It's them dictating the profit level they want to achieve that worries me. I don't regard anything which gives them that degree of control over the sale process as a good thing at all.
El Nino wants new owners
- Thread starter Modo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41721.msg1168741#msg1168741 date=1283360383]
It's them dictating the profit level they want to achieve that worries me. I don't regard anything which gives them that degree of control over the sale process as a good thing at all.
[/quote]
Agreed but any bank that refinances them will unlikely do so on the basis that they have to sell. With RBS the debt was highly toxic so they havent a choice but to exert pressure on the owners. Any new bank that refinances them will not have the same sort of hold on Hicks and Gillette until they default or miss repayments.
Apparently also as part of the £81m sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered, H&G have also got $200 million credit facilities.
It's them dictating the profit level they want to achieve that worries me. I don't regard anything which gives them that degree of control over the sale process as a good thing at all.
[/quote]
Agreed but any bank that refinances them will unlikely do so on the basis that they have to sell. With RBS the debt was highly toxic so they havent a choice but to exert pressure on the owners. Any new bank that refinances them will not have the same sort of hold on Hicks and Gillette until they default or miss repayments.
Apparently also as part of the £81m sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered, H&G have also got $200 million credit facilities.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168740#msg1168740 date=1283360370]
Well pardon me for not being serious. But being serious for a minute, banks have shown they're quite willing to make stupid decisions born out of their immense greed
[/quote]
Didn't mean that, Sunny. I thought you were making the point which actually you do make in your second sentence above and which (while it's true as far as it goes) I don't agree with in this context, because it ignores the fact that those banks do actually want their money (and profit) back in the end.
RMA: point taken, but any other bank will surely look at the bind H and G have got themselves into. They may be greedy for profit but they won't want to be throwing good money after bad.
Well pardon me for not being serious. But being serious for a minute, banks have shown they're quite willing to make stupid decisions born out of their immense greed
[/quote]
Didn't mean that, Sunny. I thought you were making the point which actually you do make in your second sentence above and which (while it's true as far as it goes) I don't agree with in this context, because it ignores the fact that those banks do actually want their money (and profit) back in the end.
RMA: point taken, but any other bank will surely look at the bind H and G have got themselves into. They may be greedy for profit but they won't want to be throwing good money after bad.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168672#msg1168672 date=1283353671]
yeh, if g&h are allowed to refinance we're royally fucked. It would be a disaster
[/quote]
This would be absolutely terrible.
What kind of idiot bank is going to refinance the already highly geared loans?
If the Yanks cant repay and we go into administration the bank will get a pittance.
yeh, if g&h are allowed to refinance we're royally fucked. It would be a disaster
[/quote]
This would be absolutely terrible.
What kind of idiot bank is going to refinance the already highly geared loans?
If the Yanks cant repay and we go into administration the bank will get a pittance.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41721.msg1168746#msg1168746 date=1283360793]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168740#msg1168740 date=1283360370]
Well pardon me for not being serious. But being serious for a minute, banks have shown they're quite willing to make stupid decisions born out of their immense greed
[/quote]
Didn't mean that, Sunny. I thought you were making the point which actually you do make in your second sentence above and which (while it's true as far as it goes) I don't agree with in this context, because it ignores the fact that those banks do actually want their money (and profit) back in the end.
RMA: point taken, but any other bank will surely look at the bind H and G have got themselves into. They may be greedy for profit but they won't want to be throwing good money after bad.
[/quote]
It depends on the asset being held - e.g. hicks and gillete owe RBS £238 approx - Any bank would lend that to them on the basis of holding LFC as collateral. the remainder of the debt owed by liverpool is to Kop Holdings right?
From a banks perspective would you consider lending £238m to H&G in exchange for holding the papers to anfield plus the profitability of the club itself? Besides H&G to my knowledge have kept up with the repayments so far havent they?
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168740#msg1168740 date=1283360370]
Well pardon me for not being serious. But being serious for a minute, banks have shown they're quite willing to make stupid decisions born out of their immense greed
[/quote]
Didn't mean that, Sunny. I thought you were making the point which actually you do make in your second sentence above and which (while it's true as far as it goes) I don't agree with in this context, because it ignores the fact that those banks do actually want their money (and profit) back in the end.
RMA: point taken, but any other bank will surely look at the bind H and G have got themselves into. They may be greedy for profit but they won't want to be throwing good money after bad.
[/quote]
It depends on the asset being held - e.g. hicks and gillete owe RBS £238 approx - Any bank would lend that to them on the basis of holding LFC as collateral. the remainder of the debt owed by liverpool is to Kop Holdings right?
From a banks perspective would you consider lending £238m to H&G in exchange for holding the papers to anfield plus the profitability of the club itself? Besides H&G to my knowledge have kept up with the repayments so far havent they?
Hicks and Gillett are on the brink of bankrupcy aren't they? Who in their right frame of mind would loan money to someone who will most likely NOT pay it back.
Every bank in the world have been watching this saga. Do any of those want that hassle in a year or two when we have missed our payments? Don't think so.
Hester at RBS is apperantly pretty eager to get this resolved as quickly as possible. Loaning money to those two cunts will only result in hassle down the line.
Every bank in the world have been watching this saga. Do any of those want that hassle in a year or two when we have missed our payments? Don't think so.
Hester at RBS is apperantly pretty eager to get this resolved as quickly as possible. Loaning money to those two cunts will only result in hassle down the line.
I saw at least one article a while back which said the bank could take control of the process without going as far as administration, just as a building society doesn't have to make you bankrupt to repossess your house if you default on the mortgage.
RMA: I would not consider such a loan when the value of the club sinks every day that those two clowns retain ownership.
RMA: I would not consider such a loan when the value of the club sinks every day that those two clowns retain ownership.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41721.msg1168750#msg1168750 date=1283361062]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[/quote]
The only reason why refinancing would be feasible, I think... is if the bank doesnt want to get involved with the running of the club which would be a requirement if they called in the loans; alternatively it could be because they dont want to risk litigation with The Fucking Yanks.
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[/quote]
The only reason why refinancing would be feasible, I think... is if the bank doesnt want to get involved with the running of the club which would be a requirement if they called in the loans; alternatively it could be because they dont want to risk litigation with The Fucking Yanks.
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41721.msg1168750#msg1168750 date=1283361062]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[/quote]
The only reason why refinancing would be feasible, I think... is if the bank doesnt want to get involved with the running of the club which would be a requirement if they called in the loans; alternatively it could be because they dont want to risk litigation with The Fucking Yanks.
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Excellent summary.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41721.msg1168750#msg1168750 date=1283361062]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[/quote]
The only reason why refinancing would be feasible, I think... is if the bank doesnt want to get involved with the running of the club which would be a requirement if they called in the loans; alternatively it could be because they dont want to risk litigation with The Fucking Yanks.
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Excellent summary.
Didn't the first penalty kick in yesterday? 20 m £
We are paying, what, 2,5 mill £ pr week in interest now.
And on the 6th of October, isn't the penalty another 60 m £. When RBS can call in the loans.
If these clowns somehow manages to refinance, our club is well and truely fucked. It will be over for good.
We are paying, what, 2,5 mill £ pr week in interest now.
And on the 6th of October, isn't the penalty another 60 m £. When RBS can call in the loans.
If these clowns somehow manages to refinance, our club is well and truely fucked. It will be over for good.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41721.msg1168760#msg1168760 date=1283361656]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41721.msg1168750#msg1168750 date=1283361062]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[/quote]
The only reason why refinancing would be feasible, I think... is if the bank doesnt want to get involved with the running of the club which would be a requirement if they called in the loans; alternatively it could be because they dont want to risk litigation with The Fucking Yanks.
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Excellent summary.
[/quote]
A couple of things about the debt:
1. if the original debt was say £100, interest/penalties etc rise it upto £250- That £150 is a profit for the bank
2. Even if the bank was only able to reclaim £110 i.e. original debt + £10 they would still be making a profit.
More and more banks are willing to do a deal on a reduced debt than what their actual debt is.
3. Value is a perception. If liverpool Fc was a 100% equity entity would H&G being in charge devalue it? If you factor in the fact that without the monumental interest payments we wouild actually be making a profit then in a banks opinion its not badly run.
Tomorrow if they are refinanced, i would bet my bottom dollar that any new prospective buyer would be able to get atleast 50% financing done on their bid amount.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41721.msg1168750#msg1168750 date=1283361062]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[/quote]
The only reason why refinancing would be feasible, I think... is if the bank doesnt want to get involved with the running of the club which would be a requirement if they called in the loans; alternatively it could be because they dont want to risk litigation with The Fucking Yanks.
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Excellent summary.
[/quote]
A couple of things about the debt:
1. if the original debt was say £100, interest/penalties etc rise it upto £250- That £150 is a profit for the bank
2. Even if the bank was only able to reclaim £110 i.e. original debt + £10 they would still be making a profit.
More and more banks are willing to do a deal on a reduced debt than what their actual debt is.
3. Value is a perception. If liverpool Fc was a 100% equity entity would H&G being in charge devalue it? If you factor in the fact that without the monumental interest payments we wouild actually be making a profit then in a banks opinion its not badly run.
Tomorrow if they are refinanced, i would bet my bottom dollar that any new prospective buyer would be able to get atleast 50% financing done on their bid amount.
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41721.msg1168721#msg1168721 date=1283359193]
Sorry for my ignorance, but what happens if we don't get new owners, and the bank refuses to re-finance?
[/quote]
anyone?
Sorry for my ignorance, but what happens if we don't get new owners, and the bank refuses to re-finance?
[/quote]
anyone?
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168774#msg1168774 date=1283363685]
Probably so, but let's say they do re-finance and the debt owed on the club balloons to say 800 million in 2 years.
What kind of return on investment would a prospective buyer be looking at to take a loan even if they could secure the 400 million ie at 50% financing?
[/quote]
In which case we will be back to sqaure one i.e. todays scenario.
At that level of toxicity the bank will have the option to call in the loan or negotiate a deal with another buyer where the bank will accept a full buy out of the loan at the original amount or anything above that.
I wouldnt say its common practice for a bank to discount their debt and sell but it does occur a fair bit in larger deals
Probably so, but let's say they do re-finance and the debt owed on the club balloons to say 800 million in 2 years.
What kind of return on investment would a prospective buyer be looking at to take a loan even if they could secure the 400 million ie at 50% financing?
[/quote]
In which case we will be back to sqaure one i.e. todays scenario.
At that level of toxicity the bank will have the option to call in the loan or negotiate a deal with another buyer where the bank will accept a full buy out of the loan at the original amount or anything above that.
I wouldnt say its common practice for a bank to discount their debt and sell but it does occur a fair bit in larger deals
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41721.msg1168776#msg1168776 date=1283364000]
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41721.msg1168721#msg1168721 date=1283359193]
Sorry for my ignorance, but what happens if we don't get new owners, and the bank refuses to re-finance?
[/quote]
anyone
[/quote]
I believe in that case the bank has the right to takeover the club (without putting it into administration) and look to sell on their own.
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41721.msg1168721#msg1168721 date=1283359193]
Sorry for my ignorance, but what happens if we don't get new owners, and the bank refuses to re-finance?
[/quote]
anyone
[/quote]
I believe in that case the bank has the right to takeover the club (without putting it into administration) and look to sell on their own.
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41721.msg1168776#msg1168776 date=1283364000]
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41721.msg1168721#msg1168721 date=1283359193]
Sorry for my ignorance, but what happens if we don't get new owners, and the bank refuses to re-finance?
[/quote]
anyone?
[/quote]
They'd have to take over, I guess..
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41721.msg1168721#msg1168721 date=1283359193]
Sorry for my ignorance, but what happens if we don't get new owners, and the bank refuses to re-finance?
[/quote]
anyone?
[/quote]
They'd have to take over, I guess..
S
Squiggles
Guest
The Worlds Local Club.
[quote author=RMA link=topic=41721.msg1168777#msg1168777 date=1283364048]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168774#msg1168774 date=1283363685]
Probably so, but let's say they do re-finance and the debt owed on the club balloons to say 800 million in 2 years.
What kind of return on investment would a prospective buyer be looking at to take a loan even if they could secure the 400 million ie at 50% financing?
[/quote]
In which case we will be back to sqaure one i.e. todays scenario.
At that level of toxicity the bank will have the option to call in the loan or negotiate a deal with another buyer where the bank will accept a full buy out of the loan at the original amount or anything above that.
I wouldnt say its common practice for a bank to discount their debt and sell but it does occur a fair bit in larger deals
[/quote]
Why would RBS wait for the Two Stooges to go all round the houses like that first, especially if the kind of return on investment alluded to by Avvy is a possibility? Why not force the two of them out now, safeguard its investment and rake in all that profit for itself?
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168774#msg1168774 date=1283363685]
Probably so, but let's say they do re-finance and the debt owed on the club balloons to say 800 million in 2 years.
What kind of return on investment would a prospective buyer be looking at to take a loan even if they could secure the 400 million ie at 50% financing?
[/quote]
In which case we will be back to sqaure one i.e. todays scenario.
At that level of toxicity the bank will have the option to call in the loan or negotiate a deal with another buyer where the bank will accept a full buy out of the loan at the original amount or anything above that.
I wouldnt say its common practice for a bank to discount their debt and sell but it does occur a fair bit in larger deals
[/quote]
Why would RBS wait for the Two Stooges to go all round the houses like that first, especially if the kind of return on investment alluded to by Avvy is a possibility? Why not force the two of them out now, safeguard its investment and rake in all that profit for itself?
[quote author=RMA link=topic=41721.msg1168753#msg1168753 date=1283361273]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168749#msg1168749 date=1283361024]
At what level do they work in within SCB?
[/quote]
MD
[/quote]
Well you kindly ask him to ask the rest of his MD cohorts NOT to lend those two cunts any money. Please.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168749#msg1168749 date=1283361024]
At what level do they work in within SCB?
[/quote]
MD
[/quote]
Well you kindly ask him to ask the rest of his MD cohorts NOT to lend those two cunts any money. Please.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Surely the bank sees profit through the interest they charge ?
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Surely the bank sees profit through the interest they charge ?
[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41721.msg1168761#msg1168761 date=1283361801]
Didn't the first penalty kick in yesterday? 20 m £
We are paying, what, 2,5 mill £ pr week in interest now.
And on the 6th of October, isn't the penalty another 60 m £. When RBS can call in the loans.
If these clowns somehow manages to refinance, our club is well and truely fucked. It will be over for good.
[/quote]
LFC isn't paying that.
There's no way we could.
Didn't the first penalty kick in yesterday? 20 m £
We are paying, what, 2,5 mill £ pr week in interest now.
And on the 6th of October, isn't the penalty another 60 m £. When RBS can call in the loans.
If these clowns somehow manages to refinance, our club is well and truely fucked. It will be over for good.
[/quote]
LFC isn't paying that.
There's no way we could.
[quote author=RMA link=topic=41721.msg1168764#msg1168764 date=1283362708]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41721.msg1168760#msg1168760 date=1283361656]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41721.msg1168750#msg1168750 date=1283361062]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[/quote]
The only reason why refinancing would be feasible, I think... is if the bank doesnt want to get involved with the running of the club which would be a requirement if they called in the loans; alternatively it could be because they dont want to risk litigation with The Fucking Yanks.
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Excellent summary.
[/quote]
A couple of things about the debt:
1. if the original debt was say £100, interest/penalties etc rise it upto £250- That £150 is a profit for the bank
2. Even if the bank was only able to reclaim £110 i.e. original debt + £10 they would still be making a profit.
More and more banks are willing to do a deal on a reduced debt than what their actual debt is.
3. Value is a perception. If liverpool Fc was a 100% equity entity would H&G being in charge devalue it? If you factor in the fact that without the monumental interest payments we wouild actually be making a profit then in a banks opinion its not badly run.
Tomorrow if they are refinanced, i would bet my bottom dollar that any new prospective buyer would be able to get atleast 50% financing done on their bid amount.
[/quote]
We wouldn't be making a profit even without the interest payments, otherwise I agree.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41721.msg1168760#msg1168760 date=1283361656]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41721.msg1168750#msg1168750 date=1283361062]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168733#msg1168733 date=1283359881]
Nice to see your senses working Neil, unlike JJ 🙂 And no, no positives at all to a refinance.
[/quote]
well, i'm not sure, but that might not strictly be true.
my company law's a bit hazy, but as far as i remember a creditor can call in the receivers if the terms of repayment are breached, especially if they hold a charge over the club's assets, which you'd expect RBS would do given the size of the loan.
so given that i suppose you could say that one positive of being refinanced would be not being liquidated.
[/quote]
The only reason why refinancing would be feasible, I think... is if the bank doesnt want to get involved with the running of the club which would be a requirement if they called in the loans; alternatively it could be because they dont want to risk litigation with The Fucking Yanks.
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Excellent summary.
[/quote]
A couple of things about the debt:
1. if the original debt was say £100, interest/penalties etc rise it upto £250- That £150 is a profit for the bank
2. Even if the bank was only able to reclaim £110 i.e. original debt + £10 they would still be making a profit.
More and more banks are willing to do a deal on a reduced debt than what their actual debt is.
3. Value is a perception. If liverpool Fc was a 100% equity entity would H&G being in charge devalue it? If you factor in the fact that without the monumental interest payments we wouild actually be making a profit then in a banks opinion its not badly run.
Tomorrow if they are refinanced, i would bet my bottom dollar that any new prospective buyer would be able to get atleast 50% financing done on their bid amount.
[/quote]
We wouldn't be making a profit even without the interest payments, otherwise I agree.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168830#msg1168830 date=1283372437]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Surely the bank sees profit through the interest they charge ?
[/quote]
Yeah, but eventually the interest probably wont be paid as the debt goes higher and higher and higher.
Then they'd have to foreclose on an asset worth maybe 400 million with an 800 million debt which no one would want to buy.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Surely the bank sees profit through the interest they charge ?
[/quote]
Yeah, but eventually the interest probably wont be paid as the debt goes higher and higher and higher.
Then they'd have to foreclose on an asset worth maybe 400 million with an 800 million debt which no one would want to buy.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41721.msg1168830#msg1168830 date=1283372437]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Surely the bank sees profit through the interest they charge ?
[/quote]
Only if they reckon they'll actually get the money in the end.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41721.msg1168758#msg1168758 date=1283361429]
However, it's unlikely that the bank will see ANY profit unless we're sold at a substantial profit...ant ontinuously increasing the debt on the club just makes that prospect less and less likely.
[/quote]
Surely the bank sees profit through the interest they charge ?
[/quote]
Only if they reckon they'll actually get the money in the end.
- Status
