NESV - bottom of the barrel?

[Antynwa]

How so?

 

1. He wanted to leave in January

2. If someone had told you, after the Everton game away that someone would pay £50 million for Torres.

 

You'd laugh your head off.

 

Also Wasn't Chelsea's opening bid £35 Million?

[Durango]

Look at you, divisive as ever.

 

When Purslow lied about transfer funds he wasn't just whispering those porkies into the ears of union committee members. You see? Not hard to follow. You 'll defend him on every count because he sacked Rafa and Chrissy B is a Purslow fan, isn't he?

 

I've got Stringvest on ignore, the condescending fuckwit. The irony of him questioning the intelligence of others :lol:

 

Surely a man in Purslow's position should have been doing a bit more research before denouncing NESV's bid as 'bottom of the barrel' or Henry the hedge funder as a PR nightmare.

 

bravo bravo,

beautifully put Coro.

 

I've many mistakes in life and i'm big enough to admit them,it's life,we all make them,

the time to worry is when you don't learn from your mistakes.

 

The stupid gullible gobshites on here don't learn though,do they Coro?

 

If either of them horrible pair of cunts,the 2 little Christies (Purslow and Bascombe) who masquerade as "massive" Reds told the flock on here that tomorrow was Christmas,the silly cunts on here would be out buying Turkeys now.

[TommyW]

1. He wanted to leave in January

2. If someone had told you, after the Everton game away that someone would pay £50 million for Torres.

 

You'd laugh your head off.

 

Also Wasn't Chelsea's opening bid £35 Million?

 

I get all of that but the inclusion of the clause had no influence on what we got, all it did was provide a ceiling for the bidding, once that was common knowledge there was no way we'd get over that

 

more of a concern is the comparatively low ceiling they've supposedly put on Pepe's value... absolute madness whoever was responsible for putting it in

[Antynwa]

This isn't about Bascombe, this is about simply stating that the Echo ran a piece riddled with half truths about Purslow.

 

But anyway, Durango, I'll get the bandwagon, you can play the music.

 

[YOUTUBE]XFFT6YfX6jk[/YOUTUBE]

[Vim Fuego]

1. He wanted to leave in January

2. If someone had told you, after the Everton game away that someone would pay £50 million for Torres.

 

You'd laugh your head off.

 

Also Wasn't Chelsea's opening bid £35 Million?

 

Yes because you judge a players value on the basis of one game (or even on half a season), also can you show me where the new owners said they didn't want Benitez in place as manager?

[silverlining]

bravo bravo,

beautifully put Coro.

 

I've many mistakes in life and i'm big enough to admit them,it's life,we all make them,

the time to worry is when you don't learn from your mistakes.

 

The stupid gullible gobshites on here don't learn though,do they Coro?

 

If either of them horrible pair of cunts,the 2 little Christies (Purslow and Bascombe) who masquerade as "massive" Reds told the flock on here that tomorrow was Christmas,the silly cunts on here would be out buying Turkeys now.

 

I sometimes think that you are actually insane. Like, properly insane.

[redsoxs]

Legal ruling for Liverpool ex-owner

 

Former Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks. Photo: PA

 

Thursday February 17 2011

The Texan former owner of Liverpool Football Club learns today whether he will be able to launch massive damages claims in the US courts over the sale of the Premier League side.

The sale went ahead after Mr Justice Floyd granted anti-suit orders which prevented Tom Hicks taking action in the Texas courts to halt the deal.

Mr Hicks applied to the same judge last week to lift the anti-suit orders. He gives his ruling today.

Mr Hicks believes he was the victim of an "epic swindle" when the club was sold against his wishes to New England Sports Ventures for £300m.

Mr Justice Floyd will also rule on applications to strike out or dismiss claims by Sir Martin Broughton, former chairman of the club, seeking damages against Mr Hicks for his actions while owner.

RBS also applied to the court for orders which would block Mr Hicks and his former partner George Gillett from suing over the sale.

New England Sports Ventures applied to the court to be added to an application for a permanent anti-suit order blocking action outside the UK and European Union.

It bought the club after repaying a £237m loan Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett took out with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wells Fargo and Co.

 

Legal ruling for Liverpool ex-owner - Soccer, Sport - Independent.ie

[Durango]

I sometimes think that you are actually insane. Like, properly insane.

 

Hahahahahahahahahaha,

 

that's my Vincent Price laugh

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

It'd be a fucking farce if they're allowed to take advantage of the lawsuit capital of the world in order to make money from us.

[Frankenhooker]

Hicks and Gillett given right to sue. Sky News.

 

EDIT: Sky shot their nut too early. Apparently Hicks has been given the right to sue, but not in the US.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Frankenhooker

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Hicks and Gillett given right to sue. Sky News.

 

EDIT: Sky shot their nut too early. Apparently Hicks has been given the right to sue, but not in the US.

 

They already had that right, didn't they? It's whether or not they can do it in the states.

[Frankenhooker]

RBS were trying to veto any right to sue, they obviously failed, just as Hicks failed to overturn a judgment meaning he can sue in the US. Basically this hearing achieved nothing as far as I can tell.

[TonyBellew_BUM!]

They already had that right, didn't they? It's whether or not they can do it in the states.

 

RBS weren't bothered about Hicks suing in the UK they wanted them to not be able to do it in the USA.

 

The ECHO is saying that they can't sue in the USA, while Sky is saying they can.

 

He is like the bad guy in the film that just wont die.

[TonyBellew_BUM!]

RBS were trying to veto any right to sue, they obviously failed, just as Hicks failed to overturn a judgment meaning he can sue in the US. Basically this hearing achieved nothing as far as I can tell.

 

What about the other decisions about Broughton, the old LFC board and FSG?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

RBS weren't bothered about Hicks suing in the UK they wanted them to not be able to do it in the USA.

 

So basically what I just said ;)

[Unrighteous]

No court is going to give tax payer money to two thieving yanks.

[Code]

Coro?

 

Where is our new stadium?

[Joe Le Taxi]

This thread makes me happy Ant doesn't post anymore.

[Coro]

 

Fuck me, Purslow would have been hard pushed to insult SoS's intelligence. All credit to him.

 

HOooof.

 

Ouch.

[xerxes]

Purslow was right about the stadium.

[Code]

Purslow was right about most things.

[corro]

Purslow was right about most things.

 

You could have something there.

 

A while ago I was stood at the door of a manor in Cheshire with a tray of mulled wine watching Christian removing the mud off his boots having just returned from that days hunt.

Good hunting sir I asked. Excellent he replied, blooded a few as you do.

Very good sir I said hoping to curry favour. I'm a Liverpool fan, would you mind if I asked you a question regarding the club I love who you are currently employed by.

 

He seemed annoyed. Hurry away then what do you want to know exactly?

 

I was a bit flustered, spewing out question after question without waiting for answers. This sent him into a flying rage. Stop,stop. No more questions. Enough of this nonsense.

 

Here's one thing that I can tell you about the club you love. One stone cold certain fact no one can deny, one irrefutable nailed on truth.

 

You know precisely what he said. He was right as well.