• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hicks: 'We've tripled in value'

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089779#msg1089779 date=1271624036]
[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.
[/quote]

the reason why they have stepped down from the board and hired broughton is so liverpool present a unified face to help with the sale which wouldn't be possible with G&H as chairman as their relationship has deteriorated.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089776#msg1089776 date=1271623908]
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.
[/quote]

I can see why the appointment of Martin Broughton is a big deal and change of 'strategy' if this is the situation.
Unfortunately, I can say with certainty that you are wrong in purporting they have no power any more.
They surely have the power to irritate, exasperate and infuriate fans with proclaimations of tripling the clubs' value.
 
[quote author=etchy link=topic=39852.msg1089793#msg1089793 date=1271624611]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089776#msg1089776 date=1271623908]
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.
[/quote]

I can see why the appointment of Martin Broughton is a big deal and change of 'strategy' if this is the situation.
Unfortunately, I can say with certainty that you are wrong in purporting they have no power any more.
They surely have the power to irritate, exasperate and infuriate fans with proclaimations of tripling the clubs' value.
[/quote]

They don't run the club any more. They're entitled to ask for whatever they like for their shares, but at the same time they risk ending up with nothing if they don't get a deal done in a reasonable amount of time.
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39852.msg1089787#msg1089787 date=1271624337]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089779#msg1089779 date=1271624036]
[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.
[/quote]

the reason why they have stepped down from the board and hired broughton is so liverpool present a unified face to help with the sale which wouldn't be possible with G&H as chairman as their relationship has deteriorated.
[/quote]

What difference does a"unified face" make ?

Why on earth would they voluntarily give up the power to run the club ?
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089799#msg1089799 date=1271625021]

Why on earth would they voluntarily give up the power to run the club ?
[/quote]

Maybe they thought giving up control was worth it to enjoy the welease woderick bit that Broughton unwittingly does.
 
[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]

I don't know why I thought they were off the board, they aren't.

But they have given up the control they previously had.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089818#msg1089818 date=1271626735]
[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]

I don't know why I thought they were off the board, they aren't.

But they have given up the control they previously had.
[/quote]

Ross, was going to make the comment on them being on the Board but you're ahead of me on that.


However, even if they were off the Board they are the majority shareholders and the Board reports to them. The articles of the Board state that the management and Board must operate the entity to the best interests of the shareholders - in this case H&G.

The loans have to be serviced, of course and the management must ensure they always operate within the laws and by-laws of the state but, otherwise, they'll do what is best for H&G. If they do anything to the contrary they would either be dismissed, litigated for mis-conduct or for negligence.


I do have a question on the ongoing theory's on Purslow; if he's in there for RBS then it has to be an enormous question on conflict of interests given I'm quite sure it is LFC (owned by H&G) who are paying him.
 
[quote author=Wilko7 link=topic=39852.msg1089638#msg1089638 date=1271614501]
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.

[/quote]
I'm tired of you sitting on the fence Wilko. Do you like Hicks or not?
 
Two things

1. I never understood the rationale behind singing the Munich song as some sort of riposte for the "murderers" song from the scum supporters. Some one accuses you of being a murderer, and your best attempt at a come back is ..."oh your lot died in a plane crash!!!"


2. It is fair to argue that the value of the club has increased, may be not to the extent these twats are claiming but it has clearly increased. I would say a 100% increase in value is not entirely outlandish claim.

Any valuation has to account for the present value of future revenues and also the risk factor in generating that. When these guys took over, we were languishing in terms of revenue generation, in-spite of having the fan-base. They have come in and accounted for near 50% increase in revenue, and we are now in the top 10 when it comes to the "revenue rich list". This is all before you even consider the possible stadium revenue, and they have come in and obtained the land development permissions for Stanley park, and also the regeneration of the surrounding region, obtained planning permission for a stadium with more capacity. They have also put in place a plan that will maximize revenue generation from the stadium. Yes, they have not built it, but the work that has gone in otherwise cannot be ignored. We now have higher realized revenue year on year compared to when they took over, and we also have a higher potential revenue from the stadium compared to when they took over. Would you not do the same thing if you were in their place?

They are proper cunts with no attachment to the club though.....that is clearly not up for debate.
 
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=39852.msg1089885#msg1089885 date=1271642310]
2. It is fair to argue that the value of the club has increased, may be not to the extent these twats are claiming but it has clearly increased. I would say a 100% increase in value is not entirely outlandish claim.

Any valuation has to account for the present value of future revenues and also the risk factor in generating that. When these guys took over, we were languishing in terms of revenue generation, in-spite of having the fan-base. They have come in and accounted for near 50% increase in revenue, and we are now in the top 10 when it comes to the "revenue rich list". This is all before you even consider the possible stadium revenue, and they have come in and obtained the land development permissions for Stanley park, and also the regeneration of the surrounding region, obtained planning permission for a stadium with more capacity. They have also put in place a plan that will maximize revenue generation from the stadium. Yes, they have not built it, but the work that has gone in otherwise cannot be ignored. We now have higher realized revenue year on year compared to when they took over, and we also have a higher potential revenue from the stadium compared to when they took over. Would you not do the same thing if you were in their place?

[/quote]

I recognize that they've done some good in capitalizing on the club, but lets be clear about the context, before we think they were particularly savvy.

The league as a whole has massively increased in terms of value. Revenue streams have massively increased for every club due to TV deals. The league brand is worth more, the CL has been worth more, especially with Rafa's success in the CL, and liverpool, as a brand established long ago, necessarily would increase because of all those factors. Their contribution in terms of setting up a team that better capitalized on these things is significant, but any contracts up for negotiation went up over their time. Look at the ever rising costs of player salaries, it's a function of the same thing. The pie gets bigger, each piece gets bigger.

Their contribution on the stadium is nothing. They spent a couple million to have plans drawn up, then the scaled back and spent more money to do so, and failed to deliver.

And the idea that they put us in the top 10 for revenue? We were there before they arrived. The largest changes in that list recently have to do with macroeconomic factors, wage tax rates, currency exchange.
 
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=39852.msg1089878#msg1089878 date=1271637320]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089818#msg1089818 date=1271626735]
[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]

I don't know why I thought they were off the board, they aren't.

But they have given up the control they previously had.
[/quote]

Ross, was going to make the comment on them being on the Board but you're ahead of me on that.


However, even if they were off the Board they are the majority shareholders and the Board reports to them. The articles of the Board state that the management and Board must operate the entity to the best interests of the shareholders - in this case H&G.

The loans have to be serviced, of course and the management must ensure they always operate within the laws and by-laws of the state but, otherwise, they'll do what is best for H&G. If they do anything to the contrary they would either be dismissed, litigated for mis-conduct or for negligence.


I do have a question on the ongoing theory's on Purslow; if he's in there for RBS then it has to be an enormous question on conflict of interests given I'm quite sure it is LFC (owned by H&G) who are paying him.
[/quote]

This bit in bold is always forgotten by those that like to have a go at Moores.

My argument in this thread is that they aren't relinquishing control voluntarily, they've been forced into it by the banks because presumably they've exhausted all other potential options first.
 
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=39852.msg1089878#msg1089878 date=1271637320]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=39852.msg1089818#msg1089818 date=1271626735]
[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]

I don't know why I thought they were off the board, they aren't.

But they have given up the control they previously had.
[/quote]

Ross, was going to make the comment on them being on the Board but you're ahead of me on that.


However, even if they were off the Board they are the majority shareholders and the Board reports to them. The articles of the Board state that the management and Board must operate the entity to the best interests of the shareholders - in this case H&G.

The loans have to be serviced, of course and the management must ensure they always operate within the laws and by-laws of the state but, otherwise, they'll do what is best for H&G. If they do anything to the contrary they would either be dismissed, litigated for mis-conduct or for negligence.


I do have a question on the ongoing theory's on Purslow; if he's in there for RBS then it has to be an enormous question on conflict of interests given I'm quite sure it is LFC (owned by H&G) who are paying him.
[/quote]

I'm equally sure they are, and I'm also sure that Purslow sees his primary duty as being to the club. However, I don't have a problem believing that H and G were "encouraged" into the appointment by a creditor breathing heavily down their necks.

I'll see if I can find that article I referred to earlier.
 
[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]

Agreed it must be bluster but at the same time he's been playing the same record for so fucking long now its getting worrying.

The club was financially mismanaged and they brought some acumen to improve that,(big fat Sky money increases and generally excellent european runs helped im sure) but the truth is without a new stadium we are and will remain massively limited and whatever he says he can't hide the fact that without it the club just isnt worth 650M.

I find it bizzarre for him to say that he's surprised that the fans turned against him, there he is explaining how he intends to leach a massive profit directly out of the club and for some reason thinks we are all gonna like it.... I have always been vociferously against the cunts but my feeling towards them are getting worse.... 650M!!

The club would be worth 600-700M IF it had the new stadium but it doesnt so.... its just obscure that he would insist on such a ludicrous value for so long. Interviews like that one just make me angry that RBS agreed yet again to extend the loans, we had an opportunity to pack that cunt off with his tail between his legs and instead they fell for it yet again and we end up having to wait for him to get his fill.

A cancerous vampire of a man. I sincerely wish him ill.

cunt.
 
It is just bluster, he knows that any prospective buyers will view the Americans in a position of weakness being forced to sell by the bank, of course he has to bull it up, although it is making him look a bit daft.
George Gillett is keeping his own counsel on this.

regards
 
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=39852.msg1089890#msg1089890 date=1271657474]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=39852.msg1089885#msg1089885 date=1271642310]
2. It is fair to argue that the value of the club has increased, may be not to the extent these twats are claiming but it has clearly increased. I would say a 100% increase in value is not entirely outlandish claim.

Any valuation has to account for the present value of future revenues and also the risk factor in generating that. When these guys took over, we were languishing in terms of revenue generation, in-spite of having the fan-base. They have come in and accounted for near 50% increase in revenue, and we are now in the top 10 when it comes to the "revenue rich list". This is all before you even consider the possible stadium revenue, and they have come in and obtained the land development permissions for Stanley park, and also the regeneration of the surrounding region, obtained planning permission for a stadium with more capacity. They have also put in place a plan that will maximize revenue generation from the stadium. Yes, they have not built it, but the work that has gone in otherwise cannot be ignored. We now have higher realized revenue year on year compared to when they took over, and we also have a higher potential revenue from the stadium compared to when they took over. Would you not do the same thing if you were in their place?

[/quote]

I recognize that they've done some good in capitalizing on the club, but lets be clear about the context, before we think they were particularly savvy.

The league as a whole has massively increased in terms of value. Revenue streams have massively increased for every club due to TV deals. The league brand is worth more, the CL has been worth more, especially with Rafa's success in the CL, and liverpool, as a brand established long ago, necessarily would increase because of all those factors. Their contribution in terms of setting up a team that better capitalized on these things is significant, but any contracts up for negotiation went up over their time. Look at the ever rising costs of player salaries, it's a function of the same thing. The pie gets bigger, each piece gets bigger.

Their contribution on the stadium is nothing. They spent a couple million to have plans drawn up, then the scaled back and spent more money to do so, and failed to deliver.

And the idea that they put us in the top 10 for revenue? We were there before they arrived. The largest changes in that list recently have to do with macroeconomic factors, wage tax rates, currency exchange.


[/quote]

For the sake of argument, lets say you buy a car, and due to some reason the manufacturer stops production the day after, but the demand remains, and this results in the cars value doubling in the resale market.

If you then have to sell the car, would you sell the car without mark-up to market?

You are being...well a fan. The value increased, weather its the owners doing or not does not come into the valuation process.

We were 15th in the revenue list before they took over, if i'm not wrong...but i could be horribly wrong. Regardless, the income statements don't lie. Our revenues have jumped massively. I do see that player wages also have risen, but player wages as a percentage of revenue remains the same, due to our club being run sensibly.

Regarding the stadium - projected revenue is part of the valuation process, thats all i'm saying. We were earlier narrow minded and settled for a marginal improvement on Anfield. These guys came in and devised a business plan to maximize revenue on that. Now that they have applied lipstick to the pig, they want to sell it to the most desperate man. It is heartless, but it makes business sense to me. If you say that projected revenues should never be included in the valuation process.....then the whole venture capital, and angel fund industry would be dead. As most of them invest on plain paper documents and an idea.

He is clearly demented when he says "value has trebled", but value has certainly increased and he should expect to take a profit. He would be one hell of a shitty business man, if he doesn't expect or plan to book a profit.
 
I think you are mistaking what I'm saying, and how I think about the matter.

I fully expect them to do what they are doing. I don't evaluate it in some moral way.

But, evaluating them on their business savvy alone, they don't come out looking that good. It's true they better capitalized on some revenue streams, but as I said, a large part of that is due to the fact that contracts came up, and would always be negotiated up, because the league exploded in terms of its overall value through increased international audience.

On the other hand, their business plan failed due to market conditions, and their being overleveraged, they are hardly unique in this, but it has depleted massive amounts of their wealth, and seen them forced to sell one asset after the next. They may well end up LFC for profits that are less than they could have achieved if prior bids are to be believed, and they were forced into providing more security with their own assets than they wanted to.

Their business model was always to sell after the stadium was built, or being built. That is why they didn't want to sell up. They failed to achieve that.

They also embarassed themselves with horrible PR, tarnished their names internationally, and had massive failures in communication, and petty squabbling which made them look unprofessional

Any new owner that comes in is going to review the stadium plans for a billionth time and do it their own way. Their work on it is an insignificant cost compared to the cost of the project, so I'm not sure why it can be counted as adding value to the club. The club has known it needs to build a stadium for some time. The fact that a plan made now, rather than 5 years ago, or 15 years ago, generates more revenue has to do a lot with the fact that football has been a massive growth industry.
 
What bugs me is that a pair of businessmen have patently failed in a venture and are still going to walk away with a massive profit. At no point did they budget to make us genuinely competitive they lied about the debt burden and they didn't get the stadium built, if the club has increased in value its because the league has as a whole and because we were massively undervalued to start with.



Its sticks in my craw somewhat to give them credit in anyway but in their defense they, unlike Moores, did understand the real value of the club, it's just sad that they are, always were, Parasites.

Hicks is correct the club could be worth the kind of money he is talking about but only when the right investment is put in, something they both patently were unable, or not of the mind, to do.

I hope that the new boardroom arrangements have stripped them of any real power over the club but if as it seems they are still asking for the value of the club potentially as opposed to in actuality then i fear it may not be just a matter of months, they've been asking a ridiculous price for too long.

Something the new chairman said the other day caught my attention, he said that he had been brought in to oversee the sale but to do so without the potential buyers being able to bid low due to RBS loan repayment deadline. That's both worrying and contradictory at the same time, he first insists that he has an extension and then implys that buyers had been using the repayment deadline pressure to throw in low bids such as the one by the Rhone group. So whats to prevent possible investors from waiting another six months if thats what the extension is? where would that leave us then? If broughton was brought on board (oh yes!) by Hicks then surely it's closer to the truth to say that his job is purely to obtain the best possible price for the parasite who clearly didnt want to be forced to sell up by RBS, it's a fairly desperate scam. Unless the new board has genuine power we are all still at square one, i doubt very much that Broughton has anything but his own self interest at heart and his job is simple, milk a large fee for his greedy boss Hicks. Whatever way it sits you would be a fucking idiot of an investor to pay 650M for a club which would only be worth that kind of money if it actually had a stadium, in the meantime we will continue to suffer until RBS grow some balls or Hicks fucking wakes up and gets realistic about the price.
 
Good post Molby.

Good thread alround really, apart from my lazy effort.
 
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39852.msg1090053#msg1090053 date=1271682483]
Good post Molby.

Good thread alround really, apart from my lazy effort.
[/quote]

Not at all squiggs.... your post was quite succint, i cannot fucking wait to see the back of them two cunts, fuck off and die is exactly what i want them to do.
 
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=39852.msg1089998#msg1089998 date=1271675831]
Please fuck off and die.

Thanks

LFC
[/quote]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^


I hate the cunt.
 
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=39852.msg1090044#msg1090044 date=1271681643]
What bugs me is that a pair of businessmen have patently failed in a venture and are still going to walk away with a massive profit. At no point did they budget to make us genuinely competitive they lied about the debt burden and they didn't get the stadium built, if the club has increased in value its because the league has as a whole and because we were massively undervalued to start with.

Its sticks in my craw somewhat to give them credit in anyway but in their defense they, unlike Moores, did understand the real value of the club, it's just sad that they are, always were, Parasites.

Hicks is correct the club could be worth the kind of money he is talking about but only when the right investment is put in, something they both patently were unable, or not of the mind, to do.

I hope that the new boardroom arrangements have stripped them of any real power over the club but if as it seems they are still asking for the value of the club potentially as opposed to in actuality then i fear it may not be just a matter of months, they've been asking a ridiculous price for too long.

Something the new chairman said the other day caught my attention, he said that he had been brought in to oversee the sale but to do so without the potential buyers being able to bid low due to RBS loan repayment deadline. That's both worrying and contradictory at the same time, he first insists that he has an extension and then implys that buyers had been using the repayment deadline pressure to throw in low bids such as the one by the Rhone group. So whats to prevent possible investors from waiting another six months if thats what the extension is? where would that leave us then? If broughton was brought on board (oh yes!) by Hicks then surely it's closer to the truth to say that his job is purely to obtain the best possible price for the parasite who clearly didnt want to be forced to sell up by RBS, it's a fairly desperate scam. Unless the new board has genuine power we are all still at square one, i doubt very much that Broughton has anything but his own self interest at heart and his job is simple, milk a large fee for his greedy boss Hicks. Whatever way it sits you would be a fucking idiot of an investor to pay 650M for a club which would only be worth that kind of money if it actually had a stadium, in the meantime we will continue to suffer until RBS grow some balls or Hicks fucking wakes up and gets realistic about the price.

[/quote]

Summed up my fears exactly. If only I were able to articulate as well. :-[ So back to where I started. Things do not so straight-forward. We could still end up in a mess.
 
The more i think about it the more im convinced that RBS should start wielding there power in a more direct and constructive way, in reality they, not GnH, are the owners of the club and they have all of the comensurate power. GnH simply cannot find the money so why doesn't RBS line up a buyer on its own terms independently of Hicks greedy grubby mits.

This Broughton chap is totally unnecesary and blatantly Hicks pawn with a remit to get a large profit for Hicks.

RBS does not need to accept this manouvering and IMO it shouldn't.

Im sure there will be somebody at RBS with enough contacts and nouse to find a better stronger investor and offer them a good financing package for both the acquisition of the club and construction of the needed stadium and fuck of GnH altogether. In effect their complete lack of cash has left them revealed as what the always are, desperate middle men, who currently own a debt which they can't pay. RBS once it looks past its lovely interest profits can see that it will kill the club in the long run if they are allowed to carry on with the charade.

I don't see how RBS allowing them one last chance to see if they can suck a final draft of blood is going to help things, the only positive I can see from last weeks developments is the imminent departure of two thoroughly greedy carpetbaggers.

For me that is not enough, RBS could play its hand in a much stronger fashion against GnH's busted flush, IMO they should not be allowed to walk away from the table with wads of cash stuffed into their fat arse pockets, it would be far too pyhrric a victory for them to go in such a fashion. Isn't it the Liverpool way to deserve a victory?

A de facto forclosure on the loan with a previously arranged buyer waiting in the wings ready to actually do the job the GnH failed to do is the best way forward IMO and it has the added bonus of preventing that snide fat lying texan cuntlord from taking another penny and bragging about us like we were fucking Weetaclub.... you never know it might just be enough of a financial bloody nose to bring down their illusory ill gotten empires or perhaps precipitate a stroke or a massive infarction. Thats all they truly deserve for such contemptuous greed.
 
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=39852.msg1090192#msg1090192 date=1271701323]
The more i think about it the more im convinced that RBS should start wielding there power in a more direct and constructive way, in reality they, not GnH, are the owners of the club and they have all of the comensurate power. GnH simply cannot find the money so why doesn't RBS line up a buyer on its own terms independently of Hicks greedy grubby mits.

This Broughton chap is totally unnecesary and blatantly Hicks pawn with a remit to get a large profit for Hicks.

RBS does not need to accept this manouvering and IMO it shouldn't.

Im sure there will be somebody at RBS with enough contacts and nouse to find a better stronger investor and offer them a good financing package for both the acquisition of the club and construction of the needed stadium and fuck of GnH altogether. In effect their complete lack of cash has left them revealed as what the always are, desperate middle men, who currently own a debt which they can't pay. RBS once it looks past its lovely interest profits can see that it will kill the club in the long run if they are allowed to carry on with the charade.

I don't see how RBS allowing them one last chance to see if they can suck a final draft of blood is going to help things, the only positive I can see from last weeks developments is the imminent departure of two thoroughly greedy carpetbaggers.

For me that is not enough, RBS could play its hand in a much stronger fashion against GnH's busted flush, IMO they should not be allowed to walk away from the table with wads of cash stuffed into their fat arse pockets, it would be far too pyhrric a victory for them to go in such a fashion. Isn't it the Liverpool way to deserve a victory?

A de facto forclosure on the loan with a previously arranged buyer waiting in the wings ready to actually do the job the GnH failed to do is the best way forward IMO and it has the added bonus of preventing that snide fat lying texan cuntlord from taking another penny and bragging about us like we were fucking Weetaclub.... you never know it might just be enough of a financial bloody nose to bring down their illusory ill gotten empires or perhaps precipitate a stroke or a massive infarction. Thats all they truly deserve for such contemptuous greed.
[/quote]

Banks, strangely enough, don't "look past profits". This is just one, relatively small, even tiny, item of risk.

Get fucking real.

Broughton is blatantly Hicks pawn? Could you explain how?
 
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=39852.msg1090197#msg1090197 date=1271701883]
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=39852.msg1090192#msg1090192 date=1271701323]
The more i think about it the more im convinced that RBS should start wielding there power in a more direct and constructive way, in reality they, not GnH, are the owners of the club and they have all of the comensurate power. GnH simply cannot find the money so why doesn't RBS line up a buyer on its own terms independently of Hicks greedy grubby mits.

This Broughton chap is totally unnecesary and blatantly Hicks pawn with a remit to get a large profit for Hicks.

RBS does not need to accept this manouvering and IMO it shouldn't.

Im sure there will be somebody at RBS with enough contacts and nouse to find a better stronger investor and offer them a good financing package for both the acquisition of the club and construction of the needed stadium and fuck of GnH altogether. In effect their complete lack of cash has left them revealed as what the always are, desperate middle men, who currently own a debt which they can't pay. RBS once it looks past its lovely interest profits can see that it will kill the club in the long run if they are allowed to carry on with the charade.

I don't see how RBS allowing them one last chance to see if they can suck a final draft of blood is going to help things, the only positive I can see from last weeks developments is the imminent departure of two thoroughly greedy carpetbaggers.

For me that is not enough, RBS could play its hand in a much stronger fashion against GnH's busted flush, IMO they should not be allowed to walk away from the table with wads of cash stuffed into their fat arse pockets, it would be far too pyhrric a victory for them to go in such a fashion. Isn't it the Liverpool way to deserve a victory?

A de facto forclosure on the loan with a previously arranged buyer waiting in the wings ready to actually do the job the GnH failed to do is the best way forward IMO and it has the added bonus of preventing that snide fat lying texan cuntlord from taking another penny and bragging about us like we were fucking Weetaclub.... you never know it might just be enough of a financial bloody nose to bring down their illusory ill gotten empires or perhaps precipitate a stroke or a massive infarction. Thats all they truly deserve for such contemptuous greed.
[/quote]

Banks, strangely enough, don't "look past profits". This is just one, relatively small, even tiny, item of risk.

Get fucking real.

Broughton is blatantly Hicks pawn? Could you explain how?
[/quote]

They don't have to look past profits they are in a position to sell the debt to any investor they wish, an investor who can then subsequently build a stadium probably with more borrowed funds, it is not in their interest to have a bad owner in place as eventually they will default, and there have been two examples of just that recently for GnH. RBS are holding all the cards and clearly want the current owners to sell, theres more than one way to skin a cat as they say.

As for Broughton i would have thought it was obvious, a man brought on board by Hicks himself over dinner to ensure that the club is sold to Hicks own advantage without the pressure of an immediate loan deadline. Why do you think he is there? Altruism? Why now exactly? They would have no problem selling the club at all if they weren't ludicrously overpricing it, it seems to me Hicks has managed to convine RBS that his man can get him a big fat paycheck if they just keep on taking the interest for six more months while we fester.

I admit it is fanciful to suggest RBS use their initiative they havent exactly bathed themselves in glory recently but if you cant see that Broughton is there for the owners advantage alone then well.... that really is fanciful.
 
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=39852.msg1090192#msg1090192 date=1271701323]
I don't see how RBS allowing them one last chance to see if they can suck a final draft of blood is going to help things, the only positive I can see from last weeks developments is the imminent departure of two thoroughly greedy carpetbaggers.

[/quote]

You're bitter, Molby. We get it! One post on the subject makes it clear.


To describe an alternate view to your posts as fanciful is ironic on the grandest of scales.


There is plenty to debate but your dismissal of the commercial strides we have taken since they bought the club makes using the CL victory to insult Rafa seem chivalrous. These two apparent "clowns" have increased our marketability hugely, increased our revenue massively, signed the most lucrative sponsorship deal we've ever seen - despite working through the worst financial crisis the world has seen in the last 30 years. But apparently they're just reaping the rewards of something that was going to happen anyway. ???


I've said it plenty of times and been through it with plenty of colleagues over the last couple of years; the one real mistake they have made (putting aside the debatable signing of Rafa's current contract) was to forecast a date to start constructing the new stadium. It was a comment borne of the optimism sweeping them at the time but still looked a foolish move at the time. Plenty of us said at the time that it was something that could come back to bite them and, in the end, it has been used to hang them several times over.

Demanding that they reduce the asking price for the club?? Absurd! What did we think they were here to do - act as a charity for LFC cause there weren't enough needy clubs in the US?


To this point they've continued to service the loan and done so more consistently than the majority of home owners manage to service their mortgages - and most of these owners are allowed to continue living there without foreclosure. RBS are going to become more relaxed on the settlement of the loan the more confidence we see returning to the economy. All the indications in Asia and the US just now are that the economy is building steadily without booming - the text book demonstration of strong, long term economic growth. Why would RBS risk a growing asset for international bad press, additional cost in administration requirements and the possibility of local fall out if the administration didn't go well?


As for us, well we've got a far higher revenue than ever, we've spent more money on players than ever in our history and a manager that seemingly the majority of fans wanted locked into a long term contract. If I was anywhere near the G&H team just now I'd be pointing out that even the bloody UK banks (notoriously conservative) are becoming more confident in the economy; only a fool would ditch they're largest asset now without consideration for future growth.
 
Forbes magazine has us valued at $822mill (£534mill approx). So Hicks's tripled in value is bullshit!!
 
we are only worth what someone is willing to pay, if Hicks is so confident that we're worth so much then he ought to put the club up for auction

what is he waiting for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

moron
  • Locked
Be Humble - We have not played anyone yet
2
Replies
35
Views
817
moron
moron
Judge Jules
    • Like
LFC - the first invincibles
Replies
1
Views
143
Jürgen4PM
Jürgen4PM
rurikbird
    • Like
  • Poll Poll
I’ll just say it…
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
180
Views
4K
Frogfish
Frogfish
Hyena
  • Locked
Takefusa Kubo
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
StevieM
StevieM
Brizzle
    • Like
  • Locked
Pre Match Pre Match - Arsenal (a) - Sun 16:30
2 3
Replies
74
Views
2K
binomial
binomial
Back
Top Bottom