RBS putting the squeeze on?

[RolandRat]

Daily Express | Sport | Football

 

The problems on the pitch come as strong rumours circulate within the city that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia are putting the squeeze on American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett to pay back another chunk of the £240millionstill outstanding from their original borrowing to buy Liverpool, or reduce their asking price and sell the club.

 

It comes with the Anfield hierarchy trying to drum up interest in a shares issue that would dilute their stake and bring in a minority investor.

Liverpool are seeking £100m for a 25 per cent stake in the club which would go towards paying down the debt and trigger a long-term refinancing arrangement with the banks that could last between three and four years.

 

A reduced level of debt would allow the much-delayed stadium project to return to the agenda.

[Unrighteous]

I hope the yanks fuck off and die.

 

The end.

[Royal Family]

Banks need to pay those massive bonuses somehow, you know....

[coop]

Tick tock.

[Delmar]

Same old story. If they don't find new investors, then the only option they have left is to sell players. That process started last summer, and without investors it's just a question of who goes. Lovely times we have with the two nice old gentlemen...

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

I hope the yanks fuck off and die.

 

The end.

 

Bit harsh on all Americans?

[ratcatcher]

If the refinancing deal was agreed and signed up in July or whenever, then I cannot see how this story has a shred of truth in it. The repayment terms would have been agreed and form the terms and conditions. The two banks cannot then insist any money is paid back in advance of those terms.

 

Another piece of pisspoor journalism if you ask me.

[tobycatz]

Bit harsh on all Americans?

 

Harsh yes but surely not unreasonable.

[Section_31]

 

"The bank have been on again, they want their money back!"

 

"What happened to that Saudi investment?"

 

"It turns out he's actually as skint as us!"

 

"Damn, blasted negro!"

[drewy]

If the refinancing deal was agreed and signed up in July or whenever, then I cannot see how this story has a shred of truth in it. The repayment terms would have been agreed and form the terms and conditions. The two banks cannot then insist any money is paid back in advance of those terms.

 

Another piece of pisspoor journalism if you ask me.

 

What if those 'repayment terms and conditions' stipulated the downsizing of the clubs debt by Christmas?

 

The truth is you know as much about our financial situation as you do about refereeing.

 

Cock all.

[ratcatcher]

What if those 'repayment terms and conditions' stipulated the downsizing of the clubs debt by Christmas?

 

The truth is you know as much about our financial situation as you do about refereeing.

 

Cock all.

 

It is possible that is one of the T&C's but if that was so, you'd expect barrett and smith to have reported this. Anyone with a little sense would also realise the article's writer would have mentioned this too.

 

But hey, dont let that stand in your way of petty vendetta's. I know I wont :P

[Red Nick]

If the refinancing deal was agreed and signed up in July or whenever, then I cannot see how this story has a shred of truth in it. The repayment terms would have been agreed and form the terms and conditions. The two banks cannot then insist any money is paid back in advance of those terms.

 

Another piece of pisspoor journalism if you ask me.

 

I understand they want the debt down to 125m when they renew next year and Wichovia want out completely.

 

Thats the true reality which means the need 100m as I pointed out last week to bring the debt down. No Investor sell up or sell Torres & Gerrard its that simple

[G Richards]

They are touting a 25% share for £100M? Why on earth would anybody put their hard earned cash into this only to have no real power? I can't see that happening. Therefore they need to find the money themselves or sell up at a more realistic price. If they don't have the money then it is player sales, but that would also reduce the value of the club and would also reduce our chances of CL qualification, so this will probably be avoided (at least when it comes to Torres and Gerrard).

 

Round and round it goes. I can only hope a sale to a better owner will ensue. Fingers crossed.

[SpeedyG]

They are touting a 25% share for £100M? Why on earth would anybody put their hard earned cash into this only to have no real power? I can't see that happening. Therefore they need to find the money themselves or sell up at a more realistic price. If they don't have the money then it is player sales, but that would also reduce the value of the club and would also reduce our chances of CL qualification, so this will probably be avoided (at least when it comes to Torres and Gerrard).

 

Round and round it goes. I can only hope a sale to a better owner will ensue. Fingers crossed.

 

The same reason everyone else buys ordinary shares. A financial return.

[Original202]

The same reason everyone else buys ordinary shares. A financial return.

 

But to do that, you need to buy low and sell high. Not buy high and then be stuck with a bad investment which you can't sell at all.

[SpeedyG]

But to do that, you need to buy low and sell high. Not buy high and then be stuck with a bad investment which you can't sell at all.

 

You obviously have insider information that I don't have access to.

[George Costanza]

The same reason everyone else buys ordinary shares. A financial return.

 

There is no significant financial return until the debt is massively reduced and the ground capacity is improved by 10k or so.

 

Considering the debt ont he club its no way worth £400m (if the £100m for 25% is true) Its barely worth much more than they paid for it. They'll be lucky to get £200m for the lot (£450m if you include paying off the debt)

[Original202]

£100m for 25% is a ridiculous valuation. If they halved it, it'd be more realistic.

 

The club won't realise its full commercial potential until a bigger stadium is built, with corporate and non matchday facilities a world away from we can currently offer.

 

No investor is going to pay that much for a minority stake when in order to get any sort of return there's going to have to be either more debt taken on to build a stadium, or more investment in addition to buying a stake.

[SpeedyG]

There is no significant financial return until the debt is massively reduced and the ground capacity is improved by 10k or so.

 

Massively reduced by the 100m investment for example?

 

Considering the debt ont he club its no way worth £400m (if the £100m for 25% is true) Its barely worth much more than they paid for it. They'll be lucky to get £200m for the lot (£450m if you include paying off the debt)

 

Ok, we've grown our revenue 60m a year since they bought the club i.e. by 50%, and you're telling me it's not worth more than then? Methinks you've been reading too many SOS articles.

[Original202]

Ok, we've grown our revenue 60m a year since they bought the club i.e. by 50%, and you're telling me it's not worth more than then? Methinks you've been reading too many SOS articles.

 

Revenue shevenue. Has our profit grown in line with revenue?

[SpeedyG]

Revenue shevenue. Has our profit grown in line with revenue?

 

Football clubs don't run for profit, they run for capital growth so the revenue is reinvested. Hence no, but then if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have asked that question.

[George Costanza]

Massively reduced by the 100m investment for example?

 

 

 

Ok, we've grown our revenue 60m a year since they bought the club i.e. by 50%, and you're telling me it's not worth more than then? Methinks you've been reading too many SOS articles.

 

Not even halved the debt though has it.

 

The revenue may have grown but all that has been counteracted by the debt interest repayments.

 

Are you suggesting the club is in a better position now than when the Americans took over. Simple maths is £167m for the club with a £30m debt = £197m. The debt is more now than the club was worth when it was bought. Then you've also got to put on the money the Americans want.

 

unless there is a filthy rich Liverpool (maybe neutral football fan) then nobody is going to buy any stake in the club at the price the americans want for their 'investment'* - and i use that word in the oosest term possible as they have invested practically fuck all.

[Original202]

Football clubs don't run for profit, they run for capital growth so the revenue is reinvested. Hence no, but then if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have asked that question.

 

Haha. I make a living reading and constructing balance sheets. But thanks.

[SpeedyG]

Haha. I make a living reading and constructing balance sheets. But thanks.

 

ACCA has a lot to answer for then.

[SpeedyG]

Not even halved the debt though has it.

 

The revenue may have grown but all that has been counteracted by the debt interest repayments.

 

Are you suggesting the club is in a better position now than when the Americans took over. Simple maths is £167m for the club with a £30m debt = £197m. The debt is more now than the club was worth when it was bought. Then you've also got to put on the money the Americans want.

 

unless there is a filthy rich Liverpool (maybe neutral football fan) then nobody is going to buy any stake in the club at the price the americans want for their 'investment'* - and i use that word in the oosest term possible as they have invested practically fuck all.

 

I didn't say we were better off now, I said we were worth more.

 

Are we better off now than when the americans took over, clearly not. But with the debt is going down, the interest payments go down, the revenue goes up. With guaranteed TV rights, standard chartered money, an under performing shirt (adidas) deal, a stadium deal etc etc it's not rocket science to work out there might be a financial return.