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?

Because we’re in massive shit loads of fucking debt.

Because we need 400 million quid just to be back on a level footing.

Because we’ve grown our income in the last few years but it all goes to pay off that debt.

Because for the club to make more money and become worth more we need a new 60,000+ stadium, except we can’t borrow any money to fund it, because we’re debted up to the last squeak with nothing to show for it.

Etc.

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."

The deadline for responding to Broughton & Liverpool's new prospectus was July the first. Broughton & Liverpool received not a single response.

That is a fucking fact.

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?

That article was in the Telegraph. If they are putting the boot in on BA you can be assured it wasn't because of some new found left leaning bias.

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.

The same stupidly high valuation that has led us to being run more or less by a bank.

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.

He was hired by Hicks & Gillett, they are obviously happy with the way he operates and thinks.

 

For me, that isn't a good thing.

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.

Let's just hope he can arrange and see through a sale. That's what he's here to do. Looks like his job's being made difficult by stupidly a high valuation. Imagine selling a Nissan Micra for £11k. Wouldn't be so easy I imagine.

What stupidly high valaution is that then?

exactly - nothing

 

15th July was a dated rumoured when we might hear something re: takeover news - but nothing will come of it

No it wasn't you complete bellend.

We talk about do the yanks really want to sell. But my main concern is really is there a buyer out there at all interested. If someone had the money and really wanted us then why are we still in limbo.

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.

Rbs aren't in control off the process, they had the chance to get out, of this when barclays offered to take over the debt £300mill i think they offered to loan till the clubs was sold, they didn't want to give up the £110 000 every single day in interest theyre getting..

conflict of interests there..

It would Be different if barcap wasn't waiting in the rears to hijack the interest payments, rbs have no leverage (forgive the pun)

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:

The Sunday Times had reported that Barclays would back a 300 million pounds refinancing at Liverpool that would lead to the sale of the Premier League club.

 

The newspaper said the bank is this weekend finalising a deal that will see it replace the club's current lenders, provide more money for manager Rafa Benitez to spend on players and install British Airways chairman Martin Broughton as chairman.

 

However, the source told Reuters it would be up to the new owner to make a decision over whether to refinance the club's debt. The source also declined to comment on what price the club could be sold for or when a sale is likely to take place.

They aren't too bothered about £40 million in interest against the bad publicity they are getting.

Regarding the personal guarantees the owners have given, i think this is one of the reasons why RBS are getting twitchy because the value of the guarantees are getting smaller and smaller.

 

If the owners included some of their other sporting interests as part of the guarantee then the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars are to be sold so they can no longer be included.

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.

Because god knows what they will find with the due diligence, Hicks is a expert at this sort of thing. These off shore accounts they have set up and money vanishing for the so called stadium design.

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.

Does anyone feel this could end up in the courts?

In what way?

Where are the quotes from the ST please mate ?

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.

If the rumours are true about the 15th july then its 4 days and counting,the chairman said the club will be sold by the end of the summer transfer window(massive statement to make) cant believe for one minute somebody somewhere is that good at holding info.Really cant believe the media havent got a snippet from someone too,so will the rumours cometrue on thursday i doubt it very much but hey ho lets wait and see eh.

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.

The interested parties will have been given the sales document given to them from BarCap.

 

They will then be expected to give some sort of non-binding bid to the club based on that sales document.

 

If their bid appears satisfactory then they will be invited through to the next phase of the auction where they will be able to do a complete due dilligence and hopefully then a binding bid will be forthcoming.

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.

Going on what Broughton said then he will be inviting non-binding bids by the end of next week to a view to completing due dilligence.

 

After completing this then they will either walk away or do a legally binding offer for the club of which they will hope to be accepted.

 

I doubt very much we will here anything else until the sale is almost completed.

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:

Lenders up pressure on Liverpool Owners

 

The American owners of Liverpool FC are under pressure to relinquish control of the Premier League club to a new investor by the end of the summer. RBS which is owed about 350m by Kop Holdings is losing patience with attempts to find a buyer for the Merseyside club and could take control of the process.

 

The Sunday Times has discovered that a clause in the loan documents allows RBS to call in a substantial amount of the money owed in October. The move would trigger a default on the debt by the club.

 

Control of the club would pass to the bank which is majority owned by British taxpayers. The American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett were due to repay the debts in March but were given an extension of a year in return for agreeing to sell up.

 

RBS wants to continue its financial relationship with Liverpool but it wants Martin Broughton, the chairman, to find a new owner quickly.

Pre tax losses jumped 17% last year to 54m, taking losses over the last two seasons to 95m. Annual interest payments rose to 40m.

 

Although the bank has no desire to own one of Britain's best supported and most successful football clubs, it is not afraid temporarily to take control of the sale process. RBS are considering using the October date as a final deadline for the Americans to sell up.

Of course you don't Harry. Of course you don't.

Yep. This suggests otherwise Harry.

Where was the lawsuit 'arry?

Who knows what is going on. I thought similar but who is taking the decisions here to remove Rafa on a 5 year deal, pay him off and bring in Roy?

You'd think if it's going to be sold shortly then they would not make such a momentuous decision, especially to appoint a man against the wishes of most fans, so it didnt seem to be something to placate the fans or anything?

Or selling Yossi, or who decides if we get a bid for a player whether to accept it or not?

Can'tmake head nor tail.

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.

Can they do that if there isn't just cause

 

If the yanks hadn't been keeping up payments im sure they could but until that inevitable day I would have thought the power still lies with the owners

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.

I just can't believe that they would relinquish that sort of control

 

Would you?

 

Going back to the house analogy would you suddenly hand something as important as selling your house over to someone else and that's it no more interest in the matter

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.

I think that's right but in the meantime this (possible) charade of a sale has already won the yanks an extension of the loan facility for another six months (and RBS another fee).The yanks will be relaxed

about pushing RBS to the wire if needs be because they'd probably rather RBS forced a sale in six months time than sell now at a price they don't want. Just look how hicks has made his banks jump through hoops in the US and his assets still haven't been sold there months after an actual payment default by him.

 

Any part of the sales proceeds above the RBS debt will come to them in either scenario and a lot can happen in six months.

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.

I think the best analogy i've heard so far was when someone said" If you owe the banks £300 they dictate to you, if you owe the banks £300M then you dictate to them"

 

Strikes me that H&G could default on the loans they have and walk away not gaining but not losing much either, on the other hand RBS and other creditors would then lose the amounts they loaned to the sharks.

 

The earlier post which said the Yanks were cunts but were millionaires as well and so aren't stupid was right on the money for me.

 

I returned a reply to the RBS email recently and challenged them to call H&G's bluff and call the loans in, as this appears to me to be the only way to move the situation on.

It's a risky move, and, as you might have guessed, i've heard nothing back.

 

When it happens, if it happens, we'll be the last to know.

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.

The most damning thing for me at the moment is Hicks' silence.

 

Usually, he can't keep his mouth shut. I have a sneaky feeling that RBS and Barcap have told him to keep quiet or risk walking away with zero.

 

Never known him this quiet.

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.

And who appointed BarCap? The yanks. And they could sack them and Broughton tomorrow. It's their club and they can do just what they want until RBS formally step in to recover the loan.

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?

How can Broughton decide what price is acceptable when he has no interest in the club

 

Surely until the day when they don't pay the debt then the Yanks still have the deciding vote otherwise Broughton could accept whatever he deems reasonable

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."

I could agree if he had agreed to sell for a reasonable amount but the ridiculous value of the club is tantamount to not selling at all

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.

See im not sure if thats the case because of how things are with the holding companies especially this Kop Cayman one

 

Im not a financial whizz or anything but my understanding is that even if the club go into administration he can then recall the loans 'he' has paid the club and he won't end up with nothing

 

Seems to me to be a win win

 

Unfortunately while they are cunts, they aren't stupid

If they were they wouldn't be multi millionaires

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.

Hardly a conspiracy theory. It's the smart move to play the bank along until you do what you want to do. I've not said Broughton is part of the plan - he might be but there's every possibility they've lied to him and strung him along - it's what they do. Only time will tell but I'm not holding my breath for anything good happening this summer.

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?