Jump to content

  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

High Court Date and Time

bri

By bri,
in FF - Football Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

diego Enthusiast

diego

Posted
Posted

Most of Hick's complaints about procedural breaches have been dealt with by the English High Court. The only other issues are his claim that (a) the RBS refused to accept payment of his debt and (b) the poor judgement of the BoD in accepting NESV instead of one of the other bidders © claims that the board's proceedings were influenced by their demands for bonuses or other inappropriate considerations.

 

It would take Hicks two or three years to pursue such a civil claim through all the levels of appeal - it would cost a fortune in legal costs for the plaintiff and defendants. If there was any merit in his claims, at all, both sides would seek an out-of-court settlement. The defendant's insurers would have an influential role.

 

I would welcome a fact-based enquiry into the whole process. I'm not one willing to put my trust in Broughton and Purslow's good judgement, although I am glad that the end result, forced mainly by RBS, was to get rid of Hicks and Gillet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedKnight Grand Master

RedKnight

Posted
Posted
His slapdash approach up until now shows he's clueless. He's obsessed with a valuation in a magazine with regards to the price of the club, blatantly ignoring the debt he loaded on it. He has no idea about football, he jumped on the gravy train with that midget thinking that a big premier league club being sold by an idiot with a muzzy was easy pickings for them both. They thought they could take a load out and put nothing in, then the global credit problems began and it looked like they would have to start dipping into their own pockets. But the greedy twat didn't want to, and he thought he could ride it out, whilst still taking money for himself.

 

He is a greedy old man who's played all his cards. He's up against people who are more informed on such matters and against new owners who run a franchise where you can't pull the shit he's done. He could have sold it, he got greedy and now he'll pay. What's his plan? Refinance and hold on for a higher bidder but with a big debt owed to someone else? The boycott would be huge if he pulled that shit now, he's done and he's resorted to lying to a tin pot court in Texas.

 

You are fucked, Tom. Accept it, and do you know what? I hope you it haunts you to your last days.

 

Yeah, accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustTosh Experienced

JustTosh

Posted
Posted
But they tried and RBS turned them down......something went wrong there...maybe they wanted to pay part of the loan and refinance the rest, God knows.

 

The way I see it, RBS did not take the money.

 

The question is when and how. If they offered to pay off RBS after the board had agreed a sale with NESV they definitely have no case. If it happened before that, I doubt RBS could turn down a straight forward payment of the loan. Other refinancing possibilities like Mills taking over the loan they could of course reject. RBS legally called for the loan to be paid, they’re only obliged to accept just that, payment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Philbert Community Regular

Philbert

Posted
Posted
They can't. They weren't allowed to take fit and proper test.

 

That sounds like one big fuckin nail in the coffin for any potential lawsuits from Hicks.

 

Judge: 'Mr Hicks, you signed a legal undertaking which effectively authorised the board to sell the club to a bidder who would best protect the interests of Liverpool LFC, did you not?"

 

Hicks " Yes Judge"

 

Judge "Furthermore, nowhere in that legal undertaking were the board under any obligation to accept the highest bid. Correct?"

 

Hicks "Yes Judge"

 

Judge "I find [1] that the highest bid [Mill] was demonstrably not in the interests of Liverpool FC because it would not have been approved by the Pemier League's Governing Body and therefore would have been deemed invalid and [2] a lower bid was demonstrably in the interests of Liverpool FC based on the overwhelming evidence of NESV's performance track record. Furthermore, the board of Liverpool FC have clearly complied with the aforementioned signed undertaking, to the letter. I therefore dismiss your claim for damages"

 

Hicks "But that's not fair judge, I want my taste"

 

Judge "Bailiff have Mr Hick taken down for wasting the court's time"

 

etc, etc...

 

The gobshite does not have a case - end of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...