G&H can't finance the trial against RBS
- Thread starter Insignificance
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
It's up for debate really.
If you think, like Sunny, the contact they made with inner circle sports was to sell the club and then subsequently view every player leaving as a cost cutting measure to make the club more attractive to buyers then you think they're bad.
If you think, like me, that the contact was to source minority investors to fund a stadium. And recognise that every cost cut has been to fund an increase elsewhere, because our wage bill is still prohibitive. You recognise they put 30m of their own money in to back a team they trusted might be good enough to get fourth, because the club itself couldn't afford the spending. If you recognise that, then you're left to look at the decisions they've made - overall it's been patchy at best. The commercial side is going well, the footballing isn't. It's a toss up.
Teams aren't spending that big at the minute are they? Certainly not consistently, season upon season. You're also banging on about Spurs and co, they've sold big name players too. Modric funded much of what they've spent since the Summer. We lost three big earners and brought in next to nothing in fees but have still spent reasonably.
I actually don't think as black and white as that. Do I think they're seeking new buyers for the club? Yes. Is reducing the wage bill and culling the dead wood the right thing to do? Absolutely. Have they improved us commerically - yes. But it's all increased revenue + reduced cost = improved margin = more profitable and clubs worth more to sell on.
True but not until the premier league negotiated media deals are put into the hands of the clubs themselves which will explode the income and value of the club. Imho they just are trying to hold the status quo with the minimum investment until ppv changes everything
At the end of the day, the latter is the crux of it for me. I think the cost cutting exercise was to get us back within a sustainable budget, we've bought young players and promoted youth (Allen, Borini, Sturridge, Assaidi, Sterling, Suso, Shelvey, Wisdom), that might have a detrimental effect in the short term, but in the long term we've got high earners off the books, or at least are having their wages suplemented by other clubs (Kuyt, Maxi, Bellamy, Carroll, Cole). When you look at it and assess it, are the younger players listed really that inferior to the outgoings? In terms of experience perhaps, in terms of longevity and the potential to surpass those senior players achievements with us, it's more or less nailed on that some of them will succeed.
If we were selling our best players then that would justifiably be labelled a cost cutting exercise. As it is, we've got rid of (mostly) underperfoming high earners and have taken a route towards building a future, a manageable one.
At the moment..hard to sell a club with legal action still pending
Possibly, yes.
I happen to think them and other yank owners are in the Premier League waiting for the ability to get their own TV deals, like you do.
They've established it in Boston already with their own TV network (worth more than the club itself) and haven't looked to shift the Red Sox yet
The action isn't against the club. And all businesses can be sold with legal action pending - it's done every day of the week by writing covenants into the deal
We tried to sell Agger. Agger did not want to leave that's why he's still here and City wouldn't pay what we wanted. Christ I heard we had Alan fucking Tate lined up as a potential replacement. Suarez would not bring in as much as his talent is worth due to the stigma that comes attached to him. We still have a shed load of underperforming high earners although partial progress has been made as we still carry the cost of some of that
I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was hard.
Court of Appeal refuses to delay Liverpool FC trial
8 January 2013 | By Katy Dowell
The boardroom battle over Liverpool Football Club has attracted criticism from the Court of Appeal after the club’s former owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, attempted to delay the start of the High Court trial (see judgment).
The court battle, which is listed in The Lawyer Top Cases 2013, stems from a 2010 dispute about the £300m sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The pair allege that the club was sold at a “substantial undervalue” and said RBS “deliberately” blocked their attempts to refinance.
Mr Justice Smith ruled in October that the case should start in April and ordered the claimants to surrender security for costs. Hick and Gillett appealed this decision.
In this latest bout, 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC was instructed by Clyde & Co partner Paul Friedman for Hicks and Gillett to attempt to delay the start of the trial and vary the security for costs order.
It was argued that the claimants could not raise the funds to pay for the case should the trial begin in April and that the payment for security for costs should not be expedited, therefore delaying the case until late 2013 or early 2014.
In the judgment Lord Justice Lewison stated: “The parties’ positions fluctuated during the course of the [High Court] hearing, not least because Mr Malek dropped the bombshell that neither he nor his instructing solicitor could conduct the trial in June. But it was never suggested to the judge that the indication that he gave in his draft judgment back in August that he wished to see a trial early in 2013 was wrong in principle.”
Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC, appearing for the joined defendant Sir Martin Broughton, argued alongside Erskine Chambers’ Richard Snowden QC, instructed for RBS, that the case should go ahead in April.
Lewison LJ emphasised the ferocity of the fight, in which RBS’s legal costs have already exceeded £1m ahead of the full trial. This comes as the judiciary prepares to fully implement the reforms put forward by Lord Justice Jackson aimed at reducing lengthy court costs.
The judge stated: “The extraordinary volume of paper, the extravagantly long skeleton arguments, which more resemble the Michelin Man than skeletons, and the inordinate citation of authority are quite inappropriate for an application dealing principally with case management decisions.”
According to the CoA ruling, the claimants have now paid £712,000 on account securing the future of the case, half of what they had offered to pay by way of security.
Lewison LJ, who sat alongside Lord Justices Tomlinson and McCombe, refused the appeal allowing the case to go ahead in April.
The dispute raises issues as to the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty and the duties on directors of group companies with potentially conflicting interests.
The legal line-up
For the claimants Tom Hicks and George Gillett, and their respective companies: 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC and Gregory Mitchell QC, and 4 Stone Buildings’ Richard Hill QC leading 3 Verulam Buildings’ Christopher Harris and Sebastian Isaac of One Essex Court, instructed by Clyde & Co partner Paul Friedman.
For the defendants Broughton, Purslow and Ayre: Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC and Serle Court’s Philip Marshall QC leading Monckton Chambers’ Owain Draper, instructed by Couchmans partner Satish Khandke and Enyo Law partner George Maling.
For the defendant RBS: Erskine Chambers’ Richard Snowden QC leading James Potts of the same set and Fountain Court’s Patrick Goodall, instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Patrick Swain.
For the defendant NESV: Erskine Chambers’ David Chivers QC leading Philip Gillyon, instructed by Shearman & Sterling partner Jo Rickard.
8 January 2013 | By Katy Dowell
The boardroom battle over Liverpool Football Club has attracted criticism from the Court of Appeal after the club’s former owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, attempted to delay the start of the High Court trial (see judgment).
The court battle, which is listed in The Lawyer Top Cases 2013, stems from a 2010 dispute about the £300m sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The pair allege that the club was sold at a “substantial undervalue” and said RBS “deliberately” blocked their attempts to refinance.
Mr Justice Smith ruled in October that the case should start in April and ordered the claimants to surrender security for costs. Hick and Gillett appealed this decision.
In this latest bout, 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC was instructed by Clyde & Co partner Paul Friedman for Hicks and Gillett to attempt to delay the start of the trial and vary the security for costs order.
It was argued that the claimants could not raise the funds to pay for the case should the trial begin in April and that the payment for security for costs should not be expedited, therefore delaying the case until late 2013 or early 2014.
In the judgment Lord Justice Lewison stated: “The parties’ positions fluctuated during the course of the [High Court] hearing, not least because Mr Malek dropped the bombshell that neither he nor his instructing solicitor could conduct the trial in June. But it was never suggested to the judge that the indication that he gave in his draft judgment back in August that he wished to see a trial early in 2013 was wrong in principle.”
Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC, appearing for the joined defendant Sir Martin Broughton, argued alongside Erskine Chambers’ Richard Snowden QC, instructed for RBS, that the case should go ahead in April.
Lewison LJ emphasised the ferocity of the fight, in which RBS’s legal costs have already exceeded £1m ahead of the full trial. This comes as the judiciary prepares to fully implement the reforms put forward by Lord Justice Jackson aimed at reducing lengthy court costs.
The judge stated: “The extraordinary volume of paper, the extravagantly long skeleton arguments, which more resemble the Michelin Man than skeletons, and the inordinate citation of authority are quite inappropriate for an application dealing principally with case management decisions.”
According to the CoA ruling, the claimants have now paid £712,000 on account securing the future of the case, half of what they had offered to pay by way of security.
Lewison LJ, who sat alongside Lord Justices Tomlinson and McCombe, refused the appeal allowing the case to go ahead in April.
The dispute raises issues as to the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty and the duties on directors of group companies with potentially conflicting interests.
The legal line-up
For the claimants Tom Hicks and George Gillett, and their respective companies: 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC and Gregory Mitchell QC, and 4 Stone Buildings’ Richard Hill QC leading 3 Verulam Buildings’ Christopher Harris and Sebastian Isaac of One Essex Court, instructed by Clyde & Co partner Paul Friedman.
For the defendants Broughton, Purslow and Ayre: Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC and Serle Court’s Philip Marshall QC leading Monckton Chambers’ Owain Draper, instructed by Couchmans partner Satish Khandke and Enyo Law partner George Maling.
For the defendant RBS: Erskine Chambers’ Richard Snowden QC leading James Potts of the same set and Fountain Court’s Patrick Goodall, instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Patrick Swain.
For the defendant NESV: Erskine Chambers’ David Chivers QC leading Philip Gillyon, instructed by Shearman & Sterling partner Jo Rickard.
Unless people are privvy to some very top secret info on the owners, that no one else has seen, I'm not sure why they're getting a slagging again?
They've come in, bought the club, not interfered and given the manager a transfer budget of the spare money we make from running the club each year, not more and more and loaded us with loads of debt. What are the idiots expecting?! Us to be spending like Chelsea, PSG, City?! With the money coming from where?
People are also conveniently forgetting the millions that needs to be spent on signing on fees and agent fees for resigning EXISTING players!
They've come in, bought the club, not interfered and given the manager a transfer budget of the spare money we make from running the club each year, not more and more and loaded us with loads of debt. What are the idiots expecting?! Us to be spending like Chelsea, PSG, City?! With the money coming from where?
People are also conveniently forgetting the millions that needs to be spent on signing on fees and agent fees for resigning EXISTING players!
I don't think they're either particularly good or terribly bad. I think it's clear that we're just a straight investment opportunity for them, and so you can only hope that they at least run us well while they're seeking their profit. I think on that score the record is mixed, with some good commercial performance combined with some truly terrible management mistakes.
But I suppose the bottom line is I at least feel we're in safe hands in a way I obviously didn't with H&G, who seemed almost determined to undermine their investment at every opportunity.
But I suppose the bottom line is I at least feel we're in safe hands in a way I obviously didn't with H&G, who seemed almost determined to undermine their investment at every opportunity.
I'm thinking this is somewhat based on personal experience...
Where's the stadium expansion FSG?
Er... well... you see... we've been looking at the possibilities... And, er... well the thing is there are a few er items for discussion and er... well, Redsox. Have you seen the Redsox?
I'll take that with a pinch of salt Sunny, given the guy, along with others, has signed up for another few years. If that were the case and we wanted rid, I can't see us offering a new deal so soon and nor could I see the player signing up with a club that doesn't want him.
People say this stuff all the time, if you're privy to the information then fair enough, I'm not going to join in the bashing when the basis of it is Woland's agenda that we 'haven't spent enough' and a story that can't really be backed up.
Are they great? No. Do they get any credit when something goes right? Do they shite. People always slag owners off. If we had a rich oil tycoon in charge I'm sure everyone would be sat here moaning about us selling out.
If you were buying FSG that might be a concern, but not if you were buying LFC
I don't think they're particularly good or bad Mark. They do some things right and some things wrong. They did try to sell Agger though
In their haste H&G ran up 45m in costs for a stadium that never to built. People moaned.
FSG operate cautiously so as not to run up similar bills. People moan.
Fair enough. I don't think they understand the club or the game, that much we knew from the off, and they've made mistakes trying to incorporate business thinking into various roles within the club. There were always going to be hiccups. The crux I guess is that we could be better off, we could also be alot worse off too. I think we've spent fairly well since they came in and I don't by this stuff about us "getting rid of players" when it comes to Maxi, Kuyt and Bellamy. The former two wanted to go and the latter was a case that was out of our control, I don't think that's a fair stick to beat them with, nor the money spent. Some people just have an agenda against them and if that's the best they can offer then I can't be arsed arguing the toss.
They ran up very questionable costs on the stadium.
My view is FSG will sell the club in the next 12-18 months. That's nothing more than my opinion, we'll have to see
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
