Hams holding company that Icelandic bank went into administration the other year and they wern't deducted 9 points.

Pompy were as the CLUB itself was insolvent

west ham fell under the 24ht rule, the bank just shifted their account a bit.

we could still be made it to speed up the sale, but aslong as its none in under 24ht we will not get knock the 9 points.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online