Barclays Capital etc
- Thread starter TheBunnyman
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
the 200,000 has put a big fuck off smile on my face
Poor the spider
[quote author=Hansern link=topic=39787.msg1087518#msg1087518 date=1271190360]
Did you think they played their home games at the old Maracana stadium?
[/quote]
The Circus Maximus.
Did you think they played their home games at the old Maracana stadium?
[/quote]
The Circus Maximus.
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comedy gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087530#msg1087530 date=1271192273]
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comey gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[/quote]
Meow, this spider has 535,322 claws
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comey gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[/quote]
Meow, this spider has 535,322 claws
[quote author=Fabio Alrighty-o link=topic=39787.msg1087532#msg1087532 date=1271192365]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087530#msg1087530 date=1271192273]
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comey gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[/quote]
Meow, this spider has 535,322 claws
[/quote]
LOL
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087530#msg1087530 date=1271192273]
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comey gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[/quote]
Meow, this spider has 535,322 claws
[/quote]
LOL
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087530#msg1087530 date=1271192273]
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comedy gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[/quote]
Aw come on spidey. The biggest stadium in the world only holds 150,000. And that's 150,000 docile and well controlled North Koreans who are waving multi coloured cards about and dancing with ribbons. I've been the Nou Camp. It's that big you can't even see the pitch hardly from the top tiers. Imagine what it'd be like in a 200k seater. You'd need a telescope to see the halfway line.
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comedy gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[/quote]
Aw come on spidey. The biggest stadium in the world only holds 150,000. And that's 150,000 docile and well controlled North Koreans who are waving multi coloured cards about and dancing with ribbons. I've been the Nou Camp. It's that big you can't even see the pitch hardly from the top tiers. Imagine what it'd be like in a 200k seater. You'd need a telescope to see the halfway line.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39787.msg1087551#msg1087551 date=1271193310]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087530#msg1087530 date=1271192273]
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comedy gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[/quote]
Aw come on spidey. The biggest stadium in the world only holds 150,000. And that's 150,000 docile and well controlled North Koreans who are waving multi coloured cards about and dancing with ribbons. I've been the Nou Camp. It's that big you can't even see the pitch hardly from the top tiers. Imagine what it'd be like in a 200k seater. You'd need a telescope to see the halfway line.
[/quote]
it's all good fun, I was badly wrong and hold my hands up, all 100,000 of them 🙂
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087530#msg1087530 date=1271192273]
doesn't take much to make you guys laugh these days. 200,000 instead of 100,000. ha ha ha ha ha! hilarious! fucking side spliting! pure comedy gold. I wish it were someone else that had said that, I could use a laugh.
[/quote]
Aw come on spidey. The biggest stadium in the world only holds 150,000. And that's 150,000 docile and well controlled North Koreans who are waving multi coloured cards about and dancing with ribbons. I've been the Nou Camp. It's that big you can't even see the pitch hardly from the top tiers. Imagine what it'd be like in a 200k seater. You'd need a telescope to see the halfway line.
[/quote]
it's all good fun, I was badly wrong and hold my hands up, all 100,000 of them 🙂
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39787.msg1087555#msg1087555 date=1271193814]
H-actually what you should have said is that you were correct as you said 200,000 fans a week. That's one league game and one cup game. So ner to everyone.
[/quote]
still, game reciepts from a 100,000 fans. no wonder barca can pay the wages they do.
H-actually what you should have said is that you were correct as you said 200,000 fans a week. That's one league game and one cup game. So ner to everyone.
[/quote]
still, game reciepts from a 100,000 fans. no wonder barca can pay the wages they do.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087557#msg1087557 date=1271194024]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39787.msg1087555#msg1087555 date=1271193814]
H-actually what you should have said is that you were correct as you said 200,000 fans a week. That's one league game and one cup game. So ner to everyone.
[/quote]
still, game reciepts from a 100,000 fans. no wonder barca can pay the wages they do.
[/quote]
Tickets arent cheap either. Well decent ones anyway. Unless you want to sit up in the clouds trying to watch the match looking like a Japanese fighter pilot.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39787.msg1087555#msg1087555 date=1271193814]
H-actually what you should have said is that you were correct as you said 200,000 fans a week. That's one league game and one cup game. So ner to everyone.
[/quote]
still, game reciepts from a 100,000 fans. no wonder barca can pay the wages they do.
[/quote]
Tickets arent cheap either. Well decent ones anyway. Unless you want to sit up in the clouds trying to watch the match looking like a Japanese fighter pilot.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087491#msg1087491 date=1271184642]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39787.msg1087479#msg1087479 date=1271181642]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087454#msg1087454 date=1271176772]
I suspect 200,000 fans each week generates a lot of money, also their best players came through their youth system.
[/quote]
200,000 ? Even the Nou Camp isn't THAT big Neil.
[/quote]
just looked on wiki 100,000
wow
[/quote]
They average less fans a week then Man U.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39787.msg1087479#msg1087479 date=1271181642]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087454#msg1087454 date=1271176772]
I suspect 200,000 fans each week generates a lot of money, also their best players came through their youth system.
[/quote]
200,000 ? Even the Nou Camp isn't THAT big Neil.
[/quote]
just looked on wiki 100,000
wow
[/quote]
They average less fans a week then Man U.
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=39787.msg1087463#msg1087463 date=1271178085]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=39787.msg1087459#msg1087459 date=1271177334]
[/quote]
Ha! That's exactly what we're like at the moment. Although it would only take the words 'Sheik' or 'billionaire' to get us all writing long transfer wishlists again, I suspect...
[/quote]
lol..Indeed!
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=39787.msg1087459#msg1087459 date=1271177334]
[/quote]
Ha! That's exactly what we're like at the moment. Although it would only take the words 'Sheik' or 'billionaire' to get us all writing long transfer wishlists again, I suspect...
[/quote]
lol..Indeed!
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=39787.msg1087610#msg1087610 date=1271223112]
[/quote]
I think the caption for that cartoon should be "are you a racist who has no clue what an industrial monocrop farm looks like".
[/quote]
I think the caption for that cartoon should be "are you a racist who has no clue what an industrial monocrop farm looks like".
Revealed: How Goldman Sachs drew up financial rescue for Liverpool
David Bond | 06:59 UK time, Wednesday, 14 April 2010
One of the world's greatest football clubs owned by a group of investors put together by the world's most powerful investment bank.
It sounds far fetched doesn't it? Except, until six weeks ago, it was one of the options being looked at by Liverpool's beleaguered owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
According to senior sources I have spoken to over the last day or so, Goldman Sachs held detailed discussions about fronting a refinancing of the club back at the end of February.
A spokeswoman for the American banking giant denied they were ever considering a takeover bid and insisted the project never got to a "serious level", but banking sources have confirmed that Goldman Sachs held "exploratory discussions with a view to a possible investment" in Liverpool.
Exact details of that investment remain unclear but it is thought representatives of the bank were working on a deal that valued the club at around £500m.
Talks were held over several weeks and two Goldman Sachs representatives even attended Liverpool's 1-0 victory over Unirea in the Europa League on 18 February, although they did not sit in the directors' box.
The bulk of the money for the takeover was to come from loans - either provided by Goldman Sachs directly or a syndicate of other banks - with a smaller percentage of the capital coming from at least two private overseas investors. Goldman Sachs insist they did not instigate the idea and were responding to an interest from wealthy individuals they advise.
In addition to buying the stakes of Hicks and Gillett, the deal would have refinanced the owners' £237m loan with Royal Bank of Scotland, raised new loans to pay for the clubs' stalled new stadium project at Stanley Park and provided a fresh injection of transfer funds for manager Rafa Benitez.
Although the bank worked up what was described by one source as "a viable business model", which was primarily based on the vast increase in revenue associated with the move to a new purpose-built, 60,000-seater stadium, Goldman Sachs eventually decided to drop the plan.
There were concerns over the valuation of the club, which they believed to be too high, and the negative publicity attached to a deal involving one of English football's most revered institutions and a bank that has come to symbolise the worst excesses of the banking sector.
You may wonder why anyone should be interested in a deal that didn't come off. All sorts of ideas are floated in football by all sorts of financial advisers and City institutions all the time.
And for regular watchers of the Liverpool ownership saga, this will go down as just another false dawn for a club which is now in serious danger of sliding out of the Premier League's top four thanks, in no small part, to the ongoing boardroom instability.
But it is significant on two counts.
Firstly, Goldman Sachs is arguably the biggest and most successful bank in the world. Besides the Red Knights project at Liverpool's rivals Manchester United - which is more a personal crusade by the bank's head of global economic research Jim O'Neill - these masters of the universe have never previously shown any interest in getting involved in the Premier League.
That they developed a business model - however sketchy and premature Goldman Sachs would like us to think it was - based on the development of Liverpool's new stadium should give hope to the club's long-suffering supporters
Secondly, it is revealing that a deal put together by a bank of that stature - and after so many failed attempts to resolve the financial problems at the club - still fell down because the price Hicks and Gillett were asking was too high.
Now, with time running out for Hicks and Gillett to pay off £100m of their £237m debt with RBS in July, the owners have been forced to take drastic action.
Later this week, they will appoint British Airways chief Martin Broughton as their new chairman. He will work with a new investment bank, Barclays Capital, to lead the search for a new buyer.
In light of this development, RBS have extended the repayment date for their loan by a further six months. And that will give Broughton the breathing space he needs to ensure the next time a serious player like Goldman Sachs shows an interest, they don't decide to just walk away.
David Bond | 06:59 UK time, Wednesday, 14 April 2010
One of the world's greatest football clubs owned by a group of investors put together by the world's most powerful investment bank.
It sounds far fetched doesn't it? Except, until six weeks ago, it was one of the options being looked at by Liverpool's beleaguered owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
According to senior sources I have spoken to over the last day or so, Goldman Sachs held detailed discussions about fronting a refinancing of the club back at the end of February.
A spokeswoman for the American banking giant denied they were ever considering a takeover bid and insisted the project never got to a "serious level", but banking sources have confirmed that Goldman Sachs held "exploratory discussions with a view to a possible investment" in Liverpool.
Exact details of that investment remain unclear but it is thought representatives of the bank were working on a deal that valued the club at around £500m.
Talks were held over several weeks and two Goldman Sachs representatives even attended Liverpool's 1-0 victory over Unirea in the Europa League on 18 February, although they did not sit in the directors' box.
The bulk of the money for the takeover was to come from loans - either provided by Goldman Sachs directly or a syndicate of other banks - with a smaller percentage of the capital coming from at least two private overseas investors. Goldman Sachs insist they did not instigate the idea and were responding to an interest from wealthy individuals they advise.
In addition to buying the stakes of Hicks and Gillett, the deal would have refinanced the owners' £237m loan with Royal Bank of Scotland, raised new loans to pay for the clubs' stalled new stadium project at Stanley Park and provided a fresh injection of transfer funds for manager Rafa Benitez.
Although the bank worked up what was described by one source as "a viable business model", which was primarily based on the vast increase in revenue associated with the move to a new purpose-built, 60,000-seater stadium, Goldman Sachs eventually decided to drop the plan.
There were concerns over the valuation of the club, which they believed to be too high, and the negative publicity attached to a deal involving one of English football's most revered institutions and a bank that has come to symbolise the worst excesses of the banking sector.
You may wonder why anyone should be interested in a deal that didn't come off. All sorts of ideas are floated in football by all sorts of financial advisers and City institutions all the time.
And for regular watchers of the Liverpool ownership saga, this will go down as just another false dawn for a club which is now in serious danger of sliding out of the Premier League's top four thanks, in no small part, to the ongoing boardroom instability.
But it is significant on two counts.
Firstly, Goldman Sachs is arguably the biggest and most successful bank in the world. Besides the Red Knights project at Liverpool's rivals Manchester United - which is more a personal crusade by the bank's head of global economic research Jim O'Neill - these masters of the universe have never previously shown any interest in getting involved in the Premier League.
That they developed a business model - however sketchy and premature Goldman Sachs would like us to think it was - based on the development of Liverpool's new stadium should give hope to the club's long-suffering supporters
Secondly, it is revealing that a deal put together by a bank of that stature - and after so many failed attempts to resolve the financial problems at the club - still fell down because the price Hicks and Gillett were asking was too high.
Now, with time running out for Hicks and Gillett to pay off £100m of their £237m debt with RBS in July, the owners have been forced to take drastic action.
Later this week, they will appoint British Airways chief Martin Broughton as their new chairman. He will work with a new investment bank, Barclays Capital, to lead the search for a new buyer.
In light of this development, RBS have extended the repayment date for their loan by a further six months. And that will give Broughton the breathing space he needs to ensure the next time a serious player like Goldman Sachs shows an interest, they don't decide to just walk away.
I think all this interest comes as a surprise to some people.
We are a much loved and respected club, some of that has been tarnished slightly over the last couple of years, but we will polish up again very nicely, and with a history most clubs are in awe of. Not only that we are seemingly a good business proposition, as far as football clubs go anyway.
What has held us back is not the owners per se , but the daft notion that they could govern with a 50/50 split with no one in overall control and then fall out with each other, the daft fuckers. Add into that the world recession and things go pear shaped. We could have tried flogging 49% or 50% of the shares and people would not have gone for it, it would be that extra 1or 2 % that was always worth the real money.
Outright ownership is a different ball game.
regards
We are a much loved and respected club, some of that has been tarnished slightly over the last couple of years, but we will polish up again very nicely, and with a history most clubs are in awe of. Not only that we are seemingly a good business proposition, as far as football clubs go anyway.
What has held us back is not the owners per se , but the daft notion that they could govern with a 50/50 split with no one in overall control and then fall out with each other, the daft fuckers. Add into that the world recession and things go pear shaped. We could have tried flogging 49% or 50% of the shares and people would not have gone for it, it would be that extra 1or 2 % that was always worth the real money.
Outright ownership is a different ball game.
regards
we should steer well lear of american owners unless they are bill gates (the mircosoft stadium ha ha) or kraft (the kraft stadium).
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087631#msg1087631 date=1271232326]
we should steer well lear of american owners unless they are bill gates (the mircosoft stadium ha ha) or kraft (the kraft stadium).
[/quote]
You prefer the intimate cultural familiarity of russian oil barons, or Saudi princes?
we should steer well lear of american owners unless they are bill gates (the mircosoft stadium ha ha) or kraft (the kraft stadium).
[/quote]
You prefer the intimate cultural familiarity of russian oil barons, or Saudi princes?
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=39787.msg1087635#msg1087635 date=1271232820]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087631#msg1087631 date=1271232326]
we should steer well lear of american owners unless they are bill gates (the mircosoft stadium ha ha) or kraft (the kraft stadium).
[/quote]
You prefer the intimate cultural familiarity of russian oil barons, or Saudi princes?
[/quote]
Yes all Americans are so alike we should all avoid them like the plague. Look at Farky, ruling his business empire with an unethical iron fist leveraging buyouts all over the place. I mean it's just so typical of them. He tried to make a hostile takeover off the King Harry last time he was over. He'd have got away with as well if it wasn't for those pesky kids.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087631#msg1087631 date=1271232326]
we should steer well lear of american owners unless they are bill gates (the mircosoft stadium ha ha) or kraft (the kraft stadium).
[/quote]
You prefer the intimate cultural familiarity of russian oil barons, or Saudi princes?
[/quote]
Yes all Americans are so alike we should all avoid them like the plague. Look at Farky, ruling his business empire with an unethical iron fist leveraging buyouts all over the place. I mean it's just so typical of them. He tried to make a hostile takeover off the King Harry last time he was over. He'd have got away with as well if it wasn't for those pesky kids.
Quite.
Excellent summary just now by Vlad. The Private Frazers among us ("We're doomed, Cap'n Mainwaring, doomed!"😉 would do well to read it.
Excellent summary just now by Vlad. The Private Frazers among us ("We're doomed, Cap'n Mainwaring, doomed!"😉 would do well to read it.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39787.msg1087623#msg1087623 date=1271230758]
I think all this interest comes as a surprise to some people.
We are a much loved and respected club, some of that has been tarnished slightly over the last couple of years, but we will polish up again very nicely, and with a history most clubs are in awe of. Not only that we are seemingly a good business proposition, as far as football clubs go anyway.
What has held us back is not the owners per se , but the daft notion that they could govern with a 50/50 split with no one in overall control and then fall out with each other, the daft fuckers. Add into that the world recession and things go pear shaped. We could have tried flogging 49% or 50% of the shares and people would not have gone for it, it would be that extra 1or 2 % that was always worth the real money.
Outright ownership is a different ball game.
regards
[/quote]
Of course we're a great club and for the right valuation there would be plenty of suitors, but I'm worried that the Americans want a sh*tload of money that they don't deserve and I'll be surprised if anyone wants to give it to them.
Hopefully they'll just be forced to lower their valuation and then the suitors will appear, but at the moment it seems clear that anyone looking into our books is going to be turned off quickly, just like Goldman Sachs and chums.
I think all this interest comes as a surprise to some people.
We are a much loved and respected club, some of that has been tarnished slightly over the last couple of years, but we will polish up again very nicely, and with a history most clubs are in awe of. Not only that we are seemingly a good business proposition, as far as football clubs go anyway.
What has held us back is not the owners per se , but the daft notion that they could govern with a 50/50 split with no one in overall control and then fall out with each other, the daft fuckers. Add into that the world recession and things go pear shaped. We could have tried flogging 49% or 50% of the shares and people would not have gone for it, it would be that extra 1or 2 % that was always worth the real money.
Outright ownership is a different ball game.
regards
[/quote]
Of course we're a great club and for the right valuation there would be plenty of suitors, but I'm worried that the Americans want a sh*tload of money that they don't deserve and I'll be surprised if anyone wants to give it to them.
Hopefully they'll just be forced to lower their valuation and then the suitors will appear, but at the moment it seems clear that anyone looking into our books is going to be turned off quickly, just like Goldman Sachs and chums.
This report from the telegraph is probably the best summary of recent events i've read:
By Paul Kelso, Chief Sports Reporter
Published: 7:15AM BST 14 Apr 2010
Comments 2 | Comment on this article
Liverpool are expected to confirm shortly that, as The Daily Telegraph disclosed, Hicks and Gillett are to stand down as co-chairmen at Anfield in favour of Martin Broughton, the chairman of British Airways.
Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia are also preparing to offer a six-month extension on loans of £237 million, paving the way for the sale of the club. That process will be led by Barclays Capital (BarCap), an investment bank Hicks and Gillett have worked with in the past and which, through its retail bank parent company which sponsors the Premier League, has a vested interest in maintaining the health and reputation of one of England's leading clubs.
Confirmation of the sale process and the boardroom reshuffle will mark the beginning of the end of the Americans' tenure, though the sale of the club is unlikely to be swift.
Prospective buyers are expected to wait to begin negotiations until the end of the season, when Liverpool's participation in Europe and the fate of manager Rafael BenÃtez, who has again been linked with Juventus, is clearer.
The Americans' valuation of the club at upwards of £500 million is also bound to come under pressure from buyers, but what is certain is that Hicks and Gillett are ready to end their protracted and often bruising struggle to retain control. Until recently the pair remained determined to retain a stake, believing that the club they borrowed close to £300 million to buy in February 2007 remain undervalued.
Hicks in particular has enjoyed his association with Liverpool immensely, valuing their presence alongside his baseball and ice hockey interests in the family business, and has battled to find a way of retaining an interest.
Those hopes have been undone by the Americans' inability to raise fresh investment, either externally or from their own assets, their failure to work together harmoniously, and opposition from supporters that has made life at Anfield uncomfortable and, at times, dangerous.
Unable to raise the money to stay, heavily leveraged across their empires – just this week George Gillett's NASCAR team were reported to have defaulted on a $90 million loan, albeit for technical reasons – and facing continued opposition they have had no option but to prepare an exit strategy.
The crucial factor in the latest developments has been the looming summer deadline to refinance £237 million of loans from RBS and Wachovia.
The original deal with RBS was struck in the benign financial climate of early 2007, when the bank was willing to lend the Americans £185 million to buy Liverpool, with the option of a further £113 million to fund investment, secured against personal guarantees of just $100 million.
Unfortunately for the Americans and RBS, before this original short-term deal expired the financial weather turned for the worse, and they have faced increasingly tough conditions from a bank that is now 70 per cent state-owned.
In January 2008 they refinanced, with RBS lending £183.5 million and Wachovia £61.25 million. The price for this deal was guarantees and letters of credit from the owners to the tune of £185 million, increasing the strain elsewhere.
Last summer they again refinanced but had to pay down £60 million of debt to do so, and the banks made a further reduction of £100 million a condition of any new deal struck this summer.
The search for that investment has been long and fruitless, with the price of a minority stake and the questionable influence it would bring standing in the way of any deal.
Against that backdrop the Americans have sought an alternative route to appeasing the banks, starting with Broughton. His appointment, sealed over dinner in London, was secured after the Americans approached him, rather than following any pressure from the banks, and has bought them time.
With a credible business figure in place and the sale process under way, RBS is preparing to extend the financing deal until the end of the year, giving BarCap a window in which to find a buyer.
Liverpool's managing director, Christian Purslow, has already begun working with them, passing on the details of investors linked with the club in the past year.
It is hoped that the changes will also appease supporters who have run a vehement personal campaign against the owners since they broke a commitment not to use club revenues to service their acquisition loans. It has intensified in recent months, with Hicks finding himself trapped inside Anfield after a Premier League game against Bolton in February by a protest co-ordinated by the Spirit of Shankly group.
His son, Tom Jnr, meanwhile, also found himself humiliated at the hands of supporters. In 2008 he was drenched with beer after finding himself unwelcome at the Sandon pub near the ground on a match day, and a lurid email exchange with a supporter earlier this year cost him his place on the board.
Liverpool's irate fans are one aspect of life at Anfield neither Hicks nor Gillett will miss when they walk away. Given the bitterness of the past three years, the feeling is likely to be mutual.
Owners would be unwilling to sack manager
In normal circumstances Rafael BenÃtez would be under huge pressure following Liverpool’s disappointing season, but the owners’ travails may again save him in the short term, should he reject overtures from Juventus reported on Tuesday.
Hicks and Gillett are understood to have agreed to provide a summer transfer fund if a buyer is not found quickly, but they are unlikely to be willing to sack BenÃtez and pay out his contract given the new circumstances.
The Spaniard retains the support of managing director Christian Purslow, but an offer from another club looks like an increasingly agreeable solution.
Replacing BenÃtez could be the first priority for the new owners, but building the new Anfield would not be far behind. That project was the reason David Moores sold to the Americans and, following their failure to deliver, the ground remains the key to moving Liverpool on to the next level.
By Paul Kelso, Chief Sports Reporter
Published: 7:15AM BST 14 Apr 2010
Comments 2 | Comment on this article
Liverpool are expected to confirm shortly that, as The Daily Telegraph disclosed, Hicks and Gillett are to stand down as co-chairmen at Anfield in favour of Martin Broughton, the chairman of British Airways.
Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia are also preparing to offer a six-month extension on loans of £237 million, paving the way for the sale of the club. That process will be led by Barclays Capital (BarCap), an investment bank Hicks and Gillett have worked with in the past and which, through its retail bank parent company which sponsors the Premier League, has a vested interest in maintaining the health and reputation of one of England's leading clubs.
Confirmation of the sale process and the boardroom reshuffle will mark the beginning of the end of the Americans' tenure, though the sale of the club is unlikely to be swift.
Prospective buyers are expected to wait to begin negotiations until the end of the season, when Liverpool's participation in Europe and the fate of manager Rafael BenÃtez, who has again been linked with Juventus, is clearer.
The Americans' valuation of the club at upwards of £500 million is also bound to come under pressure from buyers, but what is certain is that Hicks and Gillett are ready to end their protracted and often bruising struggle to retain control. Until recently the pair remained determined to retain a stake, believing that the club they borrowed close to £300 million to buy in February 2007 remain undervalued.
Hicks in particular has enjoyed his association with Liverpool immensely, valuing their presence alongside his baseball and ice hockey interests in the family business, and has battled to find a way of retaining an interest.
Those hopes have been undone by the Americans' inability to raise fresh investment, either externally or from their own assets, their failure to work together harmoniously, and opposition from supporters that has made life at Anfield uncomfortable and, at times, dangerous.
Unable to raise the money to stay, heavily leveraged across their empires – just this week George Gillett's NASCAR team were reported to have defaulted on a $90 million loan, albeit for technical reasons – and facing continued opposition they have had no option but to prepare an exit strategy.
The crucial factor in the latest developments has been the looming summer deadline to refinance £237 million of loans from RBS and Wachovia.
The original deal with RBS was struck in the benign financial climate of early 2007, when the bank was willing to lend the Americans £185 million to buy Liverpool, with the option of a further £113 million to fund investment, secured against personal guarantees of just $100 million.
Unfortunately for the Americans and RBS, before this original short-term deal expired the financial weather turned for the worse, and they have faced increasingly tough conditions from a bank that is now 70 per cent state-owned.
In January 2008 they refinanced, with RBS lending £183.5 million and Wachovia £61.25 million. The price for this deal was guarantees and letters of credit from the owners to the tune of £185 million, increasing the strain elsewhere.
Last summer they again refinanced but had to pay down £60 million of debt to do so, and the banks made a further reduction of £100 million a condition of any new deal struck this summer.
The search for that investment has been long and fruitless, with the price of a minority stake and the questionable influence it would bring standing in the way of any deal.
Against that backdrop the Americans have sought an alternative route to appeasing the banks, starting with Broughton. His appointment, sealed over dinner in London, was secured after the Americans approached him, rather than following any pressure from the banks, and has bought them time.
With a credible business figure in place and the sale process under way, RBS is preparing to extend the financing deal until the end of the year, giving BarCap a window in which to find a buyer.
Liverpool's managing director, Christian Purslow, has already begun working with them, passing on the details of investors linked with the club in the past year.
It is hoped that the changes will also appease supporters who have run a vehement personal campaign against the owners since they broke a commitment not to use club revenues to service their acquisition loans. It has intensified in recent months, with Hicks finding himself trapped inside Anfield after a Premier League game against Bolton in February by a protest co-ordinated by the Spirit of Shankly group.
His son, Tom Jnr, meanwhile, also found himself humiliated at the hands of supporters. In 2008 he was drenched with beer after finding himself unwelcome at the Sandon pub near the ground on a match day, and a lurid email exchange with a supporter earlier this year cost him his place on the board.
Liverpool's irate fans are one aspect of life at Anfield neither Hicks nor Gillett will miss when they walk away. Given the bitterness of the past three years, the feeling is likely to be mutual.
Owners would be unwilling to sack manager
In normal circumstances Rafael BenÃtez would be under huge pressure following Liverpool’s disappointing season, but the owners’ travails may again save him in the short term, should he reject overtures from Juventus reported on Tuesday.
Hicks and Gillett are understood to have agreed to provide a summer transfer fund if a buyer is not found quickly, but they are unlikely to be willing to sack BenÃtez and pay out his contract given the new circumstances.
The Spaniard retains the support of managing director Christian Purslow, but an offer from another club looks like an increasingly agreeable solution.
Replacing BenÃtez could be the first priority for the new owners, but building the new Anfield would not be far behind. That project was the reason David Moores sold to the Americans and, following their failure to deliver, the ground remains the key to moving Liverpool on to the next level.
Well, I might come across as a bit hypocritical here JJ, but we need to get this right, owners and manager or we could soon be on a slippery slope, and might well have problems.
This could just come about at the right time, and I think the owners see that too. They might be a bit naive , but they are not stupid and realise that not qualifying for the CL this year is the thin end of the wedge as far as needing serious investment in the team to get it back in the mix, and we are talking a minimum of £70m, never mind Rafa's £50.
regards
This could just come about at the right time, and I think the owners see that too. They might be a bit naive , but they are not stupid and realise that not qualifying for the CL this year is the thin end of the wedge as far as needing serious investment in the team to get it back in the mix, and we are talking a minimum of £70m, never mind Rafa's £50.
regards
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=39787.msg1087448#msg1087448 date=1271175825]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087446#msg1087446 date=1271174875]
if the new owner builds the stadium, removes the debt and gives a decent percentage of the stadium money to improve the team after that they can milk the club all they like. our team should be improved and maintained with turnover not a sugar daddy also it would make us attempt to develope and blood the youth rather than spending fortunes on the next big thing.
barca really the example to follow.
[/quote]
Barca have the second highest wage bill on the planet and exactly how much do you suspect the likes of Ibra, Henry, Keita, Hleb, Alves, Pique, Abidal, Chygrynsky et al cost them?
Well over 250 MILLION Euros.
I'm fucking sick and tired about all of the bollocks that gets spouted about these tippy-tappy bellends.
Like they're some kind of genius extra-terrestrial superclub that merges the greatest players on the planet, with a charity that feeds all the hungry children on Earth, the Baby Jesus as fucking manager and cunting GOD as chairman.
GYAC they PAY their players a fucking SHITLOAD of money and BUY loads of players for a SHITLOAD of money too.
[/quote]
They play the best football, are owned by their fans and have the biggest stadium in Europe - what more would you want as a supporter?
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39787.msg1087446#msg1087446 date=1271174875]
if the new owner builds the stadium, removes the debt and gives a decent percentage of the stadium money to improve the team after that they can milk the club all they like. our team should be improved and maintained with turnover not a sugar daddy also it would make us attempt to develope and blood the youth rather than spending fortunes on the next big thing.
barca really the example to follow.
[/quote]
Barca have the second highest wage bill on the planet and exactly how much do you suspect the likes of Ibra, Henry, Keita, Hleb, Alves, Pique, Abidal, Chygrynsky et al cost them?
Well over 250 MILLION Euros.
I'm fucking sick and tired about all of the bollocks that gets spouted about these tippy-tappy bellends.
Like they're some kind of genius extra-terrestrial superclub that merges the greatest players on the planet, with a charity that feeds all the hungry children on Earth, the Baby Jesus as fucking manager and cunting GOD as chairman.
GYAC they PAY their players a fucking SHITLOAD of money and BUY loads of players for a SHITLOAD of money too.
[/quote]
They play the best football, are owned by their fans and have the biggest stadium in Europe - what more would you want as a supporter?
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=39787.msg1087646#msg1087646 date=1271234403]
Well, I might come across as a bit hypocritical here JJ, but we need to get this right, owners and manager or we could soon be on a slippery slope, and might well have problems.
This could just come about at the right time, and I think the owners see that too. They might be a bit naive , but they are not stupid and realise that not qualifying for the CL this year is the thin end of the wedge as far as needing serious investment in the team to get it back in the mix, and we are talking a minimum of £70m, never mind Rafa's £50.
regards
[/quote]
Wouldn't disagree with any of that, Vlad. My previous post was aimed at those who've written us off already.
Well, I might come across as a bit hypocritical here JJ, but we need to get this right, owners and manager or we could soon be on a slippery slope, and might well have problems.
This could just come about at the right time, and I think the owners see that too. They might be a bit naive , but they are not stupid and realise that not qualifying for the CL this year is the thin end of the wedge as far as needing serious investment in the team to get it back in the mix, and we are talking a minimum of £70m, never mind Rafa's £50.
regards
[/quote]
Wouldn't disagree with any of that, Vlad. My previous post was aimed at those who've written us off already.
The best options in the long term are to be owned by your fans (as hard as that is to properly achieve, I admit) or be a rich man's play thing (as unlikely as that seems until it comes along).
A good manager's influence notwithstanding, to be owned by someone who is trying to profit from the club will only see us lose pace over time with the clubs that don't have this leakage.
Spidey is right to the extent that the best thing for the club is to build as big a stadium as you can fill, and in the long run, the size of your stadium will largely dictate your revenue and therefore spending power as a club.
A good manager's influence notwithstanding, to be owned by someone who is trying to profit from the club will only see us lose pace over time with the clubs that don't have this leakage.
Spidey is right to the extent that the best thing for the club is to build as big a stadium as you can fill, and in the long run, the size of your stadium will largely dictate your revenue and therefore spending power as a club.
I know it sounds simplistic, but this needs to get sorted soon. Waiting till the end of the season will probably drag on to the end of the world cup and all of a sudden the new season is upon us.
Stating the bleeding obvious probably
Stating the bleeding obvious probably
[quote author=robinhood link=topic=39787.msg1087650#msg1087650 date=1271235397]
Spidey is right to the extent that the best thing for the club is to build as big a stadium as you can fill
[/quote]
I hope everyone's getting this stuff down
Spidey is right to the extent that the best thing for the club is to build as big a stadium as you can fill
[/quote]
I hope everyone's getting this stuff down
- Status
