Iceman Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 hang on Philip, if Liverpool are valued at more than that, why did Broughton accept the NESV bid if it was only intended to clear the debt? That indicates, that the club was almost sold for 0 pounds. Surely, if somebody offers more to clear the debt, and extras, then H&G would be more interested in that, as they would get something out of the deal. Am I right in thinking, that Broughton accepted this, to purely avoid the club going into administration, and avoid the 9 point deduction?
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
philipl Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 What is value? It is what someone will pay for it. How big a discount applies to ANY club sitting in 18th in the PL? Neither Mills nor Lim will pay a cent to H&G so an odd ten million extra for RBS (which they seem to be unfussed about as they are backing NESV) is completely academic. Besides which, H&G turned down an offer which would have given them their cash back less than 12 months ago. Their own greed and hubris has screwed them.
BuckyRover Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Rooney has contradicted SAF and said that he hasn't been injured this season. I hope he goes abroad
John Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Radio 5 live's Brian Alexander believes Mill Financial lead the way. "It looks to me as if Mill Financial - the hedge fund owned by Dwight Schar - have now edged ahead in a three-horse race," he said.
Iceman Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Radio 5 live's Brian Alexander believes Mill Financial lead the way. "It looks to me as if Mill Financial - the hedge fund owned by Dwight Schar - have now edged ahead in a three-horse race," he said. Business as usual
USRoverME Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Unless someone else is keeping the powder dry...
RIML Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Premier League Community awards for Everton and Blackburn • Lifetime Achievement Award - Jimmy Armfield CBE (Voted for by fans) • Premier League Player of the Year - Chung-Yong Lee, Bolton Wanderers • Championship Player of the Year - Charlie Adam, Blackpool • League One Player of the Year - Ian Goodison, Tranmere Rovers • League Two Player of the Year - Craig Dawson, Rochdale • Conference Player of the Year - Robin Hulbert, Barrow (Voted by guests on the night) • Goal of the Year - Diniyar Bilyaletdinov (Voted for by judges) • Special Achievement award - Paul Thorogood, chief executive of the Football Foundation • Manager of the Year - Ian Holloway • Community Scheme- Project of the Year - Everton • Community Scheme of the Year - Blackburn Rovers Community Trust • Best Club Marketing (Premier League - Everton FC for the season ticket campaign and Manchester City for Tevez (Welcome to Manchester) (DUAL WINNERS) • Best Club Marketing (Football League and Conference) - Stockport County FC for the Leukaemia Research Campaign • Most Innovative Non Match Day Use of a Football Ground - Manchester United for the Big Red Day Out • Best Club Sponsorship - Manchester City and Eithad • Professional Services to Football -Deloitte and Barclays (DUAL WINNERS) • Business Services to Football - Kitbag
Earlydoors Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Brilliant updates on Dan Roans Twitter feed http://twitter.com/danroan It would appear whilst LFC are at High Court trying to remove injunction, H&G are in Dallas Court claimimg that last night's board meeting was in contempt of US court. Genius, you couldn't make it up ! Meanwhile, Peter Lim has withdrawn his bid...........
Steve Moss Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 H&G are obviously making themselves as difficult as possible to induce someone to give them money to shut up and go away. I doubt that will be NESV, so the likely target is RBS. If RBS is thinking long term, they won't play that game and will crush H&G. If and when they get into the Texas court, RBS should easily win. In the meantime, I hope H&G can keep the chaos in motion as long as possible to improve our chances at Liverpool.
Iceman Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Can somebody clear this up for me. Would it not be wise of Liverpool to take the 9 point deduction, go into administration and that way get rid of Hicks and Gillette. Actually, would it not be wise on RBS part, to call in the debt, take control of LFC and then sell to NESV for the money owed to them. This i know has been discussed, but why dont they just call in the debt now?
m1st Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Can somebody clear this up for me. Would it not be wise of Liverpool to take the 9 point deduction, go into administration and that way get rid of Hicks and Gillette. Liverpool-supporting friends of mine would say not; if only for the sh1t they'd suffer from me until their team was back in "positive territory" [i.e. had more than "Nul points"]!
Neil Weaver Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Can somebody clear this up for me. Would it not be wise of Liverpool to take the 9 point deduction, go into administration and that way get rid of Hicks and Gillette. Actually, would it not be wise on RBS part, to call in the debt, take control of LFC and then sell to NESV for the money owed to them. This i know has been discussed, but why dont they just call in the debt now? I would think Philipl can enlighten us more, but for one thing it would do nothing for RBS's (or in England, that's mostly Nat West) customer relations - I can't imagine too many Liverpool fans putting business their way in future. Meanwhile, Chung-Yong Lee (North West) Premier League Player of the Year? Were they only counting votes from Seoul? Bizarre.
67splitscreen Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 The high court have now ruled again in favour of the original order, sale goes ahead.
Stuart Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 The high court have now ruled again in favour of the original order, sale goes ahead. Just in time to give us a clobbering, no doubt!
brian_gallagher85 Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 So have they also given them permission to buy the 5 or 6 players that they need to even push for a Europa League spot?
Stuart Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Doesn't matter, Brian, the fillip they'll get from ditching H&G will be enough.
USRoverME Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Meanwhile, Chung-Yong Lee (North West) Premier League Player of the Year? Were they only counting votes from Seoul? Bizarre. I believe that was all a community relations type panel. So likely the man spent loads of hours with kids in the hospital or something like that.
brian_gallagher85 Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Doesn't matter, Brian, the fillip they'll get from ditching H&G will be enough. I'd reserve judgement until after the game at Goodison.
Steve Moss Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Can somebody clear this up for me. Would it not be wise of Liverpool to take the 9 point deduction, go into administration and that way get rid of Hicks and Gillette. Actually, would it not be wise on RBS part, to call in the debt, take control of LFC and then sell to NESV for the money owed to them. This i know has been discussed, but why dont they just call in the debt now? Broughton, as cited in the articles, apparently believes that football clubs are not a typical business and that some care needs to be taken to preserve its traditions and protect the interests of the fans. A nine point deduction would achieve neither objective. In addition, a nine point deduction would make Liverpool less valuable to NESV, if its PL status was perceived to be in jeopardy.
philipl Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Dan Roan tweets Purslow emerges: Dallas court adjourned so yet more extra time - no deal until tomorrow - deadline day - looks v worried
philipl Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 So the latest is Hicks is going for contempt of Court in Texas against Martin Broughton- he wants imprisonment and $50,000 a day fines. Very nervous day for Liverpool tomorrow. If the Dallas Court doesn't go decisively in Liverpool's favour, RBS might conclude the Texan Court order is such a threat to its US businesses that they will go straight to administration and kill this whole farago... until the next round.
thenodrog Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 I would think Philipl can enlighten us more, but for one thing it would do nothing for RBS's (or in England, that's mostly Nat West) customer relations - I can't imagine too many Liverpool fans putting business their way in future. ? 1. The scousers hate Gillette and Hicks and want them out and the RBoS would be getting rid of them. The mickeys surely can't expect to have their cake and ha'penny can they? 2. Any business lost will be more than made up for in increased business from the other half of Liverpool, all of Manchester..... and me! 3. Being put on the scousers hit list for the past 20+ years doesn't appear to have harmed The Sun much does it?
Hughesy Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Im pretty sure that no matter what, Liverpool wont go into Admin & WONT get a 9 point deduction.
Neil Weaver Posted October 15, 2010 Posted October 15, 2010 ? 1. The scousers hate Gillette and Hicks and want them out and the RBoS would be getting rid of them. The mickeys surely can't expect to have their cake and ha'penny can they? 2. Any business lost will be more than made up for in increased business from the other half of Liverpool, all of Manchester..... and me! 3. Being put on the scousers hit list for the past 20+ years doesn't appear to have harmed The Sun much does it? 1 - You've answered it yourself. RBS won't be the difference between a sale or not (my view) but might be seen as people who cost LFC 9 points, or tried to - by the LFC fans - and that would hardly be positive in their eyes. 2 - doubt it. 3 - agreed.
deryck guyler's spoon Posted October 15, 2010 Posted October 15, 2010 I'm not sure about number 3. Hasn't the Currant Bun made a couple of grovelly apologies? It dosn't strike me as the type of publication that would apologise for anything unless forced to or if it were advantageous for it to do so.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.