two new bids to buy the club..

[Code]

I`m off to bed, not going to get much work done tomorow it seems.

 

Ah well..

[aiyic]

You missed out the 'being' between have and asked.

 

No. That's what Jefferies tweeted.

 

 

mikejefferiesL4 Mike Jefferies

Hearing that Burslow and `Ayres asked to resign

[Guest ShoePiss]

You missed out the 'been' between have and asked.

 

.

[RedEagle]

Heard a few rumors that a consortium is trying to buy the club, headed by Rick Parry called Tieland.

[Carra_is_legend]

Also any potential bidder won't have bid without speaking to Broughton, Purslow and Ayre about their power of accepting a bid and oust the cunts.

 

I think something is cooking fast here.

 

That statement in the site is what confusing me a bit. If the above 3 are very confident of pushing through a sale against the cunts, why release that statement? There is no need to release that kind of a statement.

 

God, my head is spinning.

[TheHowieLama]

.

 

top retweet of coops stuff there mate

[coop]

That still doesn't make any sense! Did you mean 'been'? ;-)

 

I'm with SM on this one; absolutely mental development. It's mad to think that Broughton, Purslow and Ayre have declared war on the cunts on their own website! Boss!

 

Yes sorry Chief Inspector Brownie of the Grammar Police i meant been :whistle:

[barosrocks]

Boston Red Sox owner makes late offer to buy Liverpool | Football | The Guardian

 

The owner of the Boston Red Sox Major League Baseball team, John W Henry, has posted an outline offer to buy Liverpool Football Club, according to sources close to the discussions. Liverpool's chairman, Martin Broughton, presented Henry's bid, along with one from Asian business interests, understood to be Chinese, at a board meeting today.

 

It also emerged that the club's owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, had tried to make wholesale changes in the boardroom. "[The owners] sought to remove managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre from the board, seeking to replace them with Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutcheon," read a statement on the club website. "This matter is now subject to legal review and a further announcement will be made in due course. Meanwhile Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre continue to explore every possible route to achieving a sale of the Club at the earliest opportunity."

 

Both the US and Asian bids were described as "credible" by reliable sources today and Broughton, Liverpool's managing director, Christian Purslow, and Ian Ayre, the club's commercial director, were understood to favour entering serious discussions. However, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the American owners of Liverpool, which owes £237m to Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia, were said to have rejected the offers in principle because they do not provide enough money for their shares.

 

One informed source described Henry as "extremely interested" in buying Liverpool, saying he has the means and expertise required, as evidenced by the Red Sox's iconic stadium, Fenway Park. Liverpool supporters will be naturally suspicious of any bid coming from the US after the bitter experience with Hicks and Gillett and will want assurances that the finance is real, not borrowed. Hicks and Gillett engineered a "leveraged buy-out" of Liverpool in February 2007, with £185m entirely borrowed from RBS, then made the capital and interest the club's responsibility to repay.

 

The outlines of the bids are understood to be broadly the ones which have been considered as the only credible solution for the club – repaying the banks but giving little profit to Hicks and Gillett. The banks, both of which collapsed in the economic crisis, – RBS is now 84% owned by the British taxpayer – want their loans back on 15 October but there is no apparent prospect of either of the owners being able to repay them. Despite that, Hicks and Gillett are known to have held out for a handsome profit on their shares. Neither could be reached for comment tonight.

[Faustus]

Thats pretty much it Liam.

 

Fingers well and truly fucking crossed.

[RedKnight]

Struggling English Premier League club Liverpool has received two new takeover bids, but the club's American owners are trying to block the other board members from pursuing negotiations.

 

One bid considered by the board on Tuesday was from the United States and the other was from Asia, a person told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because negotiations are ongoing.

 

The owners of the Boston Red Sox baseball team are one of the bidders, Sky Sports News reported.

 

Liverpool co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr. won't accept either bid because they are only willing to match the 218.9 million pounds (then $431 million) they paid for the club in 2007 and partially pay down the club's debt which has grown to about 285 million pounds ($453 million).

 

But the other board members were ready to consider accepting one of the bids on Tuesday. Chairman Martin Broughton, managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre are now consulting lawyers about taking legal action against Hicks and Gillett.

 

"The board of directors have received two excellent financial offers to buy the club that would repay all its long-term debt," a club statement said. "A board meeting was called today to review these bids and approve a sale. Shortly prior to the meeting, the owners -- Tom Hicks and George Gillett -- sought to remove Managing Director Christian Purslow and Commercial Director Ian Ayre from the board, seeking to replace them with Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutcheon.

 

"This matter is now subject to legal review and a further announcement will be made in due course."

 

The statement said that Broughton, Purslow and Ayre will "continue to explore every possible route to achieving a sale of the club at the earliest opportunity."

 

Red Sox president Larry Lucchino declined comment on whether his team was involved in a bid.

 

2 takeover bids received by Liverpool - Boston.com

[Ring of Fire]

HAHA! Cheers Coop. That nearly gave me a heart attack.

 

Me too, who'd have thought you would have palpatations when told Purslow had been removed from the board. Think we need a bit of the Frog's Chorus from McCartney, "We all stand together, bom bom!!"

[Horus]

You missed out the 'being' between have and asked.

 

or the "been"

[TheHowieLama]

or the "been"

 

dude your stream must be a few minutes behind

[coop]

Alright kinel i get it i put being instead of been.

[Horus]

I really don't want the red sox owners anywhere near the club, but I fear that as most of the reports are naming them in amongst all the leaks, that this is the one we are being lined up for.

[michaelgordon]

this bit it the telegraph article if true makes it a little more interesting, not so much out of the blue if RBS have already been sounded out

 

Crucially, both bidders are understood to be acceptable to RBS, whose loans to the club become due on Oct 15.

[barosrocks]

Aisling O'Connor of the Times also (along with Tariq Panja) reporting another statement is expected

[TheResonator]

Couple of twitterers reporting that there may well be another club statement before bed.

 

Time to get the kettle on.

[Il Fenomeno]

Post from RAWK, seems like they aren't able to remove Ayre & Purslow legally?

 

The Company Articles for The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited set out the rules for the removal of directors in clauses 81 and 83.

 

Clause 83 gives a list of valid reasons for the removal of a director, such as being disqualified by law, mental illness etc, none of which apply is this instance.

 

Therefore a Director can only be removed in accordance with clause 81, which states "Any appointment or removal shall be made in writing and signed by the then current Chairman"

 

It would seem then that Hicks and Gillett can't get rid of Purslow and Ayre without Broughtons permission, which given this statement clearly hasn't been given.

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4746910/LFC%20company%20articles.pdf

[Cij]

That's all well and good, but your missing one point.

 

WHAT IF HICKS HAS THE REFINACING MONEY FROM A HEDGEFUND IN THE US?

 

Then we are completely and utterly fucked ....

 

The only sliver of light is that it is unlikely that he would wait until now to redeem the RBS loans if he had secured refinancing given the penalties currently being imposed by RBS. It would make no sense whatsoever. This is pure speculation though.

[Ring of Fire]

Because he has replaced Purslow and Ayre for his 2. Purslow and Ayre were sacked this morning. Its down to lawyers and probably a judge to see if Hicks can do that.

 

Al, the statement says they sought to remove Purslow & Ayre. Are you saying they are actually gone pending legal review, Hicks has is refinancing deal done and we are basically dead as a football club?

[Faustus]

Couple of twitterers reporting that there may well be another club statement before bed.

 

Time to get the kettle on.

 

Good shout, lad.

 

*goes off to the kitchen to make a brew with fingers crossed something good happens while he's gone*

[andy8ball]

I've heard the same too about more statements...ah well, I needed to work on my numbers for next year...standing by the twitter feed waiting for news...

[Cherry Ghost]

WHAT IF HICKS HAS THE REFINACING MONEY FROM A HEDGEFUND IN THE US?

 

That was Roy's part in all this, take us the bottom of the PL so no one with any money would touch us with a barge pole as an investment. Only joking but actually nothing would surprise me at the moment. If this all comes off this is going to make a fantastic book which I hope none of the Hicks or Gillett family will be able to afford in hardback. Might have to stay up all night, what time is it in China and US?

[RED Tezza]

The Company Articles for The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited set out the rules for the removal of directors in clauses 81 and 83.

 

Clause 83 gives a list of valid reasons for the removal of a director, such as being disqualified by law, mental illness etc, none of which apply is this instance.

 

Therefore a Director can only be removed in accordance with clause 81, which states "Any appointment or removal shall be made in writing and signed by the then current Chairman"

 

It would seem then that Hicks and Gillett can't get rid of Purslow and Ayre without Broughtons permission, which given this statement clearly hasn't been given.

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4746910/LFC%20company%20articles.pdf