Boardroom unrest - all media articles in here...

[Tom R]

Yawn.

How exactly does this drivvle make it in to a national newspaper? There's hope for us all...

[philyburkhill]

No shit its under threat, this is nothing new though.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Dirk

It was an absolutely shite article, mate. In other news, your home will be repossessed if you don't keep up the loan repayments. No shit.

It is pretty obvious, I agree. However, it spells out the reality of the situation for all those non-internet Reds who don't know what all the fuss is about for two fellas who paid "£26.5m" for Torres and that's why it's welcome.

[gkmacca]

Apart from that first paragraph, which reads like some local hack's attempt to be 'clever,' it's a good piece, as usual from him. I just can't quite believe Hicks isn't savvy enough to have predicted the reaction, which makes the real motive behind his latest antics all the more peculiar.

[longballs]

Originally Posted by lifetime fan

My guess, and it's a guess is that Hicks wouldn't have to use any veto until there is a formal offer for Gillet's shares.

Kay believes DIC made a formal offer on February 27, Gillet would have to inform Hicks of his intention to sell. So now Hicks would use his veto to block the sell and give him 90 days to at least match the offer on the table. At the end of the 90 days if he can not at least match DIC's offer Gillet can proceed to sell to whoever he wishes.

Like I said its only a guess but I'm hoping this is the case.

That is the only way I can read the situation too; I think that must be it.

Originally Posted by RedinSweden

That doesn't explain him saying "George doesn't have to sell" though. I am still confused.

Yes, but say Hicks does match the offer within the 90 days then Gillet can still decide not to sell after all (and we go back to square one).

So, if the above is all correct then our only way out in the short term is if Hicks can't raise the 200M

[bigredruss]

Originally Posted by Dirk

If you don't keep up the repayments on your mortgage then your house might be repossessed. Stunning piece of journalism by Olly Kay.

basically it's an interest only mortgage, the cheapest way to borrow but you still owe the original amount. the chavs did this and were fucked as the original loan was due just after the billionaire took over

[bigredruss]

repost also

[DT]

Originally Posted by FTORRES09

The Times has learnt that Liverpool borrowed the money to sign Torres

Spotter's badge goes to the Times for discovering this fact. What on earth would we do without it?

[Richie T]

Originally Posted by bigredruss

repost also

Sori guys, didnt see the other thread

[RedinSweden]

Originally Posted by TK421

It's interesting that the players are used as security against the loan, no?

Does it say that though? They might have bought Babel and Torres with that money, but it isn't specifically them that would be affected, it is the club as a whole as far as I can tell. Not much better, I agree, but i thought everyone knew they had borrowed money to buy the players. I may have totally misunderstood the entire article though as I am a mong when it comes to finance issues.

[TK421]

Originally Posted by RedinSweden

Does it say that though? They might have bought Babel and Torres with that money, but it isn't specifically them that would be affected, it is the club as a whole as far as I can tell. Not much better, I agree, but i thought everyone knew they had borrowed money to buy the players. I may have totally misunderstood the entire article though as I am a mong when it comes to finance issues.

I don't know for sure, but when he specifically mentions Babel as being included in the refinancing package it makes it sound as though individual players, i.e Babel and Torres, have been charged to the bank as security for providing the loan. And he says it is an unusual way of buying players.

[WaltonRed]

Its scaremongering bollocks but if it turns the not arsed crowd into being arsed then im all for it.

[RedinSweden]

Originally Posted by TK421

I don't know for sure, but when he specifically mentions Babel as being included in the refinancing package it makes it sound as though individual players, i.e Babel and Torres, have been charged to the bank as security for providing the loan. And he says it is an unusual way of buying players.

He said it was unusual because teams normally use TV money though.

[WaltonRed]

BBC NEWS | Business | RBS to ask shareholders for cash

RBS news

[TK421]

Originally Posted by RedinSweden

He said it was unusual because teams normally use TV money though.

I am also a financial mong, that's just how I read it. Otherwise I don't see why Babel and Torres are mentioned and not the other players.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by TK421

I don't know for sure, but when he specifically mentions Babel as being included in the refinancing package it makes it sound as though individual players, i.e Babel and Torres, have been charged to the bank as security for providing the loan. And he says it is an unusual way of buying players.

Let`s say we struggle with the payment due...who would stop us from selling let`s say Crouch and Pennant to pay up?

[TK421]

Originally Posted by Kurt

Let`s say we struggle with the payment due...who would stop us from selling let`s say Crouch and Pennant to pay up?

Well if it comes to the worst, i.e we go into administration, I guess everybody will be up for grabs but that's different to defaulting on the loan and the RBS being able to enforce the sale of two specific players.

[RedinSweden]

Originally Posted by TK421

Well if it comes to the worst, i.e we go into administration, I guess everybody will be up for grabs but that's different to defaulting on the loan and the RBS being able to enforce the sale of two speci