Albertini

Graham Can you explain the reason(s) why the Union had the letter delivered by a solicitor?

Dave Get a zencart shop instead. It's open source (free!!) and i have built around 20 and never had a shop hacked (although we had a dedicated server hacked it didnt do any damage to our stores. I am no programmer or web designer but i have put together 20 stores now and i have no problem in helping you setting it up for you and installing it if you're interested. Seems extreme to fuck a shop off for some fucking twat in Indonesia who needs to get a life. As i say if you're interested just let me know i have no problem in helping you out in building it.

Absolutely but Rome wasn’t built in a day. We don’t know what’s gone on behind the scenes and who we targeted but what we do know is that January is a bad month to do business. At least now it’s closed KK and DC can concentrate on identifying the areas of the squad where we’re weak and look to improve those areas between now and the summer. Seems to me that our plans for January went out of the window once Torres handed in that request, (which seems to have caught everyone at the club unawares) then our focus was purely on getting someone in to replace him. This summer’s where real progress with the squad needs to be made. However that being said are we in a stronger position squad wise now (with no discernible “net spend”) than we were last week? I think we are and given that we only had 2-3 days to deal with the Torres situation credit must be given to the owners and management of the club for holding firm and sanctioning the massive spending we saw yesterday. Spend another £50-£60 million in the summer in the right areas and all of a sudden we are back in the game. One thing is for sure Uncle Woy would have been a blubbering wreck these last few days had he still been in charge. We’d have paid £30 million for Zamora under him. He's due back (not sure if it's training or ready for selection) on the 5th Feb mate. 4 days!

I have to agree with this. People are obsessing with the fee involved for Carroll as though it’s their own money. People have to realise football is the biggest sport in the world and the Premier League probably the biggest league in that sport. As such everything attached to it money wise is beyond most people’s comprehension of money. The TV deals are done in billions and we as club now turnover close to £200 million per year. Andy Carroll cost £35 million which is around 17-20% of our annual turnover.(although with the fee for El Cunto the turnover next year will be knocking on for £250 million). As a comparison do you think when we signed Dalglish in the 70’s his fee, pro rata to the clubs turnover at the time, was any different? The fees for players have got bigger as the turnover of clubs has got bigger. It’s not obscene, it’s modern business. The more money a club as a company earns the more it spends acquiring assets (i.e. players). I have no issue with the fee as we have a bought as top young striker for around 20% of our annual turnover having received 30% of our turnover for Torres. It's not important. Wha tis importnat is have we improved on the pitch and, whilst time will tell, i think we have. We are no longer reliant on a disinterested Torres to score goals.

Beat me to it. Isn't he in a pack of fried calamari now?

Rumours abound on YNWA that they could sell it on straight away to Kenny huang judging by the people who appear to have info on this (the same people who had info on Huang's bid in August)

Yep it's been well trailed on the wireless, the Premier League have said the club won't get a 9 point deduction becuause it is solvent.

But can the alteration of KF's articles been done without the bank's permission? Seems impossible to me. You can't set the articles fo LFC and then circumnavigate them by going through the parent when the mood suits you when you're in hoc to the bank. I would imagine they would have to get bank approval to change them.

Read it and weep fat Texas cowboy Liverpool Articles of Association: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4746910/LFC%20company%20articles.pdf REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS 81) Each director appoionted to the office of chairman of the board of directors may appoint any person as a director of the company and may remove any director (other than Thomas O Hicks and/or George Gilett Jr). Any appoinment or removal will be made in writing and signed by the then current chairman See points 48 onwards regarding voting rights. Bottom line Cancer & Aids havent got a leg to stand on. '

See here's the thing. If H&G could change the board when they wanted, why did they not do that when the board blocked their refinancing package in the summer? If they could hire and fire board members as they now claim why was it not done then? The only conclusion that i can draw is that they can't and they must have thought RBS would crumble and refinance buying them more time. Seems like when they had that conference call Hicks went into default "fuck em" mode and overstepped the powers he had in order to try and add credibility to his legal defence next week. I cannot see if Broughton is telling us the truth that Hicks has a leg to stand on. I also cannot see Broughton coming out and saying what he said yesterday if his position wasn't watertight. Broughton appears to have played an absolute fucking blinder right from the point at which he was appointed. He probably envisaged this kind of shite from them at the point he brought in a buyer. He's been several steps ahead of them all through this process.

And wasn't a big chunk of that "stadium costs" as well. Fail to see how a business with a £200 million turnover and £100 million wage bill can make a loss.

That's the thing i can't get my head around. Broughton went out of his way to make the point they couldn't block a bid yet that is apparently what they have done. Why did Broughton say this so unequivocally if it wasn't true? Can't believe he'd go out of his way to say that then if it was just to lie to the fans. He would and should rightly be pulled up on it and he would know that. The only thing i can think is that the situation behind the scenes must be a fucking mess with cancer and aids moving the goalposts on them all the time. But if it was a big lie then he's a fucking idiot.

Done. Nice work Stevie yet again.

Do you have any info as to the state of the club's normal trading activity excluding the bungs to the Yanks... er sorry "Stadium Costs" and debt repayments? It seems to me if we stripped those costs out of the club with the new tv and sponsorship deals and with a reduced wage bill the club as a stand alone entity should be generating some serious profit.

Well, that's been covered many times. As Chariman he has repsonsibilites to make decisons at board level. The hiring and firing of managers is part of that. But you miss the point. The point is that Tony Evans's piece had some real good nuggets about transparency etc but was undermined in my opinion by the last two paragraphs attempting to discredit Broughton's reputation on the basis of some old BA dispute about uniforms that no one had heard of, nor had been reported previously, since he became chairman. As i said i can see that he means well and he does ask the right questions of the board but he dilutes the sharpness of his genuine criticisms with silly and trivial digs or emotive hyperbole.

I got the Times this morning and read Tony Evans's commentary piece. One of the things that stuck out for me was that he cited a dispute Broughton had with BA over uniforms and that Broughton met with Tony Blair to get his support (Blair fucked him off apparently). Evans claimed that this episode according to a "city source" earlier this week meant "His (Broughton's) reputation was never quite the same after that". Really? So depsite being our high profile chariman since April his reputation was damaged over uniforms and hasn't been the same since. So why are we only hearing about his "damaged" reputation today then? Why haven't any of the papers (including the Times) ever reported him as a businessman with a damaged reputation (in fact precisely the opposite all the press have been calling him respected). I think Evans's heart is in the right place but he often undermines his good work by going completely over the top.

Or West Ham.

Well you'd think so but yet no one did over West Ham. I can't see any difference between our situation and theirs. I think (and it's only my opinion) that it comes down to the terms and conditions in the original loan as to what powers are lost by the people defaulting and what is gained by the lenders. This seems to fit in with the ongoing debate we've had about whether the owners can block a sale, the legal challenge on refinancing and what powers the board do have now.

Just to clarify as well regarding Red Nick's ongoing insistence about the club going into administration if RBS call in the loan. I thought there was an example where a bank had taken over a club without putting it into administration but i couldn't remember who it was. TTNBD over on Rawk jogged my memory about West Ham whose banks took over the club when that Mekon looking Icelandic dude owned it. This led me to this article: Icelandic banks complete takeover of West Ham | Football | guardian.co.uk So there clear is evidence that banks can take over the running of a club without the need for administration, contrary to Nick's insistence.

In much the same way that if i blagged a big fuck off house i wouldn't want to sell it but if i can't keep up payments on it the choice isn't mine to make.

I'm not talking about the press release. I'm talking about the press reports last week which suggested no bids had been received.

Ambani according to a source on YNWA is rumoured to be one as is that Sharajh fellow (who Kurdi was supposed to be fronting but isn't) and didn't Durango suggest a Dubai consortium but not DIC.

How Journalism works part 92. We've gone from no bids on Friday to allegedly 5 being reviewed by Tuesday.

Nick, no one is doubting what company law is. The point is that the process so far seems to indicate that the owners "normal" powers as shareholders appear to have been diluted as a reuslt of the default on the RBS debt. I am presuming there are some kind of clauses that would kick in as a result of a breach of banking convenants and pages back it was discussed what this might entail. I also questioned what would happen in the event of the owners bringing their own sale party to the table and whether that would bypass the board. However in normal company circumstances the board cannot overule the shareholders in accepting a bid, yet this is what Broughton tells us will happen in the sales process. The latest issue about refinancing is another example. In normal circumstances would the owners need to seek board approval to refinance a loan? The long and short of it is that no one really knows what clauses are in play but from the evidence we have it seems that their powers have been reduced. To what level and what they can and can't do we just don't know. The Sunday Times talks of the RBS "taking over" the club to sell it - not sticking it into adminstration. Who knows, i'm beginning to lose track of everything that is going on and being reported. My personal opinion is that it's not all doom and gloom just yet and let's see what happens over the next week or so. I am sure this time next week we'll have a clearer idea of what the future holds. I'd much rather take administration than any refinance to these clowns if it came down to the wire. I still don't think at this stage it will come to that but if it does we'll be better off then we are under their ownership.

I'm not trying to look clever pal. Just fed up of reading your bullshit which doesn't have a shred of evidence behind it to back it up. It's just your doom mongering opinion which i could accept if you could provide some evidence. You are pres-supposing that there are no terms in the financing arrangement allowing RBS to secure equity for failure to pay their debts or any other clauses allowing them to take control of the equity in the event of a default. I agree they can issue a stat demand but that doesn't mean bankruptcy will automatically follow. I am not saying adminstration is impossible i am saying that i don't beleive RBS will want to go down that road for the reasons i have previously stated.