Hicks: 'We've tripled in value'

[juniormember]

Can someone with an objective point of view explain this to me?
Obviously as the seller he's over-valueing the club, but just thinking about basic maths, I just don't see how we could be so expensive even with football inflation in mind.

When we were bought for roughly 200m, our debt was around 60 - 80m.

They want to sell the club for 654m.

Our debt is now reportedly around 350m (I imagine the pair won't be paying that debt off either. it'll be the responsibility of the new owner, correct?).


He says the stadium plans, permit, etc is ready and that all it will take for the stadium to be built is for the new owner to pay for construction. And that due to this the valuation of the club includes future revenue from the yet-to-exist stadium.
How the hell does this make sense? Couldn't the new owner do exactly what H&G did anyway? As in employ an architect and apply for the permits necessary? Does this process equate to an added few hundred million on the club's valuation?


In terms of where the club is at in the league and in Europe. We've got a better reputation in Europe and probably gained a lot of supporters worldwide after 2005 and 2007. But we're the same in the league.
Due to our european success and thus more supporters and attention, plus inflation in the football world, sponsorship money, merchandise and TV money has increased since their takeover but surely not by anything more than 20-30m.

So to anyone with experience studying large businesses, is there any way of making sense of the current valuation of the club? Or let's say the club was valued at 400m. Would that be a reasonable price, considering the 350m of debt, another 300m towards the stadium, another 100m towards players, etc?
I'd feel lucky if a billionaire picked us up for a tenner, never mind 600m.

Hicks and fellow owner George Gillett put Liverpool up for sale on Friday, just over three years after their £218 million takeover.

Fans have persistently protested against their ownership and Rafael Benitez has indicated that he is eager to see the sale go through as quickly as possible as he seeks more stability at the club.

However, it appears there may be little prospect of a swift sale as, following initial reports the club was up for sale at around £500 million, Hicks has now suggested they would be happy to wait to find a buyer willing to meet his apparent £654 million valuation.

"Liverpool Football Club has been a great investment," he told the Sunday Mirror. "It has probably tripled in value.

"We have doubled player spending, both gross and net, and the new stadium is now fully designed and permitted. With fresh capital from a new owner, the stadium will be operational by August 2014.

"Liverpool will be as profitable as any other club in the Premier League and can compete financially and on the pitch with any other club. This is a great step forward for Liverpool FC, but we will now take our time and find the best possible owner."

He added: "The fans blame the owners, but we had terrible injuries with our star players out and we just weren't a very good team without them. When the fans turn against you it's very frustrating.

"When I was in the leverage buy-out business, we bought Weetabix and we leveraged it up to make our return. You could say anyone eating Weetabix was paying for our purchase. It was just business. It is the same for Liverpool."

The Royal Bank of Scotland has apparently agreed to give the owners further time to pay back £100 million of the speculated overall £237 million debt.

 

[Skullflower]

he's a fucking cunt.

i would genuinely laugh if he dropped dead tomorrow.

 

[Rafiagra]

[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=39852.msg1089630#msg1089630 date=1271612442]
he's a fucking cunt.

i would genuinely laugh he if he dropped dead tomorrow.
[/quote]

haha. Agreed. We need to draw a line under the last 3 years as soon as possible

 

[jexykrodic]

Their motivation for selling appears to be that they know they don't have the means to invest and neither can they meet their debt repayments. Why announce an official sale otherwise, it can't help the price. It's hardly news that the club needs investors.

Also the sale is no longer in their hands, Broughton and RBS won't wait around for Hicks to win the lottery.

 

[Wilko7]

What's the point in these two dickheads employing a respected chairman to oversee the sale of the club when this jowly faced piece of shit is spouting off in the press like the fucking trash he is.

 

[Rosco]

I would be surprised if any of the business valuation models could come up with a price for LFC anywhere near what Hicks is talking about.

 

[jexykrodic]

Hick's seems to be pretty abrasive character and it's easy to see why an intermediary has been brought in to process the sale.

Can you imagine attempting negotiations with him?

One day he wants to sell, the next he wants to rub someones nose in it by insisting on some exorbitant price.

No self respecting businessman is going to be railroaded into a high price deal, Hicks needs to make his mind up what he wants.

 

[spider-Neil]

if G&H had at least 'started' the stadium I could see why have an inflated price, they haven't so I can't. I an't see liverpool being sold for more than 500m but it isn't WORTH more than 500m

 

[ipaul]

[quote author=juniormember link=topic=39852.msg1089622#msg1089622 date=1271609719]
Can someone with an objective point of view explain this to me?
Obviously as the seller he's over-valueing the club, but just thinking about basic maths, I just don't see how we could be so expensive even with football inflation in mind.

When we were bought for roughly 200m, our debt was around 60 - 80m.

They want to sell the club for 654m.

Our debt is now reportedly around 350m (I imagine the pair won't be paying that debt off either. it'll be the responsibility of the new owner, correct?).


He says the stadium plans, permit, etc is ready and that all it will take for the stadium to be built is for the new owner to pay for construction. And that due to this the valuation of the club includes future revenue from the yet-to-exist stadium.
How the hell does this make sense? Couldn't the new owner do exactly what H&G did anyway? As in employ an architect and apply for the permits necessary? Does this process equate to an added few hundred million on the club's valuation?


In terms of where the club is at in the league and in Europe. We've got a better reputation in Europe and probably gained a lot of supporters worldwide after 2005 and 2007. But we're the same in the league.
Due to our european success and thus more supporters and attention, plus inflation in the football world, sponsorship money, merchandise and TV money has increased since their takeover but surely not by anything more than 20-30m.

So to anyone with experience studying large businesses, is there any way of making sense of the current valuation of the club? Or let's say the club was valued at 400m. Would that be a reasonable price, considering the 350m of debt, another 300m towards the stadium, another 100m towards players, etc?
I'd feel lucky if a billionaire picked us up for a tenner, never mind 600m.

Hicks and fellow owner George Gillett put Liverpool up for sale on Friday, just over three years after their £218 million takeover.

Fans have persistently protested against their ownership and Rafael Benitez has indicated that he is eager to see the sale go through as quickly as possible as he seeks more stability at the club.

However, it appears there may be little prospect of a swift sale as, following initial reports the club was up for sale at around £500 million, Hicks has now suggested they would be happy to wait to find a buyer willing to meet his apparent £654 million valuation.

"Liverpool Football Club has been a great investment," he told the Sunday Mirror. "It has probably tripled in value.

"We have doubled player spending, both gross and net, and the new stadium is now fully designed and permitted. With fresh capital from a new owner, the stadium will be operational by August 2014.

"Liverpool will be as profitable as any other club in the Premier League and can compete financially and on the pitch with any other club. This is a great step forward for Liverpool FC, but we will now take our time and find the best possible owner."

He added: "The fans blame the owners, but we had terrible injuries with our star players out and we just weren't a very good team without them. When the fans turn against you it's very frustrating.

"When I was in the leverage buy-out business, we bought Weetabix and we leveraged it up to make our return. You could say anyone eating Weetabix was paying for our purchase. It was just business. It is the same for Liverpool."

The Royal Bank of Scotland has apparently agreed to give the owners further time to pay back £100 million of the speculated overall £237 million debt.

[/quote]

i don't have the figures in front of me, but the debt will go with h & g (kop holding company) so say they get 600 mil 350 pays off the debt, they will also want cash for the money they put in and the rest will be split as profit (approx 75mil each) not bad for 3 years work

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=39852.msg1089642#msg1089642 date=1271615878]
Hick's seems to be pretty abrasive character and it's easy to see why an intermediary has been brought in to process the sale.

Can you imagine attempting negotiations with him?

One day he wants to sell, the next he wants to rub someones nose in it by insisting on some exorbitant price.

No self respecting businessman is going to be railroaded into a high price deal, Hicks needs to make his mind up what he wants.
[/quote]

He's got fuck all leverage though, this is just bluster from him. If he doesn't agree to a sale we'll be owned by RBS soon enough.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089645#msg1089645 date=1271616011]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=39852.msg1089642#msg1089642 date=1271615878]
Hick's seems to be pretty abrasive character and it's easy to see why an intermediary has been brought in to process the sale.

Can you imagine attempting negotiations with him?

One day he wants to sell, the next he wants to rub someones nose in it by insisting on some exorbitant price.

No self respecting businessman is going to be railroaded into a high price deal, Hicks needs to make his mind up what he wants.
[/quote]

He's got fuck all leverage though, this is just bluster from him. If he doesn't agree to a sale we'll be owned by RBS soon enough.
[/quote]

there are two options for him if it draws near to that time

a) sell gerrard and torres

b) refinance elsewhere - 'someone' would be daft enough to do it and would charge a ridiculous interest rate

 

[livvy145]

"When I was in the leverage buy-out business, we bought Weetabix and we leveraged it up to make our return. You could say anyone eating Weetabix was paying for our purchase. It was just business. It is the same for Liverpool."

.

 

[Spionkop69]

This from Patrick Collins in The Mail. Shocking dig at the fans over Munich chants. Not heard the "Murderers" chants then Patrick?

American pair have treated Liverpool as their cash cow
Last updated at 11:49 PM on 17th April 2010
Comments (0) Add to My Stories One day, Big Tom and Wee George will become a popular question on Merseyside quiz-nights: ‘Name the American businessmen who took just three years to reduce one of the world’s greatest football clubs to a laughing stock.’

And the answers will emerge through gritted teeth.

Tom Hicks, from Dallas, Texas, is the man whose cash and clout helped set George Dubya on his ill-fated way to the White House.

George Gillett looks remarkably like the manager of your local hardware store, hails from Racine, Wisconsin, and pursues a wide range of commercial interests, including Gerhard’s Napa Valley Sausage.
Laughing stock: Once great Liverpool are a shadow of the club taken over by George Gillet (left) and Tom Hicks

The club now has debts of £237million but Tom and George are expecting to emerge from their three tumultuous years with hearts light and pockets reassuringly heavy. If they secure a sum of £400m, then each man will trouser £80m profit.
Reports suggest the cast includes a mysterious Chinese billionaire, an Indian cricket lover, a Syrian entrepreneur named Yahya and the obligatory Saudi prince.

Like all the best double acts, Hicks and Gillett like to leave them laughing.

And so they issue a valedictory statement which includes the lines: ‘Owning Liverpool Football Club over these past three years has been a rewarding and exciting experience for us and our families.

'Having grown the club this far we have now decided together to look to sell the club to owners committed to take the club through its next level of growth and development.’

You could only admire their brass neck. They have spent much of that time exchanging muted insults. Their excited families include the obnoxious Tom Hicks Jnr, who was required to resign as a director after sending an abusive email to a fan.

As for ‘growing’ the club, we must recall the debts of £237m, the fact they will almost certainly fail to qualify for the Champions League and the bleak reality that a domestic title which once they took for granted has become an impossible dream.

That is how Liverpool has ‘grown’. Still, if all goes well, the experience will surely prove ‘rewarding’.

The last chairman, David Moores, reluctantly sold his stake to Tom and George. Poor chap, he really, really hated having to relinquish his office, and a sum adjacent to £88m was required to repair his broken heart. These American fellows should do at least as well as desolate Dave.
Now it is not always easy to feel sympathy for Liverpool fans, with their overdeveloped cult of victimhood, their glib claims to ‘history’ and their occasional, unforgivable chants about the Munich air disaster.

Yet they have been shabbily treated by people who see the club as little more than a prolific cash cow. And they are not alone. Remember the ‘fit and proper’ test which allowed that bleeding-heart liberal Thaksin Shinawatra to take over Manchester City.

Protest: Liverpool fans appear to have finally got their way at Anfield


Or the unfit and highly improper characters who became involved at poor old Portsmouth. Consider the Icelandic high jinks at West Ham and the awkward questions now being raised at Birmingham. And all this in the richest, smuggest, most rose-tinted League in all the world.

It appears the Premier League are hoping to introduce a ‘means and abilities’ test, which will demand proof of funds and investment intentions from prospective owners.

Although accompanied by the crashing of stable doors, it represents a welcome change of tone. Yet we doubt that they and the tycoons they affect to restrain have really understood what football clubs mean to the communities which sustain them.

In this case, it is the club of Shankly and Paisley, of Dalglish, Hansen and Yeats. And it is so much more than an investment opportunity. It is a place where visions are enacted, pride is instilled and lifelong loyalties are forged; a magical place where men and women may revisit the wonders of childhood.

Such people will never lay hands upon tens of millions of lightly-earned pounds but they recognise the difference between the factory of dreams on Anfield Road and the place where they churn out Gerhard’s Napa Valley Sausage.

It is a thought we commend to Big Tom and Little George as they retire to Texas and Wisconsin. To spend more time with their money.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1266838/American-pair-treated-Liverpool-cash-cow.html#ixzz0lTzxgsPs

 

[Loch Ness Monster]

I honestly feel we should stop posting quotes like the shit peddled above, what a load of shit. That cunt clearly have never been north of Watford and that paper is a fucking disgrace. Not as bad as the other cunts but not far away.

 

[Farkmaster]

Maybe he means he'll make a profit of 3 times the money he actually invested himself, rather than borrowing.

 

[Loch Ness Monster]

True enough Farky, three times fuck all is fuck all.

 

[etchy]

Not sure if there's any clarity on this or it's all confidential. Say Beavis and Butthead sticks with their valuation. Prospective buyers refuse to meet their valuation. What happens in a no sale situation? Would RBS have the right to 'repossess' the club and do a firesale. Or would it be the case the players would be sold to satisfy RBS 100 mil reduction? It seems to me that the valuation is an inexact science, does Martin Broughton have a right to override and have a final say on the value of the club?

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089731#msg1089731 date=1271621587]
Not sure if there's any clarity on this or it's all confidential. Say Beavis and Butthead sticks with their valuation. Prospective buyers refuse to meet their valuation. What happens in a no sale situation? Would RBS have the right to 'repossess' the club and do a firesale. Or would it be the case the players would be sold to satisfy RBS 100 mil reduction? It seems to me that the valuation is an inexact science, does Martin Broughton have a right to override and have a final say on the value of the club?
[/quote]

if G&H agree not to sell then the club wont be sold. G&H have lost their veto (for each others half) but together they could stop a sale if broughton brought them a deal they thought didn't match their valuation. broughton would of course broker the best deal possible for them, but if they can't sell they have options, they could sell gerrard and torres to raise the 100m to pay rbs, or refinance elsewhere but those are rubbish options.

 

[Judge Jules]

That would depend on what view RBS took of such proposals though. If they thought their eventual return would be put in jeopardy were the proposals in question to go through, they could - as others have said - lower the boom on H and G, move in and take the club over.

 

[etchy]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39852.msg1089745#msg1089745 date=1271621884]
[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089731#msg1089731 date=1271621587]
Not sure if there's any clarity on this or it's all confidential. Say Beavis and Butthead sticks with their valuation. Prospective buyers refuse to meet their valuation. What happens in a no sale situation? Would RBS have the right to 'repossess' the club and do a firesale. Or would it be the case the players would be sold to satisfy RBS 100 mil reduction? It seems to me that the valuation is an inexact science, does Martin Broughton have a right to override and have a final say on the value of the club?
[/quote]

if G&H agree not to sell then the club wont be sold. G&H have lost their veto (for each others half) but together they could stop a sale if broughton brought them a deal they thought didn't match their valuation. broughton would of course broker the best deal possible for them, but if they can't sell they have options, they could sell gerrard and torres to raise the 100m to pay rbs, or refinance elsewhere but those are rubbish options.
[/quote]

thanks for the summary spidey. Was thinking what what be the underlining threat from G&H's perspective, should they keep the unrealistic valuation. If the threat of a no-sale situation is bas enough at least there'll be a better hope of avoiding the 'rubbish options. Liverpool is considered Weetabix in their eyes, I doubt they have any care about how much further the club would fall with a major player sale. Depressing stuff together with Torres' injury news. Sigh.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39852.msg1089755#msg1089755 date=1271622440]
That would depend on what view RBS took of such proposals though. If they thought their eventual return would be put in jeopardy were the proposals in question to go through, they could - as others have said - lower the boom on H and G, move in and take the club over.
[/quote]

could they? has there been a precedent for this? I think before that happened the yanks would use ANY means to prevent this.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39852.msg1089745#msg1089745 date=1271621884]
[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089731#msg1089731 date=1271621587]
Not sure if there's any clarity on this or it's all confidential. Say Beavis and Butthead sticks with their valuation. Prospective buyers refuse to meet their valuation. What happens in a no sale situation? Would RBS have the right to 'repossess' the club and do a firesale. Or would it be the case the players would be sold to satisfy RBS 100 mil reduction? It seems to me that the valuation is an inexact science, does Martin Broughton have a right to override and have a final say on the value of the club?
[/quote]

if G&H agree not to sell then the club wont be sold. G&H have lost their veto (for each others half) but together they could stop a sale if broughton brought them a deal they thought didn't match their valuation. broughton would of course broker the best deal possible for them, but if they can't sell they have options, they could sell gerrard and torres to raise the 100m to pay rbs, or refinance elsewhere but those are rubbish options.
[/quote]

I don't agree with much of that.

Since they are now off the board they have no ability to influence day to day decisions. They can't sell Gerrard and Torres to find 100m. They can't raise any finance. Lame duck owners is all they are now.

This is the end of the line, Hicks' comments are merely posturing. If he doesn't sell he'll lose his share to RBS. That's where were at now.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089764#msg1089764 date=1271623285]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39852.msg1089745#msg1089745 date=1271621884]
[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089731#msg1089731 date=1271621587]
Not sure if there's any clarity on this or it's all confidential. Say Beavis and Butthead sticks with their valuation. Prospective buyers refuse to meet their valuation. What happens in a no sale situation? Would RBS have the right to 'repossess' the club and do a firesale. Or would it be the case the players would be sold to satisfy RBS 100 mil reduction? It seems to me that the valuation is an inexact science, does Martin Broughton have a right to override and have a final say on the value of the club?
[/quote]

if G&H agree not to sell then the club wont be sold. G&H have lost their veto (for each others half) but together they could stop a sale if broughton brought them a deal they thought didn't match their valuation. broughton would of course broker the best deal possible for them, but if they can't sell they have options, they could sell gerrard and torres to raise the 100m to pay rbs, or refinance elsewhere but those are rubbish options.
[/quote]



Since they are now off the board they have no ability to influence day to day decisions. They can't sell Gerrard and Torres to find 100m. They can't raise any finance. Lame duck owners is all they are now.


[/quote]

okay, that's a fair comment. they could still refinance elsewhere as I'm sure 'someone' would deal with them.
I don't think this will be necessary as broughton seems fairly confident this will be sorted in a matter of months but if it isn't the yanks have options we should delude ourselves into thinking they haven't.

 

[etchy]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089764#msg1089764 date=1271623285]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39852.msg1089745#msg1089745 date=1271621884]
[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089731#msg1089731 date=1271621587]
Not sure if there's any clarity on this or it's all confidential. Say Beavis and Butthead sticks with their valuation. Prospective buyers refuse to meet their valuation. What happens in a no sale situation? Would RBS have the right to 'repossess' the club and do a firesale. Or would it be the case the players would be sold to satisfy RBS 100 mil reduction? It seems to me that the valuation is an inexact science, does Martin Broughton have a right to override and have a final say on the value of the club?
[/quote]

if G&H agree not to sell then the club wont be sold. G&H have lost their veto (for each others half) but together they could stop a sale if broughton brought them a deal they thought didn't match their valuation. broughton would of course broker the best deal possible for them, but if they can't sell they have options, they could sell gerrard and torres to raise the 100m to pay rbs, or refinance elsewhere but those are rubbish options.
[/quote]

I don't agree with much of that.

Since they are now off the board they have no ability to influence day to day decisions. They can't sell Gerrard and Torres to find 100m. They can't raise any finance. Lame duck owners is all they are now.

This is the end of the line, Hicks' comments are merely posturing. If he doesn't sell he'll lose his share to RBS. That's where were at now.
[/quote]

Rosco, they may be off the board but the bottomline is they are the owners. If you are an owner of a company I can''t imagine your operational managers saying that you cannot sell xxx. It may be illogical but surely they cannot override the owners? Can't imagine RBS stepping in to do the sale of the club.

 

[Judge Jules]

I can. Not only have H and G kept them waiting well over time for repayment, RBS are now majority-owned by the taxpayer and will themselves be under pressure from government as a result. The club's operational managers wouldn't need to be involved (though Purslow for one was RBS' choice anyway).

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089771#msg1089771 date=1271623640]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089764#msg1089764 date=1271623285]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39852.msg1089745#msg1089745 date=1271621884]
[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089731#msg1089731 date=1271621587]
Not sure if there's any clarity on this or it's all confidential. Say Beavis and Butthead sticks with their valuation. Prospective buyers refuse to meet their valuation. What happens in a no sale situation? Would RBS have the right to 'repossess' the club and do a firesale. Or would it be the case the players would be sold to satisfy RBS 100 mil reduction? It seems to me that the valuation is an inexact science, does Martin Broughton have a right to override and have a final say on the value of the club?
[/quote]

if G&H agree not to sell then the club wont be sold. G&H have lost their veto (for each others half) but together they could stop a sale if broughton brought them a deal they thought didn't match their valuation. broughton would of course broker the best deal possible for them, but if they can't sell they have options, they could sell gerrard and torres to raise the 100m to pay rbs, or refinance elsewhere but those are rubbish options.
[/quote]

I don't agree with much of that.

Since they are now off the board they have no ability to influence day to day decisions. They can't sell Gerrard and Torres to find 100m. They can't raise any finance. Lame duck owners is all they are now.

This is the end of the line, Hicks' comments are merely posturing. If he doesn't sell he'll lose his share to RBS. That's where were at now.
[/quote]

Rosco, they may be off the board but the bottomline is they are the owners. If you are an owner of a company I can''t imagine your operational managers saying that you cannot sell xxx. It may be illogical but surely they cannot override the owners? Can't imagine RBS stepping in to do the sale of the club.
[/quote]

The board runs a company, if the shareholders have a problem with them they can vote the board out at the next AGM. And the Yanks won't be around for that.

They have no power any more. None whatsoever.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39852.msg1089775#msg1089775 date=1271623862]

though Purslow for one was RBS' choice anyway
[/quote]

Has there ever been any evidence of that ?

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39852.msg1089770#msg1089770 date=1271623575]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089764#msg1089764 date=1271623285]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39852.msg1089745#msg1089745 date=1271621884]
[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089731#msg1089731 date=1271621587]
Not sure if there's any clarity on this or it's all confidential. Say Beavis and Butthead sticks with their valuation. Prospective buyers refuse to meet their valuation. What happens in a no sale situation? Would RBS have the right to 'repossess' the club and do a firesale. Or would it be the case the players would be sold to satisfy RBS 100 mil reduction? It seems to me that the valuation is an inexact science, does Martin Broughton have a right to override and have a final say on the value of the club?
[/quote]

if G&H agree not to sell then the club wont be sold. G&H have lost their veto (for each others half) but together they could stop a sale if broughton brought them a deal they thought didn't match their valuation. broughton would of course broker the best deal possible for them, but if they can't sell they have options, they could sell gerrard and torres to raise the 100m to pay rbs, or refinance elsewhere but those are rubbish options.
[/quote]



Since they are now off the board they have no ability to influence day to day decisions. They can't sell Gerrard and Torres to find 100m. They can't raise any finance. Lame duck owners is all they are now.


[/quote]

okay, that's a fair comment. they could still refinance elsewhere as I'm sure 'someone' would deal with them.
I don't think this will be necessary as broughton seems fairly confident this will be sorted in a matter of months but if it isn't the yanks have options we should delude ourselves into thinking they haven't.
[/quote]

If they had any options, and possibilities of refinancing, they would still be on the Board and running the club.

 

[Judge Jules]

Ross, I did see the bit about Purslow stated in an article somewhere not long ago. Don't have that to hand unfortunately, but his background is in banking as I understand it.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39852.msg1089781#msg1089781 date=1271624166]
Ross, I did see the bit about Purslow stated in an article somewhere not long ago. Don't have that to hand unfortunately, but his background is in banking as I understand it.
[/quote]

I've only ever seen it as an SOS conspiracy theory.