[Archived] Rovers STILL not sold.

[Balwer]

Bidders plural. I thought that was quite revealing.

I would not assume Shah was the other.

I picked up on the 'neither' aspect as well but as I am a stickler for grammar I wasn't sure if I was being pedantic and that maybe they were referring to more than two.

[nicko]

I swear Mr. Nixon, you tease more than a thousand pound an hour lap dancer.

There have been one or two things happening in the past few days. I do not know the full significance of them yet. But there is a lot more going on than is in the public domain yet.

And, by the way, I charge a lot more than that...

[Guest Kamy100]

We (brfcs) have known about a certain story for the last 2 days, have been asked to keep it quiet, however in light of this information we are checking if it is ok to run the story, should have an answer within the next 30 minutes or so, so sit tight.

[PAFELL]

I would think it is more likely to be the 'mystery Indians.'

And, no idea who they are.

But a few things have happened over the past few days that have yet to come to light - or be explained fully - so I suspect this may be getting to the tickly bit.

It is my middle name.

Mystery Indians? As in different than either Shah or Syed? I was not aware there was a third Indian interst in Rovers.

[Lee0r]

Sorry Nicko, Kamy teases more!!

[Glenn]

Haven't we known all along there have been multiple bidders, at multiple ways along along the process? Wasn't Shah mentioned as being in the bidding, but not wanting to proceed with DD until Syed had gone through it in case he was throwing his money away?

Glenn doesn't tease at all, but I also don't want to start a flood of news reports based around the ambiguous grammar of a post about a minuted meeting. Wait for the full minutes to be published.

[nicko]

Sorry Nicko, Kamy teases more!!

To be fair, on this subject for sure, Kamy KNOWS more than anyone around here.

Sometimes it is best to wait until you can oput the jigsaw pieces in place. Otherwise you can get the wrong picture.

[PAFELL]

We (brfcs) have known about a certain story for the last 2 days, have been asked to keep it quiet, however in light of this information we are checking if it is ok to run the story, should have an answer within the next 30 minutes or so, so sit tight.

Now now Kamy100, are you after your own 11 O'clocker Or is it Kamy100 half hour? Oh well I'll take the extended shift break and wait for the news.

[tony gale's mic]

To TGM and John Dickinson.

1) Proving whether Ali Syed has billions and whether they arrived in his pocket legitimately enough to pass muster is easy if you hold Rothschilds' banking license, or are BDO, or PwC, or Allen & Overy.

2) Sorting out the stuff Goldberg is dealing in is much more tricky to go definitive on one way or another. I guess Citigate are saying some colourful things to Ali Syed for not appointing them six weeks before he did as none of this would have surfaced- most of their fees are earned for what doesn't appear in the media.

3) Sorting out whether Ali Syed will definitely put his money into Rovers over 15 years and expect nothing back is even more tricky and that is the Trust's job.

In the final analysis, would I have rather our probable new owner not be tainted this way? Of course.

Does number 2 really matter if the Trust get number 3 right? Absolutely NOT.

No, that isn't the Trust's job at all.

What you described there is a benefactor, the Trust's search isn't just limited to benefactors, it's also open to people who are approaching the club as investors and feel they can get a good return out of the club. The Trust's job is to ensure someone has the money to buy the club and who will look after it in the immediate future.

[Balwer]

Kamy and Nicko, are we right to assume that the other bidder(s) lodged their bid as soon as Syed's exclusivity period expired?

[JohnD]

If there was ever a champion of missing the point entirely, you would win the contest. I'll try and break things down as simply as I can for you as you seem to have a problem understanding things...

1. Abramovich has numerous issues surrounding corruption in Russia. These have been well documented. There's also issues surrounding torture at the hands of Sheik Mansour. This is also true, and the fact these men own football clubs is something that turns the stomach of many a football fan.

However, that is a totally different issue to the reason why Goldberg is investigating Ali Syed.

2. Ali Syed claims to have a personal wealth of billions. Yes he is quite advanced through the process but you don't need to have a personal wealth of billions as previous owners have shown. You just need to have access to around £40 million in our case - whether it's your money, borrowed money etc - as Portsmouth and other cases showed it's possible for people like this to buy football clubs. The likes of Rothschilds etc would likely be doing business with whoever had owned Portsmouth too (well not the same people obviously, but people of their ilk).

That's why Goldberg is investigating Syed. Mansour and Abramovich may be nasty pieces of work but they're also established billionaires who were MAJOR players in their countries before they took over, whether the average man knew them in the street is irrevelant. Mansour practically owns UAE, Abramovich was best mates with Yeltsin, appeared on Forbes lists, was governor of a small part of Russia - their wealth was in no doubt.

Now can you not see the difference between those two men and Ali Syed, who may not have as many human rights abuses against his name but who claims to be in their league financially but has NOTHING LIKE the obvious claims to wealth that the other men have? Why are you even comparing them?!

3. Now let's go through the claims.

Goldberg and Syed's old landlord claims he skipped lots of rent and was chased for it. Syed denies this although admits he lived there (despite numerous blinkered members of this board still saying they don't think he even lived there). Goldberg then responds saying he has copies of numerous letters which were sent by bailiffs etc to Syed asking for the money*.

Goldberg brings up the CCJs. Syed admits this, although I'm sure he knows that unlike the rent issues which are a private contract issue, any denial of this could be easily proven otherwise. That's not to say he's definitely lying about the rent but there is a big difference between the two which can't be denied.

Goldberg goes digging round his home town - after all surely his home town would have knowledge of a billionaire around the area? It's hardly the wealthiest place in the world - a family worth billions over the last 150 years doing business in the area and owning lots of land would surely be well known for miles around?! Syed's team rebut this by saying he's from a different district and that's why they didn't get much. Not only do they neglect to mention it's a village 10 miles down the road, but Syed himself told 5 live he was from the area Goldberg looked. Goldberg asked Syed's team if he could broadcast the interview saying this, they for some reason declined, and so Goldberg didn't broadcast it*.

Goldberg brings up the multiple companies being closed in the UK and Canada for not filing any returns or having any activity. He acknowledges that whilst this does not necessarily suggest any wrongdoing, it is quite odd business practice. Which it surely is.

* - I've put this after two bits. Goldberg has bits of evidence here, one which seems to support the fact he was being chased for rent and one which seems to show Syed stating Bhongir was indeed where he was from. Whilst it may not be against the law to show these, as our professional journalist nicko has alluded to there's morals and journalistic ethics to consider. Places like the BBC will have a code that journalists will abide by. Broadcasting interviews that weren't meant for broadcast after being asked not to by the interviewee will likely go against such a code. Similarly, putting private letters on Facebook pages, even with the addresses blacked out would surely go against such a code too.

It is however VERY unlikely Goldberg would have made up the fact these letters and interviews exist, as they'd be left wide open to legal action and making up letters/interviews is an outright libellous offence, no contest. However if Syed's team were to dispute them and take legal action claiming he made those up, they would be perfectly permissible as evidence and no code would be broken as they'd be defending themselves.

So whilst there's no outright proof that Syed is a definite liar, there's multiple things he's said that simply don't add up. Even from his latest statement, Goldberg has evidence to the contrary. There's very good reasons why he can't produce them and equally very good reasons why it's highly unlikely he's lying about them.

I admire your patience and persistence but your are surely wasting your time. This lot make it up as they go along and then believe everything they have made up and I do know that for a FACT.

[philipl]

Haven't Liverpool shown there can be no guarantee that any new owner will put the promised money into the club?

To the contrary, Gillett and Hicks honoured their commitment... then did want they wanted the moment the commitment time period expired.

[Glenn]

To be fair, on this subject for sure, Kamy KNOWS more than anyone around here.

I'm sure he does. He also has both the site's and the club's best interests at heart, so sharing EVERYTHING he knows when it could cause issues for either the club or the site isn't something he's likely to do on a whim.

We've also had attempts to influence our reporting on the issue (both good and bad), so he's not always willing to share until he's confirmed things (something I'm sure is true of Nicko too).

The truth is, there is no new verifiable info, just some wording on some minutes written by a fan (not a member of staff) that could be read in a number of ways.

[brian_gallagher85]

It is my middle name.

So can we expect any exclusive tales from Alan "naughty" Nixon in The People this weekend then?

[nicko]

Kamy and Nicko, are we right to assume that the other bidder(s) lodged their bid as soon as Syed's exclusivity period expired?

The guy or group I know about have been making all the right moves for about a month. I think these are the people who approached the club during Ali's exclusivitiy period. I think these are the people who met the club in London about two-three weeks ago.

However there have been more current events that bring that story bang-up-to-date...

I think it is probably the guy or group mentioned above but I am not sure.

If I knew their names or business I would tell you. But they have kept it very tight.

I understand they have money. I was not sure that they had the inclination. Perhaps we will know more on that shortly.

I am not sure that the club will reveal who the 'second bidder' is - but they have been dropping some hints that one exists. I hope that is because there genuinely is one and this is not an attempt at an auction.

So can we expect any exclusive tales from Alan "naughty" Nixon in The People this weekend then?

I am not keeping this back for that purpose. I just don't know who this person or people are. If I did I would run it straight away.

[brian_gallagher85]

I don't care about the story...I just want to see "a" story from an Alan "naughty" Nixon

Just noticed this on yahoo...Ali's side project?

[philipl]

No, that isn't the Trust's job at all.

What you described there is a benefactor, the Trust's search isn't just limited to benefactors, it's also open to people who are approaching the club as investors and feel they can get a good return out of the club. The Trust's job is to ensure someone has the money to buy the club and who will look after it in the immediate future.

Tell me more. You have dirt on the Shahs, the Nicko Bllionaire, the Australians and the mystery man as well as on Syed?

I don't believe any investors will feel they can get a good return out of the club in purely monetary terms from within the club's own resources short of asset stripping and it most certainly is the Trust's remit to prevent that from happening.

Less flippantly, my post was only about Syed. He has made some very clear statements and if he emerges as the successful bidder the Trust has the tricky task of formulating a binding agreement that holds him in practise to delivering his promises as a bare minimum.

And broadening the point, if we are looking at competing benefactors which we probably are, the same goes for whoever eventually wins the bidding for our wonderful club.

[Balwer]

Tell me more. You have dirt on the Shahs, the Nicko Bllionaire, the Australians and the mystery man as well as on Syed?

I don't believe any investors will feel they can get a good return out of the club in purely monetary terms from within the club's own resources short of asset stripping and it most certainly is the Trust's remit to prevent that from happening.

Less flippantly, my post was only about Syed. He has made some very clear statements and if he emerges as the successful bidder the Trust has the tricky task of formulating a binding agreement that holds him in practise to delivering his promises as a bare minimum.

And broadening the point, if we are looking at competing benefactors which we probably are, the same goes for whoever eventually wins the bidding for our wonderful club.

Are you trying to say that the Trust will get him to commit to a legally binding contract that says he must invest £300m over 15 years? That was never part of the sale agreement, just because he's mentioned it in terms of his own business plan I don't see how the Trust would then be able to retrospectively tack that condition subsequent on the sale contract, assuming they had any desire to, and I don't see why Syed would then commit to it as the purchase price effectively increases by £300m. The Trust will sell to whoever is a 'fit and proper person' and can meet the sale price.

[JAL]

If the trustees, the club, and Rothschilds have USED Ali publicly, to get a better offer ( quoting figures of £100m investment over 15 years for little or no return) not only for the club but themselves aswell, using Goldberg and 5LIVE along the way as a pawn in all of this.

Then one can only be mightly impressed by these guys.

[philipl]

Are you trying to say that the Trust will get him to commit to a legally binding contract that says he must invest £300m over 15 years? That was never part of the sale agreement, just because he's mentioned it in terms of his own business plan I don't see how the Trust would then be able to retrospectively tack that condition subsequent on the sale contract, assuming they had any desire to, and I don't see why Syed would then commit to it as the purchase price effectively increases by £300m. The Trust will sell to whoever is a 'fit and proper person' and can meet the sale price.

I am not saying he will.

I have been saying for a long time now that the Trustees are in a far stronger position than they could ever have dreamed of and perhaps Syed might have to do something heading in that direction to deliver the knock out bid.

What is very clear, the world that existed when Syed signed the Heads of Agreement one day four weeks ago doesn't exist now. The period of due diligence is expiring and there is no sign of Syed and the Trust moving automatically to contracted sale.

The huge change is Syed has very serious competition he has to beat. I am not backing off my assessment that there are at least 5 runners (or have been until very recently) but my view of Shah is that he is the outsider again.

This thread is getting schizophrenic. There are several posters who have a tiny inside glimpse to a complicated and rapidly changing Rovers world and John D and TGM off in a parallel universe rotating round Adrian Goldberg.

[Balwer]

If the trustees, the club, and Rothschilds have USED Ali publicly, to get a better offer ( quoting figures of £100m investment over 15 years for little or no return) not only for the club but themselves aswell, using Goldberg and 5LIVE along the way as a pawn in all of this.

Then one can only be mightly impressed by these guys.

Yeah but if they were that good they would have been able to do it to Dan Williams or one of the other bidders over the past few years!

[dr_awol]

I am not sure that the club will reveal who the 'second bidder' is - but they have been dropping some hints that one exists. I hope that is because there genuinely is one and this is not an attempt at an auction.

Like the 3 club rule, there might be a "3 bidders rule".

[tony gale's mic]

This thread is getting schizophrenic. There are several posters who have a tiny inside glimpse to a complicated and rapidly changing Rovers world and John D and TGM off in a parallel universe rotating round Adrian Goldberg.

It's called having an opposing point of view.

[nicko]

Like the 3 club rule, there might be a "3 bidders rule".

I know what you mean, but in this case probably just two live ones at the moment.

[rebelmswar]

It's called having an opposing point of view.

I think you missed the most damning portion of philips post.

I find that comment way below the belt philipl