Albertini

All summer the Times have been going down in my estimation to the point where i feel like not buying it any more. From the reporting of Roy's press conference (which TB admitted he was unhappy with) to Evans Talksport shit stirring to Oli Kay's Tweet that Hicks could block a sale then onto yesterday's slightly bizarre articles about Joe Cole and whether it's a great Bosman signing or too much money for an injury prone flop. I don't think those articles would have been produced if, say, United had bought Cole. The general tone that whatever happens and whoever joins us, every decision is inferred to be a bad one or a disaster waiting to happen. Mindst you it’s still not as bad as that Daily Fail article i read the other week. You may have seen it the one where that tit, John Edwards went to print suggesting that Torres was more likely to go to Chelsea because they would use him more sparingly than Liverpool would who need him to play in more games. Hang on a minute let me see if I’m hearing this cock end right. A journalist in a national newspaper has said that one of the world’s best players wants to move to another club because he wants to play fewer games than he does now? He may move and he may move to Chelsea but i feel certain he will never move only so that a club can use him “more sparingly”. Fucks sake is journalism really getitng this bad?

No the owners are in a shit load of debt. They have chosen to load it on the club but it is their responsibility to pay it hence £140 ish million of that £400 million is owed to them and the balance they have personal guarantees on. A half reasonable offer for the club from the right people will solve all the problems you list, apart from the stadium. So all the issues you raise bar the stadium can be resolved by a sale of the club. Over to you now Mr Broughton.

Be interested to know given Broughton said this at Hodgson's press conference: Broughton also explained his own role in the sale, adding: "The process is well under way and if I can remind you of what that process is - I've been brought in to oversee the sale process. The owners have stepped aside, stepped down. I'm overseeing the process and Barclays Capital are running the process. "The process is a structured one. The information memorandum has gone out to a number of people who have expressed an interest. We're still in that process."

First of all where has that news come from? What kind of response do you mean? No expressions of interest whatsoever? How do you know this?

Doesn't matter where it was reported, it was still on the sensational side given it quoted most of the issues and questions raised by crew members who are in dispute with the airline. Any sensible evaluation of the situation there would agree that the way they are doing things is wrong but what they are trying to do is right. Broughton is trying to run the company and bring it back into profitability. Willie Walsh is fucking it up with his methods which smell of "small man syndrome" to me. Ah so the so called valuation we had before Broughton was appointed and before the club was officially put up for sale. That valuation then, as you point out, is what has led us to being run by the banks and Broughton now. That valuation now though clearly isn't relevant or preventing Broughton from selling the club is it? We have been told in a specific answer to the question of Hicks's valuation that there is no baseline, the best bidder gets it and that there is no number.

Technically he was as they were the Chairmen of the club and legally it was their responsibility to hire him but we do not know if they were forced to do so under pressure from the RBS or indeed if they wanted him. Evidence from the article in the ST last week would suggest that RBS are unhappy with them which leads credence to the theory that they were forced into it. As i have said before what made Tom Hicks stand down as Chairman, hire a new chairman with a brief to sell the club, and publicly admit the club was for sale for the first time, given that he had said many times before the club was not for sale at any price? Why would he do that if he was not forced to do so? Neither do we know if they think he is doing a good job and the way he operates. Do you think Hicks was happy with the contempt in which Broughton addressed his comments at Hodgson's press conference? The idea that it's all a bluff is fine if there was some other viable alternative for Hicks & Gilett rather than selling the club now. Simply saying "they're making £12 million a year in interest from their loans" simply isn't credible because unless they do something now to stem those losses they will never see a penny of that interest if (as would be likely) the club went into administration. The important questions about Hicks & Gilett hanging on are: If they don't sell the club how are they going to fund the £50 million annual loss, which is likely to increase if the club doesn't perform on the pitch? Who will lend the club money with current £50 million losses and "material uncertainty over the future of the business on an ongoing basis"? Given Hicks's troubles in the US who will lend him any more money full stop for his sports businesses? How will they pay down the debt RBS (according to the ST) intend to call in a large chunk of the loan in October if they do not sell? In relation to Broughton at BA that article from the shareholders meeting is hardly balanced being as it was more about the striking cabin crew lining up to have a pop at Willie Walsh (hardly surprising given the way he has handled the dispute) but you cannot blame Broughton for trying to restructure the business in light of record losses amid growing competition from the likes of Ryanair & Easyjet particularly when you see that the cabin crew at BA, on average, get around double the pay of crew on low cost airlines. With a half a billion loss if they don't change things then there will be no jobs for the crew to strike over because they will go out of business. I would be more worried about his capabilities if he wasn't trying to change things to be honest. What stupidly high valaution is that then?

No it wasn't you complete bellend.

There were buyers out there when the club was over priced - DIC & the Kuwati's spring to mind, now that there is no Hicks in the way i am sure there will be 2-4 interested buyers. Recent rumours include Saudi's, Qatar'is, Sheik Mo, Mansour's brother and possibly a consortium (anyone heard the rumour about Cecil heading a consortium) They have to go through the process of getting the best price through the auction as they will try and play one off against the other to maximise the sale price. My gut feel is that one of the names already mentioned will end up buying the club.

Think it was a fund of £300 million set up for new owners - it was not available to the current owners. If it was don't you think they would have snapped their hands off? In fact just googled it, here's the Reuters report: They aren't too bothered about £40 million in interest against the bad publicity they are getting.

Yeah mate i agree. The bank no doubt have seen the things we've all seen with both the owners selling assets and only covering their debts. No doubt they are also fully aware of Hick's shenanigans with the Rangers and want to ensure that they control the sale of LFC. I am more more convinced than ever that it is RBS who are controlling the sale given what has come out today. Whilst i get annoyed at some of the unfounded doom mongering that has gone over recent weeks given the shit we've gone through over the last three years it is easy to understand people thinking that this is further games by Hicks and we're all doomed. But bad shit doesn't happen for ever and the news today from the ST further shows that they are finished at Liverpool. It's only a matter of time.

No i can't see it happening at all. If anything nasty shows up it will be reflected n the price offered. Them two dicks need to get out now. Given that they can't raise any money from anywhere they will have to accept the highest bid whatever the state of the accounts. Remember two important things. 1) RBS have set them a deadline and will call in the loan by October if the club is not sold. Once called in the two cunts have personal guarantees meaning RBS can sell the club then for whatever they want and if there is a shortfall between what is owed and the sale price them two will have to stump up the difference. 2) Given point 1 they have lent £140 million to the club and if RBS calls it in their £140 million goes to the back of the queue. RBS won't give two shits whether the cunts are left out of pocket and will sell at a price then to get their money back only. Them two douches will be left £140 million down on their loan plus any shortfall on what RBS sells the club for. If they don't sell by October they could be £140 million + down. If they sell in August at a push they will get all their money back and might even make a small profit. As has been said many times Hicks is all about the money and he isn't going to entertain a loss on that scale which is quite possible. Which is why we haven't heard a peep from him for a few weeks and why the club will be sold before October.

In what way?

i did post the article on page 2 but i think Coop has also posted it on page 3. Sorry i didn't mean to say quotes as there was no direct quotes. I meant the article itself. Seems like the email campaign has worked (but must carry on) with RBS. That article ties in with what was being discussed on the Brougthon thread last week about RBS holding the aces and Hicks not in control of the sale.

Read the post before yours. Then read Brougthon's comments. Then read the article from today's Sunday Times. Then think again about coming on and spouting shite.

Sure but i am saying that a significant amount of work will have been done already as it is not feasible to allow, possibly several bidders to all turn up with their accountants and perform a full due diligence all at once. It all depends what was in that information memorandum but from Broughton's comments about the possibility of a sale by the end of August that would not give anyone successful in the first stage, over the next few weeks, enough time to perform a full due diligence from scratch. I could be wrong but i believe that diligence will have been done and they will (the accountants) field questions from any bidders about the diligence done. From talking to people involved in M&A's this seems to be the standard course of action when a large business is inviting bids from potential buyers.

My understanding is that the due diligence would have been done already by an independent auditor as the club (or any business) haven't got the resources to support multiple bidders all sending in auditors at the same time. I believe that is what happens in most large takeovers and would explain why there was a delay from Broughton's appointment to the information memorandum going out. Can't believe initial bids would be made unless the bidders had some idea of due diligence beforehand.

From the Business section of today's Sunday Times:

Yep. This suggests otherwise Harry. Where was the lawsuit 'arry?

I don't think you can draw any correlation between board decisions on day to day stuff and on the sale. I think the board may be making day to day decisions on manager's etc. maybe it's just Broughton and Purslow. Hell even the yanks may be involved in day to day stuff such as you mention. Broughton said they owners had stepped down, stepped aside. We don't know if that means totally or just on the sale process but we do know from Broughton they have stepped aside from the sales process (which is the most important bit IMO). I think the club has to and will continue to function normally as things stand and make decisions irrespective of the impending sale. The bank will expect it (they aren't going to get involved in the day to running of things) and they do have fiduciary duties as directors. It's the only way to do it unless the club sits in further paralysis from now until sale time with no decisions getting made. On second thoughts paralysis may be a better option than some of the decisions these thundercunts have made over the last 3 years.

May i apologise for thread hogging but i've been busy this afternoon and just wanted to pick up on some of the comments posted. In relation to the post above from Born you're right if they had kept up with payments they should have no issues except they quite clearly do don't they? Remember the missed debt reduction from Easter of £100 million. The consensus from some (of which i am one) is that by missing that deadline and payment to RBS they have defaulted and they have lost control of the sale. Agree with what you say but from what we've heard from the horse's mouth (i.e. Broughton) they don't seem to be in charge do they? Which makes you wonder whether Purslow's comments to SOS about a requirement to reduce debt by £100 million by Easter (which was missed) means they may appear in charge in public, only to facilitate a best price sale, but actually aren't in reality (as demonstrated by Broughton's comments) and were forced into accepting Broughton, BarCap and the sale precisely because they missed that debt reduction which Cecil said was a requirement from RBS. Do we know for sure that a formal loan extension was given? Where has that been stated? If it has been given do we know the terms of that extension? Could it be a collect out extension, i.e. we will refinance you now despite you missing the debt reduction obligation of Easter and you have defaulted, providing you sell the club, in an orderly collect out / forced sale fashion to maximise the price received. There is no benefit for RBS in formally calling in the loan, every potential bidder would then know it's a fire sale and bid accordingly. Under a forced sale all parties maximise the sale price without giving away the fact the bank are calling the shots. Except i think Broughton has said too much and has inferred that actually it is a forced sale precisely for the reasons mentioned by other posters about why they would step down and let others run the show. The answer is they wouldn't unless forced. As i said on another forum Hester and his crew at RBS must be mightily fucked off with the email campaign and the potential for being the first Uk bank ever to bring down an iconic football club. Yes they're taking £40 million a year in interest but what is that worth to them as bank with billion pound profits against the bigger picture of being the bank forever associated with bankrupting Britain's most successful football team. £40 million is small beer to them and definitely not worth that hassle. Can we also finally pin down the US similarities about what he's done with the Rangers. Chapter 11 is different to Uk administration. Chapter 11 offers far more protection to the troubled company than administration in the UK does which is designed to protects the creditors. Equally Hicks does not appear to have any personal guarantees in the US. So he can play loose and fast with the Rangers but he can't with LFC because of his personal guarantees and inter company loan of £140 million which would be unsecured. That's true if you owe a bank that amount of money WITHOUT having personal guarantees. Not only have cancer and aids got PG's (allowing RBS to sell at any price knowing they can hit the owners for the shortfall) they also have a £140 million loan against the club from Kop Cayman which would go to the back of the queue after the bank and other preferred creditors. So actually in this situation RBS aren't too worried. They know their £237 million comes out first. Cancer & aids should be and will be worried because they have a shit load on the line here that they can't take out before the bank.

And there's the rub. I exchanged PM's on here with Tony B yesterday following my criticism of the Times's coverage of the press conference and he acknowledged the slap down that Broughton delivered to Hicks last week and he was there. If Hicks was in charge Broughton would have either gone by now or his comments would have been been refuted by Hicks. One thing we know about Hicks, he's an ego maniac. If he had some influence left Broughton would have been brought to book for the way he so publicly dismissed Hicks and the comments attributed to him about his valuation of the club. I am convinced he is out of the way. I can understand others being sceptical given the shite we have endured over the last 3 years and it is just my opinion but, to quote Warren Buffett, now that the tide has gone out we can all see that Hicks has been the one swimming naked.

So why haven't they done that already if they want to keep the club? Why appoint BarCap and Broughton in the first place if they want to keep the club if "they can do just what they want until RBS formally step in to recover the loan." Why is it up for sale and why are they letting Broughton say the things he's saying?

From Broughton again: "The process is well under way and if I can remind you of what that process is - I've been brought in to oversee the sale process. The owners have stepped aside, stepped down. I'm overseeing the process and Barclays Capital are running the process."

This is what Broughton actually said on this specific point: "The owners can't block the sale of the club. I read all too frequently numbers being floated about in the media, normally associated with Tom Hicks's name. I would like to make it clear there is no number. There is no base line. "This is a willing buyer, willing seller auction. We will do a deal with what we consider to be the best bidder. The best bidder may not be the highest bidder. It's about more than just money. It's about stadium development, the team and the whole piece. "Once we've been through the process, the best bidder gets it." Whether you believe this or not is another matter but it seems pretty clear. I happen to think Hicks can't block it with a silly valuation, others don't.

Not true. RBS have a first charge, their money comes out first. Their loans will be at the back of the queue. Where that money came from no one knows. Did they stump up £100 million of their own cash or did they borrow it? No one knows. They are charging 10% interest per annum on it though which is being "rolled up" on to the debt and not being paid out of club cashflow. Whilst he can get away with Chapter 11 in the US, administration is a doomsday scenario for him here. The laws here are different, him and the little fella have personal guarantees to RBS which i don't think he has over there. If the club went into administration and was sold for say £200 million that would have to pay RBS off and any other secure / preferential creditors (e.g. HMRC). So they would have to stump up the difference between what the club was sold for and what RBS are owed. If their was a small surplus the tax man would take what he was owed and other "normal" creditors would fall into line on a pro rata basis. They would then lose their £140 million loan. Driving LFC into administration would cost them a lot of money which leads me to think is why Hicks has agreed to sell now. I think it is safe to assume a man of Broughton's calibre will have had his powers and remit written into his contract of employment. I hardly think he would have taken the job on Tom Hicks word! Would you?