Football Season 2010/2011 - Page 30

TheDaddy · 10-10-2010, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

Thing is though that the club's lawyers are Slaughter and May who are probably the best in the business at what they do. If they didn't think the case was nigh on water-tight I very much doubt they would be taking this to the high court. I would also strongly doubt that a man of Martin Broughton's standing would put his reputation on the line unless he was holding all of the aces. In the meantime whatever is written in the papers by crap journos like Chris Bascombe is nothing more than scaremongering.

A member club can't take the Premier League to court....

Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has fuelled fan anger against his regime by describing protests against his presence at the club as "noise we are dealing with".
Full Story: News of the World

sherer · 10-10-2010, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

A member club can't take the Premier League to court....

Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has fuelled fan anger against his regime by describing protests against his presence at the club as "noise we are dealing with".
Full Story: News of the World

The PL probably has rules saying clubs can't take them to court and this should be handled by CAS instead but those rules haven't got a leg to stand on. F1 has the same rule but Flavio Briatore took the FIA to court when he got banned from F1.

The league Bosman was in probably had the same rules but he still managed to get his case heard in court too. if clubs want to take the PL to court they can and will

Uncle Peter · 10-10-2010, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

A member club can't take the Premier League to court....

Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has fuelled fan anger against his regime by describing protests against his presence at the club as "noise we are dealing with".
Full Story: News of the World

Not sure who's taking the premier league to court?? Next week's court hearing is merely to determine whether or not Martin Broughton acted properly in resisting Tom Hicks attempts to replace two of the non-owner board members prior to agreeing the proposed sale to NESV.

TheDaddy · 11-10-2010, 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

Not sure who's taking the premier league to court?? Next week's court hearing is merely to determine whether or not Martin Broughton acted properly in resisting Tom Hicks attempts to replace two of the non-owner board members prior to agreeing the proposed sale to NESV.

Sorry thought you meant they were going to take the Premier League to court over the points deduction.

Uncle Peter · 11-10-2010, 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Sorry thought you meant they were going to take the Premier League to court over the points deduction.

No prob

Brief recap for anyone not fully aware of the background then:

LFC board consists of: Martin Broughton (Chairman), Christian Purslow (Managing Director), Ian Ayre (Commercial Directoror) and the two shareholder owners Hicks and Gillett.

On Tuesday evening Martin Broughton called a board meeting to approve one of two bids on the table for the club. Before the meeting Tom Hicks attempted to remove Ian Ayre and Christian Purslow from the board replacing them with one of his sons and a director from his main investment vehicle: Hicks Holdings. This would give him a board majority sympathetic to his aim to block the bids as he maintains they were undervalued.

Broughton rejected the move to sack Purslow and Ayre on the basis that the owners had provided written guarantees on a number of counts: that neither of the owners would do anything to disrupt a sale at a reasonable fee and that Martin Broughton would have the final say in any changes to the board structure. These guarantees were provided as a condition of RBS extending the £237M loan repayment deadline in Easter.

It follows that the the board will now seek what's called a declaratory judgement in the high court to verify that Martin Broughton had acted in a proper manner. If the judgement is passed in the chairmans favour then the sale may proceed unless Hicks chooses to appeal, however: the appeal process is very swift.

Hearing is likely to be in chambers so it won't be in the court listings. Lord Grabiner QC will represent the club.

Uncle Peter · 11-10-2010, 13:39

Not in chambers. Listed for court 18 tomorrow. One of 7 hearings before Justice Floyd scheduled to start at 10:30am.

TheDaddy · 11-10-2010, 16:43

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101011...

Royal Bank of Scotland says it has obtained an interim injunction preventing Liverpool co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr. from firing chairman Martin Broughton and two other board members.

Hicks tried to remove managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre from Liverpool's board last week when they sought to sanction a $476 million sale of the club to the owners of the Boston Red Sox.

RBS, which holds the bulk of Liverpool's debt, is claiming breach of contract. The bank said Monday it obtained an interim injunction before a hearing the following day at London's High Court.

Hicks and Gillett agreed to RBS' demands in April to allow Broughton to have control of the sales process.

Uncle Peter · 11-10-2010, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101011...

Royal Bank of Scotland says it has obtained an interim injunction preventing Liverpool co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr. from firing chairman Martin Broughton and two other board members.

Hicks tried to remove managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre from Liverpool's board last week when they sought to sanction a $476 million sale of the club to the owners of the Boston Red Sox.

RBS, which holds the bulk of Liverpool's debt, is claiming breach of contract. The bank said Monday it obtained an interim injunction before a hearing the following day at London's High Court.

Hicks and Gillett agreed to RBS' demands in April to allow Broughton to have control of the sales process.

Yep, after which not even sure if it would come to a declaratory judgement if the injunction is upheld tomorrow. It would be a waste of the saggy Texan's time and money pursuing his pointless defence, he might as well just walk now.

Either way it's clear now why the hearing is listed as RBS vs Hicks and others

TheDaddy · 11-10-2010, 17:02

Good article here liked the bit where it says Hicks and Gillett will be out of pocket by £100 million due to a personal loan they gave Kop Holdings best

colin25 · 11-10-2010, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Good article here liked the bit where it says Hicks and Gillett will be out of pocket by £100 million due to a personal loan they gave Kop Holdings best

I thought i heard somewhere, that they only put in about £7m each, and they borrowed the rest.

Uncle Peter · 11-10-2010, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by colin25

I thought i heard somewhere, that they only put in about £7m each, and they borrowed the rest.

Initial deal was something like that but as part of the refinancing deal at easter they each had to stump up something to the tune of £70M each as personal security against the extended finance deal. Gillett borrowed that money from a hedge fund and secured it against his shares in the club (which I find hard to believe he was allowed to do). Not sure where Hicks share came from.

Either way I think they are both getting off lightly in walking away with the £140M or so loss. I have a strong feeling RBS have another ace up their sleeve which could have very, very serious consequences for Hicks and co. if it were pursued but I am saying nowt

In another twist

Liverpool to receive new bid from Singapore billionaire

reported by Peston but I believe that the story originated from spin mouthpiece Dan Roan. As usual it's "sources" who are cited which is generally journo speak for someone's made it up. If said bidder had any credibility then this would be done out of the media spotlight and some of the content of the article is bordering on ludicrous in terms of what is supposed to have been said.

colin25 · 11-10-2010, 19:38

Singapore slings for all..that will go down well in liverpool

wwe · 11-10-2010, 19:52

which offer do you think they will take as now we got a new person trying to buy anfield

colin25 · 11-10-2010, 20:22

Well they have tried american..they might prefer asian now, quite popular choice

Uncle Peter · 11-10-2010, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwe

which offer do you think they will take as now we got a new person trying to buy anfield

Not a new person at all, he was one of the original two bidders. Unlikely that the guy has the experience or financial resources to manage/develop the club as an ongoing concern which is why clearly why the NESV bid was accepted. Remember that NESV have a large number of backers, their source of capital is not limited to just 2 or 3 individuals.

Pay no attention to this story it is merely spin and unwanted background noise.