Liverpool FC Forum

by **jacdaniel** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:38 pm

2.32pm: From Sachin Nakranioutside court: Hicks claims that the sub-committee became so ingrained that the directors started to refer to it as the "home team" in emails between themselves. One of which was accidentally sent to the owners at start of last week. Hicks claims that he only breached sales agreement by trying to oust two board members because the sub committee was a breach of the sales agreement in itself.

by **lakes10** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:38 pm

dont like the way this is going, most of the press now think hicks has a very strong case.

by **metalhead** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:39 pm

How is it a breach of sales agreement?

by **Redman in wales** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:39 pm

paul_tomkins : Hicks has written letter to court claiming that no-one loves him, and he's been ignored in the playground. Or something

:laugh:

by **jacdaniel** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:40 pm

I don't see how any of Hicks' sh.it will hold up? He is basically trying to claim that he is a bullied schoolboy!

by **metalhead** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:42 pm

Redman in wales wrote:paul_tomkins : Hicks has written letter to court claiming that no-one loves him, and he's been ignored in the playground. Or something

F8kin hell that made me laugh :laugh:

by **jacdaniel** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:43 pm

Surely Hicks will lose this? He has openingly admitted to breaching contract and has now resorted to all this nonsense!

by **Redman in wales** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:44 pm

metalhead wrote:How is it a breach of sales agreement?

Paul Girolami QC, who is representing H&G, said his clients "were not trying to throw a spanner in the works" of the proposed sale deal. He argued there had been other offers for the club which potentially were better than the one from NESV. Opposing an immediate injunction, he said all the issues involved needed more time to determine and "should not be rushed into".

"What has happened is that the English directors have gone forward with the NESV bid without properly considering alternatives when those alternatives at least appear to give better prospects."

and:

sale agreement states that all alternative offers are properly considered by the board before an offer is accepted.

Their arguement is that the other bids were not properly considered therefore Broughton broke the sales agreement first BEFORE Hicks broke it

by **Steve Crooks** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:45 pm

lakes10 wrote:dont like the way this is going, most of the press now think hicks has a very strong case.

Why? Where? and what press quotes please..

by **metalhead** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:47 pm

Yeh, its a five member board, and democracy tells us that 3 out of 5 votes win! The board voted that the NESV is the right offer to the club, and the undertakings showed legal obligation to complete the sale.

Hicks is being a D!ck.

by **lakes10** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:48 pm

Redman in wales wrote:Their arguement is that the other bids were not properly considered therefore Broughton broke the sales agreement first BEFORE Hicks broke it

yes its a very strong point he is making and making it too well in my view.

we could be in the :censored:

here.

the best we can hope for is the court to give hicks and the board 24hr to sort the sale of the club out and then turn back up at court....but thats never going to hapen

by **Reg** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:48 pm

Steve Crooks wrote:
lakes10 wrote:dont like the way this is going, most of the press now think hicks has a very strong case.

Why? Where? and what press quotes please..

Come on lads.... you have to let the process run its course before speculating on the outcome.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:49 pm

metalhead wrote:How is it a breach of sales agreement?

alot depends on what Broughton's role is. if all that was needed was his consent, and that he was tasked to finding the best bidder, then there is no breach because he is giving an expert opinion on who he thinks is the best for us, otherwise why didnt H&G find the buyer themselves? because they couldnt due to their unreasonable valuations.

furthermore, NESV has a good reputation in sports unlike the other 2 bidders.

by **jacdaniel** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:49 pm

How was the Singapore deal not properly considered? Didn't they get approval from the PL and all that? Due Diligence etc

by **lakes10** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:49 pm

Steve Crooks wrote:
lakes10 wrote:dont like the way this is going, most of the press now think hicks has a very strong case.

Why? Where? and what press quotes please..

put the radio on mate.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online