Liverpool FC Forum

by **tubby** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:10 am

Did no one have a word with that 1 fella with the new kit reading the sun? :angry:

Idiot

by **red till i die!!** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:12 am

NANNY RED wrote:Batter the . , ive batterd him

http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/united-states/hicks

loved it,the fcker bleeds too :laugh:

.
sent it to loads of people.pretty cool :bowdown

by **Kharhaz** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:12 am

The one thing that the yanks have an advantage over, is our judges. How many times have we been screwed over by the justice system in favour of foreigners over what is right and wrong? We have the worst courts in the world, even Sadam Hussein wanted to be tried here because he knew he would have a chance of walking away.

by **Reg** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:28 am

Ciggy wrote:
dundreamin wrote:as in former posts i said dont worry. And tomorrow we are going to have our biggest win in London. The bad times are over. We are coming back. The wio tried to destroy us Will lose the good times are going to return. And as broughton said KEEP THE FAITH. Remember he,s a cheatski fan. But when this done and dusted he Will become a red. Remember AT THE END OF A STORM

Its not over yet lawsuits to follow http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport....ow.html

Agree with you dundreamin.

Despite any follow up lawsuits, possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Get thru this case and the yanks are on the backfoot. This is not 'American law' where you can sue anyone who farts, the British legal system will tell these feckers where to get off.

by **Reg** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:29 am

Kharhaz wrote:The one thing that the yanks have an advantage over, is our judges. How many times have we been screwed over by the justice system in favour of foreigners over what is right and wrong? We have the worst courts in the world, even Sadam Hussein wanted to be tried here because he knew he would have a chance of walking away.

Dont talk thru yer ar'se, its not becoming.

by **Kharhaz** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:39 am

Reg wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:The one thing that the yanks have an advantage over, is our judges. How many times have we been screwed over by the justice system in favour of foreigners over what is right and wrong? We have the worst courts in the world, even Sadam Hussein wanted to be tried here because he knew he would have a chance of walking away.

Dont talk thru yer ar'se, its not becoming.

I wish I was talking through my bum, however im not wrong. So many times I have seen the scummiest of human beings walk away from court with the law on their side. I hope I am proved wrong in this case, in fact, I will be bouncing of the ceiling, but I wont be surprised if H & G walk out with the sympathy of the courts.

by **Reg** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:46 am

Kharhaz wrote:
Reg wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:The one thing that the yanks have an advantage over, is our judges. How many times have we been screwed over by the justice system in favour of foreigners over what is right and wrong? We have the worst courts in the world, even Sadam Hussein wanted to be tried here because he knew he would have a chance of walking away.

Dont talk thru yer ar'se, its not becoming.

I wish I was talking through my bum, however im not wrong. So many times I have seen the scummiest of human beings walk away from court with the law on their side. I hope I am proved wrong in this case, in fact, I will be bouncing of the ceiling, but I wont be surprised if H & G walk out with the sympathy of the courts.

If the law is on their side then so be it, but I do not believe the law, or the sentiment of the law, is.

Lord Dunning once famously said 'the law is an :censored:

' however, for every occasion the law is an :censored:

, there are 1000 cases where it isnt.

British law has served the world well for hundreds of years (indeed Indian law for example is still closely based on English law) and will continue to do so becuaee we have the courage to differentiate right from wrong regardless of politics, influence or religion.

The yanks say 'in god we trust', fortunately we have English law which at the end of the day, is far greater.

by **Rush Job** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:46 am

Its not about opinion,its black and white. Is the board in its legal right or not? Yes or no? That why H&G are trying to confuse matters.
I dont usually have much faith in the courts but I think they`ll get this right. If this was being done in the US we`d be fked.

by **Reg** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:49 am

Rush Job wrote:Its not about opinion,its black and white. Is the board in its legal right or not? Yes or no? That why H&G are trying to confuse matters.
I dont usually have much faith in the courts but I think they`ll get this right. If this was being done in the US we`d be fked.

Quite right. Someone has misinterpreted the law and the judge has simplygot to read the articles of association of LFC and tell us who the pr@t is.

Theres no opinion involved, as you say its black and white. Literally.

by **Rush Job** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:58 am

Reg wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:
Reg wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:The one thing that the yanks have an advantage over, is our judges. How many times have we been screwed over by the justice system in favour of foreigners over what is right and wrong? We have the worst courts in the world, even Sadam Hussein wanted to be tried here because he knew he would have a chance of walking away.

Dont talk thru yer ar'se, its not becoming.

I wish I was talking through my bum, however im not wrong. So many times I have seen the scummiest of human beings walk away from court with the law on their side. I hope I am proved wrong in this case, in fact, I will be bouncing of the ceiling, but I wont be surprised if H & G walk out with the sympathy of the courts.

If the law is on their side then so be it, but I do not believe the law, or the sentiment of the law, is.

Lord Dunning once famously said 'the law is an ' however, for every occasion the law is an , there are 1000 cases where it isnt.

British law has served the world well for hundreds of years (indeed Indian law for example is still closely based on English law) and will continue to do so becuaee we have the courage to differentiate right from wrong regardless of politics, influence or religion.

The yanks say 'in god we trust', fortunately we have English law which at the end of the day, is far greater.

Blood hell I wouldnt go that far

This is admiralty law, law of the sea. Its not a civil matter.

by **Reg** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:19 am

Meant to say Lord Denning by the wy, not sure why my fingers mistyped that one........

Admiralty law? Its contract law isnt it?

by **laza** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:50 am

I'm think the skysports rpt which details breath taking arrogance of H and G admitting breaching their own contract is a good sign
Though I won't feel truly that we have past into day and out of grasp of dark lords of mordor until this thread's biggest contributor Lakes posts something optimistic

by **Ciggy** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:42 am

Why Liverpool's day in court was more like a descent into hell

By Oliver Holt

Published 23:02 12/10/10

. The lawyers in Court 16 at the Royal Courts of Justice sat squashed into five rows of nine seats.

Now and again, junior counsels weaved in, staggering under the weight of stacks of folders they carried in their arms.

They call them bundles and they piled them so high on the desks that the QCs could barely see over them until they rose to speak.

Claimants and defendants, applicants and respondents, squeezed in between them, blank and beaten down, staring up at the high vaulted ceiling, the leaded windows and the oak panelled walls.

Mr Justice Floyd came in at 10.30am sharp. He was dressed all in black with the happy exception of two strips of red cloth that dangled from his neck to his chest.

He disposed of the ordinary stuff first. The small fry filed out, allotted to another court, told to learn their fate elsewhere.

Lloyds TSB v Williams Gee Yeung Law was over in half an hour or so after a lot of talk about Hong Kong dollars and a mention of 'affidavits that are questionable in the extreme'.

And then it was the Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v Hicks and others. The main business of the day. The benches emptied a little.

The RBS counsel, Richard Snowden, stood up and began to talk. People passed yellow Post-it notes back and forth between the desks and whispered instructions or advice to each other.

Papers rustled, people fidgeted, opposing lawyers sniggered or shook their heads dismissively or exchanged knowing glances.

Paul Girolami, QC for Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett, interrupted almost every sentence he spoke with the words 'as it were'.

Lord Grabiner, QC for Liverpool, pronounced Gillett's name three different ways in the space of a couple of minutes which seemed to suggest he was hardly a student of the game.

And so the full glory of the law was visited upon Liverpool Football Club yesterday. It felt like a descent into Hell.

A place where usurers are the closest thing you can get to the good guys because the alternative is Hicks and Gillett.

A place where old barristers who charge £3,000 an hour, men dripping with cynicism and contempt for everyone around them, get cheap laughs by talking about a football club's civil war.

A place where Liverpool is cut open and its guts spread out before the court for these people to try to settle their petty disputes and claw back some of the millions they have lost because of their greed.

That's why it felt like hell in Court 16 yesterday. Because it felt as far away from the passion and the glory and the spontaneity of Anfield as it is possible to be.

It felt wrong that Liverpool should have been dragged here to this sinister, eerie place that has hardly changed since Charles Dickens set part of Bleak House here.

It is a place of clandestine conversations in hidden alcoves, of heaving sobs, of deceptions exposed, of Gothic creepiness and grand designs sent tumbling to earth.

It is a place of verbal contortions and extended hopelessness and frustration. RBS v Hicks is scheduled to finish today but there were times yesterday when it felt as convoluted and depressing as Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

"There are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce, in despair, blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane," Dickens wrote in Bleak House, "but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless."

The Hicks-Gillett saga has started to feel like that, too. Perenially hopeless. Endlessly depressing. Brutally poignant. Maddeningly frustrating.

The Liverpool fans who stood in their Liverpool shirts with their arms folded high in the gallery, above the court, above all that detritus, must have felt like that.

They must have stared down on that scene, that depressing scene of yet more men making yet more money out of their club, and wondered how it had come to this.

How had a great club like Liverpool, one of the greatest, proudest, classiest clubs in the rich history of English football, been brought so low?

How had it been dragged so far from what it once stood for that it was being argued over by a group of men who care nothing for it in the High Court in London?

When the Liverpool fans left the gallery at the end of the day, still not knowing the club's fate, they walked past a notice written on a white arrow.

"Andre v Price, Court 14," it said. Court 14 or Court 16. Flick a coin for which was the bleaker house.

Read more: [url=http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/oliver-holt/Oliver-Holt-column-Why-Liverpools-day-in-court-was-more-like-a-descent-into-hell-plus-Didi
-Hamann-has-still-got-it-article599689.html#ixzz12DMyAuSB]http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion....DMyAuSB[/url]
Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here

by **Thewaykokid** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:56 am

what time will the ruling be made?

by **Ciggy** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:10 am

Thewaykokid wrote:what time will the ruling be made?

It starts at 10.a.m.

Hicks has no interest in Lims, NESV or anyone elses bid, the only offer he is interested in is the Mill Financial one, because he gets to keep his greedy fat fingers in the pie. Read the bit in bold.

If he gets his way today our club is finished. Please do the right thing judge.

Liverpool left to wait as £300m sale hangs on court ruling today

Ashling O’Connor Sports News Correspondent - The Times
10 minutes ago

A High Court judge will decide today whether the Liverpool board can complete an agreed £300 million sale to the owner of the Boston Red Sox this week as rival bidders continue to circle the indebted club.

Mr Justice Floyd’s verdict on whether Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the American co-owners, breached a contract with Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) under the terms of their £237 million loan by trying to sack two club directors last week has immediate ramifications for the deal with New England Sports Ventures (NESV).

If he rules in favour of the board — led by Martin Broughton, the chairman, who argues that he has the authority to sell the club — it will usher in the new ownership under NESV by Friday, the day RBS is due repayment.

If he sides with Hicks and Gillett, whose counter-claim to an injunction taken out by RBS on Friday is that they were sidelined in the sale by the club’s three English directors, there will be a full trial set to extend into next week. That could result in the unravelling of the NESV deal and a claim for damages by the Boston-based company.

David Chivers, QC, for NESV, said the Liverpool board had an “obligation” to complete the deal by Friday, although the sale agreement technically expired on November 1. He also raised the prospect of a lawsuit by NESV that could amount to tens of millions of pounds if it lost its bargaining position.

A delay of the NESV deal could also prompt RBS to force a sale by other means, including putting the club into administration, which would mean a nine-point penalty being imposed on Liverpool by the Premier League.

Five hours of concentrated legal debate yesterday failed to clarify a confusing situation made even more unpredictable by two new bids for the club. Peter Lim, the billionaire from Singapore beaten by NESV in the final bidding round last week, improved his terms with a cash offer valuing the club at £320 million, with a further £40 million for a January transfer budget.

It emerged in court that Mill Financial, a US hedge fund claiming control of Gillett’s 50 per cent share of the club, was offering £400 million in cash, including a £100 million fund for a new stadium. Both bids propose to repay the £237 million owed to RBS and Wells Fargo, the American bank. Unlike Lim, Mill Financial has not notified the Premier League of its intentions.

Richard Snowden, QC, for RBS, accused Hicks and Gillett of “breathtaking arrogance” in their “admitted and calculated breach of contract”, intended to “frustrate a sale”.

Lord Grabiner, QC, for the independent directors, urged the judge to rule Hicks and Gillett’s attempts to sack Christian Purslow, the managing director, and Ian Ayre, the commercial director, as “invalid” so that the club could be sold to NESV as agreed. Describing the Americans’ behaviour as “slippery”, he said: “No court stops a board from acting as it sees fit in the best interests of the company.”

Philip Marshall, QC, for Broughton, said that the sale process, which attracted 27 expressions of interest from 130 potential bidders, had been “properly organised and fully pursued”. But Paul Girolami, QC, representing Hicks and Gillett, argued that Liverpool’s three non-owner directors were in a rush to “short-circuit” the processes of a sale to NESV without properly considering potentially better offers.

While Hicks, in an affidavit, accepted that he was in breach of the RBS corporate governance contract, his lawyers suggested this was in retaliation for a “course of conduct” that excluded the co-owners from board discussions and sale negotiations.

Hicks spoke of a “them and us divide opening up”. He claimed the first time he knew of NESV’s interest was on October 3, two days before a deal was agreed. An e-mail he accidentally received referred to a “home team”, confirming his suspicion that he and Gillett were not being properly informed. “It appeared to me that the English directors regarded themselves as being in a position of hostility or competition with me and Mr Gillett,” he said.

He accused RBS of connivance in their exclusion and justified his actions in sacking two directors as the only way to stop a sale being forced through “come what may”, when a better offer from Mill Financial was on the table.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online