SOS Minutes with Purslow meeting

[zico]

my guess, without reading the minutes yet, is that Purslow has always worked for the banks. I think he sees himself as our saviour. True reds fan, which i don't doubt, but he's the guy who came in and saved us from the yanks and led us to our most profitable history as a club. profitability assumes on field success so i'm sure he thinks in his own head that he's our off the field shankly.

 

that said, purslow probably has a massive bonus check waiting for him when he secures either investment and/or a new owner. so i'm sure he's got his own reasons for doing what he's doing.

but i would not put it past him to slag off the owners if A.) he thought it would provide an impetus for new investors to appear or B.) if he's really looking to create another PR distraction to take the focus off what is about to happen if he actually secures investment.

 

He'll deserve every penny if he sorts our club out......

 

Unlike our previuos owner, the money grabbing c***

[zico]

Fuck me, that's some interesting reading on the SOS site. Not least this:

 

NA - Do you have a vote on the board?

CP - Yes, a controlling vote. Hicks and Gillett have let me in. I will do the right thing.

 

Biggest proof that he is RBS' man, right there.....

[zico]

He hasn't just ammended though he has changed important points and added stuff he didn't say to us on the night.

 

Look at that article above though and he specifically talks about a plan b, when he told us there wasn't one. He gets that out in time for when we get our minutes out. Suspicious.

 

Noticed that to, can't help but being a little freightened that it includes selling priced assets....

 

If the investement of £ 100 mill is needed by new investors, and Man City bid £ 100 mill for Torres, it would be problems solved for the owners in the short term...

 

I will give it 24 hours max before the newspapers see this connection! Let the headlines begin.......

[coop]

There are several investors looking at the club so personally i think getting the £100m should be sorted before the end of the season but for what percentage is probably the stumbling block.

[PeeG]

There are several investors looking at the club so personally i think getting the £100m should be sorted before the end of the season but for what percentage is probably the stumbling block.

 

And we have just provided those investors with the perfect bargaining tool that this £100m is required. Purslow said that H&G's valuation was unrealistic. This will help make this more realistic.

[zico]

Fuck the Yanks, fuck Purslow, the slippery greaseball cunt and fuck him not agreeing the minutes. Gillett cracked up 18 months ago, Hicks is cracking up and now Purslow is cracking up as well.

 

It really does feel like light is at the end of the tunnel.

 

CP might not be our enemy here!!! He's running the club on behalf of the bank, who by and large is our owner now...

 

As a fan, he'll try to get new owners (best possible) in, but he'll need the current owners'(G&H), although their ownership is nothing more than a façade, approval.....

 

RBS (who seems to hold the power) can twist their arms though, as the possibility of a seizure and firesale will be in the back of their minds...

[stringvest]

Whether RBS appointed Purslow or not is really by the bye

 

It's not.

[zico]

I don't agree with much of this.

"Fuck everyone" doesnt actually get us our club back.

Whoever the new owners are, when they do come in, they're going to run us like a business, just hopefully after not dumping a shitload of debt on us first.

We can't expect saints running our club who do everything right all the time.

At best we can hope for responsible, honest, business savvy owners who buy us out of their own pockets for long-term gains (e.g. Lerner?).

I'm not sure I'd even want an Abramovic type anyway.

We want sustainable long term success based off our own revenue from a new stadium and decent marketing and we NEED out of this debt. You think the owners will just fuck off for no money at all if we complain enough?

 

We could use one right now, as we need investment for the new stadium and £ 100 mill investment in our squad....

As long as the money from the sugar daddy was paid in as equity, and the salaries were sustainable by the growth in revenues, I would not mind some disgustingly rich individual take over our club....

 

We'd have a strong squad with plenty om valuable assets, a new stadium and a workable cash balance even if this individual decided to fuck off at some point in the future....

[PeeG]

 

Biggest story in the city about the city's major 'company' is getting screwed by foreign investment and there is absolutely nothing in there.

[zico]

One very interesting interview the SOS got out of Purslow there, well done.

 

Interesting points for me.

 

His admission that he is just tasked with finding 100million of investment. Be that for 1% or 100% he is not arsed. Makes you wonder who Mr Purslow is actually working for? Obviously he said that RBS where not happy with the state of the club, and that the club has spoken to other financial institutions, so I doubt he is employed by RBS directly. But his "I have failed if I do not find investment" statement quite clearly shows his job description, and I wonder if he is basically bullet proof as far as the owners are concerned as him being there is on the instruction of RBS?

 

"Ok. I wanted investment just like you do; I stood up at AGMs and said that. Those who sold the club are responsible too. The promises of Hicks and Gillett are unforgivable. Hicks and Gillett cannot hang onto the club"

 

"LFC is for sale. It will be sold. The owners have to sell, they are out of money. The bank want it sold, the fans want it sold and people want to buy it."

 

Wow, where do you start on them two comments? He is amazingly scathing of Hicks and Gillett, for someone who is supposedly employed by them. I can't help but get the feeling that those two bastards are largely just puppets now, it sounds to me like they are basically just sitting and waiting for a sale. They do not seem arsed whatsoever about the club and want out at the highest price possible. Purlow's comments on them lead me to doubt whether they would even have the power to sack him.

 

Promising times ahead if what he has said is to be believed anyway.

 

And another point. I very much doubt Purslow is naive enough to think what he has actually said will not find it's way out in to the public domain. He seems well switched on and far too smart for this to have been the case. Can't quite figure out his motives though for being so frank and honest, yet sanitising his version of the minutes.

 

Agree

[Kurt]

So if we then consider the option that Purslow actually fucked up and said more than he meant to, then a recording of the conversation might explain the lack of any 100% clear-cut official denial from the club. Or has there been one? I don't go on that site anymore.

 

Banned there as well?

 

First Koptalk and now the official... Who are you?? Momo??

 

Some WUM`s never learn.

[zico]

I think Purslow knew exactly what he was doing. G&H can't sack him, or he would never have said some of things he's said, on the record or off the record. You can call him what you want to call him, but he's not stupid.

 

He was extremely honest and stated the cold, hard truth, yes he's trying to limit the possible damage in his relationship with the owners, but ultimately he doesn't give a fuck about them.

 

He wants what's good for the club and is trying to do the best he can and what he believes will save us long term. He also has a good rapport with Rafa which, for me, is a very positive thing. Remember, he's in a very difficult position, wedged between us, G&H and the banks.

 

I trust him.

 

I came down on this side of the fence too.... Yet you can never be sure !!

[zico]

I don't think he cares about the protests. Maybe he's just a bit worried it can put off buyers, but I don't think it's a big deal. I think he's asking for the protests to stop to appease the other side.

 

But people, look at some of the quotes again, Purslow has basically ripped off G&H's testicles. They are powerless in any negotiations with investors, who should now be more motivated than ever to get in there. This is huge. The magnitude of the some the things he's said haven't been emphasized enough, they have I know, but not enough. He's killed the Yanks' relevancy. They're dead men walking here. That should be applauded.

 

Very true this!

 

Basically I feel he has said that the club is up for sale, we need a hundred million quid, name the ownership size you want ... I am administring the club on behalf of the debtholders, we're not happy with the current owners, do YOU want to own one of the greatest brands in football?

[Sangria]

It's not.

 

Correct.

[aws]

My take is that he knew what he was doing - getting the story out to put pressure on the owners to agree a sensible exit (or partial exit) quickly so as to raise the extra equity insisted upon by his real employer. He's acting as if he were an administrator appointed by RBS to put their security onto a firmer footing to avoid a default.

 

His alternative version of the minutes is to muddy the waters and give him an element of deniability should he need it in future.

[Sangria]

My take is that he knew what he was doing - getting the story out to put pressure on the owners to agree a sensible exit (or partial exit) quickly so as to raise the extra equity insisted upon by his real employer. He's acting as if he were an administrator appointed by RBS to put their security onto a firmer footing to avoid a default.

 

His alternative version of the minutes is to muddy the waters and give him an element of deniability should he need it in future.

 

I see it no other way myself, it is the only way the whole thing makes any sense.

 

One question could RBS possibly stop the sale of a major player. Obviously the one that springs to mind is Torres, would this be seen as asset striping.

 

Sorry I have no knowledge whatsoever in this area and maybe someone out there does.

[05 Milan]

My gut feeling is that aws is on the money here. But we need to get the unofficial quotes spread properly. I didn't think threat of libel was such a big deal for the british press..

[ODZ]

I see it no other way myself, it is the only way the whole thing makes any sense.

 

One question could RBS possibly stop the sale of a major player. Obviously the one that springs to mind is Torres, would this be seen as asset striping.

 

Sorry I have no knowledge whatsoever in this area and maybe someone out there does.

 

They don't need to stop sales. Torres can refuse to move, which he will if it happens IMO.

[zico]

That's the end of him.

 

I don't think so, and this is why:

 

I think RBS is running the club, and G&H are more or less just puppets who jumps when told at the moment.

 

- Clearly the language used by CP in the SOS meeting about the owners is not something one would say about ones "real" employers... (He would have to know that what he said would come out one way or the other)

 

- Hick's Jr left the Board without a fight. If they had a say, there would have been a fight...

 

- CP has a deciding vote on the Board, you'd have to think he'll vote on behalf of RBS...

 

- The current financing is only short term, and needs to be refinanced soon, which leaves the power/ownership in the hands of RBS, as there are probably cause for them to say that certain covenants in the loan agreement have been breached. (Since the refinancing was going down to the wire, I assume there were breaches on the last loan deal, and RBS would have been right to call for more powers at the club if they we're going to refinance - clue CP appointed. If the owners sack him, I am sure RBS will pull the plug.)

 

The owners seem like lame ducks at the moment....

[Sangria]

They don't need to stop sales. Torres can refuse to move, which he will if it happens IMO.

 

Yes I suppose that is another angle, they cannot force a player to leave.

[zigackly]

Can't believe I actually spent time reading Hermes midnight ramblings.

 

You need to drink less turpentine fella.

[Sangria]

Can't believe I actually spent time reading Hermes midnight ramblings.

 

You need to drink less turpentine fella.

 

I did the same thing this morning and it was not pleasant breakfast reading.

[Durango]

I find it difficult to accept your version, unless as I said he wants to be sacked.

Nobody who wants to keep his job would make such comments about his employers in public.

Well you wouldn't believe it would you,

being the clueless weapon that you are.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Durango

[diego]

I don't buy the explanation that CP was being cute in deliberately making controversial statements and then denying them. He is not a liar.

 

He made a mistake. He believed that the agreement with SOS that no minutes would be published without his approval gave him some licence to be frank. In effect, he treated the conversation as he would any "off the record" discussion with a journalist. An agreement not to record the exchange, other than with notes, is normal in such agreements. It is an essential part of the convention that if the journalist breaches the trust by reporting the comments verbatim or identifies the source, then the person who received the assurances that the exchange was "off the record" can legitimately and morally deny them.

 

His mistake was that SOS is not a journalist and does not, therefore, adhere to the ethics of journalism. It also appears that SOS does not consider itself bound by the agreement it made with CP and the assurances it gave him. Furthermore SOS does not consider itself bound by the "parliamentary" conventions that govern formal corporate and institutional meetings.

 

To that extent CP was duped. Ultimately it was his mistake to trust SOS.

 

The substance of that matter is that he wanted to convince SOS that he understood and shared some of their concerns and feelings about the owners. He needed to do this to show that his request that they reconsider the protests they have been making at Anfield was not driven by his concern for the hurt feelings of the current owners but for his concern about driving away or discouraging better owners.

 

The version of the minutes CP has authorized is sufficiently informative and substantial to satisfy most genuine supporters. And if that is all we had learned SOS should be congratulated in providing an opportunity for CP to have made such disclosures.

 

In my view, the substance of the disclosure is not enhanced by the controversial comments. There was no need for SOS to have added them.

 

This does not mean that I accept the SOS version as being true. Minutes are not supposed to be verbatim record of every remark made in a discussion. They are supposed to be a faithful rendering of the substance of the discussion that took place. The true version would have been the version mutually agreed by both parties. There should have been no other version.

Edited February 3, 2010 by diego

[Delmar]

Basically I feel he has said that the club is up for sale, we need a hundred million quid, name the ownership size you want ... I am administring the club on behalf of the debtholders, we're not happy with the current owners, do YOU want to own one of the greatest brands in football?

 

He has said nothing of the kind. His job is to get the extra investment in, yes, but I guarantee you that LFC is not for sale for 100 million.

 

He stated that the debts on the club amount to 237 million. He also stated that the owners have put around 130 million of their "own" money in it. Well, I also guarantee you that that money is not out of pocket stuff. The chances are that the 130 million has been borrowed, as well, and that eventually the club will cover the interest for that in one way or another.

 

So the minimum to buy the LFC would then go up to 367 million. Then the owners need a profit. That means that they are still looking to get way over 400 million for the club.

 

The 100 million is just to keep RBS financing going. The debt would still be 137 million which is more than double the debt that we had when Moores sold the club.

 

The 100 million may well buy the majority ownership, though, but that depends on the other responsibilities the new investor agrees to take. It will never buy a majority ownership on its own.

 

All of that is based on what's in public. I also think that the true picture is way more complicated and worse.