Football Season 2010/2011 - Page 31

**Damien** · 11-10-2010, 20:30

I can see a situation where the Liverpool fans put pressure on the board to accept the Asian bid. He has promised millions in transfer money whereas the American bids seems to be offering a more stable, but less wealthy, management.

colin25 · 11-10-2010, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I can see a situation where the Liverpool fans put pressure on the board to accept the Asian bid. He has promised millions in transfer money whereas the American bids seems to be offering a more stable, but less wealthy, management.

Hmm...and then..2 years later..they find out there is no money..protests about asian owners...in come arab bidders..and the circle continues

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------

spotted this though, saying american bid is solid..unless hicks wins court case

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...ngland&cc=5739

Uncle Peter · 11-10-2010, 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I can see a situation where the Liverpool fans put pressure on the board to accept the Asian bid. He has promised millions in transfer money whereas the American bids seems to be offering a more stable, but less wealthy, management.

Quite the opposite. If the story has any substance then Lim is in actual fact very close to being on the receiving end of the fans' wrath for spreading yet more FUD in the already fluid situation. I can only assume that the publicity will raise his public profile as he seeks other clubs in the premiership for potential acquisition. Broughton and the board wouldn't have revealed the identity of the losing bid until the dust had settled and Lim probably wants a piece of the PR action while the presses are hot.

TheDaddy · 12-10-2010, 06:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I can see a situation where the Liverpool fans put pressure on the board to accept the Asian bid. He has promised millions in transfer money whereas the American bids seems to be offering a more stable, but less wealthy, management.

How can they put pressure on them? They have already accepted a bid and are in the process of being taken over, this is a complete non story and it wouldn't shock me to find its origin is Hicks and Gillett trying to buy more time.

---------- Post added at 06:18 ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

Quite the opposite. If the story has any substance then Lim is in actual fact very close to being on the receiving end of the fans' wrath for spreading yet more FUD in the already fluid situation.

Wait to see the wrath when this gets out

Lim, 57, ranked as the eighth-richest Singaporean with an estimated wealth of $1.6 billion (1 billion pounds) by Forbes, has exclusive rights to own and operate a chain of Manchester United-themed restaurants and bars in Asia.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69B0A420101012

**Damien** · 12-10-2010, 08:54

I work near St Pauls/Bank and have seen a few people with Liverpool shirts on. They may be going to the high court, are there protests planned?

Derek · 12-10-2010, 09:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I work near St Pauls/Bank and have seen a few people with Liverpool shirts on. They may be going to the high court, are there protests planned?

Don't these people have jobs to go to???

Oh right. Liverpool fans...

Uncle Peter · 12-10-2010, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Lim, 57, ranked as the eighth-richest Singaporean with an estimated wealth of $1.6 billion (1 billion pounds) by Forbes, has exclusive rights to own and operate a chain of Manchester United-themed restaurants and bars in Asia.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69B0A420101012

With all due respect to Lim as a businessman he has no track record in the ongoing development of a major/global sports brand. Estimated wealth? well it shouldn't need to be pointed out that these figures are usually wildly optimistic especially where Forbes are concerned. I would be very surprised if he had even a third of his estimated wealth attracting moths in his wallet. PR won't have done him any harm in raising his public profile but in terms of the LFC bid he has majorly discredited himself because these things must be done in commercial confidence and not through the media.

There probably will be LFC fans at the high court today as it's a public hearing although the case will be swiftly ajourned until later in the week to allow the judge to examine the case material in greater detail. Fans attending are aware that the 7/7 inquest is being held this week so out of respect it is highly unlikely there will be any mass, vocal protesting and anyone doing so will be duly lynched.

Update: Looks like the full hearing may be today and not the adjournment. Maybe the courts have played a blinder here to prevent masses of people turning up.. good move in the circumstances. Coverage of the case as it happens:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/b...t-john-w-henry

wwe · 12-10-2010, 14:04

when will we hear who the new owner of liverpool is as they been in the court since 11. will we hear today or later on this week?

Uncle Peter · 12-10-2010, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwe

when will we hear who the new owner of liverpool is as they been in the court since 11. will we hear today or later on this week?

Hard to say at the moment. A further hearing may be required.

Uncle Peter · 12-10-2010, 14:45

Hicks and Gillette's representative currently resorting to schoolyard tactics, accusations and excuses to try and divert attention from the real issues.

**Damien** · 12-10-2010, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

Hicks and Gillette's representative currently resorting to schoolyard tactics, accusations and excuses to try and divert attention from the real issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guardian

2.15pm: Back to the High Court: G&H claim that the remaining three directors, Broughton, Purslow and Ayre formed a 'sub committee' which then considered the bids and after discussions with RBS decided to go with NESV.

2.18pm: From the court: H&G argue: "Resolution of the sub-committee is invalid because the English directors were in breach of the sales contract with RBS."

2.32pm: From Sachin Nakrani outside court: Hicks claims that the sub-committee became so ingrained that the directors started to refer to it as the "home team" in emails between themselves. One of which was accidentally sent to the owners at start of last week. Hicks claims that he only breached sales agreement by trying to oust two board members because the sub committee was a breach of the sales agreement in itself.

If true it sounds like that they have a case...

Uncle Peter · 12-10-2010, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

If true it sounds like that they have a case...

2.46pm: From court: G&H QC, Paul Girolami, dismisses Friday's deadline and says that instead the owners and RBS are "locked into an agreement" until 1 November.

Trying to buy time. RBS argument will be that a defined process was followed in order to complete due diligence and the sale of the club before the debt repayment deadline.

...Lord Grabiner is now up to cut through the chaff

**Damien** · 12-10-2010, 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

2.46pm: From court: G&H QC, Paul Girolami, dismisses Friday's deadline and says that instead the owners and RBS are "locked into an agreement" until 1 November.

Trying to buy time. RBS argument will be that a defined process was followed in order to complete due diligence and the sale of the club before the debt repayment deadline.

...Lord Grabiner is now up to cut through the chaff

Liverpool's position seems to be that the board can do what they want. H&G say that the agreement had already been violated by the three other board members by excluding them from decision making. If true, this would be a big dent in Liverpool's case.

Uncle Peter · 12-10-2010, 15:15

What Hicks claims is currently coming out in the wash. I assume that the board meeting which broke down was minuted. The bottom line will be that one of the owners attempted to block a reasonable sale which would appear to be another breach of contract.

TheDaddy · 12-10-2010, 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

What Hicks claims is currently coming out in the wash. I assume that the board meeting which broke down was minuted. The bottom line will be that one of the owners attempted to block a reasonable sale which would appear to be another breach of contract.

Hicks and Gillett didn't even bother to attend the board meeting IIRC