Quantcast
Kenny Huang linked to Liverpool takeover - Page 162 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Wor Horse

Kenny Huang linked to Liverpool takeover

Recommended Posts

If any takeover takes place can you imagine the scene the first home game afterwards, Moores striding back through the gates like the returning king Odysseus, arms stretched out accepting the adulation of the followers, you know just imagining this to annoy myself, the stupid fucking moustachioed cunt.

 

Odysseus?

 

Maybe if you had said an ageing Paul Calf I could have taken you seriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see Tony B still talking about CIC backing for Huang even though Huang himself has said "his consortium lacks experience".

 

Hard to believe CIC lacking experience with British Media or investing in western world. Huang's words could mean CIC are not part of the consortium.

 

Guess we will find out soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting to see Tony B still talking about CIC backing for Huang even though Huang himself has said "his consortium lacks experience".

 

Hard to believe CIC lacking experience with British Media or investing in western world. Huang's words could mean CIC are not part of the consortium.

 

Guess we will find out soon enough.

 

I thought CIC had made a statement clarifying their non-involvement. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting to see Tony B still talking about CIC backing for Huang even though Huang himself has said "his consortium lacks experience".

 

Hard to believe CIC lacking experience with British Media or investing in western world. Huang's words could mean CIC are not part of the consortium.

 

Guess we will find out soon enough.

 

 

He said lacking of experience of the Premier League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised people are taking anything CIC say at face value. You're talking about a Chinese business culture that fleeced the owners of Rover by getting them all pissed on Apple Sourz before getting them to sign a contract which made absolutely no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say no matter how much I despise G&H and want them gone asap, i'm incredibly sceptical about this 'Chinese' offer. It just doesn't sit right to me. Any decent potential bidder shouldn't need to play anything out in public/the media, they shouldn't be playing cat & mouse about potential funding/backing.

 

The circus continues.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ta. I thought they'd been quoted.

 

Just checked the original stories again. It was "a spokesman for CIC", not a named source or an official statement. Also Huang's denial of it was a draft statement "accidentally" sent to a journalist. Neither of these are cast iron denials, whereas in the past they have not been shy about denying their involvement in deals. I'm taking more notice of the fact Tony Barrett is still saying they are involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due repect to all those who don't like "the Chinese bid" - despite the fact that it is a bid from an international consortium with large USA and Chinese components. However, if the bid does not win - or does not go through - LFC and the rest of the PL will then be facing a "Huang" consortium takeover of another PL club. His plan for the development of football in China and Asia is too solid for him to give it up because he did not get LFC .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the experience comment, CIC or any similar fund would certainly lack experience investing in sport. its more or less completely unprecedented, which is one reason why it seems so unlikely for them to be involved.

 

but, perhaps understandable in that there were noises coming out of china that some people in the goverment there were very keen on the idea of building on the chinese status in world sport on the back of the olympics.

 

anyway, its all speculation. whether theyre part pof it or not, theres no way we'll get a clear answer unless and until the ink is dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you been on drugs the past few years and missed the Hicks and Gillette reign? The same people that leveraged the club to pay for their takeover. The same people that paid a bit over a hundred million for the club, yet instantly put £200M-odd into loads? Where did the £60M or so extra go to? The same people that were building a stadium in their first year of ownership? The same people that took transfer income and put it into their own pockets? The same people that have embezzled funds from the club? The same people that remortgaged at a much higher rate 'cause they had no intention of paying the debt, instead planning to offload it all onto a new buyer? These people still own the club, and they have debts to pay. You know their history, yet you think they wouldn't sell Torres, or Gerrard?

 

Are you a fucking idiot? I'm naive? Be quiet, you fucking ostrich.

 

Did you actually read my post? I said I wouldn't put anything past them, I'm sure they would sell torres and pay off their loans if they thought they could get away with it. Selling any of the club 'assets' now would impair the value of the club and reduce their already paltry roi. They might be cunts of the highest order but they want to make money from this 'investment'. Now relax and have a cup of tea there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBS look like they have tipped off broadsheets as both Guardian & Telegraph running similar stories to Times in regards penalty clauses being current owners liability..mind you made enough read the Guardian one, sickening...

 

Liverpool are not expecting any deadline day bids to buy the club• Kenneth Huang and Yahya Kirdi have yet to make an offer

• Tom Hicks and George Gillett could be hit by penalty charges

Tweet this (6)David Conn and Andy Hunter guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 August 2010 23.00 BST Article history

Liverpool owners, George Gillett, left, and Tom Hicks, could have to pay an extra £60m in penalty charges if the club is not sold before 6 October. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA

 

No firm bids to buy Liverpool are expected to be made tomorrow, the self-imposed deadline by which the club's chairman, Martin Broughton, said he hoped to receive solid offers. Yahya Kirdi, the Syrian businessman based in Canada, continues to express a positive interest but if, as has been claimed, his financial backers are members of the ruling family of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, any firm bid from him is certain to be delayed.

 

Yesterday the family announced the death at 95 of Sheikha Maryam al-Shamsi, the mother of Sharjah's ruler, Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed al-Qassimi. All members of the family will now observe seven days mourning during which no business will be conducted.

 

The Hong Kong-based businessman Kenneth Huang said today that his consortium "have confirmed with Liverpool's board that we are interested in bidding" but he has not translated that into a detailed proposal with the proof that the money is there, which Broughton has asked for.

 

Sources close to the process confirmed today that no firm offers, with the required proof of funds, have been received, and it is not thought likely that any will be delivered tomorrow. That means Liverpool's owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, will be hit with another £2.5m, the penalty fee they are being charged by the Royal Bank of Scotland for every week the club is not sold.

 

Imposed on Hicks's and Gillett's Liverpool holding company, Kop, as part of the refinancing last April of £237m in loans from RBS, the £2.5m weekly penalties will, according to sources close to the arrangement, amount to an additional £60m if the club is not sold by 6 October, when the loan expires. That would mean RBS will have racked up more than £200m in interest and fees since it loaned Hicks and Gillett £185m to buy Liverpool in February 2007.

 

RBS would not confirm the £2.5m or £60m figures, but did acknowledge penalty fees are part of the loan arrangement. The accumulating fees are charged to Hicks's and Gillett's holding company, and will become due for repayment by the owners if and when the club is finally sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Hicks and George Gillett face £20m bank penalty if Liverpool is not sold

Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett will have to pay the Royal Bank of Scotland £20 million in penalty fees if the club remains unsold at the end of August, it has emerged.

 

By Rory Smith

Published: 11:00PM BST 12 Aug 2010

 

Though Kenny Huang, the leading contender to oust the Americans, yesterday insisted talks are progressing smoothly, he admits he is only "50 per cent" confident of securing a £400 million takeover.

 

The bank, which holds £237 million of debt placed on the Anfield side by its American owners, has imposed the so-called "ticking fees" against Hicks and Gillett, rather than Liverpool, in an attempt to force a sale of the club.

 

Hicks and Gillett are also thought to be personally liable for millions of pounds in punitive interest charges since RBS agreed to a new refinancing deal in April. The bank will take the fees out of the proceeds of a sale of the club, though should Liverpool fetch less than the £282.4 million sum of its total debt, RBS will pursue the Americans for the extra funds.

 

Liverpool's current owners are holding out for a £600 million deal to cover liabilities elsewhere in their business empires, but sources familiar with the sale have suggested that such a price remains a pipe-dream.

 

Yahya Kirdi, the Syrian-Canadian businessman acknowledged as the Americans' preferred bidder, has denied he will meet that valuation, while Huang is thought to be preparing an offer of around £400 million.

 

The Chinese entrepreneur yesterday broke his silence on his prospective takeover in an interview published by Love Basketball magazine in his homeland, insisting an outline proposal has been approved by Liverpool's chairman, Martin Broughton, and the club's board.

 

He also moved to assuage a number of doubts over his offer, including the provenance of funds and the identities of his backers, though he stopped short of confirming whether he had tabled a formal bid to buy the club.

 

"We have signed a confidentiality clause with regards to the acquisition of Liverpool," Huang was quoted as saying. "I am 50 per cent confident we will acquire the club. We have provided a large number of documents. Liverpool's board has approved our proposal and we will have an answer in less than 10 days.

 

"Liverpool's board have given us a positive response, but there are still plenty of unknowns. Our competitors are very strong and the board has not confirmed they will accept us. There are rivals from North America and the Middle East. We still have some distance to go, but we were informed the board regard our proposal as acceptable in the macro."

 

Huang also dismissed suggestions he would walk away should a deal not be completed by the end of the week and confirmed that Yang Guang, his partner in Liverpool's would-be parent company QSL, is involved in the bid in an advisory capacity.

 

Though Liverpool fans will be unconcerned by personal debts accrued by their unpopular owners, the club's future, should Hicks and Gillett manage to retain control at Anfield, will be a cause of considerable distress.

 

"Liverpool's is not a long-term business model," said Philip Long of PKF accountants, who conduct an annual survey into football finance. "There simply is not a happy ending to leveraged buy-outs. The burden of the interest outweighs any profits the club make, and that becomes unmanageable.

 

"The two Americans hanging on and seeing their debt refinanced by RBS, continuing to pay interest, is a far worse scenario than the bank taking over the running of the club. The debt burden will just increase to a point where the interest is not being serviced any more. The ultimate end game, if Hicks and Gillett cling on, is that Liverpool goes bust."

 

Meanwhile, Huang could come face to face with one of the American owners he is trying to oust from Anfield at a London conference later this year, writes Paul Kelso.

 

Huang has not spoken to the UK media since making public his bid for the club, but regardless of what transpires with Liverpool, he has already agreed to give a presentation at the Economist Global Sport Summit at the end of October.

 

Juang is listed under his Chinese name, Jian-Hua Huang, among the speakers on the conference website. A spokesman for the conference said he had confirmed his attendance weeks before his interest in Liverpool became public.

 

In a twist that could add a little tension to events, George Gillett is among the delegates who have indicated they will attend the conference, which will be held at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Oct 29, two days before the annual NFL match at Wembley.

 

Whether the ownership of Liverpool will have transferred between Huang and Gillett is a moot point, and it remains to be seen whether both men fulfil their commitment to the event. Two years ago both Gillett and Tom Hicks attended the conference.

 

Tom Hicks and George Gillett face £20m bank penalty if Liverpool is not sold - Telegraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a twist that could add a little tension to events, George Gillett is among the delegates who have indicated they will attend the conference, which will be held at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Oct 29, two days before the annual NFL match at Wembley.

 

SOS need to hit this, & hit it hard if we dont get sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a twist that could add a little tension to events, George Gillett is among the delegates who have indicated they will attend the conference, which will be held at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Oct 29, two days before the annual NFL match at Wembley.

 

SOS need to hit this, & hit it hard if we dont get sold.

 

I'm in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Hicks sold the baseball franchise Texas Rangers after it ran into debt problems. Sound familiar? Photograph: Fort Worth Star-Telegram/MCT /Landov/PA Images

Tom Hicks has kept his shareholding in Liverpool separate from his other sports assets in apparent fear of a collapse of the highly leveraged Premier League club. Digger has obtained a corporate flowchart detailing all of the sporting interests Hicks has held through his holding company, HSG Hicks Sports Group.

 

The chart was filed with a US court in bankruptcy proceedings against Texas Rangers, the Major League Baseball franchise that has now been sold by Hicks, in which the courts had invited Rangers' creditors to pursue other HSG assets.

 

That order could put at risk his stake in the Dallas Stars ice hockey team, as well as stakes in those organisations' associated real estate operations, which sat alongside the Texas Rangers in HSG. Yet, curiously, Liverpool's ultimate parent company, Kop Investment LLC, is not listed among them.

 

It is not known precisely how his Kop shareholding is structured since that company has never met its statutory requirement to file an annual return. But Liverpool's ring-fencing out of HSG cannot have been for tax or legal reasons: Kop is registered in Delaware, the tax-friendly location where other Hicks investments are held. A spokesman for Hicks did not return calls yesterday after Digger put it to him that the purpose of the separation was to prevent Liverpool's debts causing problems for other HSG assets. Despite their separation the dominoes have begun to fall.

Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks stays silent on Kop Investment split | Football | The Guardian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×