Rhone group in talks over 100mil takeover.

[BolshieBastard]

Errm, That range includes a) a club with more debt than us and b) a club which needed to build a new stadium costing about 350m.

 

And that club is? Also, who is in the process of buying this club?

[andrew78]

Il put it in three words WE ARE FUCKED,they know that liverpool is there cash cow.They will sell torres and gerrard at a drop of a hat if it means holding on to us ,it might change if we become a mid table team but as long as people are buy tickets ,they are going nowhere

[coop]

The banks would not look kindly at Torres and Gerrard been sold.

 

Also don't forget your talking about our two most marketable assets so the sponsors are not going to be too happy either.

 

This would also result in the value of the club been reduced as well.

 

They are far more likely to go down the route of hedge funding/high interest loan then they are of selling Torres and Gerrard.

[piscinin]

And that club is? Also, who is in the process of buying this club?

 

Being as plugged into the financial industry as you are, I'm sure you can work it out for yourself.

[andrew78]

The banks would not look kindly at Torres and Gerrard been sold.

 

Also don't forget your talking about our two most marketable assets so the sponsors are not going to be too happy either.

 

This would also result in the value of the club been reduced as well.

 

They are far more likely to go down the route of hedge funding/high interest loan then they are of selling Torres and Gerrard.

 

I think the only way out is if that happends and we dont get in the champs leauge ,then our so called fans will wake up and realise what they have fucking done

[navbasi]

I think the only way out is if that happends and we dont get in the champs leauge ,then our so called fans will wake up and realise what they have fucking done

 

What does that mean?

[Carra_is_legend]

I think the only way out is if that happends and we dont get in the champs leauge ,then our so called fans will wake up and realise what they have fucking done

 

Care to explain?

[andrew78]

Well most nearly all of us on here know the score ,im on about the pint and pie brigade who sit in that ground and do fuck all.Fuck me if i had the money id order a hit on them that would sort it

[BolshieBastard]

Being as plugged into the financial industry as you are, I'm sure you can work it out for yourself.

 

Obtuse, eh? I dont see what working in the finacial sector would make me interested in what other clubs do.

 

OK, I assume you're talking of united as having a bigger debt? The shyte and spurs are talking about new stadiums.

 

So, your point is what apart from one clubs has a far bigger debt (and is also a far better proposition since its already making far more money than us) and a couple of other clubs who want new stadiums?

[piscinin]

Obtuse, eh? I dont see what working in the finacial sector would make me interested in what other clubs do.

 

OK, I assume you're talking of united as having a bigger debt? The shyte and spurs are talking about new stadiums.

 

So, your point is what apart from one clubs has a far bigger debt (and is also a far better proposition since its already making far more money than us) and a couple of other clubs who want new stadiums?

 

My point was simply that there is an empirical way of estimating the value of a club and I thought others would like to see it contrasted with your approach of pulling stuff out of your ass.

 

That's all.

[BolshieBastard]

The banks would not look kindly at Torres and Gerrard been sold.

 

Also don't forget your talking about our two most marketable assets so the sponsors are not going to be too happy either.

 

This would also result in the value of the club been reduced as well.

 

They are far more likely to go down the route of hedge funding/high interest loan then they are of selling Torres and Gerrard.

 

I agree they'll more likely look to refinance via other banks or methods. Unless of course one or both players indicates our ambitions no longer match theirs and thereby hand in transfer requests.

 

In any event, the bank or banks can only advise it wouldnt be a good move to sell either or both players. The bank or banks while negotiating future loans could make a point of this but, its unlikely to be a deal breaker when all said and done.

[BolshieBastard]

My point was simply that there is an empirical way of estimating the value of a club and I thought others would like to see it contrasted with your approach of pulling stuff out of your ass.

 

That's all.

 

Market forces dear boy, market forces. You can use your empirical ways all you want but that's more akin to pulling stuff out of your arse than what the market dictates.

[Liverpoolway]

If 40% = £118M, then 100% doesn't = £200m, unless Roy has been speaking to Morgan on how to undervalue the club. I think a "fair" price would be between £300m - £350m.

 

If 40% = £118m, then the current club is valued at £177m, which also means that the club is technically bankrupt (the debt is worth more than the club).

 

You have to remember that the 40% is new equity, not existing shares.

 

Personally I think the Rhone deal is for more than £118 million, but it would have to be approx £155 mill just to value the current club at the same level as the debt.

 

This is probably why H&G don't want to sell - the risk is placed on the club, and they won't walk away without a significant profit (which no one seems willing to offer them).

[Whelan]

I agree they'll more likely look to refinance via other banks or methods. Unless of course one or both players indicates our ambitions no longer match theirs and thereby hand in transfer requests.

 

In any event, the bank or banks can only advise it wouldnt be a good move to sell either or both players. The bank or banks while negotiating future loans could make a point of this but, its unlikely to be a deal breaker when all said and done.

 

It would if they were attempting to sell the club though! If the club's revenue is intrinsically linked to its sale price then selling two of it's biggest assets directly effects the revenue, therefore it also directly affects the sale price.

 

So it is not in their interest to sell Torres or Gerrard.

[coop]

I agree they'll more likely look to refinance via other banks or methods. Unless of course one or both players indicates our ambitions no longer match theirs and thereby hand in transfer requests.

 

In any event, the bank or banks can only advise it wouldnt be a good move to sell either or both players. The bank or banks while negotiating future loans could make a point of this but, its unlikely to be a deal breaker when all said and done.

 

At the moment Hicks is going to have to do some serious sweet talking to get another bank to loan him money on terms he can afford.

 

Any bank worth its salt will be looking at the way Hicks still owes money in America and can not afford to pay back the loan he owes to RBS so he is hardly a great customer.

 

The banks can not do much i would imagine regards Torres and Gerrard getting sold but doesn't it seem odd that the players mentioned both signed new deals before the last refinance.

[Kennys_spell]

Market forces dear boy, market forces. You can use your empirical ways all you want but that's more akin to pulling stuff out of your arse than what the market dictates.

 

 

You appear to be suggesting that the "Market" does not use "empirical values" to dictate the way they do business.

 

IS that what you're saying - if not what are you saying?

[Kennys_spell]

At the moment Hicks is going to have to do some serious sweet talking to get another bank to loan him money on terms he can afford.

 

Any bank worth its salt will be looking at the way Hicks still owes money in America and can not afford to pay back the loan he owes to RBS so he is hardly a great customer.

 

The banks can not do much i would imagine regards Torres and Gerrard getting sold but doesn't it seem odd that the players mentioned both signed new deals before the last refinance.

 

Slight correction - it's not just Hicks, it's Gillett as well.

[BolshieBastard]

If 40% = £118m, then the current club is valued at £177m, which also means that the club is technically bankrupt (the debt is worth more than the club).

 

You have to remember that the 40% is new equity, not existing shares.

 

Personally I think the Rhone deal is for more than £118 million, but it would have to be approx £155 mill just to value the current club at the same level as the debt.

 

This is probably why H&G don't want to sell - the risk is placed on the club, and they won't walk away without a significant profit (which no one seems willing to offer them).

 

So long as the company is 'trading on the goodwill' of its directors, the club being worth less than the debt isnt insomountable. Its not ideal but it doesnt prevent the club being valued less than what people may think its worth.

 

Its market forces that to a greater or lesser degree determine that.

 

You are spot on about the owners though. They wont walk without a significant profit which is why we are in the current impasse.

[Liverpoolway]

PL Clubs sell at between 2 and 4 times revenue. There is no chance in hell H&G are going to sell for less than revenue.

 

Revenue means nothing, and it is not true that all PL clubs sell between 2 and 4 times revenue. It probably only applies to Manchester United and Arsenal.

 

What matters is whether the club can turn a profit or not. To compete in the PL you'll need a certain level of investment in the squad (wages and transfer fees), which can be looked at as an entry fee. The first £60 or 70 million of the turnover goes towards this, and will not influence the value of the club.

[coop]

Slight correction - it's not just Hicks, it's Gillett as well.

 

Of course but its Hicks who still i think owes around the $500m in the US and is showing no signs of paying that back as even after selling the Rangers Hicks plans on keeping as much money of that as possible.

[BolshieBastard]

You appear to be suggesting that the "Market" does not use "empirical values" to dictate the way they do business.

 

IS that what you're saying - if not what are you saying?

 

Im saying market forces will ultimately decide what the club is worth.

[piscinin]

Market forces dear boy, market forces. You can use your empirical ways all you want but that's more akin to pulling stuff out of your arse than what the market dictates.

 

Market forces determined those prices under the same conditions of debt and future cash flow requirements. Doh!

[Kennys_spell]

Of course but its Hicks who still i think owes around the $500m in the US and is showing no signs of paying that back as even after selling the Rangers Hicks plans on keeping as much money of that as possible.

 

You're absolutely right on that - I wasn't challenging that. I just want to keep the pressure up on Both the Leeches and not single one of them out giving the other a feeling of being in the clear.

[Kennys_spell]

Im saying market forces will ultimately decide what the club is worth.

 

That part was clear - what needs clarification is your apparent assertion that the market DOES NOT use empirical data to reach it's values and decisions?

 

IS that what you're saying?

[BolshieBastard]

Market forces determined those prices under the same conditions of debt and future cash flow requirements. Doh!

 

And as I said, you havent factored in squad overhaul, potentially pay off old manager and staff, cost of bringing in and retaining to new manager and staff etc, etc, etc.

 

All of which will be taken into consideration by the 'market' if \ when they make a bid.

 

Do keep up.