Football Season 2010/2011 - Page 33

Uncle Peter · 13-10-2010, 22:27

Ouch, one of NESV's backers is Carlos Slim. I hope they have deep pockets!

**Damien** · 13-10-2010, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

Ouch, one of NESV's backers is Carlos Slim. I hope they have deep pockets!

What does that mean?

This whole thing is amazing, right at the last moment there is a ruling from a Texan court. It's the gift that keeps on giving, the level of absurdity keeps rising! I am expecting Rafa to feature again before this is over.

---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:44 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guardian

10.48pm: More on the jurisdiction issue. "If Royal Bank of Scotland does business dealings in Texas, courts there would certainly have personal jurisdiction over the bank," writes Daniel Stauss.

Elsewhere in the Telegraph Paul Kelso claims that "The jurisdiction of the Texas order in the UK was not immediately clear, but sources said the impact of the action could be to put RBS, which has considerable US interests, Broughton, through his role as BA chairman, and NESV in contempt of a US Court."

RBS should just take over on Friday, quite why the owners are delaying it is beyond me. Whatever happens it looks like they are screwed.

punky · 13-10-2010, 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/b...t-verdict-live

Not sure what a Texas court can do. Pretty amusing though!

Kop Holdings LLC owns the club and are an American company. So the court would have jurisdiction over them.

Also contrary to popular belief RBS do not own or run LFC. They own the debt. Kop Holdings LLC still own it until the bank moves to recover the debt (i.e. administration).

I don't have any love for H&G but I do wonder about RBS' motives here. They stipulate an 'independent' chairman as part of a refiancing deal and he just happens to agree a sale for the exact amount of the debt when others appear to offer more?

**Chris** · 13-10-2010, 23:21

This is great comedy. You couldn't make it up. Or could you?

punky · 13-10-2010, 23:25

Also, Forbes (who know what they are doing) valued Liverpool at $822m in April. They haven't had that bad a start, and times aren't that bad when people should be accept less than half market value?

**Chris** · 13-10-2010, 23:33

The only 'value' that means anything is the one the buyer is prepared to write on the cheque. Everything else is just gossip and speculation.

The outcome of today's Court hearing (and I don't mean the redneck one) required, as a technicality, for the Board of LFC to be reconstituted. As the Club now has a 'new' board (albeit consisting of the same people as before) it is not bound to any agreement or undertaking it may have had with NESV. In fact, it is legally bound to consider an offer that may trump NESV's ... as the Lim offer does.

If the club is eventually sold, by the board of LFC, to a buyer in Singapore, the claim of jurisdiction the court in Texas has made today won't be worth the paper it's written on. Assuming, of course, that it's worth anything as of right now.

TheDaddy · 13-10-2010, 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

What does that mean?

He is the worlds richest man...

Uncle Peter · 14-10-2010, 00:00

Forbes so called valuations are notoriously optimistic so what Chris has posted above is the only realistic view as to the value of the club. I suspect that RBS may have a case that the owners have deceived the bank as to the purpose of the original loan agreement. It was supposed to be for the development of the new stadium but this turned out to be acquisition debt. Perhaps they have a case in this respect (possibly criminal?)

**Chris** · 14-10-2010, 08:55

The BBC's Robert Peston really is worth his weight in gold when complex business issues like this arise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ol/9080946.stm

He seems to have dug up a Texan legal expert called Tom Cruise to offer an opinion.

... which, incidentally, is along the lines of 'Hicks and Gillett haven't got a leg to stand on, even in Texas.'

**Damien** · 14-10-2010, 09:12

Still can't get over how funny this is. Right at the very last moment, people ready for the sale, they come up with one of the wackest ways to delay it I have heard. A court in the heart of Texas blocks the sale of a football club in Liverpool.

You have to concede that Hicks and Gillett certainly don't give up or take a hint.

Uncle Peter · 14-10-2010, 09:19

Obviously the actions of a desperate and deranged crook. I may at some point today seek an order via the regional court in Kathmandu:

1. that Tom Hicks traps his own dangly bits in a vice and sets fire to himself

2. that George Gillet is stripped naked and set adrift in Somali waters on Freddie Flintoff's pedalo.

that pretty much amounts to how ludicrous it is.

Uncle Peter · 14-10-2010, 13:41

The circus is back in court at 2PM. I can't imagine Mr Justice Floyd will be too impressed. I wonder if he'll have Hicks up for contempt.

Hmm I wonder if shadowy dealings have been going on too, maybe NESV to strike an ownership deal with Mill? we'll see

**Damien** · 14-10-2010, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

The circus is back in court at 2PM. I can't imagine Mr Justice Floyd will be too impressed. I wonder if he'll have Hicks up for contempt.

Hmm I wonder if shadowy dealings have been going on too, maybe NESV to strike an ownership deal with Mill? we'll see

Whole thing is weird. A lot of morning was spent wondering if Hicks had sold his stake to Mill! Apparently not. I wonder how they can sell the club because Mill does own Giletts share so quite how they have the power to sell shares from other people...

Uncle Peter · 14-10-2010, 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Whole thing is weird. A lot of morning was spent wondering if Hicks had sold his stake to Mill! Apparently not. I wonder how they can sell the club because Mill does own Giletts share so quite how they have the power to sell shares from other people...

Apparently they don't technically as both H&G are still listed as owners on the Dallas court injunction. I've still yet to see any evidence that Mill have taken legal action to sieze Gillet's shares or that he has indeed signed them over. I suspect that even if he's in default they haven't yet taken action via the courts.. perhaps they have written undertakings via a side letter.

Uncle Peter · 14-10-2010, 17:26

5.21pm: Judge rules that anti-suit injunction wanted by RBS and other parties (board) against owners action in Texas is granted. "This case has nothing to do with Texas."

another blinder by Lord Grabiner QC (wouldn't fancy playing scrabble against this guy), Snowden QC and Chivers QC

Hicks last roll of the dice?

Their briefs didn't turn up.