RBS WINS INJUNCTION

[Section_31]

 

I ask you now to pronounce judgment on those accused. On George Gillett... this mindless aberration, whose only means of expression are wanton violence and destruction; on the woman - Tom Hick Jnr, whose perversions and unreasoning hatred of all mankind have threatened even the children of Anfield Road; finally, Tom Hicks. Chief architect of this leveraged buyout and author of this insidious plot to establish a new order amongst us...based on his Weetabix business model. You have heard the evidence. The decision of the council will now be heard.

[Philbert]

My brain is hurting now.

 

Where the fuck is Professor Tom when we need him?!!:whistle:

[Chinandeler Bong]

Anfield Rd saying tomorrow is not main event of proceedings.

[Soup]

My brain is hurting now.

 

Where the fuck is Professor Tom when we need him?!!:whistle:

 

Getting his new wig fitted I believe.

[RoboRiise]

 

Get ready for life on the streets, you parasite

 

 

I can't believe I skimmed past this excellent photoshoppery before without noticing the poster. It's Kowalski, back to save us all! Hail to the king!

[coop]

Times are that tough for Hicks on that pic he has not leg connecting to his feet.

[Squabblefest]

Anfield Rd saying tomorrow is not main event of proceedings.

 

RBS case against Hicks & Gillett over Liverpool is separate from LFC case, evidence of concerted effort to oust Americans

 

By Nick Harris

 

11 October 2010

 

A High Court hearing scheduled for tomorrow that could shape the future ownership of Liverpool pits RBS bank against Tom Hicks “and others”, and is NOT Liverpool’s legal action Hicks and George Gillett, which could yet happen separately, sportingintelligence has learned.

 

The case of ‘Royal Bank of Scotland v Hicks & others’ has been listed among a group of cases to be heard tomorrow by Mr Justice Floyd, sometime after 10.30am. In this case, RBS as the bank that loaned Hicks and Gillett money (via their Liverpool holding company), will be seeking judgement that undertakings given by Hicks and Gillett to RBS under the terms of their loan extension earlier this year are legally binding.

 

There were multiple undertakings and sportingintelligence is not party to all the details, but this website has been told that the key decision for the judge is: Were Hicks and Gillett in breach of undertakings given to RBS by trying remove Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre from Liverpool’s board last week?

 

RBS will argue Hicks and Gillett were in breach. If the judge agrees, then effectively Hicks and Gillett can do nothing more (pending appeal) to prevent the sale of Liverpool, as agreed by Liverpool’s board last week, to New England Sports Ventures. An RBS statement on the banks High Court action is within the story linked here.

 

Liverpool, ie: Liverpool FC and / or its “independent” board members Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, will still, separately, pursue a “declaratory” judgement against Hicks and Gillett, effectively seeking the same end goal as RBS, namely the legal right to sell to NESV.

 

But the significance of RBS and Liverpool / Broughton seeking separate judgements shouldn’t be underestimated: it means, and emphasises, that Liverpool / Broughton on the one hand, and RBS, independently, on the other hand, are now working to force through the NESV deal – and force Hicks and Gillett out.

 

Sportingintelligence further understands – as reflected to some extent in this article yesterday – that RBS has little appetite for putting in train any course of events that would plunge Liverpool into administration.

 

While there is a 15 October deadline for repayment of loans owed by Hicks & Gillett to the bank, it is entirely within RBS’s powers to be flexible with that deadline. RBS ultimately wants the outcome that is in the best interests for the stability of Liverpool, because ultimately the stability of Liverpool enhances the chances of RBS getting back all the money it leant. For now, administration remains more of a theoretical possibility than a probability.

 

As ever in this saga, the situation remains fluid.

[Anubis]

 

 

"Good puppy, good puppy. It won't hurt a bit when daddy slips it in. Oh yeah, puppy, you're gonaa be a real lady dog now."

[Red Nick]

NESV has no intention of losing Liverpool to Peter Lim - Barclays Premier League - ESPN Soccernet

 

Just what Red Nick told us

[Silly season]

What's the timetable for the case?

[Chinandeler Bong]

 

Mmmmm. I love takeaway.

[RobbieOR]

This is a tad bit confusing isnt?

[llego]

As usual, ED can cover this one far better than I can:

 

Jessi Slaughter - Encyclopedia Dramatica

 

If this shit had been around when I was 15, I probably would have joined in the trolling. What a clusterfuck.

[Red Nick]

The other point that seems to have escaped everyone should Hicks and Gillet win Red Sox could go to court to force the sale through as they agreed it with the company they were dealing with and could seek damages should the deal not go through etc etc

[The Acolyte]

Times are that tough for Hicks on that pic he has not leg connecting to his feet.

 

eeewwwww

 

HOUDINI!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thompsonsnose]

This latest bit of news from the 'other' bidder doesn't mean shit if Broughton gets the green light

 

The court case is to deem whether Broughton has to right to sell the club to what he considers the best bid, not the highest bid.

 

Even if the new bidder comes in with a bid of £400m if Broughton is giving the authority by the court then if he deems it not to be better then the NESV bid then he can refuse it.

 

Remember the words from Broughton himself saying that the winning bid doesn't mean the highest bid.

 

I think this is the bit that we'll remember the most when this is finished.

[TheHowieLama]

"I understand he is also offering to provide tens of millions of pounds to Liverpool's manager, Roy Hodgson” Robert Peston

 

Wouldn't this be the part that would disqualify him?

[Malarkey]

Lemon Lim.

 

I'll get my coat.

[Ted]

I don't think I'd be going out on too much of a Lim to suggest this "bid" is designed to muddy the waters.

 

. Lim.

[TheHowieLama]

Is the NESV bid in Lim, bo?

[TalkSilly]

I don't think I'd be going out on too much of a Lim to suggest this "bid" is designed to muddy the waters.

 

. Lim.

 

Absolutely, it casts doubt over whether Broughton has actually accepted the best bid. Hicks can claim in court that it demonstrates that there is a potential for more significant offers in the near future.

 

One good thing though, this process is making headline news so hopefully even the most apathetic members of our fan base will now understand how destructive the current ownership is. If Hicks isn't gone by the end of this week organising a significant customer boycott of the business we used to know as Liverpool Football Club will be a lot easier after this.

 

The only way is down Tom.

[RoboRiise]

If this shit had been around when I was 15, I probably would have joined in the trolling. What a clusterfuck.

 

 

I'm 39 mate, was trolling web 1.0 before she was even born and it almost drew me out of retirement, such was it's epic majesty. As ED pointed out, her dad is an absolute phenomenon - a living, breathing meme generator. The fact that he looks like a paedo Mario is just icing on the already delicious cake.

[redphil]

When RBS win there case tomorrow, it is game over there will be no second case. It will enable the sale to go through as winning the case will prove that the board acted correctly.

 

Back of the fucken net

[TheResonator]

We've got a fat cunt trying to keep control of the club: we need Lim fast.

 

No?

[coop]

When RBS win there case tomorrow, it is game over there will be no second case. It will enable the sale to go through as winning the case will prove that the board acted correctly.

 

Back of the fucken net

 

Fuck all will be won tomorrow.

 

The rumours are the case is to be adjourned as soon as its opened so the judge has time to collect all the information.