TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!
by zarababe » Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:38 am
NANNY RED wrote:sITTING HERE BINGE EATING IVE JUST HAD 2 skicesof warburtins toast and now in binging on abig bag of Areo bubbles an a big glassof ive cold coke ,because me a,rse has gone ive took of one me sleeing tablets , maybe itll syop me bindgin worry buy at least i might get some kip. anoter ares gone in ,, ill be away with thr fairies in a minute hopefully
Anno how ya feel girl.. i have and ealry moning meeting and one going on till past 5pm to look forward.. and I still can't sleep..
THE BRENDAN REVOLUTION IS UPON US !
KING KENNY.. Always LEGEND !
RAFA.. MADE THE PEOPLE HAPPY !
Miss YOU Phil-Drummer - RIP YNWA
KING KENNY.. Always LEGEND !
RAFA.. MADE THE PEOPLE HAPPY !
Miss YOU Phil-Drummer - RIP YNWA
-
zarababe - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 11731
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 1:54 pm
- Location: London
by zarababe » Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:49 am
lakes10 wrote:zarababe wrote:No - RBS are seeking a ruling on the continutaion of Broughton as Chairman and existing Board.
The LFC element is declartory, on discharging their responsibility for the sale of LFC by finding the best deal for liverpool - not the highest bidder - Broughton and Purslow have been clear, that they wanted sutainability for the club, not necessariy the biggest offer.
Given the broken promises of the Hicks & Co etc, the sustainability element was a clear remit of the chairman, in discharging his responsibility. If as seems to be the case, Hicks had no power to 'sack' the board in the first place- than the current board's decision stands to sell to NEVS. Any woodbe deal scupperers, can not be shoved into the equation that easily, since pre-court docs have been signed with NEVS.
but any pre-court docs will count for nothing if the court rules that Hicks has the power to sack his own board.
"Meanwhile, Royal Bank of Scotland announced on Monday afternoon that it had obtained an injuction to prevent Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett from sacking Martin Broughton or any other of the club's board members ahead of Tuesday's court case.
"
Yes.. an injunction on the premise that contractual written undertakings, that were given as part of the April deal, were breached.
Look , there are some big reputations on the line here, out in the public domain now - so I suggest 'us' LIVERPOOL SUPPORTERS have some faith in the powers that be, we all say a prayer or two and keep vigil.
We have the 'legal dream team' brought in to fight our corner, and they are dealing with a character whose track record is littered with broken promises, defaults and much much more nastier.
Believe !
THE BRENDAN REVOLUTION IS UPON US !
KING KENNY.. Always LEGEND !
RAFA.. MADE THE PEOPLE HAPPY !
Miss YOU Phil-Drummer - RIP YNWA
KING KENNY.. Always LEGEND !
RAFA.. MADE THE PEOPLE HAPPY !
Miss YOU Phil-Drummer - RIP YNWA
-
zarababe - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 11731
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 1:54 pm
- Location: London
by Trewyn » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:07 am
I've read some nonsense here, so just to clear up some myths and enlighten people on the Singaporean bidder Peter Lim
1) He is not Singapore's richest man. But he is immensely gifted with managing finances. He made his money from scratch trading stocks. (He was once as poor as you and I) IMHO he is just as good a longterm prospect like NESV for the fact that majority of his money is parked in a renewable resource and future green energy source. Some of the food you eat now has palm oil in it and he owns one of the world's biggest palm oil plantations. Basically, the money flows in regularly.
2) I seriously doubt he is in cahoots with Twit &
LoL. If anyone is to be in cahoots, it should be NESV cuz they are in the same industry as the 2 ideots.
3) I also doubt he's a cutthroat businessman based on reports of him in the local papers I've read through the years. I mean of course all businessmen are brutal, including NESV, just not the way some of you describe.
4) I believe it was just an innocent raising the bid to obtain a precious resource.. that is Liverpool FC. It's a typical auction right now.
The positives:
Proven track record at managing money and making it grow.
Proven 'spend $ to earn $' attitude.
Not the richest out there but money flows in regularly from business diversification... i.e. What if NESV's Boston Red Sox fails?
Ability to open the Asian market. Not only China but other parts of Asia as well... i.e. the over 200m population in Indonesia who are fanatical football supporters.
It is HIS money, not borrowed or leveraged on any company/consortium.
If $$ is not enough, he can bring in other billionaires easily.
The negatives:
Most importantly, protracting the sales of Liverpool, bringing us closer to the date of administration.
No experience in managing a sports entity.
The parallels:
Once upon a time, an American 'proven' sports investor was chosen over an Asian oil billionaire
The rest as we know, is history.
I personally feel that either one is OK fit & proper, NESV or Peter Lim. As long as we get sold soon and not get any points deducted IF it really stretches to adminstration date.
Added: At the end of the day, it should be a win-win situation for our club. If for any reason NESV drops, you can be assured of another decent owner waiting in the wings.
1) He is not Singapore's richest man. But he is immensely gifted with managing finances. He made his money from scratch trading stocks. (He was once as poor as you and I) IMHO he is just as good a longterm prospect like NESV for the fact that majority of his money is parked in a renewable resource and future green energy source. Some of the food you eat now has palm oil in it and he owns one of the world's biggest palm oil plantations. Basically, the money flows in regularly.
2) I seriously doubt he is in cahoots with Twit &
LoL. If anyone is to be in cahoots, it should be NESV cuz they are in the same industry as the 2 ideots.3) I also doubt he's a cutthroat businessman based on reports of him in the local papers I've read through the years. I mean of course all businessmen are brutal, including NESV, just not the way some of you describe.
4) I believe it was just an innocent raising the bid to obtain a precious resource.. that is Liverpool FC. It's a typical auction right now.
The positives:
Proven track record at managing money and making it grow.
Proven 'spend $ to earn $' attitude.
Not the richest out there but money flows in regularly from business diversification... i.e. What if NESV's Boston Red Sox fails?
Ability to open the Asian market. Not only China but other parts of Asia as well... i.e. the over 200m population in Indonesia who are fanatical football supporters.
It is HIS money, not borrowed or leveraged on any company/consortium.
If $$ is not enough, he can bring in other billionaires easily.
The negatives:
Most importantly, protracting the sales of Liverpool, bringing us closer to the date of administration.
No experience in managing a sports entity.
The parallels:
Once upon a time, an American 'proven' sports investor was chosen over an Asian oil billionaire
The rest as we know, is history.
I personally feel that either one is OK fit & proper, NESV or Peter Lim. As long as we get sold soon and not get any points deducted IF it really stretches to adminstration date.
Added: At the end of the day, it should be a win-win situation for our club. If for any reason NESV drops, you can be assured of another decent owner waiting in the wings.
- Trewyn
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:25 am
- Location: Singapore
by Rush Job » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:12 am
NANNY RED wrote:And Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, stop trying to make yourselves out to be heroes saving our club, when you've spouted nearly as much shi.te as the other two. Fu.ck off.
Their just following the remit they came to the club with and having hit every hurdle so far they are desperate to save face and be seen as the clubs saviours when in actual fact they have all played their part in our fall from grace and are only now at the very death doing what they are paid God knows what for, after all these months.
Dont judge a book by the cover, unless you cover just another, because blind exceptance is a sign,
Of stupid fools who stand in line...... Like..
Of stupid fools who stand in line...... Like..
-
Rush Job - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:38 am
by zarababe » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:12 am
Interesting article in the independent:
Battle for Liverpool reaches High Court as rival bidder re-enters fray -By Ian Herbert
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
The battle for control of Liverpool continues
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) will launch the High Court battle with Liverpool's American owners this morning, which the bank believes will release the club to a takeover by New England Sports Ventures (NESV).
It had been expected that Liverpool's executive chairman Martin Broughton would head into court to seek a declaratory hearing on the legality of the board's decision, last Tuesday, to accept the £300m bid for the club tabled by NESV, owners of the Boston Red Sox. But it was the RBS name which appeared on the court schedule yesterday and it is the bank which will first attempt to demonstrate that Hicks and Gillett have been in breach of contract by removing members of the Liverpool board to block the sale. There is some hope in the Broughton camp that if Mr Justice Floyd rules in favour of RBS, in Court 18 at the Royal Courts of Justice, then Broughton will not need to bring a similar case for Liverpool. But two parallel cases may be waged by bank and club this week in a final, all-out effort to force the Americans out.
The picture was further complicated last night when it was revealed that the rival Asian bid which NESV narrowly edged out last week came from Singapore's eighth wealthiest man, billionaire Peter Lim, who is ready to improve his offer. Lim launched an eleventh-hour blizzard of publicity in a bid to get his own bid back under consideration, claiming he had been so confident of taking over at Anfield that he had discussed with Broughton how he might make a triumphal announcement. He had then learnt by text that his bid had failed, only hours before NESV was announced the winner.
In what appears to be an attempt to capitalise on the legal uncertainties, Lim suggested he was ready to provide only cash and no borrowings to buy Liverpool – though NESV's own bid will see the transfer of £240m from their own balance sheet and leave only Liverpool's existing credit facility as borrowings. Lim, who has limited expertise in running sports franchises, does not seem to have a materially better bid. His emergence is of no consequence if RBS win today's case, since Broughton considers the NESV deal completed if its legality can be proved.
That hinges on the Americans' undertakings, which Broughton has said have been written into Liverpool's articles of association, to cede to him the power to make boardroom changes and not to impede the sale of the club. But while article 81c of Liverpool FC's articles has been amended to allow only Broughton to change directors, article 7a of Kop Holdings – the holding company which approved the NESV deal – suggests Hicks and Gillett have the power to do so. That could mean the Americans' attempt to suspend managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre, and imposing two new American directors to block the sale, might be valid.
This apparent contradiction may cause Broughton problems in court if he launches a case separate to RBS's, though when pressed on the undertakings issue by The Independent last week, Broughton said that Hicks and Gillett had "signed them and made them to RBS as a condition of the lending extension" which gave them a six-month extension on the terms of their £237m loan facility.
RBS yesterday revealed that they secured an interim injunction on Friday, preventing Hicks and Gillett from also removing Broughton from his position. Today's proceedings are a continuation of that process – but relate to the "breach of contract" the bank alleges the Americans made by ousting board members.
In Mr Justice Floyd, a patent and trademark specialist, they encounter a stickler for detail who will not tolerate hours of legal obfuscation in this case. Today's hearing, in which the Americans are expected to be represented by the Peters & Peter firm, may not elicit a firm result. But success for RBS, who are represented by Freshfields solicitors, would prevent the bank calling in its loans when they fall due on Friday.
RBS is by no means set on that course of action, which could see the club being docked nine points, even if its case fails. Bloomberg revealed yesterday that the Americans are technically already in default of monies owed to RBS and the Wells Fargo bank, which means RBS could have foreclosed already if they were inclined to do so.
Lim believes the uncertainty keeps his own hopes of a buy-out alive. But while NESV's experience in running a major sports franchise was a significant reason for Broughton accepting them, Lim's own sporting track record seems confined to running a series of Manchester United-themed bars across Asia and a major donation to the Singapore Olympic Foundation to help develop young athletes. The 57-year-old retired from stockbroking during a high-profile and expensive divorce over a decade ago.
The case explained
* Who faces whom in Court 18 of the Courts of Justice today? Royal Bank of Scotland, which loaned Tom Hicks and George Gillett £200m, and is represented by Freshfields solicitors, will face down the two Americans, seeking to prove that they were granted a time extension on the loan on condition they didn't sack any board members to halt a sale.
* Could the case be wrapped up today? Unlikely. RBS has already secured an injunction preventing the Americans removing executive chairman Broughton, but it may take several more hearings before the NESV sale is proved legal.
* What is the RBS case? That it has written proof that Hicks and Gillett ceded the right to sack Liverpool directors to prevent a sale, as happened last week.
* And the Americans? They'll say they sacked directors to fulfil their right to get the best price possible for the club.
* Is Peter Lim's emergence significant?
Only if RBS – and Liverpool, who are expected to bring similar proceedings against the Americans – loses its case. If that happens, it might be a free-for-all and Lim might re-enter the bidding.
* Will NESV be in court?
It will have representatives. The prospect of administration and a Premier League points deduction has unsettled the firm.
Battle for Liverpool reaches High Court as rival bidder re-enters fray -By Ian Herbert
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
The battle for control of Liverpool continues
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) will launch the High Court battle with Liverpool's American owners this morning, which the bank believes will release the club to a takeover by New England Sports Ventures (NESV).
It had been expected that Liverpool's executive chairman Martin Broughton would head into court to seek a declaratory hearing on the legality of the board's decision, last Tuesday, to accept the £300m bid for the club tabled by NESV, owners of the Boston Red Sox. But it was the RBS name which appeared on the court schedule yesterday and it is the bank which will first attempt to demonstrate that Hicks and Gillett have been in breach of contract by removing members of the Liverpool board to block the sale. There is some hope in the Broughton camp that if Mr Justice Floyd rules in favour of RBS, in Court 18 at the Royal Courts of Justice, then Broughton will not need to bring a similar case for Liverpool. But two parallel cases may be waged by bank and club this week in a final, all-out effort to force the Americans out.
The picture was further complicated last night when it was revealed that the rival Asian bid which NESV narrowly edged out last week came from Singapore's eighth wealthiest man, billionaire Peter Lim, who is ready to improve his offer. Lim launched an eleventh-hour blizzard of publicity in a bid to get his own bid back under consideration, claiming he had been so confident of taking over at Anfield that he had discussed with Broughton how he might make a triumphal announcement. He had then learnt by text that his bid had failed, only hours before NESV was announced the winner.
In what appears to be an attempt to capitalise on the legal uncertainties, Lim suggested he was ready to provide only cash and no borrowings to buy Liverpool – though NESV's own bid will see the transfer of £240m from their own balance sheet and leave only Liverpool's existing credit facility as borrowings. Lim, who has limited expertise in running sports franchises, does not seem to have a materially better bid. His emergence is of no consequence if RBS win today's case, since Broughton considers the NESV deal completed if its legality can be proved.
That hinges on the Americans' undertakings, which Broughton has said have been written into Liverpool's articles of association, to cede to him the power to make boardroom changes and not to impede the sale of the club. But while article 81c of Liverpool FC's articles has been amended to allow only Broughton to change directors, article 7a of Kop Holdings – the holding company which approved the NESV deal – suggests Hicks and Gillett have the power to do so. That could mean the Americans' attempt to suspend managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre, and imposing two new American directors to block the sale, might be valid.
This apparent contradiction may cause Broughton problems in court if he launches a case separate to RBS's, though when pressed on the undertakings issue by The Independent last week, Broughton said that Hicks and Gillett had "signed them and made them to RBS as a condition of the lending extension" which gave them a six-month extension on the terms of their £237m loan facility.
RBS yesterday revealed that they secured an interim injunction on Friday, preventing Hicks and Gillett from also removing Broughton from his position. Today's proceedings are a continuation of that process – but relate to the "breach of contract" the bank alleges the Americans made by ousting board members.
In Mr Justice Floyd, a patent and trademark specialist, they encounter a stickler for detail who will not tolerate hours of legal obfuscation in this case. Today's hearing, in which the Americans are expected to be represented by the Peters & Peter firm, may not elicit a firm result. But success for RBS, who are represented by Freshfields solicitors, would prevent the bank calling in its loans when they fall due on Friday.
RBS is by no means set on that course of action, which could see the club being docked nine points, even if its case fails. Bloomberg revealed yesterday that the Americans are technically already in default of monies owed to RBS and the Wells Fargo bank, which means RBS could have foreclosed already if they were inclined to do so.
Lim believes the uncertainty keeps his own hopes of a buy-out alive. But while NESV's experience in running a major sports franchise was a significant reason for Broughton accepting them, Lim's own sporting track record seems confined to running a series of Manchester United-themed bars across Asia and a major donation to the Singapore Olympic Foundation to help develop young athletes. The 57-year-old retired from stockbroking during a high-profile and expensive divorce over a decade ago.
The case explained
* Who faces whom in Court 18 of the Courts of Justice today? Royal Bank of Scotland, which loaned Tom Hicks and George Gillett £200m, and is represented by Freshfields solicitors, will face down the two Americans, seeking to prove that they were granted a time extension on the loan on condition they didn't sack any board members to halt a sale.
* Could the case be wrapped up today? Unlikely. RBS has already secured an injunction preventing the Americans removing executive chairman Broughton, but it may take several more hearings before the NESV sale is proved legal.
* What is the RBS case? That it has written proof that Hicks and Gillett ceded the right to sack Liverpool directors to prevent a sale, as happened last week.
* And the Americans? They'll say they sacked directors to fulfil their right to get the best price possible for the club.
* Is Peter Lim's emergence significant?
Only if RBS – and Liverpool, who are expected to bring similar proceedings against the Americans – loses its case. If that happens, it might be a free-for-all and Lim might re-enter the bidding.
* Will NESV be in court?
It will have representatives. The prospect of administration and a Premier League points deduction has unsettled the firm.
THE BRENDAN REVOLUTION IS UPON US !
KING KENNY.. Always LEGEND !
RAFA.. MADE THE PEOPLE HAPPY !
Miss YOU Phil-Drummer - RIP YNWA
KING KENNY.. Always LEGEND !
RAFA.. MADE THE PEOPLE HAPPY !
Miss YOU Phil-Drummer - RIP YNWA
-
zarababe - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 11731
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 1:54 pm
- Location: London
by Kharhaz » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:22 am
Rush Job wrote:NANNY RED wrote:And Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, stop trying to make yourselves out to be heroes saving our club, when you've spouted nearly as much shi.te as the other two. Fu.ck off.
Their just following the remit they came to the club with and having hit every hurdle so far they are desperate to save face and be seen as the clubs saviours when in actual fact they have all played their part in our fall from grace and are only now at the very death doing what they are paid God knows what for, after all these months.
I would agree, but by agreeing, I would also be condemning all of what the SoS have done and its members. As in hands being tied and all, the best of a bad situation.
desperate to save face? yeah, thats why they got involved.
Dear me...
Look at what is going on, the club can be saved, and the selfish, yank immigrants who have no consideration for any living being, are willing to drag this great club to all depths lower than hell to reap their own reward, and yet the people who are willing to find a way to save this club are being regarded as people who "want to save face".
THIS is why yesterday, we had the best supporters.
Bill Shankly: “I was the best manager in Britain because I was never devious or cheated anyone. I’d break my wife’s legs if I played against her, but I’d never cheat her.”
-
Kharhaz - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 6380
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:18 am
by RED BEERGOGGLES » Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:08 am
I cant sleep ...cant think straight ...cant concentrate ...might go for a drive
havent smoked for 6 years now and I could fucking murder a pack right now
havent smoked for 6 years now and I could fucking murder a pack right now
-
RED BEERGOGGLES - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8297
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Liverpool
by RED BEERGOGGLES » Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:18 am
Last edited by RED BEERGOGGLES on Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
RED BEERGOGGLES - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8297
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Liverpool
by RED BEERGOGGLES » Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:26 am
Courtesy of the Echo
THE first phase of the huge legal battle that will determine Liverpool FC’s future will begin tomorrow.
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is taking its case to the High Court for an application hearing in the Chancery Division. Read their statement in full by clicking here.
Today, the ECHO has learnt this is NOT the declaratory judgement, which the Reds are seeking, that they acted validly by approving the £300m sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures.
And we can reveal how RBS successfully took out an interim injunction on Friday to stop co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett attempting to make any further changes at Anfield.
Tomorrow’s hearing was expected to list Liverpool Football Club among the interested parties.
But the case brought by Reds chairman Martin Broughton is now expected to take place later in the week.
This separate but related matter is listed at London’s High Court as ‘The Royal Bank of Scotland vs Hicks and others.’
Lawyers for the RBS are set to argue that Hicks and Gillett acted in breach of the written undertakings agreed at the last refinancing round, in April.
The bank's barristers are understood to be insisting the co-owners' move - to remove Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre from the board at last Tuesday’s explosive meeting and replace them with Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutcheon - was invalid.
Judge Mr Justice Floyd will hear representations from RBS demanding the board is reconstituted in its previous form, with the three Englishmen sitting alongside Hicks and Gillett.
If it is reconstituted, the £300m sale of the club to NESV will effectively go through as the old board had already approved it.
Liverpool FC are currently mired in a no-man’s land with both Broughton and his team, and the co-owners reaffirming their wholly different beliefs that their different reconfigurations of the board are correct and valid.
Last week, the Anfield board accepted the sale of the club to the owner of the Boston Red Sox John Henry and his 17-strong sports consortium.
It was voted through on a three-to-two majority, but that was rejected by Hicks and Gillett as they considered £300m too low an offer and described Broughton’s action was unlawful.
The former British Airways boss, however, maintains an agreement was reached earlier in spring that only he could reconstitute the board and the Americans were not allowed to frustrate any sale.
THE first phase of the huge legal battle that will determine Liverpool FC’s future will begin tomorrow.
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is taking its case to the High Court for an application hearing in the Chancery Division. Read their statement in full by clicking here.
Today, the ECHO has learnt this is NOT the declaratory judgement, which the Reds are seeking, that they acted validly by approving the £300m sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures.
And we can reveal how RBS successfully took out an interim injunction on Friday to stop co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett attempting to make any further changes at Anfield.
Tomorrow’s hearing was expected to list Liverpool Football Club among the interested parties.
But the case brought by Reds chairman Martin Broughton is now expected to take place later in the week.
This separate but related matter is listed at London’s High Court as ‘The Royal Bank of Scotland vs Hicks and others.’
Lawyers for the RBS are set to argue that Hicks and Gillett acted in breach of the written undertakings agreed at the last refinancing round, in April.
The bank's barristers are understood to be insisting the co-owners' move - to remove Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre from the board at last Tuesday’s explosive meeting and replace them with Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutcheon - was invalid.
Judge Mr Justice Floyd will hear representations from RBS demanding the board is reconstituted in its previous form, with the three Englishmen sitting alongside Hicks and Gillett.
If it is reconstituted, the £300m sale of the club to NESV will effectively go through as the old board had already approved it.
Liverpool FC are currently mired in a no-man’s land with both Broughton and his team, and the co-owners reaffirming their wholly different beliefs that their different reconfigurations of the board are correct and valid.
Last week, the Anfield board accepted the sale of the club to the owner of the Boston Red Sox John Henry and his 17-strong sports consortium.
It was voted through on a three-to-two majority, but that was rejected by Hicks and Gillett as they considered £300m too low an offer and described Broughton’s action was unlawful.
The former British Airways boss, however, maintains an agreement was reached earlier in spring that only he could reconstitute the board and the Americans were not allowed to frustrate any sale.
-
RED BEERGOGGLES - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8297
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Liverpool
-
RED BEERGOGGLES - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8297
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Liverpool
by RED BEERGOGGLES » Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:35 am
NANNY RED wrote:god i cant sleep worried sick
Shitting a brick Kid
-
RED BEERGOGGLES - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8297
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Liverpool
Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- Takeover -on again? - Talk of takeover surfaces again
1, 2by daddyo » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:59 am - 26 Replies
- 3794 Views
- Last post by wrighty (not mark!)
Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:57 am
- Takeover -on again? - Talk of takeover surfaces again
-
- Another deal complete
1, 2
by A.B. » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:47 am
- 25 Replies
- 4797 Views
- Last post by Noise Noise
Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:35 pm
- Another deal complete
-
- What a complete toe-rag ! - Ronnie whelan..
1, 2by bunglemark2 » Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:41 pm - 16 Replies
- 3213 Views
- Last post by neil
Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:50 pm
- What a complete toe-rag ! - Ronnie whelan..
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 49 guests
-
- Advertisement