First round of bids for LFC

[coop]

First round bids as i have stated before will be non-binding therefore whats the point in reporting it.

 

Should Broughton call a press conference to announce that a £500m bid has been made but it hasn't really its just a non-binding bid and they can walk away but we hope they make a binding bid in a few weeks.

 

That would be a fun press conference.

[Barrington Womble]

The acceptable price is of course a point of negotiation. For there to be any negotiations, there will imo have to be somebody at the table in the first place.

 

I thought you meant no-one was interested at all, which struck me as odd.

 

I don't believe they are willing to negotiate. the club is worth around what the debt is. they want a profit and a quite substantial one. I am sure there are plenty of people at the table, but when they've found out it 500 quid per head for fish and chips from steve's on breck road, they've walked away. there are no buyers for this club and won't be until RBS do something about it and take the sale out of their hands (if they indeed have the power to do so).

[sir roger]

Anybody any thoughts why Gillett has been in Switzerland with the team for the whole of the training camp ?

 

Had to chuckle at that report of him going for a cycle ride & having to take Jay Spearing's bike as it is the only one he could reach the pedals on.

[Barrington Womble]

First round bids as i have stated before will be non-binding therefore whats the point in reporting it.

 

Should Broughton call a press conference to announce that a £500m bid has been made but it hasn't really its just a non-binding bid and they can walk away but we hope they make a binding bid in a few weeks.

 

That would be a fun press conference.

 

he could simply provide a status report ... we've complete the 1st round of bids, there are a number of parties who wish to enter detailed negotiations. The reason he hasn't, is there's nothing to tell.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

First round bids as i have stated before will be non-binding therefore whats the point in reporting it.[/quote[

 

Not only that, but there are likely some form of disclosure agreements in place about it. If you've got more than one set of bidders, which is likely, then even the name of the bidders, let alone how much they've bid, is something that the bidders in question won't want others to know.

 

I've never been involved in bidding for a company, so I'm not sure of the exact regulations - if any - but I'd be shocked if we heard anything, binding or otherwise.

[Albertini]

interested parties. i like it. does that include me? i'd love to own liverpool - i'm working a bit of overtime today, so hopefully that can get me a bit closer to an "acceptable price". do you think i've missed that mid-july-ish deadline?

 

there's no point discussing this really, as you obviously think broughton is a man of honour - where as i just think he's another boardroom shithouse who's in it for what he can get out.

 

No he means parties interested in buying the club. So that clearly doesn’t include any of us.

 

It's nothing to do with him being a man of honour, he has unequivocally stated the process and what is involved to the world’s media and there are too many people in the loop on the sales process (Barcap, RBS) for him to get away with spouting complete bollocks.

 

You might get away with blagging saying "yeah I’ve got loads of people interested in buying my 1982 Ford Cortina for £400" when in reality you haven't, but you can't blag in that same way over the sale of a potential £400 million asset. There are too many people involved and the deal is too big.

 

yes. i believe nobody is at the table at an "acceptable price". i dare say loads have gone "I'm interested, how much? see ya."

 

Broughton: "The owners can’t block the sale of the club. I read all too frequently about numbers that have been floated in the media usually that are associated with Tom Hicks name. I would like to make it clear that there is no number (for a sale).

 

There is no base line. I have said before and will say it again this is an auction. When the winning bid comes through, we will do a deal with the best bidder. The best bidder may not be the highest bidder. This is more than just money.

 

It is about the stadium development, its about the team, its about the whole piece. Once we have been through that process, the best bidder gets it."

 

Cant wait to see some of the posts when we're in October and still unsold "Yeah, well...he's said January so just give him time!"

 

According to the business section of the Sunday Times if the club is not sold by October RBS will begin to take control of the club. Do you think Hicks & Gilett are likely to make more or less by allowing this to happen?

 

Clue: The answer is not "Yes".

 

When Broughton is next interviewed I am sure the goal posts will be moved, and the hope will be the sale to be done by Xmas. Also the Rag is saying Hicks was in London talking to investors and that investment is near. Does this mean the cunts are not selling now and are looking for investors for a smaller stake.

 

The Rag says this.

 

Liverpool insist they are close to securing new financial backing.

 

The club's American co-owner Tom Hicks is understood to have been in London last week for a series of meetings with potential investors.

 

It could of course have been regarding the ownership and just worded badly or if they are looking at new investment how will it help them unless they can get £237 million to fully satisfy RBS? Who is going to pay £237 million for a minority investment to work under them?

 

It would still be a step forward from our current situation though (although far from perfect) because it would remove the bank debt millstone around the club's neck which could potentially put the club in administration.

 

I can't see it as a goer considering all the background information we have.

 

I admire you taking on the role of chief doom dissipater; my point was simply coming away from that press conference it would be reasonable to believe there was an "auction timetable". Which there clearly is. Yes, the best laid plans and all that.

 

Brougthon:

 

There is no specific deadline. We are looking to the middle of July-ish for a first round of bids. But that is not a final stage, that is just us inching through.

 

We are hopeful but I wouldnt like to put it any more than that we might get something done before the end of the transfer window. That (time), from the outset, was always more hope than expectation. These things can take a long time. Lets hope we are on course. We are pretty well where wed have expected to be at this stage.

 

There is a "structured process" (first bidder stage etc) but clearly no timetable as he admits "there is no deadline" and "these things can take a long time"

 

It's also nothing to do with being "chief doom dissipater", it's looking at all the information that is out in the open and making a judgment based on that.

 

Surely there is nobody this side of Rampton who honestly believes they are looking to sell the club is there? If so i have a boss supply of magic beans going cheap, PM me.

 

I personally don't think Hicks wants to sell just yet. Only the banks can make it happen.

 

Look at his exit from the Rangers for an example of how Hicks treats people who have lent him money. Creditors have far less pull than most seem to think.

Right I’m getting fed up of all these claims that they have no intention to sell. Can we try and dispel this one once and for all.

So in no particular order what we do know is:

 

1) Broughton has stated the club is for sale no baseline price, owners can't block a bid he is there primarily to sell the club.

2) Bank wants their money back and may push for recovery as early as October

3) Bank sends email out to protestors specifically mentioning looking forward to working with new owners .

3) Hicks struggling financially in the US, Gilet also but to a lesser degree.

4) Hicks & Gilet have bank guarantees for up to £110 million plus £140 million in loans on LFC.

5) Hicks has no personal guarantees on the money he has defaulted on in the US. They cannot do what Hicks is doing in the US without losing a vast chunk of upto £250 million on LFC.

6) Club made a loss of £54 million with CL football and coming second in the league. Losses will widen without CL and finishing seventh.

7) Selling players to cover losses will extend ownership by 1 maybe 2 years but decimate team performance, further reducing revenue from declining ticket sales, reduced TV income and reduced commercial deals, the majority of which are performance based.

7) In this scenario losses would increase dramatically, where would the funds come from to cover them? Would the owners be able to put more in? If not who would lend them the money then given they are unable to borrow any money now and have been unable to do so for the last two years?

8 ) Given losses will increase if they asset strip simply to hang on to the club and if they are unable to borrow more money (which remember will be against a club with even higher losses than now and most likely insolvent) what is the likely outcome? It will either be administration and a loss of their guarantees and loans or a fire sale which will also cost them their guarantees and their loans.

 

Either way they lose. They have already missed the optimum time to sell the club for the highest price and now the value is on a downward curve. The only way it can be stabilised is by a large injection of capital. Where is that coming from?

The owners haven’t got any more money to invest and the world’s financial institutions aren’t banging their door down to lend them money. Given the way Hicks is fucking about in the US that is no great surprise. If there was money to be found it would have been found before now.

 

 

I would happily tow the "they've no intention of selling line" if one poster spouting this could give me one solid reason why it would be in their best interests to keep the club rather than selling it now, given the information above?

 

It gets a bit tedious to keep hearing the line “they won’t sell” when the only thing to back up the comment is that poster’s own anger at the events of the previous three years rather than solid reasoning which would explain how, by hanging on and not selling now, the owners will:

 

a) find the funds to stand the losses the club will undoubtedly make from this point onwards whilst also paying the RBS £237 million?

b) sell at a higher price in this situation in the future than the sales price if they sell the club now.

 

Equally tedious is the comparison with what he’s doing with the Rangers. It bears no similarity whatsoever for two reasons.

 

Firstly the rules are completely different between here and the US. Here in the UK it would be the RBS who would put the club into administration as a secured creditor and control the sale in their interests only.

 

Secondly he is not covered by PG’s or overly exposed with personal loans in the Rangers. In bankruptcy he walks away from the Rangers maybe with a small profit, if he tries the same with LFC he loses his £140 million loan and potentially may have to be called upon from his personal guarantees.

 

He certainly plays as close to the edges as he can do but the edges here are so very different simply because he has loans and security which he is personally liable for that he doesn’t have in the US.

 

In other words it is in his best interest to bankrupt the Rangers. It ISN'T in his best interest to bankrupt Liverpool.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Albertini

[Kopite Pete]

Anybody any thoughts why Gillett has been in Switzerland with the team for the whole of the training camp ?

 

Had to chuckle at that report of him going for a cycle ride & having to take Jay Spearing's bike as it is the only one he could reach the pedals on.

 

Gillett is mates with the prince who has a interest on the Saudi team. Plus has NASCAR business with him. Probably there out of politeness.

[Barrington Womble]

 

Broughton: "The owners can’t block the sale of the club. I read all too frequently about numbers that have been floated in the media usually that are associated with Tom Hicks name. I would like to make it clear that there is no number (for a sale).

 

There is no base line. I have said before and will say it again this is an auction. When the winning bid comes through, we will do a deal with the best bidder. The best bidder may not be the highest bidder. This is more than just money.

 

It is about the stadium development, its about the team, its about the whole piece. Once we have been through that process, the best bidder gets it."

 

 

 

According to the business section of the Sunday Times if the club is not sold by October RBS will begin to take control of the club. Do you think Hicks & Gilett are likely to make more or less by allowing this to happen?

 

Clue: The answer is not "Yes".

 

 

 

 

In that interview you have quoted, he also said the decision will be made by the board. The board has 6 members, only 3 of which are executives, 2 of the executives are owners. the owners can block what they want, but it will be a board decision. believe what you want, i've seen enough scam artists in my time and being someone who has spent best part of the last 20 years working in the investment banks of the city, i know not to give a shite what any of them say at anytime. they lie every minute of every day. in fact most of the lie so much they even start believing it is truth. Have the last 3 years taught nobody a thing - trust nothing they say.

[Gary Mac Legend]

I would happily tow the "they've no intention of selling line" if one poster spouting this could give me one solid reason why it would be in their best interests to keep the club rather than selling it now, given the information above?

 

To Albertini, the club can't be worth more than the debt, if they sell now they potentially make a loss, as you mentioned their problems in the US have been well documented, they cannot afford to make a loss.

 

Hicks himself said, he stands to lose $200 million on the Rangers, but intends to make that up with the sale of Liverpool FC. But we all know that's just not going to happen right now. So how can he benefit from holding onto the club? Well I'm not entirely sure just yet, there could be increases in TV revenues on the way? new sponsorship deals in progress? All could significantly increase the clubs revenue, ultimately culminating in Hicks being able to obtain the finance against the club to finally build the new stadium. From there, all kinds of possibilities open up, they could sell the naming rights, bring in all kinds of new sponsorships around the stadium. That could all significantly increase the value of the club.

 

Ultimately, whilst Hicks waits for the right bidder to come along, not someone offering the clubs value now, but someone willing to pay well over the odds to give Hicks the payday he's been biding his time for.

 

I don't know, I'm just speculating but if you were so confident they want to sell, why didn't they 12 months ago? That was the optimum time to sell the club surely? But they held on, now why did they hold on? Ok revenues will decrease this year, but the sponsorship deals coming in will help to balance that loss. Bare in mind, we did play in the Champions League this year, it's only in 12 months time will they suffer the loss of that. They can afford to hold onto the club for another year, and they will be determined not to let the club go for it's current market value. Which certainly is less than the debt the club is in.

[Albertini]

To Albertini, the club can't be worth more than the debt, if they sell now they potentially make a loss, as you mentioned their problems in the US have been well documented, they cannot afford to make a loss.

 

I think you mean the debt can't be worth more than the club? That's exactly my point as to why they must sell now. Most sane valuations have valued the club at £350 million.

 

The debt is £237 million to RBS and £140 million to them. That is worth more than the club right now.

 

They are hoping someone will pay a premium over £350 million for the "brand" to cover their exposure. Remember RBS get their money first. They get what’s left.

 

Also remember the value of the club is precisely the same irrespective of what is loaded onto it in terms of debt.

 

The club is worth its value as a going concern plus a premium for the name. Its value has no relevance on the size of the debt attached to it.

 

Hicks himself said, he stands to lose $200 million on the Rangers, but intends to make that up with the sale of Liverpool FC. But we all know that's just not going to happen right now. So how can he benefit from holding onto the club? Well I'm not entirely sure just yet, there could be increases in TV revenues on the way? new sponsorship deals in progress? All could significantly increase the clubs revenue, ultimately culminating in Hicks being able to obtain the finance against the club to finally build the new stadium. From there, all kinds of possibilities open up, they could sell the naming rights, bring in all kinds of new sponsorships around the stadium. That could all significantly increase the value of the club.

Forget what Hicks said about making back his Rangers losses on LFC. First of all if he sells the land around the ball park he will cover most of his exposure in the Rangers.

 

To make US$200 million each they would need to sell at over £600 million. Who would pay that kind of premium on a business making £50 million losses? He is saying that to big himself and the price up.

 

That is why Broughton specifically poo-pooed the numbers attributed to Hicks in the press conference.

 

They cannot afford to make a loss but equally they cannot afford to cover £50 million per year plus losses for the foreseeable future.

 

So what do you think they are trying to do? Make a small loss now and get out or play a high risk game of chance which will probably sink him.

 

Ultimately, whilst Hicks waits for the right bidder to come along, not someone offering the clubs value now, but someone willing to pay well over the odds to give Hicks the payday he's been biding his time for.

 

They can't afford to cover the annual losses based on the interest payments and RBS want their £237 million back by October. He can't bide his time. He has no money & RBS want paying.

 

I don't know, I'm just speculating but if you were so confident they want to sell, why didn't they 12 months ago? That was the optimum time to sell the club surely? But they held on, now why did they hold on?

 

That's the million dollar question. Why did they turn the Kuwati's offer down and reject DIC's offer down of £500 million? Greed and ego probably.

 

They probably thought the loan with RBS could be extended and that they would get accpetable minority investment.

 

Ok revenues will decrease this year, but the sponsorship deals coming in will help to balance that loss. Bare in mind, we did play in the Champions League this year, it's only in 12 months time will they suffer the loss of that. They can afford to hold onto the club for another year, and they will be determined not to let the club go for it's current market value. Which certainly is less than the debt the club is in.

 

Slight increases in TV revenue overall will be offset by reduced income from poor performance on the field, with less tv income, non CL football and many of the sponsorship deals performance related.

 

So he isn’t going to find the £50 million he needs every year there. In fact i’d bet that without CL football the losses could quite easily reach £70 million per year.

 

So by asset stripping the better players he covers, what, 1 year’s losses?

 

Then what? He needs to find £70 million the following year with a weaker team that then earns less money due to reduced income from tv, sponsorship etc.

 

So the income keeps coming down and the losses widen with no more saleable assets to cover the losses.

 

He doesn’t have the funds to support those interest payments with a mid table team.

 

In terms of Hicks borrowing for the stadium he has £237 million that he needs to find to pay RBS.

He would then need £350 million at least for the stadium. That’s on top of the £140 million he is owed.

 

That will require him to find and support £727 million. Who the fuck is going to lend him almost uS$1 billion considering he has just defaulted on US$525 million in the US?

 

You are struggling to find a reason why he wants to hang on because there isn’t one. There is no sane reason in him hanging on.

 

He is a shark but he knows when to get out. All the numbers clearly suggest that he has to get out now regardless of loss.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Albertini

[coop]

They didn't turn Kuwaits offer down it was Kuwait who withdrew from the deal at the last minute.

 

The agreed price was in the region of £450m.

 

As regards the club, it is currently approx £377m in debt.

 

Like Albertini has posted even going overboard with the valuation of the club would be about £350m with most financial people putting about a £300m price tag on the club.

 

The £140m loan that Hicks/Gillett took out via Kop Cayman has 10% interest charge on it which is getting rolled up every year.

 

So that means we owe £14m extra on that loan this year and obviously this will increase year after year.

 

That was done as a short term loan to get RBS off their backs and allow them to continue until they could sell the club.

 

It still though allows them to make a profit on the Kop Cayman loan.

[Albertini]

They didn't turn Kuwaits offer down it was Kuwait who withdrew from the deal at the last minute.

 

The agreed price was in the region of £450m.

 

As regards the club, it is currently approx £377m in debt.

 

Like Albertini has posted even going overboard with the valuation of the club would be about £350m with most financial people putting about a £300m price tag on the club.

 

The £140m loan that Hicks/Gillett took out via Kop Cayman has 10% interest charge on it which is getting rolled up every year.

 

So that means we owe £14m extra on that loan this year and obviously this will increase year after year.

 

That was done as a short term loan to get RBS off their backs and allow them to continue until they could sell the club.

 

It still though allows them to make a profit on the Kop Cayman loan.

 

Forgot about the Kuwatis's pulling out. No doubt Hicks tried to screw them at some point which led to it.

 

The Cayman loan is part of the debt but don't you think this will be where the owners will take hit? They can lump on as much interest as they want but it doesn't mean that it will be taken into account when the club is sold.

 

Any potential buyer will say that's your loan and your problem. The value of the club is £X.

 

The owners will be no doubt trying to get that included in the sale price as debt to maximise their return.

 

I personally feel they will be lucky to get clear after fees etc are deducted.

 

However this option of selling now is far preferable to the idea that they can hang around.

 

As i have pointed out if they hang around they need to support massive losses, find in total around £700 million and fund the interest on that (which when you consider we're paying £40 million on £237 million means they would roughly be paying £100 million + per year in interest on the money they need to fund the club and the stadium - that's if and it's a big "if" someone was willing to lend them it).

 

I just cannot see any reason why they would want to hang on and take on such huge borrowings and face massive potential annual losses until the stadium is built.

 

Nor could i see anyone lending them that amount of money to do it anyway.

 

Everything points to them being under pressure to get out now.

[coop]

I fully agree Albertini mate that it makes sense for them to get out now.

 

Hicks and Gillett are a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.

 

Every LBO needs an exit strategy and this is theirs.

 

One of the reasons why Broughton was appointed was the rumoured meeting in London between Michael Klein and Hicks/Gillett where he told them the best course of action was to get out of the club now and introduced them to Broughton.

 

People say why have they waited until now to get out and the simple answer is the loss of the Champions League money.

 

Up until now they have always had this cash to rely on but with the cash available to City and Spurs improving getting back into the Champions League is not going to be easy.

 

Like Albertini has put where does the shortfall of money come from.

 

For what its worth i don't think the owners will make a loss but i doubt very much the profit margin will be anything like they would be hoping.

[Kennys_spell]

In that interview you have quoted, he also said the decision will be made by the board. The board has 6 members, only 3 of which are executives, 2 of the executives are owners. the owners can block what they want, but it will be a board decision. believe what you want, i've seen enough scam artists in my time and being someone who has spent best part of the last 20 years working in the investment banks of the city, i know not to give a shite what any of them say at anytime. they lie every minute of every day. in fact most of the lie so much they even start believing it is truth. Have the last 3 years taught nobody a thing - trust nothing they say.

 

You're wrong again - That is the make up of the board of LFC. He didn't say the LFC board would make the decision - what he did specifically say was that the Leeches have both been removed from the decision process.

 

Unless you have ANY proof to backup your claim.

[Gary Mac Legend]

I fully agree Albertini mate that it makes sense for them to get out now.

 

Hicks and Gillett are a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.

 

Every LBO needs an exit strategy and this is theirs.

 

One of the reasons why Broughton was appointed was the rumoured meeting in London between Michael Klein and Hicks/Gillett where he told them the best course of action was to get out of the club now and introduced them to Broughton.

 

People say why have they waited until now to get out and the simple answer is the loss of the Champions League money.

 

Up until now they have always had this cash to rely on but with the cash available to City and Spurs improving getting back into the Champions League is not going to be easy.

 

Like Albertini has put where does the shortfall of money come from.

 

For what its worth i don't think the owners will make a loss but i doubt very much the profit margin will be anything like they would be hoping.

 

 

 

Really? Think of the lies they've told since they've been here. Think of how much they will now lose if they do sell the club this year, compared to how much they would have gotten if they'd have sold the club last summer.

 

Look at all of Hicks and Gillets sport franchises? How many have been successful? How much financial trouble are they both in? I don't think they're quite as good in Sports Investment as you may think. They're certainly not experts at 'getting out at the right time'.

[Kennys_spell]

Really? Think of the lies they've told since they've been here. Think of how much they will now lose if they do sell the club this year, compared to how much they would have gotten if they'd have sold the club last summer.

 

The other side of that coin is how much more they'll lose by holding on until next year - as Coop has said, but some appear to be ignoring - they're greedy, not stupid.

 

 

Look at all of Hicks and Gillets sport franchises? How many have been successful? How much financial trouble are they both in? I don't think they're quite as good in Sports Investment as you may think. They're certainly not experts at 'getting out at the right time'.

 

"Team success" isn't how the Leeches measure their investements though - they're not fans, they're businessmen who want to make money - they've been very successful at that.

[Gary Mac Legend]

The other side of that coin is how much more they'll lose by holding on until next year - as Coop has said, but some appear to be ignoring - they're greedy, not stupid.

 

 

But holding on for that extra year was already a sign of stupidity?

 

 

 

"Team success" isn't how the Leeches measure their investements though - they're not fans, they're businessmen who want to make money - they've been very successful at that.

 

 

How much will Hicks make (Net Profit by the way) off of The Texas Rangers? How much did he make off of Corinthians?

 

They've had successes and failures, Liverpool Football Club definitely won't be a success for either of them, they can only prevent it from being an enormous disaster that they will suffer badly for.

[coop]

Really? Think of the lies they've told since they've been here. Think of how much they will now lose if they do sell the club this year, compared to how much they would have gotten if they'd have sold the club last summer.

 

Look at all of Hicks and Gillets sport franchises? How many have been successful? How much financial trouble are they both in? I don't think they're quite as good in Sports Investment as you may think. They're certainly not experts at 'getting out at the right time'.

 

I would suggest you look at the property these guys live in before saying they fail at what they do.

 

Gillett knew the correct time to get out of the Canadiens.

 

Hicks has struggled in his Sports Investments hence the reason why he wants to go back to his LBO ways outside of sports.

[Kennys_spell]

But holding on for that extra year was already a sign of stupidity?

 

Not at all - again as Coop has stated, they had the Champs League money coming in, for them to walk away from that would have meant them walking away from £30 Mill - THAT would have been stupid.

 

How much will Hicks make (Net Profit by the way) off of The Texas Rangers? How much did he make off of Corinthians?

 

They'll look at that as "you win some, you lose some - those you win, you rip off while you're winning, those you lose, you rip off while you're losing. What you leave isn't important". You can't possibly claim they are stupid businessmen - they're both multi multi multi millionaires off the back of their efforts.

 

They've had successes and failures, Liverpool Football Club definitely won't be a success for either of them, they can only prevent it from being an enormous disaster that they will suffer badly for.

 

Liverpool Football club will definately be a success for them - Almost £50 Mill in funds for a Phantom stadium - approx £3 Mill per year in expenses between them, LFC owing their Cayman company more than a hundred million. They won't squeeze as much out of it as they wanted but they won't walk away empty handed. Again as Coop said - they know when to leave.

[Gary Mac Legend]

I would suggest you look at the property these guys live in before saying they fail at what they do.

 

Gillett knew the correct time to get out of the Canadiens.

 

Hicks has struggled in his Sports Investments hence the reason why he wants to go back to his LBO ways outside of sports.

 

 

I never suggested that they've failed at what they do. Sports Investments as you already mentioned aren't their strongest fields of investment, especially with Hicks.

 

Gillet has wanted out for some time now, I've no doubt he was happy to sell the club off last summer, unfortunately Gillet is not the majority shareholder, and Hicks can veto any potential sale of just Gillet's shares. Therefore, we have suffered as a direct result of Hicks' ineptitude at exiting his sports investments at the right time.

 

As you say hence why he wants out of sports franchises.

[TheHitman]

The 54.3 million loss covers fees such as a 22.3 million figure relating to the stadium and also a 4.3 million severance payment. These are not recurring amounts, also most would acknowledge the wage bill has been reduced since the reports were filed as you know these relate to the period up to and including July 2009. Also the Standard Charted deal would not have been included in those figures.

 

You could easily make a case that by continuing a reduction in wage bills which we are seeing signs of this summer so far, this could go some way to giving them sort of negotiations with the banks and other lenders.

 

Sadly it is possible for the owners to stay in my view and not as bizarre as you make out. It would seem by the clubs past actions over the past two years we could see the likes of Torres and Mascheno leave and then the owners have a chunk of money to continue their stay.

 

Ideally they want to sell the club at a profit if the BOARD do not see the figure they want they will go with the PLAN B of an Everton size expenditure . Then over the short term I doubt it would be as detrimental as you are making out Albertini. Although they would need a bit of luck with having a manager who is happy to work within those conditions. I wonder if we could find such a manager!.

Edited July 25, 2010 by TheHitman

[King Emlyn]

Like taking candy off a baby.

[Gary Mac Legend]

Not at all - again as Coop has stated, they had the Champs League money coming in, for them to walk away from that would have meant them walking away from £30 Mill - THAT would have been stupid.

 

What losses did we post for the last financial year? Tell me, how they would have 'walked away from £30 mil?'. It was RBS who received that £30 million you mention. Without investment into the team, on the pitch performance will inevitably decline. At the end of last season, our team peaked and that club in footballing terms was in a great position.

 

Without more investment on their part into the team, just how much more could they have expected the value of the club to rise and the team to improve?

 

They'll look at that as "you win some, you lose some - those you win, you rip off while you're winning, those you lose, you rip off while you're losing. What you leave isn't important". You can't possibly claim they are stupid businessmen - they're both multi multi multi millionaires off the back of their efforts.

 

 

I know that they're very successful businessmen on the whole, I didn't deny that. I just don't believe that either of them are particularly skilled at Sports Investment, Hicks in particular. Which of his Sports Investments have actually been successful and earned him a significant profit?

 

Liverpool Football club will definately be a success for them - Almost £50 Mill in funds for a Phantom stadium - approx £3 Mill per year in expenses between them, LFC owing their Cayman company more than a hundred million. They won't squeeze as much out of it as they wanted but they won't walk away empty handed. Again as Coop said - they know when to leave.

 

For starters, without any stronger proof you can't say for sure that they siphoned off that £50 million for the 'Phantom' stadium plans. I'll stick my neck out and say that where we are now, wasn't their grand masterplan for LFC. They obviously wanted to obtain the finances for the new stadium, couldn't, now the Club has heavily depreciated in value over the last year. Even if they were to sell now, they won't even cover the debts that have been secured against the club. Where is the net profit? Sure, £3 million a year between them is nice, but they stand to lose more. Think of the damage that has been done to their reputations? The expenses they've invested in legal advisors when they purchased the club and throughout their tenure? If they sell the club in the next 6 months for the market value, it definitely won't be a success, they will just be limiting the extent of their failure.

 

No new stadium, therefore the club cannot cover the interest payments, huge losses every year and the club's market value worth less than the debt against it, is not a success.

[Kennys_spell]

The 54.3 million loss covers fees such as a 22.3 million figure relating to the stadium and also a 4.3 million severance payment. These are not recurring amounts, also most would acknowledge the wage bill has been reduced since the reports were filed as you know these relate to the period up to and including July 2009.

 

It's true the wage costs have been reduced - most of these reduction have been due to them selling the clubs ONLY assets, players. They can't simply carry on reducing the wage bill by selling the assets, if they do that they also reduce the value of the club.

 

Also the Standard Charted deal would not have been included in those figures.

The Carling figures were and without Champs League participation the Standard chartered sponsorship is reduced to much the same level as the Carlsberg sponsorship.

 

You could easily make a case that by continuing a reduction in wage bills which we are seeing signs of this summer so far, this could go some way to giving them sort of negotiations with the banks and other lenders.

 

As I've said, it may give them some cash to negotiate with the banks but it would reduce the value of the club which the banks would see as a massive risk against their loan. Not really a viable way for them to keep the banks at bay.

 

Sadly it is possible for the owners to stay in my view and not as bizarre as you make out. It would seem by the clubs past actions over the past two years we could see the likes of Torres and Mascheno leave and then the owners have a chunk of money to continue their stay.

 

Anything is possible, anything at all - but it's not in keeping with their number on aim which is to make money. That stand to be personally liable for a lot more of the loan than they currently are if they do stay.

 

Ideally they want to sell the club at a profit if the BOARD do not see the figure they want they will go with the PLAN B of an Everton size expenditure . Then over the short term I doubt it would be as detrimental as you are making out Albertini. Although they would need a bit of luck with having a manager who is happy to work within those conditions.I wonder if we could find such a manager!.

 

They want to sell the club without making a loss.

[TheHitman]

It all depends how much value is placed upon the brand Liverpool rather than the players. I would guess a huge premium would be within the asking price because of our worldwide fan-base.