First round of bids for LFC

[Gary Mac Legend]

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.

 

 

A huge premium which no-one will pay, but they will expect to be paid for. See the predicament? We may not have seen the worst of Hicks and Gillet yet. We don't know how they will try to receive the profit they want for the club, but they won't be selling at market value this summer that's for sure.

[coop]

Without Broughton's intervention RBS were allegedly wanting the loan paying off.

 

Again going purely off newspaper reports RBS agreed to this but have given Broughton/BarCap until October to sort this out otherwise they will hold their hand out for their £237m.

 

Do you find it strange that there is a leaked story to the press about RBS getting frustrated over the fact the sale of the club is dragging on then we get reports of Hicks holding up the sale.

 

Shortly after these stories are printed Broughton comes out and says regards the sales process going well and Hicks/Gillett are no longer part of the process.

 

RBS are not happy with the situation purely because the personal guarantees Hicks and Gillett put up are getting worth less and less so therefore RBS want their money back.

 

Now either RBS agree to another extension in October or ask for their cash back.

 

Considering Broughton spoke of a sale process which will be done to a rough timescale then i presume RBS are likely to ask for their cash.

[Gary Mac Legend]

Without Broughton's intervention RBS were allegedly wanting the loan paying off.

 

Again going purely off newspaper reports RBS agreed to this but have given Broughton/BarCap until October to sort this out otherwise they will hold their hand out for their £237m.

 

Do you find it strange that there is a leaked story to the press about RBS getting frustrated over the fact the sale of the club is dragging on then we get reports of Hicks holding up the sale.

 

Shortly after these stories are printed Broughton comes out and says regards the sales process going well and Hicks/Gillett are no longer part of the process.

 

RBS are not happy with the situation purely because the personal guarantees Hicks and Gillett put up are getting worth less and less so therefore RBS want their money back.

 

Now either RBS agree to another extension in October or ask for their cash back.

 

Considering Broughton spoke of a sale process which will be done to a rough timescale then i presume RBS are likely to ask for their cash.

 

 

They already agreed an extension that will last until next summer now, but a Newspaper can't remember which stated that a clause was inserted that means they can call the loan in, in October if they want. Whether they do so is an entirely different thing, they could just allow the sales process to continue until next summer and then see?

[Kennys_spell]

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.

 

That'll be decided during negotiations - the longer they take to get into the negotiation stage the less the value of the club is.

[Kennys_spell]

A huge premium which no-one will pay, but they will expect to be paid for. See the predicament? We may not have seen the worst of Hicks and Gillet yet. We don't know how they will try to receive the profit they want for the club, but they won't be selling at market value this summer that's for sure.

 

I can see the predicament - but it seems you can see a different predicament to me. My view is that they have an asset that is losing value the longer they hold it.

 

It's not "For sure" that they won't be selling this summer - that's your view or interpretation.

[Albertini]

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!.

 

What about the severance pay this year?

 

The club made what, was it a £10 million profit on normal trading but that was offset by £30-£40 million in interest plus the 10% on the owners loan (roughly £14 million per annum).

 

You can sell assets but you reduce income as all football clubs generate more money through success. less of success means less income.

 

When you start reducing the costs by selling players you are in a tailspin then of trying to reduce costs at a faster rate than your income is being reduced. That then impacts on your performance on the field and it all comes crashing down.

 

See Leeds Utd for details.

 

My point is they cannot reduce costs by enough to cover the drop in income from reduced team performance and pay the interest on the current debt and they cannot cover those losses on their own for the next few years.

 

That doesn't take into account the whopping great elephant in the room that RBS want their money by October.

 

How can they hang on if RBS call in in October as reported?

[TheHitman]

Our wage bill was 107.8 million Evertons was 49 million so I would say the owners are of the view it is possible. It is possible to reduce wages and have relative success!. Combine that with the 22.3 million stadia costs and it goes a long way to paying a large chunk of the interest listed in that financial report. The Liverpool so called brand wouldn't be harmed if they were 5-9th for a few seasons the sponsors get exposure to Liverpool fc the most successful football club blah blah.

 

Maybe RBS threat if true to call in the loan is having the desired effect in precipitating a reduction in wages which in turn may lead to them being less hostile to the owners.

 

I am just not as optimistic as you and a few others who think the owners see no other option.

Edited July 25, 2010 by TheHitman

[Kennys_spell]

Our wage bill was 107.8 million Evertons was 49 million so I would say the owners are of the view it is possible. It is possible to reduce wages and have relative success!. Combine that with the 22.3 million stadia costs and it goes a long way to paying a large chunk of the interest listed in that financial report. The Liverpool so called brand wouldn't be harmed if they were 5-9th for a few seasons the sponsors get exposure to Liverpool fc the most successful football club blah blah.

 

Maybe RBS threat if true to call in the loan is having the desired effect in precipitating a reduction in wages which in turn may lead to them being less hostile to the owners.

 

I am just not as optimistic as you and a few others who think the owners see no other option.

 

I think you've provided your own answer there - that's why the Leeches bought us and not Everton.

[G Richards]

Is it possible we could be bought for a sum of money that would just cover the debt owed to RBS?

 

And if this happened would G&H then not receive a penny of the money they loaded on the club through the new Cayman loan?

 

And would the club then be liable for the Cayman loan or not?

[Kennys_spell]

Is it possible we could be bought for a sum of money that would just cover the debt owed to RBS?

 

And if this happened would G&H then not receive a penny of the money they loaded on the club through the new Cayman loan?

 

And would the club then be liable for the Cayman loan or not?

 

As I said before, anything is possible - it wouldn't please the Leeches and to be honest the only way I can see that happening is if RBS actually DO call in the loan in October and they agree to sell it quickly, I would imagine that they would try to work in all sorts of future payments against profits and new stadium take.

[piscinin]

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.

 

So in your judgment is there an "auction timetable" to which tentative dates have been assigned? A simple yes will suffice.

[Sangria]

So in your judgment is there an "auction timetable" to which tentative dates have been assigned? A simple yes will suffice.

 

Not my answer but yes, with a bit of give and take.

 

Maybe the obtimists are right and who can blame them after all the lies etc we have had.

 

I want to believe because I have to believe

[Kennys_spell]

So in your judgment is there an "auction timetable" to which tentative dates have been assigned? A simple yes will suffice.

 

In my judgement - Yes. But that's my interpretation and not what Broughton said.

 

That's my point.

[Section_31]

I still think we're entering the end game here. There hasn't been a peep out of Hicks for ages which takes some doing, the whole club apparatus is geared towards the sale now IMO.

[piscinin]

Not my answer but yes, with a bit of give and take.

 

Maybe the obtimists are right and who can blame them after all the lies etc we have had.

 

I want to believe because I have to believe

 

I get the feeling we are caught up in someone else's crusade :)

[piscinin]

I still think we're entering the end game here. There hasn't been a peep out of Hicks for ages which takes some doing, the whole club apparatus is geared towards the sale now IMO.

 

The two things which don't add up are the 300m loan / "the backstop" which barclays agreed with H&G and the reasoning for the 120M equity injection being converted to a loan at the last minute. End game? Maybe. Just not the one we are being given the hard-sell on though.

[stringvest]

Of course there is a plan, a schedule of activities - calling it a timetable is a problem because plenty of people will equate that with a set of fixed rather than aspirational dates. There is interest in purchasing the club, there is a strong interest in selling it, and the sale will go through before December.

[piscinin]

Of course there is a plan, a schedule of activities - calling it a timetable is a problem because plenty of people will equate that with a set of fixed rather than aspirational dates. There is interest in purchasing the club, there is a strong interest in selling it, and the sale will go through before December.

 

Do you people not have British Rail anymore?

[stringvest]

Do you people not have British Rail anymore?

 

Nope. We have a network of government subsidised private rail franchises. They publish their aspirational schedules. Broughton's got the owners to deal with, our rail franchises have the likes of Stu Monty fucking them about at every turn (and straight).

[piscinin]

Nope. We have a network of government subsidised private rail franchises. They publish their aspirational schedules. Broughton's got the owners to deal with, our rail franchises have the likes of Stu Monty fucking them about at every turn (and straight).

 

Seems like a lose-lose. You assume everyone's an idiot. You get shit. You assume they're not. You get shit!

[Dan Vito Corleone]

If those two cunts told me that the sky was blue, I wouldn't believe them.

[punkhunter]

i wouldn't either today AP. The sky is grey and cloudy, and it's pissing it down where I am dude :-)

[Sangria]

Not my answer but yes, with a bit of give and take.

 

Maybe the obtimists are right and who can blame them after all the lies etc we have had.

 

I want to believe because I have to believe

 

 

Pessimists, Sunday drinking not good.

 

You know you have had a few when you get your optimists and pessimists mixed up.

[Albertini]

Our wage bill was 107.8 million Evertons was 49 million so I would say the owners are of the view it is possible. It is possible to reduce wages and have relative success!. Combine that with the 22.3 million stadia costs and it goes a long way to paying a large chunk of the interest listed in that financial report. The Liverpool so called brand wouldn't be harmed if they were 5-9th for a few seasons the sponsors get exposure to Liverpool fc the most successful football club blah blah.

 

Maybe RBS threat if true to call in the loan is having the desired effect in precipitating a reduction in wages which in turn may lead to them being less hostile to the owners.

 

I am just not as optimistic as you and a few others who think the owners see no other option.

 

Yes but the Everton model works on a turnover of around £79.5 million with a profit of £6million per year, not enought to meet our commitments.

 

So whilst you can reduce wages that has a knock on effect on turnover.

 

Bottom line is the same in that not enough cash is being generated to pay interest.

 

Plus of course the value of the asset and the sale price will also reduce under your scenario, which defeats the point of the excercise.

[Guest LFD]

i wouldn't either today AP. The sky is grey and cloudy, and it's pissing it down where I am dude :-)

 

I like this guy.