Liverpool FC Forum

by **Reg** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:17 pm

Get in there Grabo lad !!!! :laugh:

stick the boot on them !!! :laugh:

Bet you Nan´s in there poking him with her finger going 'Go on lad, tell 'im!"

by **Redangel** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:17 pm

3.14pm: A lawyer from Texas emails to say:

The Board need to go to the Texas court and file a Rule 12 Motion to Show Authority.

Since the British High Court granted the board the right to conduct the affairs of the corporation(s), H&G were therefore without authority to seek a Texas TRO on behalf of KOP Holdings, et al.

by **worcester_red** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:20 pm

Anfield rapper wrote:One thing i have learned from all this is never go to Texas. There is something very wrong where you can go into a courtroom basically say whatever you feel and have a restrainig order put on someone without any evidence what so ever.

Texas is a nice place actually but they do have a rather inflated sense of self importance, technically they can break away from the United States at any time they want, it's quite weird.
I really think at this point Dave needs to be putting in a call to Obama and telling him to sort this sh1t out as it is starting to look bad on the US.

by **crim cram** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:20 pm

Redangel wrote:How in God's name did they manage to pull the wool over Moores eyes !!

They are seriously deranged.

This is what I keep coming back to. What a sham! He has to feel incredibly guilty about the decision.

by **Kharhaz** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:22 pm

crim cram wrote:
Redangel wrote:How in God's name did they manage to pull the wool over Moores eyes !!

They are seriously deranged.

This is what I keep coming back to. What a sham! He has to feel incredibly guilty about the decision.

In all fairness how could any of us see the lengths these two horrible gets would sink to?

by **puroresu** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:23 pm

crim cram wrote:
Redangel wrote:How in God's name did they manage to pull the wool over Moores eyes !!

They are seriously deranged.

This is what I keep coming back to. What a sham! He has to feel incredibly guilty about the decision.

So he should do and shouldnt be forgiven either. There is no excuse for what has happened. There was no viable reason for selling to those idiots when a deal was already agreed in principle with DIC. Criminal from Moore's and Rick Parry as well as anyone else on the board who agreed.

by **Kopite25** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:24 pm

crim cram wrote:
Redangel wrote:How in God's name did they manage to pull the wool over Moores eyes !!

They are seriously deranged.

This is what I keep coming back to. What a sham! He has to feel incredibly guilty about the decision.

Because he put his faith in a friend he trusted in Coco who in turn stood to financially profit from accept H&G over DIC.

In the end the buck stops firmly with Moores as the final decision was his and his alone but Coco should be given an asbo that prevents him from ever entering the city again.

What a pair of fukwits :angry:

by **Anfield rapper** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:25 pm

3.21pm: Peter Lim says he will not proceed with his bid because the board is intent on selling to NESV "at the exclusion of all other parties...In these circumstances, I am not able to proceed with my intention to acquire the club." He added that "if current events cause the circumstances to change, my interest in acquiring the club remains."

THEY AGREED A SALE LAST WEEK YOU PR*CK BUT YOU'VE KEPT ON BIDDING THINKING YOU HAD A CHANCE. JUST :censored:

OF BACK TO YOUR GAY BARS!!

by **Ciggy** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:25 pm

In english please Reg.

In Texas Law

RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY

A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating
that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the
attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act. The notice of the motion
shall be served upon the challenged attorney at least ten days before the hearing on the motion. At
the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to show
sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon his failure to
show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall
strike the pleadings if no person who is authorized to prosecute or defend appears. The motion may
be heard and determined at any time before the parties have announced ready for trial, but the trial
shall not be unnecessarily continued or delayed for the hearing.

by **jacdaniel** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:25 pm

Hicks comes across as incredibly stupid! How can he value a club based on some article from Forbes magazine.

Surely he will lose.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:27 pm

Kharhaz wrote:
Redman in wales wrote:I think it has more to do with the wording in his statement. he said he is withdrawing his offer BECAUSE it has been ignored by the board. Could help hicks

It wont help hicks, the rulings have already been passed, generally there is sod all lim can do. It sounds to me though as if he is whoring himself to other potential premier league clubs.

not exactly, the entire purpose is to make more profit. lim is willing to pay more, hicks wants more, and mill finances will gain either way. this delay process it benefiting those money minded swindlers. looks that way to me.

by **Ciggy** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:30 pm

tariqpanja

Hicks and Gillett's Dallas case calls for those at #LFC board meeting to be 'jailed until they purge themselves of any contempt' :laugh:

by **Redangel** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:30 pm

3.27pm: Lord Grabiner QC for the board: describes Dallas court as that "world famous jurisdiction" to much laughter.

(Personally, I'm not sure that they want to turn the jurisdiction debate into a fight with Dallas. Rather a simple question of primacy and priority).

by **Greavesie** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:31 pm

Ciggy wrote:In english please Reg.

In Texas Law

RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY

A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating
that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the
attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act. The notice of the motion
shall be served upon the challenged attorney at least ten days before the hearing on the motion. At
the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to show
sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon his failure to
show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall
strike the pleadings if no person who is authorized to prosecute or defend appears. The motion may
be heard and determined at any time before the parties have announced ready for trial, but the trial
shall not be unnecessarily continued or delayed for the hearing.

lawyers must appear in court. we must challenge the injunction rather than them prove that it is valid

I think thats the gist anyway

by **Dundalk** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:32 pm

Ciggy wrote:tariqpanja

Hicks and Gillett's Dallas case calls for those at #LFC board meeting to be 'jailed until they purge themselves of any contempt'

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online