Ongoing Liverpool takeovers/renewal/lol saga

Matt's right, y'know

a+ Scouse trolling from 'arry

http://www.imscouting.com/global-news-article/Harry-Redknapp-I-have-the-utmost-sympathy-for-Liverpools-Hicks-and-Gillett/11161/

In his column in The Sun, Redknapp said, "I have utmost sympathy for the Reds' owners, George Gillett and Tom Hicks.

"All they seem to have done is plough a fortune into the place and they stand to lose a fortune when they sell it.

"But, for all that, all they get is grief week-in, week-out.

"It's not their fault the expensive players who have been brought in are not performing as they should be."

Redknapp laid the blame on the players, rather than the board, commenting "The Liverpool team is full of world-class talent and some costly flops.

"Hicks and Gillett wrote cheques for star striker Fernando Torres and Dirk Kuyt , a member of Holland's World Cup final squad.

"Alberto Aquilani cost £20million and has been a disaster - but is that the owners' fault?"

The outspoken Redknapp summarized, "It's not often you'll hear a manager stick up for a chairman or chairmen but I'd love to know what the two Americans have done that is so wrong."

― san te cross (onimo), Thursday, October 7, 2010 9:14 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Though wasn't Kuyt there before the Americans?

― san te cross (onimo), Thursday, October 7, 2010 9:15 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Harry has pretty good reason to be pro-Hicks and Gillett given that Spurs have benefitted quite nicely from Liverpool's decline.

― Matt DC, Thursday, October 7, 2010 9:24 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Juventus are supposed to be willing to pay £10m for Aquilani - still no idea whether that's a fair price or not.

― Ismael Klata, Thursday, October 7, 2010 9:26 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Plus, y'know, it's all a bit of a slap at Rafa so A+ for that.

― i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Thursday, October 7, 2010 9:28 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Hicks insisting that the reconsituted 'new board' of LFC does not accept this offer.

This is madness.

― i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Thursday, October 7, 2010 9:57 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
He doesn't have the power to change the board, does he? I though RBS put Broughton in there to arrange the sale, and only he can reconstitute the Liverpool board?

― Matt DC, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:07 AM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Harry has pretty good reason to be pro-Hicks and Gillett given that Spurs have benefitted quite nicely from Liverpool's decline.

And it's not like any Scousers will be reading...

― James Mitchell, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:10 AM (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Broughton had it written explicitly into the articles of his contract, or possibly into the articles of the holding company itself, (not sure which) that only he had power to replace members of the board, and also that Hicks/Gilette would not stand in the way of any sale considered reasonable by the board.

This seems about as clear cut as legal issues get, tbh?

― i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:14 AM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
At this point I just want them to get shafted as much as possible, so if they hang on until Liverpool go into administration and lose everything, and then the club gets sold to Henry anyway, it'll be kind of satisfying.

― Matt DC, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:17 AM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Broughton's certainly been putting it about that he had everything written up for this eventuality, though we haven't heard the other side of it so possibly best to be sceptical. The one thing that makes me think he's likely right, apart from putting himself on record in such categorical terms, is that he says it was all done at RBS's insistence - this seems inherently plausible to me.

The other avenue of challenge that occurs would be for H&G to accept that the documents might say that, but his exercise of that power is unreasonable - which would explain the line about 'not acting in the best interests of the club'. In view of the circusmtances, good luck with that argument.

― Ismael Klata, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:21 AM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
The only way in which this would make sense was if the owners were also tarting the club about to other potential buyers.

― Matt DC, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:23 AM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Or if they still hoped to get other financing in place so they could pay off RBS before next Friday and keep control.

― Ismael Klata, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:26 AM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Sorry, wasn't reading properly - it's actually challenge #3, which is that they legally changed the board on Monday night. So whatever Broughton and the other two voted on on Tuesday morning was invalid, as only one of them is on the board now, and therefore there is no decision to sell to the new guys. No idea what the ins & outs of that argument are.

― Ismael Klata, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:34 AM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Broughton's on record as saying that he has the hiring and firing of the board, and he claims that's that's watertight in legal documents.

― i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:42 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
nice little detail from the telegraph:

After rejecting the attempted coup, which would have seen Hicks' son Mack and Lori McCuthcheon of Hicks Holdings replace Purslow and Ayre, Broughton continued with the conference call board meeting, even though Hicks had put the phone down.

broughton's been quite suave about this. hicks really is just a colossal prick, isn't he?

― joe, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:46 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Broughton's been kind of an A1 dude about all of this, hope he turns out kosher

― i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:50 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
lol there is a terrific movie in all of this imo and knowing the british film industry, danny dyer will be playing stevie me.

― http://tinypic.com/r/s0wvar/7 (a hoy hoy), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:51 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
big Bunnymen fan iirc

xp

― san te cross (onimo), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:51 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
xp to Darragh: I'm not so sure. I had understood Broughton to say that H&G had given undertakings to RBS that they would let Broughton sell the club (and possibly also what you say, I can't remember). But H&G still own Kop-Holdings-or-whatever-it's-called, so aiui power to get people on & off the board of that still normally lies with them as shareholders.

If that's right, the dispute would lie in the relationship between two incompatible positions - basically does H&G's undertaking to RBS remove their powers to reconstitute the board, or are they free to reconstitute the board and leave themselves in breach of their undertaking to RBS?

I think I recall RBS speaking up on Broughton's side, but I don't know what weight if any that would have. It seems theoretically possible that the court could decide in H&G's favour, and then RBS would have to sue H&G for breach of the undertaking - which would leave the issue of what RBS's loss is - if another buyer popped up or if H&G could somehow repay the loan, there might not be any.

― Ismael Klata, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:54 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
danny dyer is joey barton

stevie g- rory mcgrath

torres- kate hudson

hicks/gilette (dont know one from other tbh) bob balaban/john mccririck

rafa benitez- alfred molina

broughton- richard dawkins

― i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:55 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I'm glad Hicks is mining this for every last lol. Really got the English public in mind that fella, we should keep him and a start a new franchise with him and that mystery pompy owner putting Sven in charge.

― http://tinypic.com/r/s0wvar/7 (a hoy hoy), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:56 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
rafa benitez- alfred molina

omg yes

― http://tinypic.com/r/s0wvar/7 (a hoy hoy), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:57 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Hicks and Gilette should be played by the two old curmudgeons in the Muppet Show

― Daniel Giraffe, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:57 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
They'd have to think up some ridiculous subplot involving Stevie G, he's a minor player here at best.

― Matt DC, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:57 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
This is the sort of derailment that's crying out for a thread on the all-new ILF by the way.

― Matt DC, Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:58 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
If that's right, the dispute would lie in the relationship between two incompatible positions - basically does H&G's undertaking to RBS remove their powers to reconstitute the board, or are they free to reconstitute the board and leave themselves in breach of their undertaking to RBS?

well yeah, I guess so. Broughton seems confident in it being more than an undertaking, though. I'm sure it'll all come to light by them time the club's in division 3 or w/e. (hope not, but cynical about the yank's ability to drag this on)

― i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:58 AM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
/john mccririck - glazer cameo surely?

― http://tinypic.com/r/s0wvar/7 (a hoy hoy), Thursday, October 7, 2010 10:58 AM (22 seconds ago)

I meant the hypothetical movie, rather than the real life drama.

Ow, nightmare formatting. Strangely fitting I'll grant you.

no harm in having a liverpool thread, they're a big club with plenty of ilx followers interest.

how do you do that d4n perry changing a word to something else thing? i think we need one for 'takeover'.

and anyway specific thread for the whole current takeover shebang no harm imo

Broughton - http://blastr.com/pics/Warehouse_13_roger_rees_mug.jpg

Rafa - http://img.listal.com/image/6488/600full-alfred-molina.jpg

Woy Hodgson - http://animal.discovery.com/guides/wild-birds/gallery/great_horned_owl.jpg

Hicks (I think) - http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/images/2007/04/26/teller_jh29tpnc.jpg

Gillette - http://assets.gearlive.com/tvenvy/blogimages/penn_jillette.jpg with a makeover and haircut this could work

Stevie G - http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/DyerWENNLL_228x358.jpg

Nando - http://cdn.sheknows.com/realitytvmagazine/2010/01/ellen-degeneres-american-idol.jpg

Benny Noon - http://www.ajlmagazine.com/images/simonhelberg0907.jpg

Sotirios Kyrgiakos - http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08/PhilKayPP_243x366.jpg

There's something about Fernando Torres that reminds me of Nicola Stephenson that used to play Margaret-that-lezzed-up-with-Anna-Friel, so I reckon that's who should play him.

Kevin McKidd for Dirk Kuyt, if we're casting the whole team.

#1 - THE KOP
#2 - Controversial Superinjunction Edit
#3 - Nando
#4 - Dirk
#5 - Stevie

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/LRG/20/2065/EG52D00Z.jpg

(Where THE KOP = some kind of Greek tragedy chorus figure, obv.)

still can't think of a great carragher

(Where THE KOP = some kind of Greek tragedy chorus figure, obv.)

― Tim, Thursday, 7 October 2010 12:46 (1 minute ago) [IP: 78.86.230.18] Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

tb in reality.

1 = joey barton, ffs come on ppl

a great carragher

hmmmm

sam worthington

flattering, but i mean it;s hard to caricature a dude as ridiculous looking as beefcake-in-drag carragher tbh

The correct casting is obv. Tinhead from Brookie as Stevie G and that stupid sidekick of his (Steve?) as Carra. Barry Grant as Rafa.

I feel disadvantaged here from never watching Brookside.

don't

I reckon Matt Damon could do a turn as Carra, if the budget's there for it:

http://cdn.fourfourtwo.com/contentimages/interviews/Carragher2.jpg http://sayswholive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/matt_damon.jpg

And people moan about Rafa when Ary comes out with shite like that?!

Chris - People can tell the difference between lol cockney trolling and lol spanish earnestness

ah, that's trolling. gotcha.

Wait what does Joey Barton have to do with this film again?

I dunno - I think it prob'ly is but I can't disassociate it from Jamie's sincere-but-bollocks outrage about any-old-shite, and I'd never call that A+ trolling.

that's sheer windup from arry, but it's not being used as an excuse for him not doing his job, like rafa's laughable outbursts of nonsense tended to be.

but it is laughable from arry, we all agree on that tbf.

There was no point yesterday at which they weren't talking about this on Radio 5. It is quite literally the perfect Radio 5 news issue.

Matt, Joey Barton's only in the film to get Bobby Carlyle as Begbie into it, afaik. Though surely he should be playing Souness.

Maybe there should be a scene where they run into Duncan Ferguson in a Liverpool bar and shit gets heated.

Harrison Ford would make an awesome Dalglish btw.

dolph lungdren as big dunc, or maybe that guy from MI2

harrison ford not so much dalglish as nick faldo.

dalglish, dalglish-

nigel havers is too posh i guess

tom wilkinson a little heavy in the face...

Bah, just got distracted by work while someone else stole my idea of Dougray Scott as Duncan Ferguson.

yeah that's the guy

miyye arrrightttt jacket poccckkkettt

going for scottish gollum in that one iirc, but still quite like him tbh, was he in one of those muscly comic book 300 flicks or something since?

He seems to just make really mediocre films and TV dramas, tbh. But somehow he is married to Clare Forlani.

I think Gerard Butler stole his career.

he is fucking what to who????

WHAT

g butler totally stole his career, he's got better teeth i think

He seems to just make really mediocre films and TV dramas, tbh. But somehow he is married to Clare Forlani.

he must rub this in her face all the time

She was in his last mediocre ITV drama with him (some terrible sub-24 spy thingie). I thought she had a halfway decent career. She's way better looking than him at any rate.

Anyway, I vote Gerard Butler as Kenny Dalglish. THIS! IS! ANFIELD! *bosh*

what you on about butler dalglish that's crazy talk

Reckon John Simm could do a passable Stevie G, though they'd need some camera trickery to hide his short-arsedness

John Simm is too charismatic and likeable to be Stevie.

dude on right for stevie g

http://content6.flixster.com/question/56/92/63/5692632_std.jpg

^was thinking of him for Carra

the damned red sox: a carragher study

what you on about butler dalglish that's crazy talk

Had run out of Scottish actors so was going for ludicrous stunt casting to pull the crowds in. What about Denis Lawson?

Stevie G is totally going to be Tinhead from Brookside. No-one's talking me out of this.

Never mind Simm, we need Phil Glenister in this, btw.

ooh hows bout that guy from minder for dalglish

waterman

isn't he just

I think G Depardieu could rock a very nice Phil Thompson, incl European Cup in car boot sepia flashback.

No points deduction, yes points deduction, does anyone really know?

why on earth would the actions of the owners, in this specific case, be the catalyst for a points deduction. like ffs. when the bloody league doesn't even have any rules to stop wankers like this buying clubs in this way!

IT'S A RUDDY SHAMBLES. BROWN OUT.

well, unwanted actions by the owners are always likely to bring on points deduction, tbf. it's just rarely been as pointlessly & deliberately destructive before.

why on earth would the actions of the owners, in this specific case, be the catalyst for a points deduction. like ffs. when the bloody league doesn't even have any rules to stop wankers like this buying clubs in this way!

Yeah, the rule is presumably in place to stop chairmen doing a Ridsdale and 'chasing the dream', i.e. plunging the club into massive debt by hugely overspending on transfers and player wages in an attempt to hit the bigtime (with a large proportion of the fanbase being perfectly happy with the dreamchasing until everything goes tits up). So in theory it should encourage chairmen / supporters to be more realistic and live within their means and stop clubs going bankrupt all the time. If the debt isn't caused by expenditure on players and salaries, but is actually the cost of the takeover itself (borrowed and then dumped on the club), and the Premier League / FA did nothing to block that takeover in the first place, then it seems at best tardy and hypocritical to apply the penalty.

FA/PL in no real position to block such takeovers? Really, I think the too-easily-vaulted hurdle here is in the 'due diligence' stage, and given that the onus of research falls on the parties about to get very wealthy indeed (incumbent owners) there's not much hope of that changing either

FA/PL in no real position to block such takeovers?

They have a 'fit and proper person' test which appears to consist solely of asking the question 'are you a person?'. I don't see why they couldn't change it to 'is your hostile takeover going to be funded entirely by debt which will then be loaded onto the club?'.

Well, yeah- due diligence!

I'd wholly agree that this should be undertaken by experts representing the FA, I'm assuming this isn't the case already given the Utd/LFC deals. I'm seriously hoping not.

Would it be allowable though? Publicly listed companies, etc

The interest is the league's, ultimately, in having clubs which can be run as viable members, and as they control membership they could set down terms properly if it really wanted to - they wouldn't be stopping anyone owning a club, they'd just be controlling that club's access to the competition. But if all they're going to do is pay lip service to a test that's so vague it wouldn't stand up to serious challenge anyway, then frankly they deserve pain for their complacency.

Well nobody minds the league suffering, but there's not protection for the club as an ongoing entity that way.

Platini's new rules will make this kind of thing better y/n/too early and difficult to tell?

But I'm talking about Platini-style rules. He's trying to do the league's job for them, basically, and getting massive and stupid grief for it.

he is the imf to the fa's ireland

Haha that's it exactly except the Premiership's got away with it so far. I've got a pile of thoughts on this as you may expect, may post them later. I also read a superb interview with Alan Sugar in yesterday's Times, will see if I can find it online - there's a guy knows what's up.

They have a 'fit and proper person' test which appears to consist solely of asking the question 'are you a person?'

lol yeah, a day or so after the announcement the league said NESV had passed the fit and proper person test. guys, really, did u just google them or what? interviews, financial statements, background checks, anything?

(in this case i think NESV are probably fine, but the impression i get is that the league thought about this and got as far as i did, 'yeah, they're probably fine')

precisely, and that's fine with these guys that own andhave run successfully so far a franchise elsewhere

how long did they spend checking out shinawatra you wonder

re: shinawatra - got bored and starting putting perpurtua fluxblog fat joeks into his wikipedia page while doing it iirc.

Fit and proper person test: verbatim and David Conn's summary. In summary, it's designed to target three things:
- convicted fraudsters
- conflicts of interest
- serial insolvencies
and nothing else. This is undoubtedly a deliberate policy.

(Compare the fit & proper person tests for driving instructors and London landlords, both tailored for their particular activities but with some similarities - and also arguably more stringent conditions)

- convicted fraudsters

lol worked well stopping jabba the hut buying arsenal

Here's the Alan Sugar interview I mentioned earlier.

Definitely worth reading. Alan Sugar otm if you ask me.

wr

There were also these three little asides, not reproduced there (I think they're from his book):

On managing George Graham

I was advised by everyone in the boardroom that no one ever talks publicly about the manager or the players. So effectively you stand by and allow the manager to slag you off nicely, complaining the reason he’s not doing that well is he just needs three extra players. If I had my time again, I’d say, ‘Hold on. You say you wanted three, you’ve had 12, you’ve spent more than ever before. You’ve been put forward as God’s gift to football and actually you’ve done nothing, so maybe you’re not really that good at being a manager.’
I shouldn’t have listened to these gutless wimps in my boardroom.

Football ownership

The personal pressures, the constant harrassment from media and fans made me a bit of a disbelieving person, not prepared to trust people. You become very careful with anyone, any member of the public. It kind of makes you a miserable person, constantly fire-fighting. It was like having a baseball bat in your hands, every day having to knock something else away. Who needs that aggravation? I made a profit at Tottenham, but was it worth it? No. It was a total waste of my commercial energy. I could have made a load more money elsewhere.

Clubs that go bust

I would change the rules on clubs going bust. If a club goes bust, it’d be: ‘Goodbye, you’re out, go to Hackney Marshes. You’ve got two choices. Get someone to come in and pay off all your debts. That’s fine, you’ve got 30 days to do so. If not, you are out, start all over again at the Blue Square Premier League, or whatever it is. Go back to the beginning and fight your way up like anyone else.’ They should be completely thrown out. That would be a deterrent. I’d have Leeds and Portsmouth starting again, right at the bottom. ‘You’ve gone bust, goodbye.’

Liverpool fans are “noise we are dealing with.” – Tom Hicks.

Grabiner in - Liverpool case on in the High Court tomorrow morning. I don't know how this court operates, but it seems to be just one of a number of cases down for tomorrow morning, which suggests it isn't going to be a particularly long or complicated affair. Anyone gets a stream, post it here.

Trying to keep up with all of this on Twitter. Confused!

Radio 4 were suggesting this morning that it would be a 2 day affair and the losing party would be guaranteed to appeal, meaning it won't be resolved before the Friday deadline. The real issue seems to be whether RBS will call in the debt if H&G are the ones appealing.

Don't see any reason why they would, tbh. Administration leaves them open to a fairly substantial loss through the asset being diminished in value and also the possibility of the club ending up paying 20p in £ or what have you.

Dunno if this has been covered but there are some reports that NESV will pull out Liverpool get 9pts deducted.

brinkmanship

That was my assumption as well.

On RBS, however, I think it's more complicated. Are they entitled to deny the taxpayer his penalty fee? Would they be allowed to do it after all the public statements?

RBS said in a statement: "RBS in its capacity as lender to the Kop group of companies received the benefit of various contractual undertakings from Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett in relation to the corporate governance arrangements that Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett agreed would apply to the Kop group of companies with effect from April 2010.

"Those undertakings provided for the appointment of Mr Broughton as chairman of the board and the appointment of the chief executive and commercial director of LFC to the Kop boards.

"As is well known Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett purported to make changes to those corporate governance arrangements on 4 October. This was in breach of those contractual undertakings.

"In light of that purported breach of contract RBS sought and obtained on Friday 8 October 2010 an interim injunction against Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett until a further hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

"Among other things, that interim injunction prevents Mr Hicks or Mr Gillett taking any steps to remove or replace Mr Broughton from his position as chairman of the board of the Kop companies or from taking any other steps to appoint or remove any directors from the board of the Kop companies."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11518079

surely this is bullshit?

god i wish we could just be shot of this entire saga, it's depressing.

ah come on there is no football for another week, i'm glad someone is trying to at least keep something lolworthy in the news.

The gift that keeps on giving:

In another twist last night, Singapore billionaire Peter Lim confirmed he is ready to match NESV's offer, after he missed out a week ago.

If Hicks and Gillett win, and Liverpool go into administration, he could be a serious player. Lim owns several Manchester United-themed bars in Asia.

They're on, but no way am I attempting to follow this one live.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/gallery/2010/oct/12/liverpool-takeover-woes-the-gallery#/?picture=367485058&index=8

o_O

It appears to basically come down to this: H&G accept that it's Broughton who sells the club, but they say he's acted wrongfully in accepting the NESV one. Which explains why Sim has been so public in upping his offer, and presumably means that if H&G win we get a bidding war (i.e. NESV probably pull out and Sim gets the club instead, for a higher price meaning that H&G get some money back).)

From the Guardian blog

G&H claim the board meeting last Tuesday broke down when they US owners refused to continue "after a conversation with the chairman during the adjournment". They claim that the remaining three directors, Broughton, Purslow and Ayre formed a 'sub committee' which then considered the bids and after discussions with RBS decided to go with NESV.

Hicks claims that the sub-committee became so ingrained that the directors started to refer to it as the "home team" in emails between themselves. One of which was accidentally sent to the owners at start of last week.

According to Dan Roan from the BBC, LFC have until 1st November to do a deal with NESV, and the judge has said "resolution this week is ambitious".

There was something about the Premier League confirming that the insolvency rule would be engaged after all but I don't know the details - does that mean the nine-point deduction is inevitable now?

Reuters says this:

If the Oct. 15 deadline for a refinancing of Liverpool's debt is missed, lawyers believe RBS could take control of the club and conduct the sale itself. That could result in the holding company of the five-times European champions briefly being put into administration, which would result in the points deduction under Premier League rules.

suggesting that come Friday it's RBS's call. Don't see why they wouldn't, myself, the political sensitivities of this are way overblown imo and I don't see that it causes them any disadvantage to do so.

So much for that - judgment out at 10.30 tomorrow morning.

Think I'll have a lie in.

what's the most likely situation now wrt the two bids, the court verdict, the lot? simplified if poss?

RBS says owners have contradicted rules of sales agreement by trying to oust two members of the board and there should be a mandatory injunction imposed by the court to make sure the board is reinstated.

G&H admit they have breached sales agreement but say they only did it because the board excluded them from the sales agreement and refused to take into account stronger alternative bids to NESV. As a result, they dispute the injunction claim.

The Board disputes the claim that the owners were excluded from the sales agreement and says that instead the owners simply refused to take part. It also insists the NESV bid was the strongest on the table after a thorough process to find a buyer for the club.

from the guardian, seems to be the summaries.

i can't see how the g&h can win this, what they're saying seems to be "yes we broke the contract which said the board decide on sales cos we didn't like how they were handling the sale". the being excluded thing doesn't make sense as they excluded themselves based on what's been heard today, and they did have a lawyer on the phone during the talks to sell.

i don't trust the lim bid purely cos it seems g&h's preferred option. or any other bid.

Damn - well, as I'd typed it anyway, as I understand it:

- The sale's still up in the air in that there seems to be some kind of commitment by the board/a board to sell to NEVS, but it hasn't taken place yet;
- the issue is basically whether the commitment was made by the proper board or not;
- RBS say it was, have already obtained an injunction against G&H to stop them from doing anything as if it isn't, and that's what this hearing is about: whether the original five board members are still the five board members - if they are, the sale goes ahead;
- G&H either (I'm not clear on this myself) say no, the board is now a different five who'll vote against the sale, in which case it won't go ahead, and/or that even if it is the original five, the sale process is flawed because they haven't properly considered all the bids (i.e. G&H think they can get more money). G&H accept that their attempt to sack two directors was against their contract with RBS, but say they had to do that to prevent the board from breaching another obligation (don't know where from) to consider the bids properly and make the best sale;
- the board itself (presumably meaning the original five, acting through the 'home team' three) also have a lawyer there backing up RBS.

I don't know the answer. It all seems to come down to whether it's okay for G&H to breach one obligation to RBS to prevent an alleged breach to another (i.e. the board acting beyond its powers I think).

a made up alleged breach.

really, if gill/hicks get to scweam and scweam for ages on this, RBS and NESV are likely to walk? Y/N

No thcweaming involved - one or other side wins tomorrow and that'll be that. If H&G lose I can't imagine they'll force Broughton to raise another action to authorise the sale to NEVS - they would lose. If the board/RBS win the deal'll be done with NEVS tomorrow or Thursday.

Having thought about it a little on way to my train, I expect RBS to win because, whatever the merits of the various bids, the granting of wide powers to Broughton and the undertaking not to change the board are in the same document, or at least are both to RBS.

there's no possibility of an appeals process that carries through past friday?

*slaps forehead*

hadn't even thought of that! I dunno, H&G's case just has the smell of death about it - the importance of my 'same document' point, in case it isn't obvious, is that they must've had in contemplation that Broughton would propose a sale that they weren't happy with - hard to imagine the court saying that wasn't them renouncing any power to change the board to block it. I suppose they'll probably seek leave to appeal - they'll have nothing to lose by then - but unless the injunction's overturned with it they can't block the sale.

My guess is G&H lose but sue for damages as they believe the board is costing them money by rejecting more lucrative offers.

"Do you have a message for Hicks and Gillette?"

fuck off sky sports.

was looking for that Gazza footage recently, you'd think it'd be on YouTube but no

This is going to be a boringly sensible outcome, right?

judge rules against h and g.....whatever that will mean after endless appeals and about 5 other trials. the sale can go ahead tho i guess.

I think that's the important thing - injunctions upheld so sale goes through, H&G can sue for damages later if they want to.

Great day for football, LFC getting rid of those nasty rich Americans and getting some new rich Americans who may or may not be funding the deal with an RBS loan.

The question now is: how can the forthcoming Saga II: Man Utd be made more entertaining?

This isn't done and dusted though? Isn't there another case to go or did I just imagine that?

The question now is: how can the forthcoming Saga II: Man Utd be made more entertaining?

― Ismael Klata, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 11:00 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

By being at least triple the price, a heavier fall out in league standings as they cannot replace the old guard and the next gen of fans of manchester clubs go to City? Also got Fergie's retirement hanging over them.

The other case to come would be to seek a declaratory judgment to the effect that Broughton et al have the right to proceed with the sale - don't know whether that's necessary any more, after today's judgment, or if so whether it'd be opposed.

the question is, how much hyperbole can we fit on one thread

it's pronounced hyperbole actually

^ stealing a man's own joke, about 8 years later.

they don't need the declaratory judgment any more i think because rbs's application to force h&g to restore the other directors succeeded. they're going to hold another board meeting at 8pm today and agree the sale all over again.

See you in three year's time for exactly the same thread then.

^ mysterious stranger showing up at portentous events, good literal device that

If this sale goes through, don't be surprised if Liverpool make a real push for the title next season.

rafa back in?

now that we've lost first choice left back daniel agger i predict more woe for hodgson. we'll have to play someone out of position there.

and kuyt isn't available for wherever the fuck he plays these days either. crisis imo

might have to play a winger on the right wing. tho that could be a prob as we don't have one. we can promote a centre back from the youth team perhaps.

meirelles or J Cole could do a job, surely?

Glen Johnson would be the most obvious solution though

I think the first XI is alright to compete with anyone, but it's not going to be challenging for any titles soon. Have been impressed with how Ngog's come on this season. What are Agger & Kuyt's injuries?

A 9 point deduction might leave them challenging for a title next season.

I think the first XI is alright to compete with anyone

this was always a common trope- doing consistently well counterattacking the other big teams doesn't necessarily prove this tbh

kuyt's was an ankle injury that looked bad then he walked off the pitch so maybe it wasn't that bad but it looks bad again

doing consistently well counterattacking the other big teams doesn't necessarily prove this

How not? Isn't that what compete means?

The squad is thin under the first XI, there's no denying. Prolonged absences for Kuyt & Agger, and no doubt the usual for Torres, is far more of a stretch for Liverpool than for others. If they could play the first XI all season like the old days it'd be alright.

It's not what it means in a league context, no. decidedly not, in fact.

Hence what I'm saying about the first XI

hence my pointing out that the XI ain't all that tbh

well "in the old days", eg 2008/2009 torres and gerrard both had lengthy absences. it's as much a general lack of organisation as anything right now, players are playing well below their level throughout the side.

I don't know where the 'we're not a two man team' protests clash with the 'we're a great first XI' claims, but it doesn seem to me that there's an overlap there somewhere.

Not really. Here's the first-team squad that I'm more or less happy about:

GK: Reina
Def: Johnson; Konchesky; Agger; Carragher; Skrtel; Aurelio
DM: Maxi; Meireles; Lucas; Poulsen
AM: Cole; Gerrard; Kuyt
Att: N'Gog; Torres; Jovanovic

Any combination of that could be put out to make an acceptable XI. Not to say that Kyrgiakos or Spearing can't step in and do a job, but I don't want to see them there all the time. The point (on which I think we're all agreed) is how thin it is - the strikeouts show just how little leeway there is for anything to go wrong, which yeah is a fairly likely event over the course of a season.

There's a big diff between 'acceptable' and 'alright to compete with anyone'.

just a conversation i'm having with other LFC fans atm through mail (lol wednesdays), and i'm trying to work out the idea in my head of 'we're as strong as anyone first XI' and the 'oh no we're fucked Danny Agger's out this week', and how it's i dunno- useful as an argument/concept. i dont actually know where i'm going here tbh

yeah it underlines the lack of quality in the squad, fair enough, maybe i'm just not making enough of the startling jump down in quality almost imediately in every position.

so this turned out well then. final announcement yet? i know the yank's in the board meeting in london atm.

A 9 point deduction might leave them challenging for a title next season.

― san te cross (onimo), Wednesday, 13 October 2010 11:58 (9 hours ago) [IP: 86.11.143.38] Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

mad lolz

liverpool's first team sucks other than 4 players and i might rank it below birmingham if i'm trolling.

Birmingham's a good troll choice given:

2010/2011
English Premier	Birmingham City	0-0	Liverpool	12-09-2010
2009/2010
English Premier	Birmingham City	1-1	Liverpool	04-04-2010
English Premier	Liverpool	2-2	Birmingham City	09-11-2009
2007/2008
English Premier	Birmingham City	2-2	Liverpool	26-04-2008
English Premier	Liverpool	0-0	Birmingham City	22-09-2007
2005/2006
English Premier	Liverpool	1-1	Birmingham City	01-02-2006
English Premier	Birmingham City	2-2	Liverpool	24-09-2005
2004/2005
English Premier	Birmingham City	2-0	Liverpool	12-02-2005
English Premier	Liverpool	0-1	Birmingham City	06-11-2004

birmingham taken plenty of points off us too this past few tbh

liverpool's first team sucks other than 4 players and i might rank it below birmingham if i'm trolling.

plenty of that team helped liverpool finish above arsenal several times in recent years.

and knock them out of the champions league, don't forget that too. think even ryan babel scored.

And let's not pass over Arsenal needing Reina to go Almunia just two months ago

lol at the gang of ye tbh! enjoy the night ffs, you're in better shape financially but still fairly rub on the pitch, so let's not get overly antsy in here

sam, ffs!

not antsy at all, i guess someone whose team was winning things wouldn't bother endlessly exaggerating the plight of other teams, be they liverpool/man u, whoever...what would be the point?

i suppose it's a we're shit but look at them thing, minus any admission of the former.

If this is an end to it and the new guy doesn't turn out to be Sauron, I can't help feeling Liverpool have got out of it pretty painlessly. A year of no transfers and a feeling of chaos is nowt compared to e.g. Leeds.

What *really* interests me is how it's going to stack up when United get there - the deferred debt/PIK thing they've got going on dwarfs anything in this saga. All for another thread I guess, NBS can step up when he's in the mood.

prob the same deal for man u, somebody will buy them. why wouldn't someone want to own one of the top five most popular football clubs in the world?

xp lol u fuckin clown

sauron was utterly cast down at the end of the third age, he'd never pass the fit and proper persons test

the debt against the glazers cant be more than the club's worth, can it? NB&S usually got good posts to make on that one.

plus he can't manage and own man u...x-post

The sums are gargantuan, but then so is Utd's turnover. £750m against what, £250m? So debt's three times turnover against maybe two times for Liverpool - but increasing at a stupid rate, that's the rub.

finances of football thread i think

Yeah, okay - if the sale goes through tonight I'll lock this one, I think we've all had enough.

nah, i think enjoy getting rid the yanks etc tonight, but tbh the takeover etc will run for a while yet and may well be need for an 'lfc background' thread for a while yet

Hicks has obtained a temporary court order from texas? preventing the sale? claiming 1.6bn i damages and conspiracy?

wtlivingfuck

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/oct/13/liverpool-sale-high-court-verdict-live

what the fuck has this to do with texas

Holy shit.

When this dust finally settles surely to christ the Premier League are gonna have to review ownership laws.

tbh the takeover etc will run for a while yet and may well be need for an 'lfc background' thread for a while yet

― l∞l (darraghmac), Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:12 PM (19 minutes ago)

The owners of Liverpool Football Club today reported that a Texas State District Court has granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Board of Liverpool Football Club (LFC) from executing a sale of the Club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The court set a hearing date of October 25, 2010.

The TRO request, signed by Judge Jim Jordan of the 160th District Court in Dallas, was part of a lawsuit filed today by the owners of LFC against Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow, Ian Ayre, NESV and Philip Nash. The lawsuit also seeks temporary and permanent injunctions, and damages totaling approximately $1.6 billion (over £1 billion).

The suit lays out the defendants' "epic swindle" in which they conspired to devise and execute a scheme to sell LFC to NESV at a price they know to be hundreds of millions of dollars below true market value (and well below Forbes magazine's recent independent $822 million valuation of the club) - and below multiple expressions of interest and offers to buy either the club in its entirety or make minority investments (including Meriton and Mill Financial). It describes how the defendants excluded the owners from meetings, discussions and communications regarding the potential sale to NESV and interfered with efforts by the owners to obtain financing for Liverpool FC.

The Club's owners are represented by attorneys from the international law firm of Fish & Richardson.

The following are some of the key points in the complaint, which details the roles of RBS and the other defendants, and also describes previously undisclosed offers to purchase LFC:

"The Director Defendants were acting merely as pawns of RBS, wholly abdicating the fiduciary responsibilities that they owed in the sale."

"RBS has been complicit in this scheme with the Director Defendants. For example, in letters from RBS to potential investors obtained just within the past few days, RBS has informed investors that it will approve of a deal only if there is "no economic return to equity" for Messrs. Hicks and Gillett. In furtherance of this grand conspiracy, on information and belief, RBS has improperly used its influence as the club's creditor and as a worldwide banking leader to prevent any transaction that would permit Messrs. Hicks and Gillett to recover any of their initial investment in the club, much less share in the substantial appreciation in the value of Liverpool FC that their investments have created."

"On or about October 4, 2010, Mr. Hicks received a letter of interest from a third potential purchaser represented by FBR Capital Markets ("FBR"), offering to purchase Liverpool FC for £375 to £400 million ($595 to $635 million). The letter informed Mr. Hicks that the potential purchaser would not need financing, possessed the funds to close the transaction, and intended to build a new stadium for Liverpool FC."

"Additionally, the Plaintiffs learned just days ago about another potential investor that made a similar offer in the £350 to £400 million range that was communicated to Defendant Broughton and another unnamed co-conspirator in late August. According to this investor, Mr. Broughton never responded to the offer. Moreover, when the purported sale to NESV was announced, this investor again contacted Mr. Broughton and informed him that the offer, which significantly exceeded the NESV offer, was still on the table. Again, Mr. Broughton brushed this offer aside without further discussion."

this is fucking unreal

what the fuck has this to do with texas

you're on a short run of otm matey

not a happy one

This is totally ridiculous.

These are the lowest courts in Texas, it's the equivalent of going to Stourbridge County Court to get an injunction against the sale of the LA Lakers. It doesn't mean that Stourbridge County Court won't go ahead and grant $1.6bn damages (actually it does, because England's a sensible country, but let's pretend it doesn't), but who the hell is ever going to enforce it for them? Well, they might try to enforce it in Texas I suppose.

Can be safely ignored is my considered view.

yeha, i mean jurisdiction has gt to be questionable? who decides this shit anyway?

holding company set up in texas or something?

More on the jurisdiction issue. "If Royal Bank of Scotland does business dealings in Texas, courts there would certainly have personal jurisdiction over the bank," writes Daniel Stauss.

Elsewhere in the Telegraph Paul Kelso claims that "The jurisdiction of the Texas order in the UK was not immediately clear, but sources said the impact of the action could be to put RBS, which has considerable US interests, Broughton, through his role as BA chairman, and NESV in contempt of a US Court

this is kind of lol tho

jesus.....it never ends.

Rules on jurisdiction are really complicated. Basically every legal system decides for itself what it takes jurisdiction over, and then any conflicts are settled by international private law - the kicker being that every legal system itself has a different version of what international private law is.

So that quote is otm to an extent - if Texas has a really screwed up version of what it can do under Texas international private law, that counts in Texas but other legal systems will give it short shrift. If you operate in Texas, you have to think about the personal consequences there for you.

ffs, his daughter's wedding's up there, that's not going to be pretty reading in the morning

You can be sure Texas has a really screwed up version of just about everything. And Texans will celebrate that fact.

posting his phone number ffs

nobody's found his flickr account yet

not much a judge can do about all this if a petition comes ahead of him, or am i very wrong there?

oh this will end well

genuine worries over the club here or not? too close and quick to tell for me, but i'm sure someone's got perspective here?

Guy's obviously a player, going by his 'Judge Jime Jordan' youtube channel

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool ty hicks for making this international break not be a total waste

srs gonna nom hicks for the ilf hall of fame next month

fuck you you dick

Nah, no worries over the club xp - this is a tactic to get the actual players worried about their position in Texas, presumably because it has the most lunatic jurisdiction claims (iirc all sorts of overseas claimants choose somewhere like Texas to sue where they have no hope of getting recompense and just want publicity). English courts would never enforce this.

oh come on ronan, if you can't laff now liverpool are safe, when can you?

not safe til you get 40 points in this game

don't think it's that clearcut at all really....i'll believe they're safe when i read that this doesn't have any damaging effects.

x-post oh yeah the football

but if texan courts enforce it on the actors in texan jurisdiction? any ideas of the possibilities there?

AHH this is a bit beyond 'rafa out' lols and tbh it's not actually much of a laughing matter until it clears up a little

LFC statement on sky news now- sale completed to NESV, acknowledges temp. restraining order, consider restraining order unwarranted and damaging and will seek to have it removed.

and tbh it's not actually much of a laughing matter until it clears up a little

if this was newcastle it would be treated as such and you know it, dunno why other clubs get non lols treatment

the order does prevent the sale from being completed, apparently, according to bbc. board moving asap to have it removed, however the fuck that can happen...

x-post seriously just stop being such a momumental prat

man you are racking them up tonight i'd say.

i don't think lfc are quite the lolclub newcastle are, and they're genuinely an institution, like them or not. to see this kind of thing go on for so long and with such serious possible consequences doesn't amuse me at all tbh.

I don't fucking know what they're up to in Texas - suspect dan otm there. If this order is in any way legit they're a complete laughing stock to the rest of the civilised world (NB I'll sweep English libel jurisdiction under the rug for now)

Broughton etc had no choice but to ignore this - you can't stop doing things just cos some tinpot backwoods court tries to stick its nose in

they aren't ignoring it...it's stopping the sale until they can have it removed, and apparently it does have jurisdiction.

He order doesn't stop the sale, except in Texasworld - if that means it has to be removed first because some of the actors also have doings in Texasworld, it's not because Texas has any control over Liverpool, because it does not

they're choosing to treat it as if it does, which appears to be wise for now

xp what IK said, according to my understanding

How can it have jurisdiction?

yeah perhaps it doesn't, but it appears as darragh says, they are treating this as if it does stop the sale. i assume to take legal advice...

this is simply unreal

yeah, AIUI jurisdiction isn't over club nor does it trump nglish ruling, it's more that RBS might want to consider their options carefully w/r/t how it effects them in Texas

I guess that's wise - Henry no doubt has assets within reach of the Texas courts - but there's no basis for the court taking jurisdiction that I can think of

and broughton apparently also...

is it possible for them to complete the sale and then go to texas and fight the injunction?

nope, the injunction would be solely to prevent that

again, i can only think there's a holding company or something under texan jurisdiction

get harbl in here tbh

fuck off and die hicks and gillett, seriously.

It's maybe possible that the courts there have a presumption in favour of granting any injunction, so Hicks has slipped this in at the end of the court day on spurious grounds, knowing it's only going to delay things overnight, and Jime Jordan's had no choice.

You've got to take your hat off at some level really

You could ignore the injunction if there were no consequences for you in Texas, but if you do any sort of business there it'd be wise to get it removed first

it sounds a bit like an ex parte injunction over here, where i think if the party which wasn't represented (rbs, lfc board) can show the case was groundless it can get lifted without a full hearing. otherwise, i suspect rbs would extend the loan to the 25th prevent administration if only to spite hicks and gillett, since they and broughton are now in the "conspiracy" together.

I don't see how the injunction can affect the sale by any other route than that

yeah tbh all of this, even before this morning, is made a bit better by the fact that RBS are on the club's side...

just thinking unwelcome thoughts ... RBS have business worldwide, so Hicks could in theory spin this out for as long as he has crazily expansive jurisdictions to hoodwink? But doesn't he have some kind of reputation to protect too? Presumably he's going to want some other bank to lend him money for some future scheme?

xp well, with broughton on board and in control, it's more like the other way round, but either way

xp don't think courts will accept jurisdiction without good reason: this is presumably because kop holdings is incorporated in texas? but he can't chase rbs round the globe.

Wonder if we'll get a big money Liverpool v FC Dallas friendly out of the resolution of this. It'll be like the Chicharito sale.

An interesting email from a law student. "The Texas judge who issued the injunction has not made an decision on the merits of the case. The injunction just halts everything until there is a hearing. The grounds for granting an emergency TRO are that the actions will create irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated for through monetary damages. I suspect that once Judge Jordan actually has a hearing on the issue, he will dismiss it and remove the injunction. The Texas courts probably do have jurisdiction, but they will be hesitant to take it when it will put them in conflict with English courts that are better able to adjudicate the issue. Hopefully, this has only temporarily delayed the sale and Liverpool will avoid administration, but H&G have probably bought themselves a couple more days."

kinda what i'm assuming for the moment tbh

Good grief.

just waking up to this i take it?

The involvement of Keith Edelman doesn't make me hopeful about this deal tbh.

The Guardian has a pdf of the temporary injunction here

- it's heavily caveated by the judge, he couldn't make it more clear that he's been bounced into this
- everything is done solely on the basis of what's been put to him by Hicks' lawyers (this is not necessarily unusual when one side turns up claiming emergency)
- there's no reason given as to why the court has jurisdiction: it says 'personal jurisdiction', which could mean that Hicks or someone else is a Texas resident; or that one of the holding companies was incorporated or is domiciled there (though most US companies are incorporated in Delaware, there's some tax or regulatory advantage in doing so)
- there's a $15,000 bond to 'adequately protect the interests of defendants'(!)
- there's a struck-out bit about prohibiting action in another court to impede the Texan lawsuit: an indication that even the court recognises that it's more appropriate dealt with elsewhere imo

I'd expect RBS et al to get this overturned this afternoon when the Texas courts open. In the meantime, Hicks will probably have been using the pause-for-breath to get an appeal ready in London and/or flushing out another improved bid from Lim or the Hedge Fund, with the aim of getting an English injunction imposed in the same terms.

Texan law expert on the radio a few minutes ago sounded certain that the injunction would be overturned when considered by a higher court but said that might take some days.

Any fresh bids dont matter, surely? The Club's been sold a week now.

There was an interesting bit in an earlier version of the BBC piece which appeared to claim G&H had a document from RBS stating it was a condition of the sale that G&H could not have an "economic restoration of parity".

If this document actually exists then I would speculate the whole case could hinge on it. Firstly, it would be an acknowledgement by RBS that G&H were out of pocket as a result of their time of ownership, which should allow them to raise a creditors claim (presumably this is the £140M that's been talked about) against the sale. The argument would then be whether they or RBS were paid first.

The second part is probably legally the more interesting. It would assert that RBS put in place conditions (by the hiring of Martin Broughton as 'their man' and the conditions that were discussed over the last couple of days re: who can sell and the constitution of the Board) on a non-equivocal basis as they had made agreements without full disclosure to the Board i.e. the contract which allows MB to decide would be null and void. It also puts in place a structure which allows the club to sold for a figure deliberately detrimental to members of the Board (who it is acknowledged are indebted). This is where the damages come in, as it could be asserted the ongoing farrago in courts has damaged the reputation of G&H particularly in the field of trying to raise loans in the future, and that this is directly as a result of the alleged conspiracy. The real issue there is that this is essentially an allegation against RBS and not Liverpool, so damages would have to come out of their (and ultimately the taxpayer's) pockets.

Of course, it might just be bullshit.

Firstly, it would be an acknowledgement by RBS that G&H were out of pocket as a result of their time of ownership, which should allow them to raise a creditors claim (presumably this is the £140M that's been talked about) against the sale.

Just cos you lose money as a business owner doesn't make you a creditor, surely?

in fact given that profits were surely being creamed to cover private debt interest, there's got to be a countercase that they're debtors?

well, i say 'in fact' but y'know.........

Not automatically, but given this is a sale they're talking about it would confirm that RBS are aware the actual value of the club should include the losses incurred by G&H and that they are selling it from under them for a price they know does not include these losses and provides no way for them to recover.

It's the knowing that's the key. RBS are essentially publicly saying Liverpool = Kop Holdings. G&H are saying Liverpool = Kop Holdings + their input as owners. RBS privately appear to acknowledge this is true.

that's about one level too complicated for me tbh

i don't think lfc are quite the lolclub newcastle are, and they're genuinely an institution, like them or not.

Newcastle, Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton, Third Lanark, whoever, all have/had fans who love their clubs, follow them all round the country, remember their great nights, got their grandpa to lift them over the gate in nineteen-canteen, etc. If you're going to laugh at Newcastle then you can't get all righteous about Liverpool just because they won more trophies.

Of course fans of Liverpool are upset over the shit their club's going through. Do you think any of them shed a tear for Leeds (one of the best teams in England when I was a nipper, huge support, won a league title more recently than Liverpool iirc - something of an institution you might say)?

eh 'all clubs are equal' nah.

also, since rafa's gone i don't mind liverpool.

also, they've had enough, tbh- like newcastle after a while, it's like seeing a kid you didn't like get battered beyond the few slaps you'd have wished on them.

leeds, tbf, was a collective effort to get the highest number of properly hateful fuckers under one badge for a few years before implosion. and i wasn't crowing when they went kaput either- and that was legitimate throwing money away on-field, not two unconnected businessmen creaming the profits.

that was legitimate throwing money away on-field

istr you posting a lot over the past few years about the money Liverpool threw away on players under Rafa/G&H

I don't think all clubs are equal, I think that all clubs are equally laughable when they buy into this foreign benefactor dream shite. I'll be gutted if and when it happens to my club but I won't be demanding people stop taking the piss on the Internet because of the Lisbon Lions.

Not sure I follow, aldo:

- the undertaking re Broughton was always supposed to have been in an agreement between H&G and RBS i.e. part of the contract loaning the £200m funding, and therefore not unilateral
- how can the value of the club be assessed other than via what someone's prepared to pay for it? aiui they've had two independent bids, both for around £300m (one having edged slightly higher in hope of kicking off an auction) so that is almost by definition the value of the club. Trying to add in the £140m supposedly due to H&G just makes the club worth £160m, surely?
- the ranking of creditors is a separate issue. We don't know how RBS and H&G respectively have protected their loans, other than that RBS have certainly been behaving as if they have the right to call it all in and get paid at once. It's I suppose possible that H&G have it secured against property owned by the club, as Chanrai did at Portsmouth, but RBS would certainly know about it if so and would be acting accordingly

istr you posting a lot over the past few years about the money Liverpool threw away on players under Rafa/G&H

yeah, rafa was pure shit in the transfer market. but that's not why the club have a deadline of two days for a couple of hundred million to be paid- completely different scenario.

I won't be demanding people stop taking the piss on the Internet

it's one-note, and it's going over the top, and tbh if celtic had a few years under a yanks that ended like this, cmon you'd not be lolling along with a hoy ahoy here were his comments similar.

bloody hell:

Royal Bank of Scotland tells me that if it's true that Mill has taken the Hicks/Gillett shares and if Mill repays the £200m long-term debt owed by Liverpool FC (plus penalty fees) to RBS and Wachovia, then Mill is in the driving seat.

Once the debt is repaid, RBS's power ends.

At that point, the deal with New England Sports Ventures collapses.

Liverpool would have a new owner, Mill. And Mill will do with Liverpool what it pleases.

Just thinking about this ... £257m I think in total owed to RBS ... what if Mill buys Hicks' shares at noon for say £40m, thereby acquiring the whole club, pays the £257m to RBS at one o'clock, then sells to Lim at two o'clock for the £320m supposedly on the table, making £13m for two hours' work, all before the Texas court opens at 2.30pm?

wouldn't there still be a route for NESV to seek that declarative judgement that the original sale by the liverpool board was legit and binding?

Nobody has a clue is what I'm thinking. We don't actually know what the board agreed with NESV.

yeah, rafa was pure shit in the transfer market. but that's not why the club have a deadline of two days for a couple of hundred million to be paid- completely different scenario.

How much did they spend on players, how much did they borrow, how much do they owe? Did they use different coloured money for the players? The club didn't run with H&G set off to one side as a separate business.

it's one-note, and it's going over the top, and tbh if celtic had a few years under a yanks that ended like this, cmon you'd not be lolling along with a hoy ahoy here were his comments similar.

No. I'd be annoyed, but I'd accept that this is the shit you get when it's your club and is Hoddle payback for all the lols in a previous takeover/administration. Local Garda is full entitled to give it "shut up you dick" at every lol message but fuck this "more than a club" shit you're pulling here, like we can't laugh because it's The Institution of Liverpool.

I have many friends who support Liverpool, they were pretty much the default Best English Team where I grew up - most of them are upset by all this but also passing round the loltext messages coz whaddaygonnado?
I remember people in tears when Morton almost went to the wall a few years back, they're now posting lol Dundee messages on Facebook. They'll be butthurt as ever if it ends up being them again.

Probably, however, I think the precedence is for the owners to refinance before the deadline of tomorrow. Mill would essentially be conducting this refinancing but would be doing so by taking temporary ownership of the debt rather than providing money to G&H under a separate agreement. It's a sensible calculated risk if you know there's an offer on the table (as Ismael says, £13M or whatever for next to no work).

xpost to Joe

don't think i demanded anyone stop taking the piss, i believe i said "fuck you, you dick"

As I said LG, you're fully entitled to say so. Darra's going all lol police on your behalf.

as mod, I think I'm gonna allow LG's line of argument

Who is Mill? Rumour Mill?

prob would be diff if there were any newcastle supporters here too.....but it's also a diff situation. hicks and gillett have really dragged the club through the mill, can easily understand why people are more sympathetic than say with ridsdale, where he basically just blew money on player after player.

Mill's a hedge fund who supposedly already own Gillette's share of Liverpool (i.e. half the club). If they acquire Hicks' share, the thinking goes, they become whole owners and therefore subject to the RBS agreement, which they can extinguish by paying off the £257m owed to RBS. They'd then be full owners with the RBS angle all falling away, and could conduct the sale themselves. (except as joe says, things seem to have been done pursuant to the RBS agreement already, though I certainly amn't clear exactly what)

wouldn't there still be a route for NESV to seek that declarative judgement that the original sale by the liverpool board was legit and binding?

what i'd have though

eh i'm not a 'more than a club' pusher, at all. i'm more pointing out to sam that this is NAGL. not exactly censorship, and not based on anything more than what i'd feel if it was any other club in this kind of unfortunate off-field trouble.

cos yknow, i'm not exactly LFC fan number one here, i do actually just agree that sam's being a dick on this one. don't want the little guy banned over it.

11.44am: Mill Financial has now taken over Tom Hicks's shares, according to the Liverpool Echo.

It is being claimed the American based Hedge Fund has acquired all of Tom Hicks' shares to go along with those of George Gillett, which it already owned.

It is further claimed that if they repay all outstanding loans to RBS before the set deadline, they will by default become the new owners of LFC, nudging out New England Sports Ventures.

However the Echo understands the move would not signal Hicks and Gillett returning to ascendancy in the battle for the Reds.

Instead it is believed Mill Financial, in turn owned by Springfield Financial who have links with the Washington Redskins American Football team, may be acting on behalf of another, as yet unnamed and unknown group who have put themselves in a position to move in at the 11th hour and take over the club.

Fair enough. By the way I have spent the past couple weeks laughing at Hicks as the ultimate football heel, not Liverpool itself or their fans. Well except for that day they got really excited about some yanks coming in to buy out evil Americans.

But personally I don't see Liverpool as an institution - my earliest memory of them is the Spice Boys and then lines of coke, playing hide the sausage or whatever, Collymore, Carragher's version of the Godfather, beating up dj's who wouldn't play Phil Collins etc. Really I don't think any club should be above the lols, even my own.

One could make an interesting argument about how well "good football" can excuse moral fallibility in certain sports teams. For instance, during Liverpool's golden years they employed a lengthy string of horrendous bigots (Mark Wright, Tommy Smith, Bruce Grobelaar, David Speedie, Stevie Nicol). However, because they played an expansive football back then, are we somehow meant to find their antics less objectionable than Carragher's autobiographical bullyboy act because Rafa didn't bring in as many trophies as Fagin?

"I am too young to see them as an institution" is a lame argument, dude.

xp- Yes!

Why? I don't exactly give a toss about Don Revie's years at Leeds either.

Sam tbf after you posted the second post it seemed more like you were just laughing at Hicks for perceived unlikeliness of this attempt to stop the deal, not anticipating this causing probs, so in that respect I apologise for losing my temper. It did initially look as though you were actually relishing the fact that the deal had been scuppered. Not that I don't believe you aren't!

It is further claimed that if they repay all outstanding loans to RBS before the set deadline, they will by default become the new owners of LFC, nudging out New England Sports Ventures.

This strikes me as strange. NESV have been sold the club, subject to an injunction being lifted. That injunction has nothing to do with RBS deadlines, and we all expect it to be lifted. Surely NESV are, at this time, the owners of LFC, just pending one legal issue. All this discussion of possible further sale seems to be missing that?

We don't know that. We don't what agreement has been reached with NESV. The club isn't sold until the shares are transferred. We could be heading for the worst outcome of all - the club being punted onto shysters, then getting sued for damages by NESV for breaking whatever agreement has been reached. We don't know.

was going to say it's good to be discussing the sale again rather than meta-issues, but frankly it isn't

Yeah, you'd have to forsee the mother of all lawsuits from NESV in the newest projected outcome- and one that would seem to have a lot more merit that Hicks' move last night

Sam tbf after you posted the second post it seemed more like you were just laughing at Hicks for perceived unlikeliness of this attempt to stop the deal, not anticipating this causing probs, so in that respect I apologise for losing my temper. It did initially look as though you were actually relishing the fact that the deal had been scuppered. Not that I don't believe you aren't!

― I see what this is (Local Garda), Thursday, 14 October 2010 12:19 (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I like Hodgson enough to be cool with Liverpool being 'saved'. But its cool homie.

most likely we'd get NESV seeking an injunction against a sale by Mill this afternoon xp

in England, hopefully

I'm pretty sure that as RBS have set the deadline the current owners (G&H or Mill) have precedence of being able to avoid default. NEVS can only take ownership at the time of default on loan, as RBS have put MB in place specifically to avoid the default (which was the basis of their court submission earlier in the week).

That sounds right, but does raise the question of what exactly they can have agreed with NESV in advance of default. If Mill do now own, the ball's now in their court.

NEVS can only take ownership at the time of default on loan, as RBS have put MB in place specifically to avoid the default (which was the basis of their court submission earlier in the week).

So Hicks could have avoided the NESV/MB involvement at any stage by getting in the required capital to beat Friday's deadline? Even if the 'sale' to NESV had gone through yesterday, Hicks could have blocked it by finding the cash somewhere?

yes but the guy has no money now after fucking up and noone will loan him anything because who is fucking stupid enough

That's what he's been trying to do for weeks and months aiui. What doesn't make sense on that analysis is why they'd be trying to push the sale through in advance of default, thereby taking on an obligation that they might never be able to fulfil - feel like there's some crucial part of this that I'm not getting.

Well, he was always free to sell his own shares to the highest bidder in that case?

Confused, tbh.

Also, why would NESV even get involved in negotitations if the sale, although confirmed, was conditional on future events (ie Hick's defaulting)?

xp, what IK just said, I think?

I'm pretty sure that as RBS have set the deadline the current owners (G&H or Mill) have precedence of being able to avoid default. NEVS can only take ownership at the time of default on loan, as RBS have put MB in place specifically to avoid the default (which was the basis of their court submission earlier in the week).

― Dame Anna NAGL (aldo), Thursday, 14 October 2010 12:28 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

That sounds right, but does raise the question of what exactly they can have agreed with NESV in advance of default. If Mill do now own, the ball's now in their court.

― Ismael Klata, Thursday, 14 October 2010 12:30 (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

i think this is wrong. h&g would have already defaulted had they not refinanced earlier, a condition of which was that they give team broughton the power to push through any reasonable sale. at that point, h&g were a spent force and RBS didn't have to wait for default for its agents on the board to sell up.

the mill financial deal is not confirmed except by that unsourced echo report. if it's true, why is hicks' lawyer still talking to reporters about the injunction? he wouldn't have any interest any longer. also, if hicks sold his shares, there's no way he would recover the £100m, which is what all their footdragging is about. suspect it's just a rumour and the contest is still team broughton v h&g.

^ yeah, I mean Broughton and the Board were in charge in actuality, not pending any default, so why the sale to NESV doesn't stand is a mystery to me.

Okay joe, I'm convinced by that. Why the sale doesn't stand in that case is because it's not been done yet.

Yes, but isn't it true to say that if the injunction is lifted then any sale that occurred in the meantime is a legal minefield

What Peston's saying is that if RBS gets its money it will be happy with that and won't enforce its rights under the contract concerning Broughton etc. Which I think puts the NEVS sale into limbo, where Broughton's power to sell is in an agreement which neither party (RBS and whoever acquires H&G's part in it) wants to enforce - but nevertheless you'd have a board resolution authorising it (or would you? the meeting last night was interrupted by the injunction? and what's the force of the original resolution? and what's actually been agreed with NEVS?)

What on earth is the atmosphere on Sunday going to be like?

Ok, the first part I see, thanks.

But, assuming the injunction's lifted, it'll be NESV at that stage who'll be enforcing the shit outta their sale agreement. I know we don't know the detail, but isn't that sale done and dusted pending injunction being lifted? I think so, or at the the very least there's a beaut of a case already built on what they've agreed with the LFC board in principle if not sealed and delivered.

Might be, might not be. Generally speaking you can't agree to agree because that doesn't actually create anything enforceable - there's either an agreement or there isn't. But there's no way of knowing what type of 'agreement' the board have made with NEVS.

Update, 1248: As I understand it, Liverpool's directors will try to get the UK courts to injunct Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett, to prevent them frustrating the sale to NESV via the Texas courts. Sources close to Mr Hicks are confident that Liverpool's lawyers will not succeed.

Also, bankers at RBS are beginning to wonder whether the money from Mill Financial will actually turn up. "It could have arrived any time in the past few months, so I see no reason why it should arrive today", said one.

I fear Liverpool will be stuck in limbo for some time yet.

Hicks hasn't sold to Mill, Peston's now nicking some of my language. Lunch for Ismael.

What on earth is the atmosphere on Sunday going to be like?

A bit nasty, like all Prem era derbies, I understand. (Dunno, haven't been to an EFC-LFC match since 1984).

Seriously, this is so set up for a Liverpool win.

If the NESV deal is ok'd and final, then essentially Mill have paid x amount for a holding company with no selling rights to LFC whatsoever?

Mill haven't paid anything I don't think. Hicks confirmed at lunchtime that he hasn't sold to Mill. Mill acquired title to Gillette's shares by default when he defaulted on their loan to him (i.e. same way that RBS will acquire all the shares tomorrow, developments pending). No ides how Mill acquired Wells Fargo's shares.

Really, the FA need to put forward a simple rule that offsetting the club's shares against debt or as colateral on a loan will mean expulsion fromt eh football league.

Would that work or is it absurdly simplistic?

Nah I was hinting at this last night. The Premier League is probably within its rights to set any conditions it likes on club ownership as a condition of League membership. Then people can buy what the fuck they like but it won't necessarily give them title to a Premier League club.

Not sure how they'd word the conditions on ownership tho. "Don't be a dick" wd cover it in principle.

Is correct xp, but would restrict ownership to:

- those who are wealthy enough to buy outright;
- those who are wealthy enough to have other assets to use as security; or
- those who already own the club.

Which might not yield the result you're looking for.

Don't think it could be used against those who already own either, just new acquirers - otherwise it could be interfering with current owners' property rights and thereby breaching their human rights.

Yeah I don't think this could be a brought in overnight thing, even if the will was there, which it almost certainly will not be even now unless the whole Liverpool situation becomes even more fucked up and drawn out than it already is. The clubs are in some way co-owners of the Prem aren't they?

Sorry if this has already been asked, but when are we going to get the Man Utd version of all this? Any bank deadlines coming up?

Well, certainly it couldn't be brought in retro-actively, but given that mostof the relevant pl club owners are gonna be fucked as soon as the next repayment comes up, that's surely not too long-term of an issue

xp, but relevant to chris's question i think.

they issued a huge amount of bonds lately, which financially speaking was A Good Thing iirc, better than loans and cheaper too?

Is correct xp, but would restrict ownership to:

- those who are wealthy enough to buy outright;
- those who are wealthy enough to have other assets to use as security; or
- those who already own the club.

Which might not yield the result you're looking for

Yes, the main sticking point in what you'd ideally want is here. But really, isn't the mortgaging of a club before you even own it the real problem here? Can you solve it without having an owner wealthy enough to own outright (or as you say backing it with personal assets not club assets)

I think it might be deeper or harder to pin down than the simple fact of the mortgaging to buy. Is it possible that a more competent businessman cd buy a club this way but then proceed to run the club successfully? The problem as I see it is that what you really need is something as intangible as "operating in the best interests of the club and the League", and that wd take more rigorous rule-setting.

Also have to still allow for clubs to be run as PLCs I'd've thought.

The problem as I see it is that what you really need is something as intangible as "operating in the best interests of the club and the League", and that wd take more rigorous rule-setting

Platini's financial rules seem to have a good balance here, iirc. Running on profits, good rules on turnover/expenditure and all of that.

Something about a set % cap of turnover to go on board/dividends/servicing of ownership capital might be the best area to look at here too, but i'm not that guy i'm afraid.

xps to NV and darragh:

The real issue as I see it (as I've hinted at a few times but never really worked through properly) is that the clubs are part-individual-actors and part-one-twentieth-of-a-community. But there's almost no attempt whatsoever that I can see to reconcile the two interests.

The communal part (i.e. the Premier League) has almost no interests of its own beyond protecting the communal interests of its individual members, yet takes almost no action to prevent those individual members from suicide. The fact is that the rising tide since the league's inception has masked every problem that's ever come up - lose Leeds, replace them with City; lose Chelsea, replace them immediately with another Chelsea. If there comes a day when you lose Liverpool and there's no new club to step in, the league loses a bit of attraction, revenues fall, extended clubs find they have problems with their huge debts after all.

Ideally you'd have a league enforcing its interests as a league by having salary caps and so on, so that everyone's communal interests were protected. It's getting away with it like LJ's drunken trapeze artist imo.

(again, one for the football finances thread probably)

Such a league would be open to criticisms of keeping the status quo artificially, penalising those members that can raise finance and use it wisely, all the usuals.

You have talked about this before Ismael and I think it's pretty insightful. For a long while now I've thought that football clubs shd be treated as in some way community assets and that the government shd step in to regulate the kinds of ways that they can be run and to offer them a measure of protection for the fans' sake. Clearly that isn't gonna happen any time soon, but the League behaving more like I understand the NFL and other American sports leagues behave - i.e. treating the League itself as more important than any individual member and protecting itself accordingly - has at least some possibility of happening. There are down-sides to that too, I realise.

They 'community involvement' isn't so much an unknown/unconsidered aspect as it is irrelevant while the current plc model is the norm. Now that the plc models are running into consistent trouble, it might hit agendas again.

presumably it's the relegation/promotion between leagues that prevents/discourages them from acting like the american sports leagues? afaik the usa leagues are fixed which is more likely to encourage communal behaviour.

Yeah part of the purpose of the US system is to keep the leagues competitive in the absence of relegation I think, but even discounting that, you could enforce notions of "bringing the League into disrepute" far more rigorously. Suspending teams wd be nightmarish administratively but maybe not much worse than the way we're heading now.

drama!

"Court proceedings interrupted: it seems H&G are currently in court in Dallas arguing Lfc board were in contempt of US court y'day!" tweets Dan Roan.

It seems easier, crazy finances aside, to buy and mismanage a big football club with hundreds of thousands of fans than it does to open a 10 bob nightclub at the moment.

Yeah but at the same time, restricting the competitiveness of the league system is fairly dickish. Removes consequences from the clubs not playing straight, restricts chances for other teams to get in there instead.

contempt probably not a strong enough word

Would agree with joe - there's simultaneous mutual dependence and at-all-costs-competition. Interestingly, Man Utd and Arsenal, for differing reasons, seem to have come to the conclusion that they can coast on the mutual dependence part. For clubs hovering near 17th place, that's the last thing they want to be relying on.

H&G seem to have abandoned the English proceedings in favour of keeping the Texas thing alive. Looks like desperate tactics in the hope that something'll turn up. It says that Lim has pulled out of whatever he had pulled into, so it may all be at its last gasp now (slight return).

a big football club with hundreds of thousands of fans

i'm as unhappy with the current system as anyone else, but I can't help thinking that the fans don't and maybe shouldn't enter into it. I have a thing about stakeholder theory though.

Elaborate? Isn't that what I was saying about clubs being community assets?

i dunno. today's going by quickly.

yeah also I am gonna go back to Baldur's Gate in a minute.

Anyway I don't want the league to become less competitive in football terms. I do want recognition that football clubs are culturally more than just run-of-the-mill businesses.

well yeah, definitely to both. but the former's the easy, simple and already legislated for method, so it's inevitable that it'll take this and other fuckups before the effort goes into making the change.

P Lim has withdrawn his offer if they've turned it down, but it's still on the table if they haven't.

Clear?

5.21pm: Judge rules that anti-suit injunction wanted by RBS and other parties (board) against owner's action in Texas is granted. "This case has nothing to do with Texas."

Right. Now what? The Texas injunction's still in place. Is there a hearing in Texas today to overturn it? Is the supporters' bus already on its way there?

a lawyer on the guardian's blog:

he application for a TRO (injunction) in a Texas City court is one last, desperate, throw of the dice for Gillett & Hicks reveals how bankrupt their legal position is...basic principles of international law are (1) that an injunction issued by a Texas Court has no effect on actions in this (the UK) country; and, (2) that the court first dealing with the case should be the only court dealing with the matter to the end. Therefore, the Texas court will have to relinquish control to the High Court in London...if Hicks and Gilett really wanted to stop this transaction they needed an injunction from the High Court in London and another against New England Sports Ventures in Boston where that company is located.

I confidently predict that RBS and the Directors will be able to shrug off this irksome litigation which seems calculated to delay the takeover which will ultimately be consumated.

I vaguely understand the Texas injuction but don't they undermine their argument w/delay? On this kind of form and w/a nine point deduction LFC's value (especially if relegated) goes down significantly.

x-post now FUCK OFF HICKS AND GILLETT...

sorry just i can't take this anymore, we just need to get back to losing games on the pitch.

How the hell does the Texas court feel that they have jurisdiction?

LFC has now won more court cases than football matches this season

MW- i don't think the Texas court necessarily does feel that it has jurisdiction- it may well be incumbent on them to accede to any injunction until they can investigate that, however.

didn't gillett fuck off months ago?

also this thread has become a clusterfuck - anyone want to do a simple update of where we are atm?

hot off the press -

Liverpool's owners have suffered another setback after the High Court granted an injunction against their own injunction to block the club's sale.

Oh right Ismael just posted that. For some reason I was reading this as the high court issuing an injunction to stop an injunction by the board against H&G's injunction. Time to go home I think.

The Texas court does feel that it has jurisdiction, on basis that the parties (which I presume means G&H and RBS, and possibly NEVS) have sufficient operations there to bring them under something called 'personal jurisdiction'. Even if this is accurate, and bear in mind that the Texas court has had only G&H's say-so on this point, it's still a mighty strange way to claim jurisdiction. There's also the point that by all decent rules Texas should back down, England having been seized of the matter first.

As for what now, either:

1 ignore the Texas injunction and go ahead. Leaves everyone liable to contempt of court in Texas, but i'd've thought today's ruling was a pretty good excuse on that score - though if you've got a pile of assets in Texas, you may instead want to

2 take this ruling to the Texas court and persuade it to stand down, then do the sale. I'd presumed they'd be doing this today, but I haven't seen any indication that this is happening

For some reason I was reading this as the high court issuing an injunction to stop an injunction by the board against H&G's injunction. Time to go home I think.

this is actually more-or-less correct!

"Hicks and Gillett need to withdraw the claim by 3pm UK time tomorrow for the NESV deal to go through tomorrow, NESV's lawyer said" tweets Tariq Panja of Bloomberg.

and the court ordered deadline is 4pm. we should have a sweepstake on the minute between 3 and 4pm that hicks withdraws his claim.

so is this now basically "you're in contempt of court", "no, YOU are"

So the dust having, sort of, settled, it seems unlikely that Texas will back h&g now. I mean, with the British court having ruled as it has surely we'd then be into weird international law incident...

More likely, i'd've thought, would be Hicks using the two days' delay to magic up the £200m from somwhere. I don't expect it, but if there's drama today I think that'll be it. (slightly concerned at the Texas judge not throwing it out last night, there doesn't seem much to think about)

Talk of mill financial buying his stake. Do RBS have any choice if this happens? NESV claim they have a binding agreement, I'm guessing we'd then be into more court cases?

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2010/10/15/2166623/liverpool-veteran-jamie-carragher-inks-new-two-year-contract

Seems an odd time to be dishing out new contracts but well played Jamie C.

There was talk of that yesterday. RBS are supposed to have said they'd take a back seat, so long as Mill paid the debt. Mill would then own the club.

442 PL appearances - might make the 500 club if he stay fit for those two seasons (Giggs, James, Speed, any more?).

Sol?

Can't think of any - Sol might limp over the line though.

Xpost, that was.

Emile's just joined the club - 503. Lampard's about thirty short and will go on forever.

Sorry no, it's only 473 for Emile - one of Leicester's seasons was in the second division.

this whole thing is stupid confusing, it doesn't help that H&G are playing silly buggers par excellence. are mill only buying hicks' stake? are they then looking to sell onto lim/NESV? how can they buy his stake when an agreement for sale of the club has already been put in place? what was that agreement then selling? LFC as a going concern rather than the share holdings in kop holdings? guh

sorry, it's been really easy to lose track of the simple stuff/bigger picture in this whole ordeal because of all the silly wriggling over ~details~

all the mugging on the internet (lamenfreude) about LFC's misfortunes has been a bit unseemly

I don't think there is a bigger picture as such tbh, it's like trying to see the plan in a box of elastic bands.

Also, we just don't know a lot of the details - like what's been agreed with NEVS, what order things'll happen in as we approach the deadline, how the various documents link together and what's in them, etc etc etc etc. Even who owns the club right now - my understanding had been that Hicks & Mill now own it between them and that Gillett's out the picture entirely, but even the Texas court documents say otherwise.

Even who owns the club right now - my understanding had been that Hicks & Mill now own it between them and that Gillett's out the picture entirely, but even the Texas court documents say otherwise.

That's why I posted the Carra story. Assuming he's still on ~£80k a week, whose money has someone at LFC just committed to spending £8m of?

If the debt isn't paid there's reportedly a serious risk of administration & insolvency procedures and 9 point penalty & possible relegation, etc. - so how on Earth do they manage to award an £8m contract the day before the bills are due to be paid?

Because Liverpool FC is still making an operating profit and that's part of the ongoing workings of LFC, rather than Kop Holdings.

Not saying it's sensible, but that's the rationale I think.

Quality shenanigans this holding company thing - Liverpool doesn't make enough money to service its huge debt but on paper it's a profitable company. If Liverpool is profitable enough to pay such a deal why are G&H in so much shite? Isn't the idea of a takeover that you put something in (either from your own pocket of a bank's) and start earning handsomely from the profits?

If I'm Mr RBS (which I am, actually, well a very small part of it) I'd be thinking "fuck yer 33 year old defender who's already overpaid, give me the £8m and I'll take it off the hundreds of millions you already owe me!"

Re. Carra - not over the moon, time to start phasing him out.

Isn't the idea of a takeover that you put something in (either from your own pocket of a bank's) and start earning handsomely from the profits?

No. Hicks does classic "Wall Street" takeovers where he borrows a huge amount of money to pay for a company, then sells off everything that's not nailed down to service the debt, then waits for the value of the company to rise, then sells at a profit. This worked fine in the 90s but not now. And frankly I think it's doubtful this strategy would have ever worked for a sports franchise because you have to actively grow viewership and create long-term revenue streams and create a good farm system, all of which require investment rather than selling bits off.

Yeah you'd think quietly letting his already generous contract run down would be the way to go, or take an option on a year by year extension if he's still earning his place come May - though I suppose they'd expect a few mid table clubs to take a punt on a pre-contract in January if they didn't do a deal beforehand. Hodgson clearly wanted him to get an extension so I suppose the club has to support him.

Have the likely new owners given their backing to Hodgson yet?

xpost

I can't fucking stand Carragher or Gerrard tbh.

I get the feeling H&G actually originally wanted to invest in a successful football team - they spent a fair bit of money early on - £50-100m on players plus committing a huge sum on contracts for Gerrard & Carragher amongst others. I don't think that looked like asset stripping, or even preparing for asset stripping given the ages of the players. Maybe the realisation that there's simply not enough money in football to get a return on that investment is what prompted the refinancing and desperate attempts to get out without losing anything.

Anyone know what they've been paying themselves in dividends since they took over?

(from the Guardian blog)

If Hicks and Gillett manage to raise the money to pay RBS off, the restrictions on the removal of directors agreed as part of the RBS loan will lapse. That would mean that Hicks and Gillett would be free to fire the other three board members

If this is true things could rumble along forever :(

Also Mills Financial approached the Premier League to undertake a fit and proper thieving cynical bastard test yesterday, but the league refused as they're taking instruction from the LFC board.
(sorry if this has already been covered)

so...is mill basically a way for hicks and gillett to pay off the loans, assume control, and revert back to demanding ridiculous sums for the club?

When's the deadline, incidentally?

which one? rbs deadline is 16.30

so...is mill basically a way for hicks and gillett to pay off the loans, assume control, and revert back to demanding ridiculous sums for the club?

Looks that way - though maybe Mills is someone else prepared to stump up for the RBS debt for a share of the eventual £850m sale they anticipate (something around that figure was used in court - came from Forbes magazine maybe?).

Didn't they already reject a £500m bid a while back?

Mill Financial is a hedge fund and is an arm of Springfield Financial Companies so it looks like more of the same for Liverpool if they succeed.

... a share of the eventual £850m sale they anticipate (something around that figure was used in court - came from Forbes magazine maybe?).

I think it's important to remember that the Forbes valuations are utter bollocks

so basically if mill succeeds, the club is utterly fucked, prob even worse debt repayments.

Also, it's worth noting that the only people who can repay the debt (more than £200m) to RBS are owners Tom Hicks and Gillett. Not a third party. It's like someone else paying off your mortgage for you.

So - in other words - for Hicks to get the money from Mill Financial - which is attempting to do - there needs to be a transfer of shares.

And the feeling from New England Sports Ventures (NESV), the Liverpool board and RBS is that any transfer of shares needs a vote of the UK board - as the asset here is ultimately controlled by the board which Martin Broughton chairs.

That board has already voted 3-2 in favour of a sale to NESV (owners of the Boston Red Sox). That would make a sale of Hicks' shares to Mill Financial highly unlikely.

so... what arent i getting about the current drama? is the third party/transfer of shares thing more open to interpretation than this bbc man is making out?

I think it's important to remember that the Forbes valuations are utter bollocks

Yeah I know - put that in there to show how ridic G&H are being with their expectations.

I know nothing of company law or buying shares or anything but I can't see how anyone should be able to stop me selling my shares in something - can the LFC board stop Hicks from selling his chunk of Kop Holdings and paying off the RBS debt? Do RBS give a shit as long as they get paid?

whole new pile of shit if this is true:

1.02pm: David Conn has some more on Mill Financial:

Mill Financial are an arm of the Springfield Financial Companies. That has been confirmed. In recent weeks, there have been reports that they lent George Gillett £75m to meet his further loan commitments at Liverpool, and that he defaulted on that loan, so they have in effect repossessed his shares. That has not been confirmed by Mill, who so far do not return calls. Gillett has not returned a call for some weeks now.

So H&G have removed the restraining order but they're still going after the $1.6bn in damages?

My guess is G&H lose but sue for damages as they believe the board is costing them money by rejecting more lucrative offers.

looks like this has come true, going by Hicks' latest statement. Sale will go ahead but they'll pursue £1bn in damages for losses from the "illegal" sale of Liverpool.

Wd've thought they'd lost their case that the sale is "illegal" by allowing it to go thru?

Is it too soon for maracas.jpg?

Or "Never in doubt"?

never indict

never in debt

8:30pm Never In Doubt
Courtroom procedural returns for its third series. This week, a market trader faces a lengthy sentence after selling bath toys which blinded a child. But not is all as it seems. Martin Shaw, Edward Tudor-Pole and Susan Stranks star.

looking forward to the spin-off series Going to Walk This and In Off Gerrard's Arse

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/images/2008/04/26/stonecutter.jpg

"Remove the stone of shame!"

"Attach.....the stone of triumph."

re: 500 club - friedel?

hmmm, about 75 short, my bad.

Good luck Everton!

Deal done, apparently. Jimmy Corkhill, Joe Royle, Ian McCulloch - tik a bow lads, tik a bow

Jim Royle even lol

http://www.deamicis.com/thumbnails/andtheylived1.jpg

Good work everyone. See you for The People vs Glazer, June 2011.

i've bene watching movies again. hows it stand? all good? hicks suig but i mean who cares at this stage?

lol @ this

Q: How are you funding this deal, Mr Henry?
Henry: With pounds.

Really pleased at the outcome. Can't help feeling Liverpool have got away with it a bit - imagine it was two years ago when the economic world was just turning to shit, Hicks probably could've still got the funding together then and bought himself a few more years to dig a proper deep hole. Liverpool ought to be one of the more viable football businesses around and I really just want to see them run properly.

Could all go horribly wrong of course, but the guy's clearly done a job at the Red Sox and I'd be pleased with a few years of stability and incremental improvements groundwise, staffwise, and so on. No need to try to be spectacular or all heroic about it I say - there's a good club there, grow it back into a great one little by little.

Quite. It could still turn out badly: the new owner could be much like the old owner, or the old owner's lawyers could somehow win crazy damages from LFC, but at least in the short term a couple of nasty fuckers have lost a lot of money and the doom-like scenario* that seemed on the cards at one stage has been averted.

*This one outlined by David Conn earlier on: Mill Financial are an arm of the Springfield Financial Companies. That has been confirmed. In recent weeks, there have been reports that they lent George Gillett £75m to meet his further loan commitments at Liverpool, and that he defaulted on that loan, so they have in effect repossessed his shares. That has not been confirmed by Mill, who so far do not return calls. Gillett has not returned a call for some weeks now.

If those reports are true, that means if Liverpool is sold to NESV for the agreed £300m, to repay all Liverpool's debts owed to the banks (except for £30m to finance stadium development), it is Mill Financial which will lose that £75m, along with Hicks losing around £70m.

That means a US hedge fund, based, like Hicks, in southern USA - Springfield, Virginia - have a £75m loss to protect. That helps to explain why they should now be apparently working desperately with Hicks to avoid a sale to NESV. If they lend Hicks the £200m to repay RBS, the scenario being discussed at the moment by the participants, and Hicks does so, he could stay in control of Liverpool, because RBS is repaid and their hold over the board via the undertakings falls away. Hicks would owe Mill £200m, at whatever rate of interest he has had to agree to. The "payment in kind" loans from the US hedge funds at Manchester United currently charge 16.25% interest, a year, so that would be £32.5m a year interest, and there would likely be very large costs to add to it - financial institutions like to charge for the right to lend their money.

There seems little doubt that Hicks would make Liverpool itself, out of its income - fans' money, TV, commercial revenues - pay that interest and harges and service the debt, as he and Gillett did with the RBS loans. That is a major financial reason why Liverpool fans will be desperate the Mill/Hicks eleventh hour bid does not succeed.

A club statement revealed: "The transaction values the club at £300m and eliminates all of the acquisition debt placed on LFC by its previous owners, reducing the club's debt servicing obligations from £25m-£30m a year to £2m-£3m."

I'm going to play stupid here, but I thought the whole point of of the NESV deal was that it would take the club completely out of debt? So how is interest (or debt servicing) paid on a sum that doesn't exist?

It says 'eliminates all acquisition debt'. £2-3m interest equates to maybe £40-50m 'operating' debt, which seems a reasonable amount to be carrying, secured against the stadium probably.

Liverpool ought to be one of the more viable football businesses around and I really just want to see them run properly.

Surprisingly find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the first part of this re: liverpool and the second part pretty much represents my feelings towards all football clubs. No single side has a divine right to on-field success or a top four finish of course, but it´s actually pretty gross to witness an institution to which so many are genuinely devoted (be it Portsmouth, Liverpool, Man United or a whole host of lower league clubs) being systematically and violently abused like that.

wahey, liverpool is saved. and just in time for proper football to return. :)

this is my first season following the prem league and man what a drama. this little intl break feels like the curtain's about to go up. the first few games were the overture, and now the first act is really beginning. get your wig on straight.

SSN now people.

'absolutely sensational' interview with hicks about to be broadcast.

very impressed with j henry facing the press. didn't look like a man with anything to hide.

They've taken SSN off peasant telly, toffo - liveblog please

fair enough, i can do that but i'm typing sideways so dont expect secretary#1 brilliance in coherency.

apparently h's just gone off on one, i'm anticipating all manner of actionable comments. surprised broughton hasn't sued him already tbph, swindlers etc etc

swindled epic swindle swindle epic swindle etc etc etc "There are better owners than NESV who wanted to own LFC." Talking about better owners!!!! The sheer front of it.

Now talking about himself in the third person and the debt hasn't been hurting the club apparently.

No Tom it is puzzling that the fans would be worried by threats of administration isn't it.

"Organised conspiracy between Broughton a Chelsea fan who wanted good press and RBS"

Oh and the conspiracy went on for months. RBS scared off the really rich prospective buyers as did the "internet terrorists"

he's disappointed and shocked and it's hurt his family. it's an epic swindle.

eh pandemic has this covered. i paused it to make tea

Also spent £300 million on players as well

he's right about rafa though

meh it's just what he said in his application for the first injunction tbh

Rafa never took accountability for his own results, says Tom "it's everyone else's fault" Hicks.

could argue it sounds pretty restrained for a guy who's just lost £140m

yeah, tbh it was hardly shocking stuff given that this gobshite is suing for $1bn

Kenny Huang trending on twitter - stories he was behind the Mill Financial bid.

Did Maxi stick his finger up Kyrgiakos' bum in Liverpool goal celebrations?

is it just me or is that not at all conclusive enough? as funny and all as it would be

Mirror Sport understands the pair will tell the club in December they wish to leave, with Manchester City keen on £50 million Torres and Manchester United and Arsenal pursuing £20m Reina.

That doesn't sound like Arsenal at all.

How did this get missed?

Liverpool co-owner Tom Werner is keen on exploring the concept of playing a competitive Premier League game abroad.

A similar idea was discussed before, for a '39th game' abroad, but stalled after meeting opposition from clubs, fans and world governing body Fifa.

The Premier League has confirmed that there is no current plan to look at reviving the proposal.

But Werner, who will succeed Martin Broughton as the Merseyside club's chairman, is a fan of the idea.

"Pre-season matches are great but why not have an actual match in season?" Werner told BBC Sport.

Nah, I flagged it in the Prem thread at the time iirc

Yeah, I mentioned it too I think.

Much more interesting is how little is being made of Henry's statements about investing in the youth team and using Arsenal as the model for success, which came in the wake of what appeared to be a clear statement from him that there wasn't any money in the January window. So, 5-6 years in the wilderness waiting on youngsters?

While I'm fine with that as a policy, Liverpool's youngsters have generally looked quite unimpressive in recent years. Though Ngog seems to be coming good, and one of the others (Kelly?) has been pretty good when I've seen him this season.

Bought-in wonderkid Danny Wilson scored against the mighty Faroes last night. Does his Scotland international cap status mean more money has to get handed over to Rangers for him, because tbh anyone who had ever drank a can of Irn Bru once and who could stand up unaided was getting capped last night.

Players bought for the reserves/youth team under Benitez:

Antonio Barragan, Godwin Antwi, Bezian Idrizaj, Jack Hobbs, Miki Roque, Paul Anderson, Ryan Crowther, David Martin, Martin Hansen, Astrit Ajdarevic, Alex Cooper, Jordy Brouwer, Fransisco Duran, Ronald Huth, Andras Simon, Dean Bouzanis, Krisztian Nemeth, Ryan Babel, Daniel Pacheco, Sebastian Leto, Gary Stevens, Mikel San Jose, Daniel Sanchez Ayala, Garard Bruna, David Amoo, Damien Plessis, Emiliano Insua, Charles Itandje, Lauri Darra Valle, Vincent Weijl, Vitor Flora, Diego Cavalieri, Nikola Saric, Emmanuel Mendy, David N'Gog, Peter Gulacsi, Zsolt Poloskei, Christopher Buchtmann, Victor Plasson, Chris Mavinga and (arguably) Danny Wilson.

How's that investment in youth paid off so far?

unaided after the irn bru or just generally

ummm our long term youth investment policy only was about 25% relying on buying kids from elsewhere.

But that said I don't know why any promising 17 year old would go to Liverpool. Chelsea and City will pay more, Utd and Arsenal more likely to play them, Spurs a leg up on the list of the next England manager...

/sam

they can get a game at liverpool.

can they? pacheco never got a chance as torres faltered. fans are screaming for kelly to stay when johnson is fit but it looks unlikely. could you see them ever selling or dropping gerrard if they had an albrighton?

There are thousands of promising 17-year-olds and even at that age you usually don't know which ones are actually going to make it. They can't all go to Chelsea/Arsenal/Utd. That said, the %age of those making it at Anfield does seem awfully low - what, four plus Babel out of forty so far? But without numbers for other clubs (plus local prospects) that doesn't mean much.

Would like to know which clubs are over-producing.

lmbo charles will be the only decent monarch in my lifetime, unless harry some how comes in and turns it into party isles.

ha, rong thread obv.

could argue west ham are over-producing? maybe? could have been said about city too - their yuts now are as good as the last lot but rip those guys

also who are the 4+ ismael?

carragher, owen, gerrard, fowler

carlolgher, lolwen, gerrlol, fowlol

is robbie still snorting aussie pitches?

perth iirc

xp Insua, Ayala, Ngog and one other who caught my eye - can't remember who, possibly I'm thinking of the wrong Jack Hobbs.

Heh, and the wrong Ayala. Not to mention Gary Stevens.

jack hobbs was sold to sven's current lot iirc

dont think it's fair to knock liverpool youth just because rafa couldnt have cared less. Warnock, murphy, gerrard, carragher, owen, and prob others idnrc playing at high level, prob compares favourably with most clubs in terms of youth players at pl clubs

Rafa's not caring less is kind of the point though? Once you take out the Rooneys, all clubs *should* be able to do about as well in producing talent - it's about hard work and personal development more than anything else i'd've thought.

xp I thought Jack Hobbs was the guy who'd played for England at both cricket & football - seems I was wrong. He was pretty useful anyway.

5 players in 15 years of reasonable quality is a terrible record for all normal clubs (i.e. chelsea didn't have to bother.)

eh, they're all from about 12 years ago. Point being pool will produce youth again imo, rafa the exception not rule.

Mentioning rooney- everton have a good youth record. Playing them rather than buying in helps.

everton produce 1 sweet prospect a year, right? they'd never have the balls to say so but everton = the model they should be copying, not arsenal (which is kinda a lol idea, considering people see arsenal and think 'not winning things'; shouldn't they say bayern?)

Man Utd have always been the model I suppose - basically a homebred team elevated by choice superstars (was tempted to say Real Madrid there, but really...)

not really any more tho. Maybe not really under ferguson, one absolute phenomenal youth team aside they've really only had one or two first team players and a handful of squaddies since 1995 lolkids

Everton, west ham, boro, villa prob internally recruited more regular players than utd since glazers took over.

Man UtdBayern or Barca have always been the model I suppose - basically a homebred team elevated by choice superstars (was tempted to say Real Madrid there, but really...)

― Ismael Klata, Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:03 PM (8 minutes ago)

don't know why but i'm going to (predictably) defend rafa here... the "not caring less" thing is nonsense. forced to gamble on bringing in kids because the club's scouting policy was archaic and scouts were working for beer money.

he was there what, seven years?

Archaic and based on beverage or otherwise, upon my hole did the club not produce a player or two in that time. Rafa not a nurturer.

Man Utd have always been the model I suppose - basically a homebred team elevated by choice superstars (was tempted to say Real Madrid there, but really...)
-----
not really any more tho. Maybe not really under ferguson, one absolute phenomenal youth team aside they've really only had one or two first team players and a handful of squaddies since 1995 lolkids

It's definitely tailed off since the Class of 92 superteam. I mean, even allowing for the fact that you're never going to replicate that level of talent in just one youth team, there have been still been fewer real first teamers breaking through (I can only think of three since that era: O'Shea, Brown and arguably Evans). It's not that the rest are rubbish, they're just not quite good enough - a lot of them end up as first team players at Sunderland/Wolves/Birmingham-type clubs.

I don't think you can say "not really under Ferguson", though. You can't just ignore the "one absolute phenomenal youth team" - that was the product of a deliberate revamping of the youth set up. And before that there were the original Fergie's Fledglings that broke through in 88/89 (Beardsmore, Martin, etc.)

1st part- absolutely- sunderland alone do well out of utd not-quite players (keane/bruce prob help here).

2nd part, maybe. the 1990-95 fledglings, yep, a phenomenon. maybe, to be fair, I should be taking into account that in order to become utd 1st team since 1995 you had to be a european-cup level player, a league winner. everton, villa, west ham can produce good premier-league level players at a rate of one a year and get more credit for their youth system.

RAWK poster likens the hodgocaust to the hillsborough disaster o_O
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=268845.0

(anyone have a link to that ace pic of hodgson in the 90s that looks like it's from the 50s?)

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/gallery/prem-managers-young/pa-photos_t_premier-league-managers-young-gallery-pies-1412g.jpg

some kid

pretty stylish. proof tho that nobody who reads milan kundera can succeed at the top level.

I do like that it's called RAWK

http://i.imgur.com/kn6Ra.jpg

mind boggled at "ALL RED Adult Membership" for a second there

Has it ever been explained why John Toshack never became Liverpool manager?

Dalglish is currently talking about Liverpool players in manner of a charity worker discussing a group of disabled children - "put a wee smile back on their faces". It's not a patch on the dark night of the soul shit coming from Big Sam right now.

I'm not a fruit or anything, but Franck from 'Father of the Bride' is just fabulous. What a riot that man is. about 6 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

@kennethdalglish is painfully unfunny.

You have all got dog on your penis.

David Stubbs is painfully unfunny.

Didn't even realise that's who wrote it.

was it stubbs who did a similar (and much better iirc) one of those a few years ago? can't find it but remember some line about stevie tenderly giving back to the community by hoofing 50 yard balls into the stands.

rafa's future is at "good club" in the premier league
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9370442.stm

please be Blackburn

ok so is it me or is dalglish actually doing a terrific job so far?

Yeah, he's certainly making me feel stupid sticking up for Roy for so long.

I'm going tomorrow, really pretty excited about it.

i think the rubbish performances have been glossed over somewhat, but things are looking up.

He's done well. And a new team is emerging, Meireles really is the thing to be happy about IMO, he is loving it now, you can see that in every game. Actually reckon finding a tough DMC would mean Gerrard not first choice on current form. Or put him on the wing..

It'll be interesting to see how he handles Carragher over the summer and going into next season.

gerrard on wing or as right wing back with johnson on left. Could accommodate carragher a little easier that way too.

Gerrard was surprisingly disciplined yesterday playing alongside Lucas. Phase Carragher out and try Kelly at CB alongside Agger/Skrtel. Kelly's done well at RB but he lacks subtlety going forward, although I suppose he does have a decent cross in him once he finds his range. Johnson's improved the defensive side of his game immensely, playing LB has maybe forced him to concentrate more? He was one of the few positives from the West Ham game, so classy on the ball.

johnson at lb has been a revelation alright.

he is loving it now, you can see that in every game

I love it when this happens. He looks good and he looks like he's having fun and he's making a discernable impact.

http://on.wsj.com/fi85bq

whats a lebron jamed

james*

Still hope The Heat crash and burn in the playoffs despite my LFC allegiance.

Just noticed your Katy B inspired username!

:) Although if things continue as they are his next mission will be to play right back.

that's where he always belonged

well played!

srsly tho! whenever rafa played fast, fairly skilful and positionally dodgy glen johnson at rb and lumbering carthorse kuyt at rw, i always used to think something was amiss

The attacking prowess of full backs is always over rated because they are judged on a more forgiving basis. Case in point Dani Alves/Sergio Ramos lauded as great attacking full backs(true) poor-to-terrible defensively. But all in all a definite big plus to their teams. Move them forward and judge them as wide midfielders and they'd be classed as inadequate imo. Of course I used to say the same thing about Bale so shows what I know.

liverpool signs two young americans this weekend, pelosi and bijev. bijev's already been loaned to genk for the season. there's also a third young american on trial right now.

another smart move. these kids are 17-18 so it'll take some time but i'm sure Henry & co see the dollar signs, supposing one of them moves up. some team in the next 10 years is going to sell a lot of jerseys when an american finally breaks through into that superstar category.

ok but they actually have to be superstars. /dong fangzhuo

they do though don't they though

He seems to just make really mediocre films and TV dramas, tbh. But somehow he is married to Clare Forlani.

he must rub this in her face all the time

― sock lobster (blueski)

lolled all over again

i trust henry and co 10,000 billion plus 110 per cent. it's really a positive vibe, perhaps boosted by post previous american cunt/cunt ownership duo but overall it's been so solid.

yeah, tbh if overpaying for good players is as bad as it gets, you'll have to learn to live with it

exactly, at least they're buying stuff and it's all v focussed on the pitch these days, media messages totally coherent. long way back but henry seems a gent imo.

shit's gonna be so fucking boring

no wait, arsenal are gone to fuck, happy days

rip anfield, heaven needed a kop

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1131178/liverpool-owner-john-w-henry-may-sell-anfield-naming-rights?cc=5739

(yes i understand that the quote means nothing. also lol at a guy who spends 100m on carroll, downing etc complaining that teams arent playing fair when it comes to the money they spend)

Thanks for the update.