the jambo-rocker Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9064599.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawfield Stallion Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I'm still not entirely sure what Hicks and Gillett are doing? Are they hoping to hold onto the club long-term assuming it will somehow reach a point where the assets match their valuation despite a prolonged period of selling players and dropping down the league? Or are they just being belligerent for shits and giggles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Ahoj! More on the same: http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/10/06/SOCCER_Liverpool.html I don't understand one thing - how can the BoD force the owners to sell? The owners are the ... well, owners ... Borys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 I think that Gillett and Hicks were trying to get more control from the board of directors so that they could squeeze them more money out of the deal. I mean they originally wanted £800 million, only to lower it to £600 million. Hopefully they are kept out of it and are left with the loss they deserve for turning the club into a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Ahoj! I still don't get it. If they are 100% owners, can't they fire the Board at their whim? And I don't understand the situation - the directors go to the two greedy b*****ds and say - "we, your employees, are telling you that you must sell assets - which are legally yours - for the sum we negotiated." What am I missing? Borys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 Ahoj! I still don't get it. If they are 100% owners, can't they fire the Board at their whim? And I don't understand the situation - the directors go to the two greedy b*****ds and say - "we, your employees, are telling you that you must sell assets - which are legally yours - for the sum we negotiated." What am I missing? Borys I would have thought the same tbh. Maybe there is some legal proceedings that can help allow the sale if the owners are not seen sufficiently stable enough to own the club? It could all come down to RBS forcing their hand, and it might be them that could be seen to be allowed to take temporary charge to push the sale through to collect the money which is rightfully theirs, regardless of hicks and gillett's say in the matter. From what the article is saying however, the chairman and board of directors are consulting lawyers in an attempt to fight off, or even delay(at least until the 15th i'd imagine) from being replaced. I think it would at least be able to delay the decision long enough to force through the sale before they can officially be fired by the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Ahoj! I still don't get it. If they are 100% owners, can't they fire the Board at their whim? And I don't understand the situation - the directors go to the two greedy b*****ds and say - "we, your employees, are telling you that you must sell assets - which are legally yours - for the sum we negotiated." What am I missing? Borys RBS are really running things at the club. While H & G are still owners, they cannot afford to pay back their debts to the bank, in fact I believe Gillett is now bankrupt totally. It was them that appointed Christian Purslow as chairman in order to make a sale go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Ahoj! Re RBS - so why not wait until the 15th - reposess the club - and then sell to the new Yank? Simpler, a direct deal, and with no tantrums ... Borys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacman Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Ahoj! Re RBS - so why not wait until the 15th - reposess the club - and then sell to the new Yank? Simpler, a direct deal, and with no tantrums ... Borys That's pretty much what will happen if this sale doesn't go through. Probably what the board are telling H & G- sell now for £300 million or let the bank take control and sell for whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Ahoj! Re RBS - so why not wait until the 15th - reposess the club - and then sell to the new Yank? Simpler, a direct deal, and with no tantrums ... Borys Because the RBS arent in control, yet, the board are From the chairman on Sky sports "Part of the terms of me taking on the role was that they gave a written undertaking that only I could change the board and they would not interfere and frustrate any reasonable sale. In other words, Hicks and Gillete brought him in to sell the club for them and gave him authority to accept reasonable bids ... or at least thats what he's claiming. I presume, the legal challenge from the owners will be that this is not a "reasonable" sale full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Ahoj! Thank you, X. This clears much of my confusion. Borys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 RBS are really running things at the club. While H & G are still owners, they cannot afford to pay back their debts to the bank, in fact I believe Gillett is now bankrupt totally. It was them that appointed Christian Purslow as chairman in order to make a sale go through. It was Martin Broughton that the bank appointed as chairman you fucking idiot! Ahoj! Re RBS - so why not wait until the 15th - reposess the club - and then sell to the new Yank? Simpler, a direct deal, and with no tantrums ... Borys Who is to say the buyer would wait? The club has been for (unwillingly on the owners part) sale for months. The fact that G & H tried to sack two of the board last night to block this deal shows that they didn't want to sell and were looking for re-financing from another bank to get RBS out of the picture. The other board members couldn't let this happen for the future of the club and have outvoted them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 YANKS OUT YANKS IN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Aye, well, it'll mean that mean that everyone will get to use the same banners in a year or so probably. Think of the money that will save the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLee Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Why dont the fans just steal the club from the Americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_BCFC Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I'm fucking sick of hearing about Liverpool's problems. They are dog shit. LETS GO RED SOX, LETS GO RED SOX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyde til we die Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Aye, well, it'll mean that mean that everyone will get to use the same banners in a year or so probably. Think of the money that will save the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DylanSaints2203 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Thank god that Hicks and Gillett should finally be going yes we are getting another American but lets hope he can turn it around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Great quote on the C4 News from the Boston Globe's financial guy. When asked about the new owner's approach to running Liverpool, he said "It's not all about putting fannies on seats at Anfield" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danib24 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Almost getting as bad as Dundee with these owners they are getting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.