Rhone group in talks over 100mil takeover.

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

Forgive my ignorance here but has anyone ever wondered that IF new owners want the club or investors want 40% etc etc that the sticking point could be Benitez ?

Im sure its crossed the minds of many but I think its viable .

Rhone for example, may want their own man in charge if the tumours dilute their sharehold , where as the tumours know pretty much with Rafa, with the exception of this season is were pretty fuckin good in European Football - The MoneyMaker. And that is suffice for them to make a few million here and there and feed their other ' more important ' business ventures . They need that stability, a man who seems content to hunt in the bargain basement for now and make do but still get some decent runs in European Competition. A man who seems to hold on to what he has instead of going that little bit further, both in tactics and transfer transactions.

Rafa's a fucking dream for the tumours in my opinion.

 

I dont know, just a thought.

 

An interesting theory, but a flawed one for a few reasons

 

Firstly, an "offer" has already been made and is on the table, so it's hardly a factor that has put them off

 

Secondly, if all's that was holding an "acceptable" offer off was the manager, they'd sack him in a heartbeat, it's hardly as if Gillett wouldn't sack him in a heartbeat anyway if he could, but to be honest, I doubt the two fellas who run Rhone have that much of an in depth knowledge of European football, they, like the two charlatans who we have now are only bothered about one thing.

 

Thirdly if someone bought what would be a controlling stake, they could get rid themselves the day they took over.

 

Although I do like the angle, shows at least a little imagination

[Moo]

An interesting theory, but a flawed one for a few reasons

 

Firstly, an "offer" has already been made and is on the table, so it's hardly a factor that has put them off

 

Secondly, if all's that was holding an "acceptable" offer off was the manager, they'd sack him in a heartbeat, it's hardly as if Gillett wouldn't sack him in a heartbeat anyway if he could, but to be honest, I doubt the two fellas who run Rhone have that much of an in depth knowledge of European football, they, like the two charlatans who we have now are only bothered about one thing.

 

Thirdly if someone bought what would be a controlling stake, they could get rid themselves the day they took over.

 

Although I do like the angle, shows at least a little imagination

 

Nah, several times this has been suggested.

Ridiculous line of thinking but quite typical in some cases.

[Chinandeler Bong]

Nah, several times this has been suggested.

Ridiculous line of thinking but quite typical in some cases.

 

Please elaborate for me.

[Chinandeler Bong]

An interesting theory, but a flawed one for a few reasons

 

Firstly, an "offer" has already been made and is on the table, so it's hardly a factor that has put them off

 

Secondly, if all's that was holding an "acceptable" offer off was the manager, they'd sack him in a heartbeat, it's hardly as if Gillett wouldn't sack him in a heartbeat anyway if he could, but to be honest, I doubt the two fellas who run Rhone have that much of an in depth knowledge of European football, they, like the two charlatans who we have now are only bothered about one thing.

 

Thirdly if someone bought what would be a controlling stake, they could get rid themselves the day they took over.

 

Although I do like the angle, shows at least a little imagination

 

Appreciate that mate , like I say Just an idea that came to me late last night.

[beejay]

Banks can only call in a loan if some material breach of the terms and conditions have occurred, in other words, full payments have not been made on time.

The current loan deal expires in July. Either a new loan is taken with RBS who, for their part want the loan amount reduced by 100m if reports are to be believed, as part of the T&C's to a new loan, or, new finance is arranged with another bank or other means.

 

The owners could go to other banks and re finance for any amount the banks etc consider is prudent.RBS couldnt take any assets of the club if the owners pay off the full debt with them then re finance the same amount via another bank or financial means.

 

On your 1st point, we know from the Purslow meeting with SOS that it is a requirement of the bank that they repay £100m by Easter. So that would be a material breach then?

 

Secondly, we also know from the same source that G&H have been to other banks but have failed to find the money. What bank would lend a bean to Hicks given his $600m default on the Texas Rangers?

 

The fact is that OF COURSE it is an option for RBS to take the shares of the club in lieu of the debt. Liverpool FC are a profitable going concern and can be sold at the right price so if G&H (Hicks) don't sell and can't refinance then RBS will have no qualms about calling in the debt and there would be f*** all the owners could do about it.

 

Reading between the lines, this is exactly what's going on at the moment - Hicks is rejecting every proposal put to him because that's the way he works and Purslow is putting the squeeze on, in the knowledge that there are people who will buy full control but only if Hicks moderates his stance or is forced out.

[StevieH]

Purslow: "My project and task is to reduce the debt by £100 million. This is a requirement from our bankers and will allow us to look at a more flexible and longer term refinancing with our bankers when this investment is brought in.

 

Ideally we would like a three or four year refinancing deal rather than the shorter ones we have had recently. The reduction in borrowings was agreed by the bank, CP and the owners when I was appointed

 

There are no promises, just an expectation and hope that it can be done in that time. I cannot guarantee it. As of now, I had expected it to be completed by February, but now I expect it to be around Easter.

.....Investment has to happen for the stadium to start, and we expect that around Easter time. "

[WaltonRed]

As Jimmy Nail would say 'he's lying'

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

As Jimmy Nail would say 'he's lying'

 

Ain't no doubt, it's plain to see

[coop]

Sorry for my ignorance but what is he lying about.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Purslow is a methodical, snide liar.

[BolshieBastard]

On your 1st point, we know from the Purslow meeting with SOS that it is a requirement of the bank that they repay £100m by Easter. So that would be a material breach then?

 

Sorry this is a misconception. There is no requirement to repay 100m by Easter.

 

Secondly, we also know from the same source that G&H have been to other banks but have failed to find the money. What bank would lend a bean to Hicks given his $600m default on the Texas Rangers?

 

Its correct the owners do not appear to have secured further loans and, I'd question the sanity of any bank to lend them money. That doesnt mean they wont secure further funds via banks or other financial means. See what united did with their bond issue for example.

 

The fact is that OF COURSE it is an option for RBS to take the shares of the club in lieu of the debt. Liverpool FC are a profitable going concern and can be sold at the right price so if G&H (Hicks) don't sell and can't refinance then RBS will have no qualms about calling in the debt and there would be f*** all the owners could do about it.

 

The owners will need to have failed to pay the loan back before RBS would consider what you suggest. I suspect the owners have some contingencies in place should RBS attempt to take control of the club. These things dont happen in a flash and, I can assure you, RBS will hesitate to take control of the club in the first instance.

 

Reading between the lines, this is exactly what's going on at the moment - Hicks is rejecting every proposal put to him because that's the way he works and Purslow is putting the squeeze on, in the knowledge that there are people who will buy full control but only if Hicks moderates his stance or is forced out.

 

If the owners are rejecting every proposal put to them, (and I dont really disgaree with your statement) then, they are doing so because they believe, however unrealistic that appears to us, that they will not lose control of the club to the bank and have a fallback position.

[WaltonRed]

He's chats bullshit none stop Coop.

 

Anything that comes out of his mouth i've stopped believing.

[beejay]

Purslow: "My project and task is to reduce the debt by £100 million. This is a requirement from our bankers and will allow us to look at a more flexible and longer term refinancing with our bankers when this investment is brought in.

 

Ideally we would like a three or four year refinancing deal rather than the shorter ones we have had recently. The reduction in borrowings was agreed by the bank, CP and the owners when I was appointed

 

There are no promises, just an expectation and hope that it can be done in that time. I cannot guarantee it. As of now, I had expected it to be completed by February, but now I expect it to be around Easter.

.....Investment has to happen for the stadium to start, and we expect that around Easter time. "

 

And>>>>>>>>>>>

 

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.

KC - Do Hicks and Gillett value the club too high?

 

CP - No one would invest at the level they want.

 

JM - If the bank want £100 million paying down on the debt as part of the last re-financing, what will they ask for in the summer? Will it just be for 12 months again?

 

CP - I have got a conditional agreement for a 3/4 year loan deal. At the last re-financing agreement, Hicks and Gillett paid down the debt with their own money. A new investor will pay down the £100 million needed now. The banks want us reducing debt and being cautious. RBS are annoyed and unhappy with Hicks and Gillett and they want a change of ownership. The £100 million pay down is compulsory, it has to be done. I will not agree to a deal that is unworkable for us, but we need to have the owners own and the managers manage.

 

AW - Are there discussions with other banks, to try and get a better deal for any re-financing?

 

CP - There have been around 30 meetings with different banks, we want the best deal for the club. If other banks will give us a better deal, we will work with them. No other bank will take us on with £237 million debt, they want less debt. RBS are unhappy with the present ownership, so an improved situation at the cub will improve our relationship with them. They want to continue

[coop]

I think the conversation Purslow had with SOS should tell you what he thinks of the owners and the fact he is still here should also tell you the power they have over him.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Would that be the part of the conversation he refused to acknowledge on the minutes? The man is a born liar, and as a result he's fitting in just fine with the other shower of cunts that run the club.

[edinjapan]

Surely he's working for two of the snidest liars in business. Must be virtually impossible to say anything solid about a possible deal when H&G lie and lie again. His hands are tied pretty much. You can only ever say it as you see it at the time.

 

I've got some sympathy.

[Trumo]

You can hang a man on a promise or guarantee unfulfilled.

 

You cannot hang a man for offering an opinion or an estimate.

[BolshieBastard]

You can hang a man on a promise or guarantee unfulfilled.

 

You cannot hang a man for offering an opinion or an estimate.

 

Very profound!

[jackofdk]

I think the conversation Purslow had with SOS should tell you what he thinks of the owners and the fact he is still here should also tell you the power they have over him.

 

To me it looks like evidence that RBS is running the club. The owners can't fire him without their consent, is my take on the situation.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

You can hang a man on a promise or guarantee unfulfilled.

 

You cannot hang a man for offering an opinion or an estimate.

 

Absolutely correct.

[Carra_is_legend]

You can hang a man on a promise or guarantee unfulfilled.

 

Watch out Rafa.

[Liam]

To me it looks like evidence that RBS is running the club. The owners can't fire him without their consent, is my take on the situation.

 

I've heard as much from somebody with a relative working for RBS. Apparently RBS are or at one point this season have been looking at our books on a day to day basis and scrutinising every last penny we spend.

[JohnnyH]

Liverpool pass on Rhone bid

 

Debt repayment deadline looms as bid of £110m is rejected by club's owners

 

By Ian Herbert

 

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

 

 

A bid of £110m by New York-based fund management company Rhone Group to take a controlling share in Liverpool appeared effectively to have been rejected last night, with no sense that the club wished to pursue it ahead of a midnight deadline.

 

The Independent revealed last month that Rhone's offer had a three-week deadline attached and subject to an 11th-hour turnaround in discussions, it has lapsed. Though Rhone's investment is needed to pay down £100m of debt demanded of the club by Liverpool's bankers, Royal Bank of Scotland, the club seem to believe they can secure a better deal elsewhere.

 

It does not seem that Rhone will go back to the club in the future and though further negotiations are possible if Liverpool re-establish contact, the valuation may have changed if Rafael Benitez's side are not playing Champions League football next season. Qualification brings an additional £20m annual revenue.

 

Investment community analysts believe that Liverpool hoped the interest of Rhone, who have been unwilling to discuss their bid, might have flushed out a better offer. But while two other prospective investors are believed to be in the wings, no alternative bids are on the table at the Easter target date identified by Liverpool managing director, Christian Purslow, for finding a new equity partner.

 

The sticking point in negotiations with Rhone seems to relate to Liverpool co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett's refusal to cede overall control of the club. The owners' preference is to sell a 40 per cent stake in the club, but to combine their respective 30 per cent shares to maintain overall control. Rhone are likely to have wanted concrete assurances written into any deal that this would not happen.

 

A 100 per cent takeover would solve that problem, though the £500m price initially demanded by Hicks and Gilllett from Dubai International Capital two years ago could be further reduced by non-qualification for the Champions League.

 

One source with insider knowledge of Liverpool's search for new investors has suggested several are delaying offers while they wait to see if non-qualification drives down the price. "Qualification is not necessarily the best outcome for would-be investors," the source said.

 

Purslow, who is leading the search for investors, said in February that it was a "requirement" of RBS that £100m be found from new equity partners to pay down a large slice of the debt heaped upon the club by Hicks and Gillett's leveraged buyout. It is unclear when the deadline for that £100m repayment expires though since RBS are not ready to foreclose on the club. The idea of a state-owned bank making such a move a month ahead of a General Election is highly unlikely, so Liverpool seem to have until July when the current debts are refinanced.

 

Captain Steven Gerrard has cast some doubt on Liverpool's ability to win their remaining five games in pursuit of fourth place. "That's what we said with six games to go," he said. "It's all right saying we'll be all right if we go and win our last five games – we have to go out on to the pitch and win them rather than talk about it. I think it'll go down to the wire."

 

Liverpool pass on Rhone bid - Premier League, Football - The Independent

[stringvest]

Good news.

[Chinandeler Bong]

Until the owners are gone there can be no good news.