RBS and THAT loan extension

[Lucky Pierre]

You can’t sell anyone unless they want to go! They have a contract! They can cancel the contract but that would require compensation to the player and he would effectively be a free agent and the club would receive no money. Therefore, administrators can only sell players who want to leave or are willing to leave.

If you were a player, would you rather stay at a club in financial trouble, who could not guarantee to pay your wages in a few months, or move to a steady club?

 

Why is there all this talk about no buyers? There's be loads of people willing to take us on the cheap!

[Catch22]

If that's the case, why would a senior member of the RBS group say that they were going to extend the finance because they didn't want to put LFC into administration and didn't want to face the wrath of supporters?

 

A senior member of the RBS group might be clueless about the feelings of fans, but surely he'd know himself if the owners would be able to get finance elsewhere.

 

 

Has he said this publically?

Also, don't forget 'talk is cheap' but people are a lot more honest when they have to actually put cash up:

For most of 2008 RBS claimed they were solvent!

 

The "TED spread", which is the difference between what banks and the U.S. Treasury pay to borrow for three months, has narrowed to Aug '07 levels for the 1st time since the credit crisis began.

This means the banks have liquidity again (not back to boom levels but enough to go about their business)

 

Sky has already signed a contract for increased payments for PL rights.

We can pay the interest with a £20m cushion (our normal transfer budget) on the old deal, let alone the new one.

 

So we know that the banks have liquidity & we know that Lfc can finance the deal:

The logical step from that must be that they can finance the deal relatively easily.

[Carra_is_legend]

Also RBS is now owned by the tax payers so they may have different constraints re: lending money.

 

There are various other banks with cash looking to lend and they will get a no better client than LFC.

 

By lending short term (12/18 months) loan to the cunts, the banks will be in a win-win situation. Just look at the money we generate from Sky TV deal and Champions League - who in the right mind will be reluctant to lend? It is easy money for the bank.

[Slimmy]

The important issue is whether there is a buyer out there, previously when all this kicked off we had Dubai waiting in the wings, now whose there?

[Dougie Do'ins]

That would be fucking ace

 

I told someone from SOS about this earlier

 

Whatever your reservations about SOS, if they choose to take this up, we need to get behind it

 

Didn't SOS do something like this on the phones? Didn't seem to get the message through.

 

What happened to picketing their HQ?

 

Firstly the club wont be going into administration.

 

Andy, at one of the mass meetings (the one in the bar in Liverpool 1) we were told to stop targeting RBS IE: the call center phone line congestion idea. We told to stop as it might piss RBS off and have a negative effect on what we were trying to achieve.

 

Sorry people but all this is to little to late. The extension has been granted and this "administration" threat has just been thrown into the mix as a convenient excuse to appease anyone who might not be to happy about the loan extension being granted.

 

The alarm bells should have started ringing when, as I posted at the time G+H put on that united front by sitting next to each other at the game and had people from RBS as their guests. That was as clear a signal that something was going to happen regarding the loan extension/ownership of the club. What happened ? Fuck all.

 

Then we had this from Sean Dundee basically telling us what Andy has now confirmed, yet nobody seemed to take it seriously. Why ?

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/forum/ff-football-forum/78975-more-rbs-deal-info.html

 

#1 (permalink) 14th May 2009, 09:42 AM

sean_dundee

Forumite Join Date: Sep 2008

Posts: 29

vCash: 500

iTrader: (0)

 

 

more rbs deal info

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

had some more info from my mate whos uncle john hourican was involved in 6 month extension,and he said rbs had little chice in granting 6 month extension,but have told the 2 fuckers that this,is only on the condition that they find a buyer or settle the outstanding loan in 6 months time..no new extension will be granted after that! he also mentioned that he had heard that the deal that almost went thro with the kuwaitis,was halted due to sheikh mo who he told me is still waiting in the wings....hopefully wont be long before these 2 shithouses will be gone for good!

 

Andy I admire all the effort and conviction you seem to be putting into all this but as I said at the beginning of my post, IMO the deal has been done. RBS were treated to a big night at Anfield. The trough was filled for them and once again the people from RBS didn't need asking twice to go and help themselves. The alarm bells should have started ringing then yet nothing from SOS.

 

The deal has been done and were being fed a big spoon of "administration" in order to help us swallow it.

[Trucker Paddy]

I said in an earlier post, I dont live in the UK so I cant do this but lads the RBS is 70% owned by you the British taxpayer, there local elections coming up start to lobby your local MP, tell him if he wants your vote you want him to help prevent this happening.

[havarantagain]

The idea that a dinner conversation between two well connected individuals that speculates that RBS is concerned to the repercussions for the retail outlets and staff in the North West, if they were to foreclose on the Yanks loans, is nothing short of farcical . Is this bowing to potential share holder consequence , who may wish to avoid further media scrutiny ? That depends were the RBS board deem their priorities are based, returning share holder value or keeping a low profile whilst the group rebuilds confidence.

I would suggest both are a priority, but not in equal measure. Returning RBS balance sheet to a healthier outlook and the governments money is a greater priority. This is set against the background of potential new investors in the club, willing to pay a fair price without the need for leveraged loan agreements. Thus, this conversation if true was nothing more than a flippant off the cuff remark which may have been mooted at a high level within the bank but being a main consideration, I doubt. Put simply RBS wants its money back plus interest ASAP in accordance to the loans agreement, they may well extend again unfortunately but not because they fear the consequences for the retail outlets and staff in isolation. It will be because the yanks can provide the necessary guarantees which will be far more stringent than those demanded for the original agreements, failing which RBS can demand the club is sold to one of those interested parties for a price that they feel meets the valuation of their outstanding loans. The balance sheet at RBS is their priority and getting £300million off it would make a few executives sleep a little easier.

Letting RBS know that they could expect mass closing of accounts and pickets outside branches (publicity) would have a bigger impression on the RBS board than any unrealistic threats against branches and staff and they know that.

[discuit]

Didn't Chelsea go into Administration before Roman bought them for a pound?

[redrosetints]

Been reading over the past couple of days about the apparent agreement on an extension of the loan provided by RBS to Liverpool Football Club in a few of the Sunday Papers.

 

From what I understand, the stories are more or less correct in regards to structure, and I'm not in any way implying that I know more than Chris Bascombe or am in any way correcting him, as he was spot on.

 

But there is a side issue which hasn't been reported and the person who told me this has given me the nod to get it out, so I'm not in anyway screwing anyone, and I think it's important that we all know.

 

In the last week or so, one of the senior staff from The Times business section was at dinner with a friend who is one of the higher upper's from RBS.

 

It wasn't a press briefing, just a meal between friends and the subject of LFC came up.

 

When asked what the situation was in regards to the renewal, the following reply was offered, obviously I wasn't there so this isn't verbatim.

 

The gyst of the reply was that RBS are inclined to offer the current owners of the club an extension, principally because they don't want to be the bank who might have to put LFC into administration, and just as important, they had 25-26 branches in Liverpool and didn't want any action taken against their property or employees.

So this bank actually think that they would be avoiding trouble by granting an extension to the loan? This was a major factor in the decision making process?

 

They think that not granting the extension would bring direct action from Liverpool supporters? Isn't that the wrong way round?

 

Someone I know well has been trying to get in touch with RBS to tell them how wrong they are, trying to find out how could they possibly get the wrong end of the stick on such a grand scale, but unfortunately hasn't been able to make a difference on his own. Hence the reason why I've been told to get this out.

 

The account above is absolutely true. Want to make a difference? Then this may be your chance.

 

I can't name the people concerned for obvious reasons, but for the bank to use this reason, above business justification, says to me that with the right pressure, expressed in the right way, a change of thinking may be possible.

 

They are obviously very worried about the reaction of the city of Liverpool.

 

I honestly believe a nationwide campaign of opposition towards the extension may bear fruit - especially considering that the bank is now owned by the taxpayer, and our policitians are very, very twitchy at the moment.

 

You have to believe that you can make a change. Help bring a close to this whole sorry episode, whether it's a phone call, a letter, a withdrawal of your business.

 

We know now that they are worried - misguided - but worried and sensitive to what we feel about the club we all love.

 

Don't let this chance to make a difference pass you by.

 

Interesting stuff UEM, just to play devils advocate, if we did this and RBS didn't renew the loan, putting us into administration, how would you feel if we then lost the league due to the 10 point deduction ?

 

Given the fact were on 18 titles each, if we collected more points than united, but finished behind them due to the points deduction, I think Id be mightly pissed off !

 

I can see the greater good etc, and that we may not even go into administration but Carra and Gerrard etc arent getting any younger, can we afford to give away ten points to get rid of the twats, if it means losing the league, to them.

 

Id be mighty torn matey.

[Carra_is_legend]

Didn't Chelsea go into Administration before Roman bought them for a pound?

 

No. They got sold just before that.

[Dougie Do'ins]

Didn't Chelsea go into Administration before Roman bought them for a pound?

No. The wolves were at the door but they didn't go into administration. If Roman hadn't turned up when he did Chelsea would have been royally fucked.

 

He didn't get Chelsea for £1.00 he took on their debts as well.

[el matador]

We will have to if we go into Administration. The administrators' job would be to get as much money as possible from the business by selling the assets. In a football club, this would be done by selling the big players.

 

A business normally goes into administration because there is no one willing to buy it.

 

a business normally goes into administration to 'seek immediate protection from its creditors'.

 

If RBS / wachovia called in the entire loan and hicks and gillett couldnt pay it or sell the club quick enough - they would have no hesitation in putting us into administration.

 

I would do the exact same thing.

[Trucker Paddy]

Moores you are a cunt, you'd think he'd come out and asay something now that Parry is going, whats the point of him remaining on the board?

[JMARKH]

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is

wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts

they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,

it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what club can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not

warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of

resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as

to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost

in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from

time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is its natural manure.

[RedinSweden]

While I would accept a points hit if it guaranteed the long term future of the club, but going into administration wouldn't do that. We don't know what sort of buyers there are out there. For me to accept the ruining of antire league campaign i would need to know that the new buyers were significantly better than the yanks, which is something we just don't knowWe have done well in the league considering all the turmoil, but for me going into administration is just not acceptable.

[Anubis]

I agree with what people say that the deal and paperwork is done. This time. But it might help concentrate both RBS's and the owners minds next time around in 6 months time. And that can only be a good thing surely?

[Strontium]

No. The wolves were at the door but they didn't go into administration. If Roman hadn't turned up when he did Chelsea would have been royally fucked.

 

 

They were literally 24 hours away from selling Mongo to us for £8m, as I recall. And if we found ourselves in similar difficulties, we'd be flogging off our best players too.

[aws]

Very dangerous game. Going into administration is like trying to take a tooth out with a revolver. I suppose it might work.

 

We need to be putting pressure on them without pushing too hard at the wrong time.

[Bogman]

Very dangerous game. Going into administration is like trying to take a tooth out with a revolver. I suppose it might work.

 

Depends where the tooth is, to be honest, if it's sat on the top of a fence, no problem..................................;)

[Dougie Do'ins]

They were literally 24 hours away from selling Mongo to us for £8m, as I recall. And if we found ourselves in similar difficulties, we'd be flogging off our best players too.

I honestly dont think it will come to that. As I said earlier, IMO all this talk of administration is just scare mongering. Its RBS calling our bluff. We either accept the loan extension nicely or if they pull the plug on G+H there's no buyer out there and were fucked. Its bullshit. Manchester fucking City found a buyer for fucks sake.

 

Where's the leader of our city council on this ? G+H took out a lease on the park with the promise that they would build a ground and the area would benefit. OK the palm house has been restored and the park has had some work done on it, but in general the area surrounding the ground is still a shit hole.

 

Any money that has been spent was funded by North West Development Agency (NWDA) If the proposed new ground doesn't go ahead then all money spent has to be paid back by the club.

 

Surely the city council have the right to ask what the fuck is going on. Have G+H got a strategy in place and what the fuck is it. As far as I'm aware G+H have not kept their part of the bargain and should be held accountable for it. The city council should demand answers and if there not forthcoming then action should be taken. If needs be legal proceedings.

 

Could it be Mr Bradley isn't to arsed about our predicament as he's enjoying seeing us being asset stripped and can see us being forced nearer to his dream of a shared stadium ? Can someone give me a feasiable explanation as to why G+H seem to be getting a free ride of Liverpool city council ?

 

I'll end my rant on this.

 

When SOS caught up with GG at his hotel and demanded answers remember what he said. The spade in the park was just press talk and they (G+H) had so far spent £100.000.000 on the new ground. A hundred million fucking pound, on what. Yet this revelation was met with hardly a murmur especially on these boards.

 

As I said earlier today, any action now with RBS is to little to late.

[dave u]

Haven't read all of the thread, but there is not a cat in hell's chance we'd go into administration.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is only actually 150m debt on the club, the rest is on the owners is it not? I don't know the ins and outs of all that, but wouldn't that effectively mean the club would be put up for sale at £150m?

 

There'd be a queue of buyers lining up around the block at that price. Hell, our mate Rogan might even be able to raise that kind of money!

[The Party Boy]

Michael Owen could probably buy us at that price.

[Carra_is_legend]

When SOS caught up with GG at his hotel and demanded answers remember what he said. The spade in the park was just press talk and they (G+H) had so far spent £100.000.000 on the new ground. A hundred million fucking pound' date=' on what. Yet this revelation was met with hardly a murmur especially on these boards.[/quote']

 

Spent hundred fucking million????? What the fuck!

 

So the working capital of £60m they borrowed to start the stadium has indeed gone into their pockets!!

 

Fucking hell. At this rate, in 3/4 years time we will have a debt of £750m and without a new stadium.

[Lucky Pierre]

Haven't read all of the thread, but there is not a cat in hell's chance we'd go into administration.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is only actually 150m debt on the club, the rest is on the owners is it not? I don't know the ins and outs of all that, but wouldn't that effectively mean the club would be put up for sale at £150m?

I was under teh impression it was £260M on the club and £60M on the owners?

There'd be a queue of buyers lining up around the block at that price. Hell, our mate Rogan might even be able to raise that kind of money!

I've said that already, you big... idea stealer, you!

[aws]

Haven't read all of the thread, but there is not a cat in hell's chance we'd go into administration.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is only actually 150m debt on the club, the rest is on the owners is it not? I don't know the ins and outs of all that, but wouldn't that effectively mean the club would be put up for sale at £150m?

 

There'd be a queue of buyers lining up around the block at that price. Hell, our mate Rogan might even be able to raise that kind of money!

 

I'd be amazed if every penny of the debt wasn't secured in some way against the club even if some of it was borrowed in the name of the holding club or the yanks. The selling price would have to be about £400m to clear the debt, interest and administration fees and costs.