• 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.

Is This A Can Of Worms I See Before Me ?

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember Broughton always maintained that the highest bid would not necessarily be the best bid. He apparently has 75 000 emails relating to the sale.

G&H are taking a chance because they have nothing to lose and know if they can claim damages in the US, where they have a few corrupt judges in their pockets, it will be worth their while. I'm chuffed that G&H got screwed and I'm confident that this frivolous lawsuit will get dealt with speedily. Look at how they lied to obtain injuctions? They are proven liars, underhanded and lack credibility. Good riddance.

Broughton wouldn't put his reputation on the line or at risk and frankly neither would the FSG/NESV. Unto each his own judgment but surely they have shown their hand and everything appears to be above board. They have acted prudently and in the best interest of the club from the little we have seen. How they conduct the management of their sporting interest suggest a very bright future for us but actions speak louder than words and I'm more than happy to reserve final judgement on them by the big decisions that they have to make both short-and-long term regarding summer transfers and the stadium issue.
 
It's too early to be coming to any conclusions regarding the owners imo, like others of said we'll be in a better position to judge them after this summer is over.

Vantage: I think so mate.
 
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=44189.msg1284056#msg1284056 date=1297448730]
[quote author=iseeredpeople link=topic=44189.msg1284051#msg1284051 date=1297448125]
They spent less than £2 mill net in the January window. You can of course argue that we made a great deal, though that remains to be seen.
Or you can argue that the January window isnt the best for shopping anyways.
Frankly none of us have any idea how good or bad FSG will be for LFC.
They certainly talk the talk, but then who doesnt these days.

We simply dont have a basis for making any real judgements.
I expect to learn a lot more about them during the summer however.
For now all I can say is that they havent done much wrong, and it seems they have done some good, so I remain cautiously optimistic.
[/quote]

I think you'd have to be pretty cynical to think they weren't looking to spend in January.
[/quote]

Yes, I agree, but we've been badly burnt before.
H&G spent on Masher and Torres, and promised a spade in the ground before 60 days had passed etc.
I like to think that our new owners are good guys though.
Like Purslow says, they are charming, intelligent and credible.
That is a start at least.
 
We went in for Micah Richards and Ashley Young and both clubs refused to sell. The intent to spend was there.

They haven't made any ourageous claims and have done everything with calm pragmatism.

The stadium is a fundamental issue and I'm all for remaining at Anfield but we are at a real disadvantage in match day revenue when compared to the Gooners and Scum.

The summer transfer window will be interesting but I'm hoping that we finalise our deals a whole lot quicker.

At least we are being linked to quality players like Taiwo, Concentrao, Lukaka, Erikson,Young, Marin, Rolando and Boran.
 
[quote author=Kenny4PM link=topic=44189.msg1284088#msg1284088 date=1297451185]
It's too early to be coming to any conclusions regarding the owners imo, like others of said we'll be in a better position to judge them after this summer is over.

Vantage: I think so mate.
[/quote]
Well he logged in on 9th Feb........
 
[quote author=RolandG link=topic=44189.msg1284109#msg1284109 date=1297452843]
We went in for Micah Richards and Ashley Young and both clubs refused to sell. The intent to spend was there.

They haven't made any ourageous claims and have done everything with calm pragmatism.

The stadium is a fundamental issue and I'm all for remaining at Anfield but we are at a real disadvantage in match day revenue when compared to the Gooners and Scum.

The summer transfer window will be interesting but I'm hoping that we finalise our deals a whole lot quicker.

At least we are being linked to quality players like Taiwo, Concentrao, Lukaka, Erikson,Young, Marin, Rolando and Boran.
[/quote]

When and where we're we linked to Marin?
 
[quote author=vantage link=topic=44189.msg1285045#msg1285045 date=1297630844]
[quote author=Kenny4PM link=topic=44189.msg1284088#msg1284088 date=1297451185]
It's too early to be coming to any conclusions regarding the owners imo, like others of said we'll be in a better position to judge them after this summer is over.

Vantage: I think so mate.
[/quote]
Well he logged in on 9th Feb........
[/quote]

He has had an indefinite ban by all accounts, so I am not sure where the log in came from.

regards
 
[quote author=ILD link=topic=44189.msg1285055#msg1285055 date=1297634591]
[quote author=RolandG link=topic=44189.msg1284109#msg1284109 date=1297452843]
We went in for Micah Richards and Ashley Young and both clubs refused to sell. The intent to spend was there.

They haven't made any ourageous claims and have done everything with calm pragmatism.

The stadium is a fundamental issue and I'm all for remaining at Anfield but we are at a real disadvantage in match day revenue when compared to the Gooners and Scum.

The summer transfer window will be interesting but I'm hoping that we finalise our deals a whole lot quicker.

At least we are being linked to quality players like Taiwo, Concentrao, Lukaka, Erikson,Young, Marin, Rolando and Boran.
[/quote]

When and where we're we linked to Marin?
[/quote]

and who's Boran?
 
[quote author=SummerOnions link=topic=44189.msg1285102#msg1285102 date=1297646220]
[quote author=ILD link=topic=44189.msg1285055#msg1285055 date=1297634591]
[quote author=RolandG link=topic=44189.msg1284109#msg1284109 date=1297452843]
We went in for Micah Richards and Ashley Young and both clubs refused to sell. The intent to spend was there.

They haven't made any ourageous claims and have done everything with calm pragmatism.

The stadium is a fundamental issue and I'm all for remaining at Anfield but we are at a real disadvantage in match day revenue when compared to the Gooners and Scum.

The summer transfer window will be interesting but I'm hoping that we finalise our deals a whole lot quicker.

At least we are being linked to quality players like Taiwo, Concentrao, Lukaka, Erikson,Young, Marin, Rolando and Boran.
[/quote]

When and where we're we linked to Marin?
[/quote]

and who's Boran?
[/quote]
x2
 
In case anyone's interested, it's apparently the same judge that decided against H and G originally who's hearing this case now. My guess is he directed that any follow-up was also to be listed for him to hear.

Avvy's better qualified than I am to comment, but I'd say that means H and G are toast this time too.
 
Unless H&G have unearthed some fact that puts into question the Directors carrying out proper due process I doubt there'll be any real change to the prior verdict.

Merely squealing because you didn't get as much as you'd thought isn't going to impress a judge especially when you gave the casting vote to a third party you didn't control.
 
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=44189.msg1285138#msg1285138 date=1297671053]
In case anyone's interested, it's apparently the same judge that decided against H and G originally who's hearing this case now. My guess is he directed that any follow-up was also to be listed for him to hear.

Avvy's better qualified than I am to comment, but I'd say that means H and G are toast this time too.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure there are some on here who know the facts better than I do,Jules..

The case has probably been directed to him since he's more privy to the case facts; though I'm not so confident that they're on a hiding to nothing. There's no chance they can lift the injunction, but my guess is they'll have the right to go to trial to seek damages.

I think this has some legs yet; the court will need oral evidence as to whether Broughton and Purslow breached their duties to the shareholders GnH.

The ultimate decision should favour the club though; there were no other legitimate takers.

Ironically it was the 'administration/no administration' issue which might prove crucial.

The directors initially dismissed the risk of administration until after the sale, after which point the danger was claimed to be very real. I think they should have played the administration card from Day 1. GnH would have had a tough time convincing the court that they're entitled to damages when the risk of waiting for better offers risked the club going into administration.
 
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=44189.msg1283594#msg1283594 date=1297422694]
Ignore me, I misread it as Poulsen!!!
[/quote]

:laugh: :laugh:
 
[quote author=Avvy link=topic=44189.msg1285158#msg1285158 date=1297674988]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=44189.msg1285138#msg1285138 date=1297671053]
In case anyone's interested, it's apparently the same judge that decided against H and G originally who's hearing this case now. My guess is he directed that any follow-up was also to be listed for him to hear.

Avvy's better qualified than I am to comment, but I'd say that means H and G are toast this time too.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure there are some on here who know the facts better than I do,Jules..

The case has probably been directed to him since he's more privy to the case facts; though I'm not so confident that they're on a hiding to nothing. There's no chance they can lift the injunction, but my guess is they'll have the right to go to trial to seek damages.

I think this has some legs yet; the court will need oral evidence as to whether Broughton and Purslow breached their duties to the shareholders GnH.

The ultimate decision should favour the club though; there were no other legitimate takers.

Ironically it was the 'administration/no administration' issue which might prove crucial.

The directors initially dismissed the risk of administration until after the sale, after which point the danger was claimed to be very real. I think they should have played the administration card from Day 1. GnH would have had a tough time convincing the court that they're entitled to damages when the risk of waiting for better offers risked the club going into administration.
[/quote]

Yeah, but there's a huge psychological shift required to manage any M&A activity while in administration Avvy. Not to say either Purslow or Broughton don't have those skills but I'd be surprised if all our management team was up to such a task. Additionally it would have opened a further can of worms as to whether such action unfairly prejudiced the potential pool of M&A targets.

While it may well have been a clever move and it can pay off I think it's always safer to stay away from that scenario - too many other parties with too many powers can become involved at that point.
 
That's true enough; just looking at things from hindsight, I guess.

To be very honest, the management did really really well, all things considered.

I think we'll be talking about the good work done by the supposed 'Horsemen of the Apocalypse' for many years to come.
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=44189.msg1285060#msg1285060 date=1297637603]
[quote author=vantage link=topic=44189.msg1285045#msg1285045 date=1297630844]
[quote author=Kenny4PM link=topic=44189.msg1284088#msg1284088 date=1297451185]
It's too early to be coming to any conclusions regarding the owners imo, like others of said we'll be in a better position to judge them after this summer is over.

Vantage: I think so mate.
[/quote]
Well he logged in on 9th Feb........
[/quote]

He has had an indefinite ban by all accounts, so I am not sure where the log in came from.

regards
[/quote]

Proxy?
 
Sky reporting that

Tom Hicks, the Texan former owner of Liverpool FC is given the chance to launch damages claims over the sale of the club.
 
Props to Avvy for forecasting this. Doesn't mean he'll be successful BTW, just that at this preliminary stage the court couldn't actually say there's no case to answer. The club itself isn't involved directly, though our new owners are.
 
Injunctive relief, such as the anti-suit injunction against G &H, is generally granted where the courts feel there is a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant seeking the relief. The crux of the dispute being about money, I have no doubts that Justice Floyd knew that any losses arising from a wrongly granted injunction could be easily remedied by damages awarded to G & H - the balance of convenience test thus satisfied.

In that sense, I think he'd be quite open to ruling against Broughton & Co, as long as G & H can substantiate the breach of fiduciary duty.
 
How likely is that in this case though, given the history of Hicks' and Gillett's own conduct of affairs while they owned the club and the light cast by that on the decision to sell to NESV? Had Mr.Justice Floyd been in any real doubt about these issues, surely he wouldn't have shot H and G's original case down in flames the way he did.
 
He didnt really shoot it down in flames, as Rushie has there (and was mentioned in October in the takeover thread) the judge simply said there might be an issue but its one that can be adequately compensated by money if it is successful so there was no need to stop the sale of the club. It has never been explained how the money lent to the club by the pair is no longer owed to them. It will be interesting to see how it proceeds.
 
I just wonder how dirty this will get once again with us making the news for all the wrong reasons?
 
It probably wont be as bad as October.

Theres nothing Hicks can do about NESV; but he might be able to claim damages as a result of breach of fiduciary duties by the directors. This is just about money.

Ross' point about the money lent is something I hadnt considered tbh; the only way I can think of why that money wasnt repaid is because we'd gone into administration leaving the creditors in pole position ahead of the shareholders. That didnt happen so they should be entitled to their money.
 
So it doesn't mean the cancerous pair have a great chance of winning? Just means they have a chance to sue?

I just hope this cancerous pair don't get monies, that should be invested into club.

It's enough to turn you off football!

So will it affect us?
 
epic Swindle No More


Liverpool former co-owner Tom Hicks cannot sue in US Tom Hicks (r) and George Gillett wanted to sell the club for much more than £300m .

One of Liverpool's former owners, Tom Hicks, has been blocked from suing in the US over the sale of the club.

The deal went ahead last year after judge Mr Justice Floyd granted orders preventing Mr Hicks taking court action in the US to halt the £300m deal.

At the High Court the same judge ordered that Mr Hicks can take action only in the UK.

Mr Hicks and former co-owner George Gillett want about $1bn (£620m) in damages from RBS and former directors.

They believe they are due compensation following the sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV) last October.

At the time, they described the sale as "an epic swindle".

In court on Thursday, Mr Justice Floyd also dismissed an application to strike out or stay claims by Sir Martin Broughton, the former chairman of the club, who is seeking damages against Mr Hicks for his actions while owner.

And an application by NESV to be allowed to join the Broughton action was granted by the judge.

"We are delighted that Mr Justice Floyd has granted the applications requested by [former chairman] Sir Martin Broughton, RBS and NESV and that the anti-suit injunction prohibiting the former owners from commencing legal actions against these parties outside the EU has been upheld and clarified," said a statement from Liverpool FC.

"Sir Martin, RBS and NESV continue to maintain that there is no basis to challenge the propriety or validity of any actions by them or any of those involved on their behalf in the sale of the club.

"They will continue to take all steps necessary to defend vigorously any litigation threatened or commenced by the club's former owners."

From the BBC
 
[quote author=localny link=topic=44189.msg1286610#msg1286610 date=1297944393]
So it doesn't mean the cancerous pair have a great chance of winning? Just means they have a chance to sue?

I just hope this cancerous pair don't get monies, that should be invested into club.

It's enough to turn you off football!

So will it affect us?
[/quote]

If you mean affect us in the sense of affecting the sale, then no.

But if you mean financially, then it could.

The decisions are good news so far though.
 
[quote author=Avvy link=topic=44189.msg1286634#msg1286634 date=1297946234]
[quote author=localny link=topic=44189.msg1286610#msg1286610 date=1297944393]
So it doesn't mean the cancerous pair have a great chance of winning? Just means they have a chance to sue?

I just hope this cancerous pair don't get monies, that should be invested into club.

It's enough to turn you off football!

So will it affect us?
[/quote]

If you mean affect us in the sense of affecting the sale, then no.

But if you mean financially, then it could.

The decisions are good news so far though.
[/quote]

Isn't it the case that the two twats are going after RBS and our former Directors mate? If so how could it affect our club financially?

Mr Hicks and former co-owner George Gillett want about $1bn (£620m) in damages from RBS and former directors.
 
[quote author=Kenny4PM link=topic=44189.msg1286641#msg1286641 date=1297947688]
[quote author=Avvy link=topic=44189.msg1286634#msg1286634 date=1297946234]
[quote author=localny link=topic=44189.msg1286610#msg1286610 date=1297944393]
So it doesn't mean the cancerous pair have a great chance of winning? Just means they have a chance to sue?

I just hope this cancerous pair don't get monies, that should be invested into club.

It's enough to turn you off football!

So will it affect us?
[/quote]

If you mean affect us in the sense of affecting the sale, then no.

But if you mean financially, then it could.

The decisions are good news so far though.
[/quote]

Isn't it the case that the two twats are going after RBS and our former Directors mates? If so how could it affect our club financially?

Mr Hicks and former co-owner George Gillett want about $1bn (£620m) in damages from RBS and former directors.
[/quote]

Well there's zero chance that the directors will be shelling anything out - that could only happen if they were proven to be more than just negligent; they'd have to be reckless or worse. Assuming a successful action they'd be covered under D&O insurances held by the club. Arguable that it would affect us directly but any insurance company that has to pay out 600m + isn't going to take to kindly and I'm sure our premiums - substantial already - would be raised in risk profile.

I've never understood how they received no compensation for their loans to the club unless it failed to be assessed as a commercial loan or somehow failed the test of an arms length transaction. The club was never officially placed in administration which would have ensured such a floating charge was in danger so I always expected them to at least recoup those monies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom