David Maddock

[Timão]

I agree with Hamstrung and aws. I can't possibly imagine that Broughton, Barclays Capital or RBS hold any significant sway in the decision to sell, as things stand.

 

Of course RBS hold sway, they are owed the bulk of the money. If the owners begin to have problems servicing that loan, they hold sway, just like a bank would if you fell behind on your mortgage.

 

Whether they want to exercise their influence to that degree at the moment is another matter.

 

I think, as Coops has said, we may actually be in some kind of unofficial administration, a bit like Rangers are north of the border. They have not been put into administration officially but, in their case, Lloyds bank, basically signs off every penny they spend, regradless of David Murray who owns 90% of the shares.

 

The bottom line is none of us know what is really going on behind the scenes.

[johnmerrick]

The most damning thing for me at the moment is Hicks' silence.

 

Usually, he can't keep his mouth shut. I have a sneaky feeling that RBS and Barcap have told him to keep quiet or risk walking away with zero.

 

Never known him this quiet.

[Albertini]

The most damning thing for me at the moment is Hicks' silence.

 

Usually, he can't keep his mouth shut. I have a sneaky feeling that RBS and Barcap have told him to keep quiet or risk walking away with zero.

 

Never known him this quiet.

 

And there's the rub. I exchanged PM's on here with Tony B yesterday following my criticism of the Times's coverage of the press conference and he acknowledged the slap down that Broughton delivered to Hicks last week and he was there.

 

If Hicks was in charge Broughton would have either gone by now or his comments would have been been refuted by Hicks.

 

One thing we know about Hicks, he's an ego maniac. If he had some influence left Broughton would have been brought to book for the way he so publicly dismissed Hicks and the comments attributed to him about his valuation of the club.

 

I am convinced he is out of the way. I can understand others being sceptical given the shite we have endured over the last 3 years and it is just my opinion but, to quote Warren Buffett, now that the tide has gone out we can all see that Hicks has been the one swimming naked.

[Coro]

And there's the rub. I exchanged PM's on here with Tony B yesterday following my criticism of the Times's coverage of the press conference and he acknowledged the slap down that Broughton delivered to Hicks last week and he was there.

 

If Hicks was in charge Broughton would have either gone by now or his comments would have been been refuted by Hicks.

 

One thing we know about Hicks, he's an ego maniac. If he had some influence left Broughton would have been brought to book for the way he so publicly dismissed Hicks and the comments attributed to him about his valuation of the club.

 

I am convinced he is out of the way. I can understand others being sceptical given the shite we have endured over the last 3 years and it is just my opinion but, to quote Warren Buffett, now that the tide has gone out we can all see that Hicks has been the one swimming naked.

 

Yes but Broughton is working in the interest of the owners and that isn't necessarily a good thing for us.

[stringvest]

Broughton (and BarCap) at the moment are our best - only - way out of the predicament. They're both in it for the money, but I don't know what people expect, really. It doesn't mean they're the antichrist. They're handsomely rewarded facilitators. Expect BarCap to have an ongoing relationship with the club once we are sold. We'll be sold after the window closes but before the end of November.

[Coro]

Broughton (and BarCap) at the moment are our best - only - way out of the predicament

 

They maybe the owners best way out of this predicament but not ours.

 

Who says we're going to get better custodians and not more of the same?

 

I don't trust any of them to get things right for us but i trust them all to look after their own interests.

[Albertini]

Can they do that if there isn't just cause

 

If the yanks hadn't been keeping up payments im sure they could but until that inevitable day I would have thought the power still lies with the owners

 

May i apologise for thread hogging but i've been busy this afternoon and just wanted to pick up on some of the comments posted.

 

In relation to the post above from Born you're right if they had kept up with payments they should have no issues except they quite clearly do don't they?

 

Remember the missed debt reduction from Easter of £100 million. The consensus from some (of which i am one) is that by missing that deadline and payment to RBS they have defaulted and they have lost control of the sale.

 

 

I just can't believe that they would relinquish that sort of control

 

Would you?

 

Going back to the house analogy would you suddenly hand something as important as selling your house over to someone else and that's it no more interest in the matter

 

Agree with what you say but from what we've heard from the horse's mouth (i.e. Broughton) they don't seem to be in charge do they? Which makes you wonder whether Purslow's comments to SOS about a requirement to reduce debt by £100 million by Easter (which was missed) means they may appear in charge in public, only to facilitate a best price sale, but actually aren't in reality (as demonstrated by Broughton's comments) and were forced into accepting Broughton, BarCap and the sale precisely because they missed that debt reduction which Cecil said was a requirement from RBS.

 

I think that's right but in the meantime this (possible) charade of a sale has already won the yanks an extension of the loan facility for another six months (and RBS another fee).The yanks will be relaxed

about pushing RBS to the wire if needs be because they'd probably rather RBS forced a sale in six months time than sell now at a price they don't want. Just look how hicks has made his banks jump through hoops in the US and his assets still haven't been sold there months after an actual payment default by him.

 

Any part of the sales proceeds above the RBS debt will come to them in either scenario and a lot can happen in six months.

 

Do we know for sure that a formal loan extension was given? Where has that been stated? If it has been given do we know the terms of that extension? Could it be a collect out extension, i.e. we will refinance you now despite you missing the debt reduction obligation of Easter and you have defaulted, providing you sell the club, in an orderly collect out / forced sale fashion to maximise the price received.

 

There is no benefit for RBS in formally calling in the loan, every potential bidder would then know it's a fire sale and bid accordingly.

 

Under a forced sale all parties maximise the sale price without giving away the fact the bank are calling the shots.

 

Except i think Broughton has said too much and has inferred that actually it is a forced sale precisely for the reasons mentioned by other posters about why they would step down and let others run the show.

 

The answer is they wouldn't unless forced.

 

As i said on another forum Hester and his crew at RBS must be mightily fucked off with the email campaign and the potential for being the first Uk bank ever to bring down an iconic football club. Yes they're taking £40 million a year in interest but what is that worth to them as bank with billion pound profits against the bigger picture of being the bank forever associated with bankrupting Britain's most successful football team.

 

£40 million is small beer to them and definitely not worth that hassle.

 

Can we also finally pin down the US similarities about what he's done with the Rangers. Chapter 11 is different to Uk administration.

 

Chapter 11 offers far more protection to the troubled company than administration in the UK does which is designed to protects the creditors.

 

Equally Hicks does not appear to have any personal guarantees in the US. So he can play loose and fast with the Rangers but he can't with LFC because of his personal guarantees and inter company loan of £140 million which would be unsecured.

 

 

I think the best analogy i've heard so far was when someone said" If you owe the banks £300 they dictate to you, if you owe the banks £300M then you dictate to them"

 

Strikes me that H&G could default on the loans they have and walk away not gaining but not losing much either, on the other hand RBS and other creditors would then lose the amounts they loaned to the sharks.

 

The earlier post which said the Yanks were cunts but were millionaires as well and so aren't stupid was right on the money for me.

 

I returned a reply to the RBS email recently and challenged them to call H&G's bluff and call the loans in, as this appears to me to be the only way to move the situation on.

It's a risky move, and, as you might have guessed, i've heard nothing back.

 

When it happens, if it happens, we'll be the last to know.

 

That's true if you owe a bank that amount of money WITHOUT having personal guarantees. Not only have cancer and aids got PG's (allowing RBS to sell at any price knowing they can hit the owners for the shortfall) they also have a £140 million loan against the club from Kop Cayman which would go to the back of the queue after the bank and other preferred creditors.

 

So actually in this situation RBS aren't too worried. They know their £237 million comes out first.

 

Cancer & aids should be and will be worried because they have a shit load on the line here that they can't take out before the bank.

[Section_31]

The most damning thing for me at the moment is Hicks' silence.

 

Usually, he can't keep his mouth shut. I have a sneaky feeling that RBS and Barcap have told him to keep quiet or risk walking away with zero.

 

Never known him this quiet.

 

Agreed.

 

You only have to look at the way he was announcing how he wanted to axe Parry even while he was still in post, while being sat there sipping from a Liverpool mug.

 

Now, nothing. I just don't get the feeling this man has the likes of Broughton running scared.

[stringvest]

They maybe the owners best way out of this predicament but not ours.

 

Who says we're going to get better custodians and not more of the same?

 

I don't trust any of them to get things right for us but i trust them all to look after their own interests.

 

I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think anyone is going to help transfer ownership of the club out of the good of their hearts. Just because they will get paid for doing so doesn't automatically make them baddies. We're highly unlikely to find a benevolent benefactor. That doesn't mean that we can't have owners who can make a profit through success on the pitch. If they help find someone who will invest in the new ground while maintaining at least parity on the pitch I will be more than pleased.

[Coro]

I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think anyone is going to help transfer ownership of the club out of the good of their hearts

 

Who's said that?

 

Me?

[stringvest]

Who's said that?

 

Me?

 

Not explicitly, but you're implying that there is a better solution. I'd like to understand what you think that is.

[Coro]

Not explicitly, but you're implying that there is a better solution. I'd like to understand what you think that is.

 

I'm not implying that.

 

I'm saying what's good for them and their predicament isn't necessarily good for us and the long term future of the club.

[Code]

I pray Albertini is right.

[stringvest]

I'm not implying that.

 

I'm saying what's good for them and their predicament isn't necessarily good for us and the long term future of the club.

 

Fair enough. I struggle to imagine a worse scenario than having these owners for any extended period of time though.

[dennis tooth]

May i apologise for thread hogging but i've been busy this afternoon and just wanted to pick up on some of the comments posted.

 

Who knows what is going on. I thought similar but who is taking the decisions here to remove Rafa on a 5 year deal, pay him off and bring in Roy?

You'd think if it's going to be sold shortly then they would not make such a momentuous decision, especially to appoint a man against the wishes of most fans, so it didnt seem to be something to placate the fans or anything?

Or selling Yossi, or who decides if we get a bid for a player whether to accept it or not?

Can'tmake head nor tail.

[Guest TK-421]

Of course RBS hold sway, they are owed the bulk of the money. If the owners begin to have problems servicing that loan, they hold sway, just like a bank would if you fell behind on your mortgage.

 

Whether they want to exercise their influence to that degree at the moment is another matter.

 

Well, that's why I added the "as things stand" proviso. Unless/until RBS decide to enforce their secrurity and call in the loan I think they are very happy to continue collecting their interest payments and take their fees. This is partly why I expect star names to leave this summer - more likely than RBS becoming more aggressive towards the owners, in my opinion.

[aws]

Well, that's why I added the "as things stand" proviso. Unless/until RBS decide to enforce their secrurity and call in the loan I think they are very happy to continue collecting their interest payments and take their fees. This is partly why I expect star names to leave this summer - more likely than RBS becoming more aggressive towards the owners, in my opinion.

 

RBS will not want to be seen as the bank who pulled the plug on one of the most famous football clubs in the world. They'd rather do almost anything else than do that. The yanks know this and know they've got loads more rope to play with yet. So long as they keep their heads down and go through the motions of appearing to do what RBS want that'll be more than enough for the time being.

[Whelan]

RBS won't be pulling the plug on the club, they will be pulling the plub on Hicks and leveraged buyouts!

 

Hicks cannot (going by reports) take his business elsewhere, this is the only saloon in town that will provide him with a drink, if he doesn't like their terms he can fuck off and try and muddle the money together himself!

 

We'll see, I suppose.

[Albertini]

Who knows what is going on. I thought similar but who is taking the decisions here to remove Rafa on a 5 year deal, pay him off and bring in Roy?

You'd think if it's going to be sold shortly then they would not make such a momentuous decision, especially to appoint a man against the wishes of most fans, so it didnt seem to be something to placate the fans or anything?

Or selling Yossi, or who decides if we get a bid for a player whether to accept it or not?

Can'tmake head nor tail.

 

I don't think you can draw any correlation between board decisions on day to day stuff and on the sale.

 

I think the board may be making day to day decisions on manager's etc. maybe it's just Broughton and Purslow. Hell even the yanks may be involved in day to day stuff such as you mention.

 

Broughton said they owners had stepped down, stepped aside. We don't know if that means totally or just on the sale process but we do know from Broughton they have stepped aside from the sales process (which is the most important bit IMO).

 

I think the club has to and will continue to function normally as things stand and make decisions irrespective of the impending sale. The bank will expect it (they aren't going to get involved in the day to running of things) and they do have fiduciary duties as directors.

 

It's the only way to do it unless the club sits in further paralysis from now until sale time with no decisions getting made.

 

On second thoughts paralysis may be a better option than some of the decisions these thundercunts have made over the last 3 years.

[Section_31]

RBS will not want to be seen as the bank who pulled the plug on one of the most famous football clubs in the world. They'd rather do almost anything else than do that. The yanks know this and know they've got loads more rope to play with yet. So long as they keep their heads down and go through the motions of appearing to do what RBS want that'll be more than enough for the time being.

 

Do you honestly think RBS would give a shit AWS? I don't, I really don't. They're a bank, they lend money and they expect it back, it's the yanks and the people who sold them the club who would (quite rightly) get the blame in such an event IMO. And, even if that wasn't the case, I seriously doubt RBS would give a shit anyway.

[dennis tooth]

Yeah I think Woolworths might have your pick and mix ready for pick up AWS.

 

I think we are very big but if the S*n didn't fold,am pretty sure RBS could still be pretty intact even if every LFC fan boycotted them. Anyway they wouldn't be pulling the plug on us so much but the texan two, if it got rid of them administrate us now. Oh what am I posting on here for, anyone have directions to the GF, forum taxi for me

[coop]

RBS do care about publicity and it doesn't look very clever for them if one of the most famous clubs fans create havoc for them.

 

People can say RBS are happy to keep the interest payments coming in, or course they are but they are also very conscious of appearing in the press due to the Liverpool fans.

 

RBS are also concerned about their money hence asking Gillett and Hicks to reduce it by £100m before they then requested the club to be sold.

 

If RBS were purely about collecting the interest payments then they would not have been asking for the debts to be reduced which in turn reduces the interest payments.

 

RBS will try and avoid administration at all costs as this gives them less chance of getting their money back plus the publicity this would cause regards allowing Liverpool FC to go into administration would be very bad for RBS.

 

The club is run by Broughton and Purslow, two people known well in the banking industry and its the creditors that are in all intent and purposes running the club at the moment.

[aws]

Do you honestly think RBS would give a shit AWS? I don't, I really don't. They're a bank, they lend money and they expect it back, it's the yanks and the people who sold them the club who would (quite rightly) get the blame in such an event IMO. And, even if that wasn't the case, I seriously doubt RBS would give a shit anyway.

 

Hard to believe in current times but Banks take their market reputation very seriously because without it they're as fucked as their unlucky borrowers. Why do you think they're one of the biggest spenders on sponsorship? The last thing any bank wants is a reputation for being trigger-happy when their borrowers are having a hard time. They won't step in unless they really have to.

 

Toothy - I seem to remember there was a lot of financial nursing for Woolies before the plug was finally pulled (and that really was a mercy killing).

[Trucker Paddy]

First Person to cover the debt with the ticket sales sweetner will own the club, there is no chance I repeat no chance they will get a penny more than that

[dennis tooth]

Yeah I agree there is pressure from LFC fans, but many other teams fans many will be rubbing their lips at the prospect.

Theres also pressure on RBS by shareholders, eg the government and theres been stuff in parliment about it and they have already extended how many times? Theres two ways of looking at it becaus they are the enablers and the ones maintaining a false financial situation are the banks lending money, they will have to consider many side and many pressures. I don't know what they will do in this current climate what I do know is it's not clear cut, whatever it is it should be decisive to fill the apparent power vacuum and no sense of direction. Then maybe the footballing side will be able to settle down one way or another as it might actually be able to make some plans or something.