SOS Minutes with Purslow meeting

[Delmar]

We need 100m, agreed, but hasnt Purslows declaration made it clear that while the 100m isnt negotiable, the percentage of the club that takes is. So if Purslow gets 100m, someone else will be calling the shots ? Getting 100m clearly means that the yanks are gone, not getting the 100m doesnt, as the yanks can go elsewhere for finance.

 

The percentage is negotiable only up to a limit, I cannot believe that it would buy a majority stake on its own. If it is 100 million + financing of the stadium, then we're looking at a totally different picture.

 

Getting the 100 million alone means to me that the banks will continue financing LFC as it is, with G&H and someone else as owners. It will not solve anything on the field, e.g. the transfers will be financed by sales, the whole nightmare continues, with another owner added.

[redrosetints]

The percentage is negotiable only up to a limit, I cannot believe that it would buy a majority stake on its own. If it is 100 million + financing of the stadium, then we're looking at a totally different picture.

 

Getting the 100 million alone means to me that the banks will continue financing LFC as it is, with G&H and someone else as owners. It will not solve anything on the field, e.g. the transfers will be financed by sales, the whole nightmare continues, with another owner added.

 

What if DIC come in at 100m for 51% ? Yes G&T are still there, but they are out of control.

 

As I said before, to my simple mind, if Purslow fails, its worse, as the Yanks will go elsewhere for their money at a higher percentage rate.

[Delmar]

Correct me if Im wrong, I've probably oversimplified it. But 100m equals new people runnin g the club, allbeit with the current pair having a minority share.

 

I don't know enough of the specifics of what G&H have done with financing of the whole deal, and my problem is that many here post as if they do and speculate about details. I try to make more general points, as there's a lot that we don't know.

 

So, in general, I think you have probably oversimplified it :) Controlling interest is not the same as 100% ownership and nobody has seriously stated that the 100 million buys 51%, let alone 100%, of the club. Nobody has stated either, what would happen to the personal guarantees that the owners have supposedly given to the banks, or what would the 130 million that they've supposedly invested "themselves" entitle them to. We don't even know where the 130 million came from. Or who pays for the return of that investment and how. And I'm sure there are a whole lot more questions like this, stuff for the accountants, really.

 

As it is, I prefer to do as zigackly and wait for Purslow's actions, before judging if he is OK for LFC or not.

[coop]

Whoever invests in the club will want a controlling interest as Purslow has already said that.

 

I agree with redrosetints in that if the £100m gets invested then Hick's and Gillett's grip on the club begins to loosen.

[redrosetints]

I don't know enough of the specifics of what G&H have done with financing of the whole deal, and my problem is that many here post as if they do and speculate about details. I try to make more general points, as there's a lot that we don't know.

 

So, in general, I think you have probably oversimplified it :) Controlling interest is not the same as 100% ownership and nobody has seriously stated that the 100 million buys 51%, let alone 100%, of the club. Nobody has stated either, what would happen to the personal guarantees that the owners have supposedly given to the banks, or what would the 130 million that they've supposedly invested "themselves" entitle them to. We don't even know where the 130 million came from. Or who pays for the return of that investment and how. And I'm sure there are a whole lot more questions like this, stuff for the accountants, really.

 

As it is, I prefer to do as zigackly and wait for Purslow's actions, before judging if he is OK for LFC or not.

 

From the SOS minutes we have

 

5. Can you also confirm that the intention (as reported) would be to secure investment from a third party for a 25% share of the Club – is this still the intention? If not, what is the current intention?

 

CP - It is not a given that £100 million will buy 25%. I need to find £100 million, and if this is for 1% or 100% I don't care. I am concentrating on getting the investment needed. Some investors may have issues with working with the present owners, but some don't just want a percentage, some want 100%. No investor is going to want to invest £100 million and have a smaller stake than the present owners.

 

Purslows own minutes are equally clear

 

5. Can you also confirm that the intention (as reported) would be to secure investment from a third party for a 25% share of the Club – is this still the intention? If not, what is the current intention?

 

CP - I have seen this reported and I think it comes from the sales document prepared by the owners bankers last year. The reality is much less proscriptive. The owners and the board are considering different sorts of proposals which could involve new investors taking a stake or a full takeover. The market will determine valuation and we have enough interest to suggest that the owners valuation is realistic.

 

The current lead bank RBS is highly supportive of the club and this is a vitally important and positive thing. With new investment they have already agreed that they would provide new long term facilities and would also like to participate in financing the stadium and they are not the only bank who has met with the club and expressed interest in the stadium project, many have.

 

But the common denominator of all these financing providers is that we need new investment first and so this is the key first step.

 

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

 

Both imply that it has to be 100m and that noone will take anything lesss tha a controlling interst in the club for that money. 34% leaves you open to the yanks working together. 51% puts you in the clear.

[Moo]

 

Goodnight.

 

Embarrassing. Yankapologist.

 

 

Well done to SOS.

While their actions may not have been ideal (and none of us know what 'ideal' would have been) they are fully justified in handling this the way they have.

You're more dedicated supporters than I am, and I applaud your efforts.

[Redexile]

Yes we do. We have an Overseas Supporter Liaison Officer as well to address overseas members. There will be different issues for people like yourself. One of the proposals in the AGM as well is to have local branches so you could then set up a SOS branch wherever you are in the world.

 

I would be up for that.

[Moo]

Mate, I respect what you've done and are doing. But I also respect what Purslow has done and is doing. We talk of trust but I have no more trust of you, or SoS than I do of Purslow or the other way around. This site shows that where there are fans, there are differences. Inspite of teh fact that in footballing terms we are all 90% there, as we all support Liverpool.

 

So sorry if I seem negative, but if there is one thing we all agree, its that we want the current owners gone and I include you ,me and Purslow in that. Why not look at teh commonality that unites us, you, me and Purslow, not the potential for division, in who said this or that.

 

If SoS all out suport the manager, players and fans and crucially, the managemetn of the club (minus the owners) then we can all pull in one direction until they are gone.

 

If Purslow is deemed worthy of trust based on him being a genuine supporter then he will understand why, and make allowances for, SOS doing what they have done.

 

If he doesn't understand that then he is not worthy of that level of trust and SOS will have been fully, fully vindicated in their actions.

[PeeG]

I would be up for that.

 

It has to get passed at the AGM as it would be a new addition to the constitution. Would allow branches of between 50 and 100 SOS members.

[PeeG]

Am I wrong here but to me were a BETTER investment now, than we were in 2007, although the competitoin has picked up somwhat. In 07 we were sold for 190m, plus we had 90m of debts against us, which meant it was a 280m deal. Now we have a situaiton where you can buy a controlling interest in the club for 100m, with just 137m of debts.

 

Correct me if Im wrong, I've probably oversimplified it. But 100m equals new people runnin g the club, allbeit with the current pair having a minority share.

 

We had £44.8m worth of debts when Hicks and Gillett took over. £100m doesn't mean it will give a controlling interest in the club. That is just the minimum investment. If the owners and investors agree that the value of the club is £400m for example then it would need more than £100m investment to get a controlling interest in the club.

[coop]

We had £44.8m worth of debts when Hicks and Gillett took over. £100m doesn't mean it will give a controlling interest in the club. That is just the minimum investment. If the owners and investors agree that the value of the club is £400m for example then it would need more than £100m investment to get a controlling interest in the club.

 

What if the £100m investment then came with a proviso that whoever was doing the 'investing' would then build the stadium.

 

This would mean an outlay of around £450m so i think they would expect a controlling interest.

[PeeG]

What if the £100m investment then came with a proviso that whoever was doing the 'investing' would then build the stadium.

 

This would mean an outlay of around £450m so i think they would expect a controlling interest.

 

It would come with the proviso of that. Even though some of that would be equity the likelihood would be is that it would be a loan to cover most of the stadium against future earnings of the stadium similar to Arsenal. So the club would take on most of the outlay for the stadium.

[Dirk]

Embarrassing. Yankapologist.

 

 

Contrarian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Durango]

For the Owner to go elsewhere to refinance,they would need the Club to be valued at approx £350m,most Commercial lending will only provide 70% LTV (loan to value).

 

Considering that where in the most depressing Economic down turn in over 80 years I find that a hard act to pull off.

 

When you consider that they paid £220m 3 years ago,I doubt any financial Institutions will believe that Liverpool have increased in value by over 50% in such a short space of time.

[coop]

It would come with the proviso of that. Even though some of that would be equity the likelihood would be is that it would be a loan to cover most of the stadium against future earnings of the stadium similar to Arsenal. So the club would take on most of the outlay for the stadium.

 

I think there will always be debt on the club at least in the short term (unless we go down the Sugar Daddy route).

 

If someone was to come in and pay £100m for a controlling interest plus build the stadium there is the obvious choice of copying the Arsenal model of future profits but there is also the naming rights issue which would help fund the stadium.

 

Whilst the £250m fee for the naming rights that was quoted seems unrealistic i do think we would manage to command a pretty hefty fee which again would help pay the stadium.

[coop]

For the Owner to go elsewhere to refinance,they would need the Club to be valued at approx £350m,most Commercial lending will only provide 70% LTV (loan to value).

 

Considering that where in the most depressing Economic down turn in over 80 years I find that a hard act to pull off.

 

When you consider that they paid £220m 3 years ago,I doubt any financial Institutions will believe that Liverpool have increased in value by over 50% in such a short space of time.

 

There is also the fact that Purslow has said that all the other lenders they have spoken to all seem to say the same thing, investment is needed before they will refinance.

[Stu Monty]

'Tints, I think you're having a nightmare here bud.

 

Oh, and did Delmar say he was a banker?

 

"Marge, get my gun!"

[Moo]

Contrarian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Oh I don't know about this one.

 

I might be wrong but in the early days of G&H, when most people were giving them (misplaced) credit and a chance, I don't recall Hermes calling them out and suggesting they were the Twats that we'd all eventually see them as.

 

No, I think his support of the Yanks has been pretty consistent all along.

[PeeG]

I think there will always be debt on the club at least in the short term (unless we go down the Sugar Daddy route).

 

If someone was to come in and pay £100m for a controlling interest plus build the stadium there is the obvious choice of copying the Arsenal model of future profits but there is also the naming rights issue which would help fund the stadium.

 

Whilst the £250m fee for the naming rights that was quoted seems unrealistic i do think we would manage to command a pretty hefty fee which again would help pay the stadium.

 

I would agree with that. With the debt to build a stadium, as long as it is done right, it will be manageable with future income and also (key point) be getting paid off unlike now.

 

But obviously I don't want Hicks and Gillett to be any part of that. I can't see any investor coming in wanting less than 51% though and in all likeihood they would want the whole club.

[Delmar]

'Tints, I think you're having a nightmare here bud.

 

Oh, and did Delmar say he was a banker?

 

"Marge, get my gun!"

 

No banker, I just know bankers. My job is to think. Then talk. And argue. And bluff. And write stuff. And I never lie, unlike other suits... And anyway, I'm just a minor suit, the real suits don't post here, they use their time more sensibly.

[Sangria]

No banker, I just know bankers. My job is to think. Then talk. And argue. And bluff. And write stuff. And I never lie, unlike other suits... And anyway, I'm just a minor suit, the real suits don't post here, they use their time more sensibly.

 

That post made me a bit dizzy.

[Sangria]

'Tints, I think you're having a nightmare here bud.

 

Oh, and did Delmar say he was a banker?

 

"Marge, get my gun!"

 

Classic the whole lot of it.

[HJohal]

Why would an investor show his hand now by committing £100m for lets say 51% and also be also expected to find financial gurantees to build a new stadium 70% LTV on a £350M stadium - approx another £115M when he could probably pick up the entire 100% for a maximum of £235M in the summer - RBS debt?

[Guest ShoePiss]

No banker, I just know bankers. My job is to think. Then talk. And argue. And bluff. And write stuff. And I never lie, unlike other suits... And anyway, I'm just a minor suit, the real suits don't post here, they use their time more sensibly.

 

I like that you describe yourself as a suit, even if a minor one. Do tell me what one has to do to qualify as 'a suit'. It's Duncan Oldham speak.

 

I own a couple by the way if that helps. Someone on here even has a linen suit but I can't remember who.

[Kennys_spell]

The percentage is negotiable only up to a limit, I cannot believe that it would buy a majority stake on its own. If it is 100 million + financing of the stadium, then we're looking at a totally different picture.

 

Getting the 100 million alone means to me that the banks will continue financing LFC as it is, with G&H and someone else as owners. It will not solve anything on the field, e.g. the transfers will be financed by sales, the whole nightmare continues, with another owner added.

 

I think you're missing the fact that if the £100 Mill is found then the debt will go down to £137 Mill - that will be a much much lower interest payment on the debt leaving more profit in the club and the transfer budget will improve simply because of that.

 

Dropping the current debt also makes it easier to get funding fro the new stadium which will just about double the match day takings - again improving the transfer budget.