"Radio silence resumes". Fuck of you flid.
Kenny Huang leading serious bid for LFC
- Thread starter Jürgen4PM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote author=Wilko link=topic=41235.msg1149417#msg1149417 date=1281092139]
What the basis for your opinion?
[/quote]
That he's a flid?
Because it's obvious.
What the basis for your opinion?
[/quote]
That he's a flid?
Because it's obvious.
Ok what the fuck?
Enrichment of the American is not their goal? Of course any owner would like to buy 100% equity at zero $ and spend on the squad, because that is effectively his asset he is growing. So can we turn that around and say lining up his own pockets is his goal. Who wouldn't like that
Giving the club away for free will not be the American's goal either. They have to come to a middle ground there. Because, with the kind of revenue the club is already generating, i don't see how the club's equity is value less.
The question is, does he or does he not want to buy the club? If he wants to, then he will have to provide a fair value. No Chinese negotiation tactics is going to force the owners. H&G could easily go back to Rhone group to invest 100 million pounds to pay down the debt in exchange of equity. At the time they were talking about 30% equity for 100 million pounds. That will seem like a better deal for them than giving it away for free. They don't have to sell. Because the Americans landed a bargain, and it still is a bargain at 400 million pounds. The shear number of fan support is worth every penny a owner would be paying out.
The appointed board has to keep the well being of share-holders (which is H&G) in mind. If not they will get sued for a shit load of money.
Enrichment of the American is not their goal? Of course any owner would like to buy 100% equity at zero $ and spend on the squad, because that is effectively his asset he is growing. So can we turn that around and say lining up his own pockets is his goal. Who wouldn't like that
Giving the club away for free will not be the American's goal either. They have to come to a middle ground there. Because, with the kind of revenue the club is already generating, i don't see how the club's equity is value less.
The question is, does he or does he not want to buy the club? If he wants to, then he will have to provide a fair value. No Chinese negotiation tactics is going to force the owners. H&G could easily go back to Rhone group to invest 100 million pounds to pay down the debt in exchange of equity. At the time they were talking about 30% equity for 100 million pounds. That will seem like a better deal for them than giving it away for free. They don't have to sell. Because the Americans landed a bargain, and it still is a bargain at 400 million pounds. The shear number of fan support is worth every penny a owner would be paying out.
The appointed board has to keep the well being of share-holders (which is H&G) in mind. If not they will get sued for a shit load of money.
What exactly is a "flid"?
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=41235.msg1149424#msg1149424 date=1281092479]
What exactly is a "flid"?
[/quote]
It's a pejorative term used to describe any person who might be otherwise labelled a div, bellend, spaz, retard, cock, twat, weapon etc
It is a derivative of the word "thalidomide" the drug which caused some damage to the unborn foetus, resulting in stunted arms/ legs.
What exactly is a "flid"?
[/quote]
It's a pejorative term used to describe any person who might be otherwise labelled a div, bellend, spaz, retard, cock, twat, weapon etc
It is a derivative of the word "thalidomide" the drug which caused some damage to the unborn foetus, resulting in stunted arms/ legs.
Bamba does seem to have some insider knowledge, even if that is perhaps a connection to one of the journos (my guess would be it is a pal of Tony Evans), as he has broken some information before it hit the papers and other news agencies.
However he is clearly an utter wab, who is milking his quasi-messianic status among the mongs on RAWK.
However he is clearly an utter wab, who is milking his quasi-messianic status among the mongs on RAWK.
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=41235.msg1149424#msg1149424 date=1281092479]
What exactly is a "flid"?
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
shortened to flid.
What exactly is a "flid"?
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
shortened to flid.
[quote author=DBP link=topic=41235.msg1149408#msg1149408 date=1281090918]
Bamba's post on RAWK came before anyone else. The first repeat of this came via Times journalists on Twitter and is now being repeated in all the major Broadsheets.
[/quote]
We've been linked with Huang for months and months, and he's hasn't exactly been quiet about it. My sister and her husband live in Shanghai, and it's hardly been a secret there that they've been interested either.
He hasn't said anything that has been illuminating in the slightest, but in the silly RAWK world of secret subforums, writers boards, compartmentalized threads, the one eyed flid/cock is king.
Bamba's post on RAWK came before anyone else. The first repeat of this came via Times journalists on Twitter and is now being repeated in all the major Broadsheets.
[/quote]
We've been linked with Huang for months and months, and he's hasn't exactly been quiet about it. My sister and her husband live in Shanghai, and it's hardly been a secret there that they've been interested either.
He hasn't said anything that has been illuminating in the slightest, but in the silly RAWK world of secret subforums, writers boards, compartmentalized threads, the one eyed flid/cock is king.
Kingjulian, according to yesterday's reports the reason CIC consider Statler and Waldorf's shares to be effectively worthless is that their value is swamped by the debt those two chisellers have loaded on the club. You may not agree, but it seems a tenable view to me.
As far as H and G "easily" going back" to whoever for more borrowing goes, I suspect any such prospective lenders will be more wary than you about their prospects of actually getting their money back as long as those two remain in charge. They themselves are enough of an obstacle to put other sources of finance off, which is why they'd be well advised to f'ck off for their own sake as well as everyone else's.
As far as H and G "easily" going back" to whoever for more borrowing goes, I suspect any such prospective lenders will be more wary than you about their prospects of actually getting their money back as long as those two remain in charge. They themselves are enough of an obstacle to put other sources of finance off, which is why they'd be well advised to f'ck off for their own sake as well as everyone else's.
If Huang's gang ends up getting the club for anywhere close to what they are proposing to pay, it'll be an incredible deal, and I just can't see it happening. I can't imagine that H&G would allow themselves to be in a position where they are forced to take a loss. Why wouldn't they have sold ages ago if this was the alternative. Brinksmanship with their refinancing was never going to work in their favour, in fact quite the opposite. I just don't get it.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1149422#msg1149422 date=1281092427]
Ok what the fuck?
Enrichment of the American is not their goal? Of course any owner would like to buy 100% equity at zero $ and spend on the squad, because that is effectively his asset he is growing. So can we turn that around and say lining up his own pockets is his goal. Who wouldn't like that
Giving the club away for free will not be the American's goal either. They have to come to a middle ground there. Because, with the kind of revenue the club is already generating, i don't see how the club's equity is value less.
The question is, does he or does he not want to buy the club? If he wants to, then he will have to provide a fair value. No Chinese negotiation tactics is going to force the owners. H&G could easily go back to Rhone group to invest 100 million pounds to pay down the debt in exchange of equity. At the time they were talking about 30% equity for 100 million pounds. That will seem like a better deal for them than giving it away for free. They don't have to sell. Because the Americans landed a bargain, and it still is a bargain at 400 million pounds. The shear number of fan support is worth every penny a owner would be paying out.
The appointed board has to keep the well being of share-holders (which is H&G) in mind. If not they will get sued for a shit load of money.
[/quote]
Apparently (I'm waiting to be corrected by Rosco)- Under the agreement with RBS to extend the loan period the Yanks agreed to commit to selling the club, and Broughton was appointed to oversee the process. Some reports have it that the offers for the club will be judged by the 5 person board. Under the rules they agreed to, H&G cannot just accept money from the Rhone group for a share of the club, or accept an offer from Yirdi unless it is approved by the board. Therefore they take whatever deal is put in front of them, or thet default on their agreement with RBS who can affectively take control of the club (I think). If this is something close to the truth, and given the nature of the Huang approach with no profit for the yanks, I'd say it must be, then the Huang bid maximises the benefit for the club to the detriment of owner profit. I'm very happy with that.
Ok what the fuck?
Enrichment of the American is not their goal? Of course any owner would like to buy 100% equity at zero $ and spend on the squad, because that is effectively his asset he is growing. So can we turn that around and say lining up his own pockets is his goal. Who wouldn't like that
Giving the club away for free will not be the American's goal either. They have to come to a middle ground there. Because, with the kind of revenue the club is already generating, i don't see how the club's equity is value less.
The question is, does he or does he not want to buy the club? If he wants to, then he will have to provide a fair value. No Chinese negotiation tactics is going to force the owners. H&G could easily go back to Rhone group to invest 100 million pounds to pay down the debt in exchange of equity. At the time they were talking about 30% equity for 100 million pounds. That will seem like a better deal for them than giving it away for free. They don't have to sell. Because the Americans landed a bargain, and it still is a bargain at 400 million pounds. The shear number of fan support is worth every penny a owner would be paying out.
The appointed board has to keep the well being of share-holders (which is H&G) in mind. If not they will get sued for a shit load of money.
[/quote]
Apparently (I'm waiting to be corrected by Rosco)- Under the agreement with RBS to extend the loan period the Yanks agreed to commit to selling the club, and Broughton was appointed to oversee the process. Some reports have it that the offers for the club will be judged by the 5 person board. Under the rules they agreed to, H&G cannot just accept money from the Rhone group for a share of the club, or accept an offer from Yirdi unless it is approved by the board. Therefore they take whatever deal is put in front of them, or thet default on their agreement with RBS who can affectively take control of the club (I think). If this is something close to the truth, and given the nature of the Huang approach with no profit for the yanks, I'd say it must be, then the Huang bid maximises the benefit for the club to the detriment of owner profit. I'm very happy with that.
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41235.msg1149434#msg1149434 date=1281093203]
If Huang's gang ends up getting the club for anywhere close to what they are proposing to pay, it'll be an incredible deal, and I just can't see it happening. I can't imagine that H&G would allow themselves to be in a position where they are forced to take a loss. Why wouldn't they have sold ages ago if this was the alternative. Brinksmanship with their refinancing was never going to work in their favour, in fact quite the opposite. I just don't get it.
[/quote]
H & G has manouvered themselves into a corner were they have nothing to say. Their loans are overdue, and they dont have the money to save the leftovers of their dream profit!!
If Huang's gang ends up getting the club for anywhere close to what they are proposing to pay, it'll be an incredible deal, and I just can't see it happening. I can't imagine that H&G would allow themselves to be in a position where they are forced to take a loss. Why wouldn't they have sold ages ago if this was the alternative. Brinksmanship with their refinancing was never going to work in their favour, in fact quite the opposite. I just don't get it.
[/quote]
H & G has manouvered themselves into a corner were they have nothing to say. Their loans are overdue, and they dont have the money to save the leftovers of their dream profit!!
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1149422#msg1149422 date=1281092427]
Ok what the fuck?
Enrichment of the American is not their goal? Of course any owner would like to buy 100% equity at zero $ and spend on the squad, because that is effectively his asset he is growing. So can we turn that around and say lining up his own pockets is his goal. Who wouldn't like that
Giving the club away for free will not be the American's goal either. They have to come to a middle ground there. Because, with the kind of revenue the club is already generating, i don't see how the club's equity is value less.
The question is, does he or does he not want to buy the club? If he wants to, then he will have to provide a fair value. No Chinese negotiation tactics is going to force the owners. H&G could easily go back to Rhone group to invest 100 million pounds to pay down the debt in exchange of equity. At the time they were talking about 30% equity for 100 million pounds. That will seem like a better deal for them than giving it away for free. They don't have to sell. Because the Americans landed a bargain, and it still is a bargain at 400 million pounds. The shear number of fan support is worth every penny a owner would be paying out.
The appointed board has to keep the well being of share-holders (which is H&G) in mind. If not they will get sued for a shit load of money.
[/quote]
but 30% for £100m values their shares at £333m which is less than the £350m or so that the chinese are said to be willing to pay.
and, as far as i can see, they pretty much do have to sell. the terms of the last refinancing are so punitive (effectively giving the board the ability to veto the owners in any sale agreement) that the americans are basicaly powerless.
Ok what the fuck?
Enrichment of the American is not their goal? Of course any owner would like to buy 100% equity at zero $ and spend on the squad, because that is effectively his asset he is growing. So can we turn that around and say lining up his own pockets is his goal. Who wouldn't like that
Giving the club away for free will not be the American's goal either. They have to come to a middle ground there. Because, with the kind of revenue the club is already generating, i don't see how the club's equity is value less.
The question is, does he or does he not want to buy the club? If he wants to, then he will have to provide a fair value. No Chinese negotiation tactics is going to force the owners. H&G could easily go back to Rhone group to invest 100 million pounds to pay down the debt in exchange of equity. At the time they were talking about 30% equity for 100 million pounds. That will seem like a better deal for them than giving it away for free. They don't have to sell. Because the Americans landed a bargain, and it still is a bargain at 400 million pounds. The shear number of fan support is worth every penny a owner would be paying out.
The appointed board has to keep the well being of share-holders (which is H&G) in mind. If not they will get sued for a shit load of money.
[/quote]
but 30% for £100m values their shares at £333m which is less than the £350m or so that the chinese are said to be willing to pay.
and, as far as i can see, they pretty much do have to sell. the terms of the last refinancing are so punitive (effectively giving the board the ability to veto the owners in any sale agreement) that the americans are basicaly powerless.
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41235.msg1149430#msg1149430 date=1281092834]
[quote author=DBP link=topic=41235.msg1149408#msg1149408 date=1281090918]
Bamba's post on RAWK came before anyone else. The first repeat of this came via Times journalists on Twitter and is now being repeated in all the major Broadsheets.
[/quote]
We've been linked with Huang for months and months, and he's hasn't exactly been quiet about it. My sister and her husband live in Shanghai, and it's hardly been a secret there that they've been interested either.
He hasn't said anything that has been illuminating in the slightest, but in the silly RAWK world of secret subforums, writers boards, compartmentalized threads, the one eyed flid/cock is king.
[/quote]
So your sister, her husband and presumably you have known about Huang "all along" - think it's you that's trying to look like you've been in the loop all along.
Bamba was the first person to mention Yang Guang last night and a few hours later all the main tabloids were following his lead. If you guys still want to discredit him then it makes absolutely no difference to me. I just think that this site is extremely insular and too quick to dismiss anything else...
[quote author=DBP link=topic=41235.msg1149408#msg1149408 date=1281090918]
Bamba's post on RAWK came before anyone else. The first repeat of this came via Times journalists on Twitter and is now being repeated in all the major Broadsheets.
[/quote]
We've been linked with Huang for months and months, and he's hasn't exactly been quiet about it. My sister and her husband live in Shanghai, and it's hardly been a secret there that they've been interested either.
He hasn't said anything that has been illuminating in the slightest, but in the silly RAWK world of secret subforums, writers boards, compartmentalized threads, the one eyed flid/cock is king.
[/quote]
So your sister, her husband and presumably you have known about Huang "all along" - think it's you that's trying to look like you've been in the loop all along.
Bamba was the first person to mention Yang Guang last night and a few hours later all the main tabloids were following his lead. If you guys still want to discredit him then it makes absolutely no difference to me. I just think that this site is extremely insular and too quick to dismiss anything else...
I think quite a few people have acknowledged he might know something, or have a contact. Or be Tony Evans.
But we have all agreed that he's a bellend.
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=41235.msg1149457#msg1149457 date=1281094277]
I think quite a few people have acknowledged he might know something, or have a contact. Or be Tony Evans.
But we have all agreed that he's a bellend.
[/quote]
*nods*
I think quite a few people have acknowledged he might know something, or have a contact. Or be Tony Evans.
But we have all agreed that he's a bellend.
[/quote]
*nods*
If it helps get rid of the no marks then fine let em have a profit even if its us who end up paying for it, just get fucking rid of them NOW. There actions have been ridiculous at best, expecting to sell an asset for its potential future value when they couldnt even keep up the payments on its current state. Ridiculous.
As for the Chinese bid they seem to be playing a blinder and have attacked the fundamental weakness in HnGs plan, total powerlessness due to them being a pair of skint dickheads. If they walk away not having made a loss they should be happy with that after all they have been drawing a handsome salary for 3 years and have got to watch a few good games for free. Fuck em.
My own spite aside for the good of the club i really hope this takeover works not because it leaves HnG thwarted but because maybe just maybe we can get out the fucking headlines for once.
As for the Chinese bid they seem to be playing a blinder and have attacked the fundamental weakness in HnGs plan, total powerlessness due to them being a pair of skint dickheads. If they walk away not having made a loss they should be happy with that after all they have been drawing a handsome salary for 3 years and have got to watch a few good games for free. Fuck em.
My own spite aside for the good of the club i really hope this takeover works not because it leaves HnG thwarted but because maybe just maybe we can get out the fucking headlines for once.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149435#msg1149435 date=1281093284]
Apparently (I'm waiting to be corrected by Rosco)- Under the agreement with RBS to extend the loan period the Yanks agreed to commit to selling the club, and Broughton was appointed to oversee the process. Some reports have it that the offers for the club will be judged by the 5 person board. Under the rules they agreed to, H&G cannot just accept money from the Rhone group for a share of the club, or accept an offer from Yirdi unless it is approved by the board. Therefore they take whatever deal is put in front of them, or thet default on their agreement with RBS who can affectively take control of the club (I think). If this is something close to the truth, and given the nature of the Huang approach with no profit for the yanks, I'd say it must be, then the Huang bid maximises the benefit for the club to the detriment of owner profit. I'm very happy with that.
[/quote]
I don't disagree that the board has been given the right to pick the bidder. But they still have to act on behalf of the shareholders.
For the sake of the argument, lets say there are two offers on the table, and one gives zero value for the equity, and another that gives a better valuation for the LFC equity. I don't see how the board can decide on the zero value offer because it promises better long term prospects for the club. The board has to act in the interest of its present share-holders not future share-holders.
I, as anyone else on this board, want the new owner to be able to fund stadium and support squad additions. But that owner also needs to match or come very very close to the best valuation of the club's equity. He can't say he will pay less to the owners because he wants to spend more on the asset. That doesn't sound logical.
Waldorf and Statler are not thick, they would have been advised on proper valuation of the club by independent investment broker houses. Every one in our board will be aware of what that value is, and any bid has to come close to that valuation. Especially when there is more than one interested party. "I would prefer not to enrich the out going owners", is an idiotic stand point for that reason....at least i feel it is. If the clubs Debt and Equity is actually valued lower than the actual value owed to the banks, then tough luck. But i doubt thats the case. We are talking about a club that is certainly in the top 15 in world football in terms of Revenue generation, and a fan base that suggests that it has the potential to be top of that chart.
I would be massively surprised if the Americans make a loss out of their Liverpool investments. I have no opinion on whether they deserve a profit or not. I think, they deserve what the club is worth. If it's zero it's zero. Because they own it now. If i owned the club, i would expect my buyer to pay me what its worth. I'm not going to accept significantly less, because the new owner will run the club well.
Apparently (I'm waiting to be corrected by Rosco)- Under the agreement with RBS to extend the loan period the Yanks agreed to commit to selling the club, and Broughton was appointed to oversee the process. Some reports have it that the offers for the club will be judged by the 5 person board. Under the rules they agreed to, H&G cannot just accept money from the Rhone group for a share of the club, or accept an offer from Yirdi unless it is approved by the board. Therefore they take whatever deal is put in front of them, or thet default on their agreement with RBS who can affectively take control of the club (I think). If this is something close to the truth, and given the nature of the Huang approach with no profit for the yanks, I'd say it must be, then the Huang bid maximises the benefit for the club to the detriment of owner profit. I'm very happy with that.
[/quote]
I don't disagree that the board has been given the right to pick the bidder. But they still have to act on behalf of the shareholders.
For the sake of the argument, lets say there are two offers on the table, and one gives zero value for the equity, and another that gives a better valuation for the LFC equity. I don't see how the board can decide on the zero value offer because it promises better long term prospects for the club. The board has to act in the interest of its present share-holders not future share-holders.
I, as anyone else on this board, want the new owner to be able to fund stadium and support squad additions. But that owner also needs to match or come very very close to the best valuation of the club's equity. He can't say he will pay less to the owners because he wants to spend more on the asset. That doesn't sound logical.
Waldorf and Statler are not thick, they would have been advised on proper valuation of the club by independent investment broker houses. Every one in our board will be aware of what that value is, and any bid has to come close to that valuation. Especially when there is more than one interested party. "I would prefer not to enrich the out going owners", is an idiotic stand point for that reason....at least i feel it is. If the clubs Debt and Equity is actually valued lower than the actual value owed to the banks, then tough luck. But i doubt thats the case. We are talking about a club that is certainly in the top 15 in world football in terms of Revenue generation, and a fan base that suggests that it has the potential to be top of that chart.
I would be massively surprised if the Americans make a loss out of their Liverpool investments. I have no opinion on whether they deserve a profit or not. I think, they deserve what the club is worth. If it's zero it's zero. Because they own it now. If i owned the club, i would expect my buyer to pay me what its worth. I'm not going to accept significantly less, because the new owner will run the club well.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1149472#msg1149472 date=1281095256]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149435#msg1149435 date=1281093284]
Apparently (I'm waiting to be corrected by Rosco)- Under the agreement with RBS to extend the loan period the Yanks agreed to commit to selling the club, and Broughton was appointed to oversee the process. Some reports have it that the offers for the club will be judged by the 5 person board. Under the rules they agreed to, H&G cannot just accept money from the Rhone group for a share of the club, or accept an offer from Yirdi unless it is approved by the board. Therefore they take whatever deal is put in front of them, or thet default on their agreement with RBS who can affectively take control of the club (I think). If this is something close to the truth, and given the nature of the Huang approach with no profit for the yanks, I'd say it must be, then the Huang bid maximises the benefit for the club to the detriment of owner profit. I'm very happy with that.
[/quote]
I don't disagree the board has been given the right to pick the bidder. But they still have to act on behalf of the shareholders.
For the sake of the argument, lets say there are two offers on the table, and one gives zero value for the equity, and another that gives a better valuation for the LFC equity. I don't see how the board can decide on the zero value offer because it promises better long term prospects for the club. The board has to act in the interest of its present share-holders not future share-holders.
I, as anyone else on this board, want the new owner to be able to fund stadium and support squad additions. But that owner also needs to match or come very very close to the best valuation of the club's equity. He can't say he will pay less to the owners because he wants to spend more on the asset. That doesn't sound logical.
Waldorf and Statler are not thick, they would have been advised on proper valuation of the club by independent investment broker houses. Every one in our board will be aware of what that value is, and any bid has to come close to that valuation. "I would prefer not to enrich the out going owners", is an idiotic stand point for that reason....at least i feel it is. If the clubs Debt and Equity is actually valued lower than the actual value owed to the banks, then tough luck. But i doubt thats the case. We are talking about a club that is certainly in the top 15 in world football in terms of Revenue generation, and a fan base that suggests that it has the potential to be top of that chart.
I would be massively surprised if the Americans make a loss out of their Liverpool investments. I have no opinion on whether they deserve a profit or not. I think, they deserve what the club is worth. If it's zero it's zero. Because they own it now. If i owned the club, i would expect my buyer to pay me what its worth. I'm not going to accept significantly less, because the new owner will run the club well.
[/quote]
From Broughton's own word, he will choose based on the bid that best guarantees the succesful future of LFC. So not in favour of shareholders present or future, but the institution of LFC itself. All things being equal, 2 bids, both offering to develop the club, build the stadium and with proof of the finance to do it, and one additionally offers a profit for H&G, of course, he will go with it.
Huang's gamble seem to be that no such bid will emerge that offers the benefits to the club as his bid- and these are the terms in which Broughton says he will choose. 'Not the highest bid' he said, but the best for LFC. The Huang gang's bid appears to be based on the sincerity of that statement. I repeat, the fact that the outline of their proposal was 'welcomed' by the board (and clearly that did not include H&G) suggests that Broughton sees their offer as feasible.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149435#msg1149435 date=1281093284]
Apparently (I'm waiting to be corrected by Rosco)- Under the agreement with RBS to extend the loan period the Yanks agreed to commit to selling the club, and Broughton was appointed to oversee the process. Some reports have it that the offers for the club will be judged by the 5 person board. Under the rules they agreed to, H&G cannot just accept money from the Rhone group for a share of the club, or accept an offer from Yirdi unless it is approved by the board. Therefore they take whatever deal is put in front of them, or thet default on their agreement with RBS who can affectively take control of the club (I think). If this is something close to the truth, and given the nature of the Huang approach with no profit for the yanks, I'd say it must be, then the Huang bid maximises the benefit for the club to the detriment of owner profit. I'm very happy with that.
[/quote]
I don't disagree the board has been given the right to pick the bidder. But they still have to act on behalf of the shareholders.
For the sake of the argument, lets say there are two offers on the table, and one gives zero value for the equity, and another that gives a better valuation for the LFC equity. I don't see how the board can decide on the zero value offer because it promises better long term prospects for the club. The board has to act in the interest of its present share-holders not future share-holders.
I, as anyone else on this board, want the new owner to be able to fund stadium and support squad additions. But that owner also needs to match or come very very close to the best valuation of the club's equity. He can't say he will pay less to the owners because he wants to spend more on the asset. That doesn't sound logical.
Waldorf and Statler are not thick, they would have been advised on proper valuation of the club by independent investment broker houses. Every one in our board will be aware of what that value is, and any bid has to come close to that valuation. "I would prefer not to enrich the out going owners", is an idiotic stand point for that reason....at least i feel it is. If the clubs Debt and Equity is actually valued lower than the actual value owed to the banks, then tough luck. But i doubt thats the case. We are talking about a club that is certainly in the top 15 in world football in terms of Revenue generation, and a fan base that suggests that it has the potential to be top of that chart.
I would be massively surprised if the Americans make a loss out of their Liverpool investments. I have no opinion on whether they deserve a profit or not. I think, they deserve what the club is worth. If it's zero it's zero. Because they own it now. If i owned the club, i would expect my buyer to pay me what its worth. I'm not going to accept significantly less, because the new owner will run the club well.
[/quote]
From Broughton's own word, he will choose based on the bid that best guarantees the succesful future of LFC. So not in favour of shareholders present or future, but the institution of LFC itself. All things being equal, 2 bids, both offering to develop the club, build the stadium and with proof of the finance to do it, and one additionally offers a profit for H&G, of course, he will go with it.
Huang's gamble seem to be that no such bid will emerge that offers the benefits to the club as his bid- and these are the terms in which Broughton says he will choose. 'Not the highest bid' he said, but the best for LFC. The Huang gang's bid appears to be based on the sincerity of that statement. I repeat, the fact that the outline of their proposal was 'welcomed' by the board (and clearly that did not include H&G) suggests that Broughton sees their offer as feasible.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149480#msg1149480 date=1281095804]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1149472#msg1149472 date=1281095256]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149435#msg1149435 date=1281093284]
Apparently (I'm waiting to be corrected by Rosco)- Under the agreement with RBS to extend the loan period the Yanks agreed to commit to selling the club, and Broughton was appointed to oversee the process. Some reports have it that the offers for the club will be judged by the 5 person board. Under the rules they agreed to, H&G cannot just accept money from the Rhone group for a share of the club, or accept an offer from Yirdi unless it is approved by the board. Therefore they take whatever deal is put in front of them, or thet default on their agreement with RBS who can affectively take control of the club (I think). If this is something close to the truth, and given the nature of the Huang approach with no profit for the yanks, I'd say it must be, then the Huang bid maximises the benefit for the club to the detriment of owner profit. I'm very happy with that.
[/quote]
I don't disagree the board has been given the right to pick the bidder. But they still have to act on behalf of the shareholders.
For the sake of the argument, lets say there are two offers on the table, and one gives zero value for the equity, and another that gives a better valuation for the LFC equity. I don't see how the board can decide on the zero value offer because it promises better long term prospects for the club. The board has to act in the interest of its present share-holders not future share-holders.
I, as anyone else on this board, want the new owner to be able to fund stadium and support squad additions. But that owner also needs to match or come very very close to the best valuation of the club's equity. He can't say he will pay less to the owners because he wants to spend more on the asset. That doesn't sound logical.
Waldorf and Statler are not thick, they would have been advised on proper valuation of the club by independent investment broker houses. Every one in our board will be aware of what that value is, and any bid has to come close to that valuation. "I would prefer not to enrich the out going owners", is an idiotic stand point for that reason....at least i feel it is. If the clubs Debt and Equity is actually valued lower than the actual value owed to the banks, then tough luck. But i doubt thats the case. We are talking about a club that is certainly in the top 15 in world football in terms of Revenue generation, and a fan base that suggests that it has the potential to be top of that chart.
I would be massively surprised if the Americans make a loss out of their Liverpool investments. I have no opinion on whether they deserve a profit or not. I think, they deserve what the club is worth. If it's zero it's zero. Because they own it now. If i owned the club, i would expect my buyer to pay me what its worth. I'm not going to accept significantly less, because the new owner will run the club well.
[/quote]
From Broughton's own word, he will choose based on the bid that best guarantees the succesful future of LFC. So not in favour of shareholders present or future, but the institution of LFC itself. All things being equal, 2 bids, both offering to develop the club, build the stadium and with proof of the finance to do it, and one additionally offers a profit for H&G, of course, he will go with it.
Huang's gamble seem to be that no such bid will emerge that offers the benefits to the club as his bid- and these are the terms in which Broughton says he will choose. 'Not the highest bid' he said, but the best for LFC. The Huang gang's bid appears to be based on the sincerity of that statement. I repeat, the fact that the outline of their proposal was 'welcomed' by the board (and clearly that did not include H&G) suggests that Broughton sees their offer as feasible.
[/quote]
I think it is safe to say that Broughton will ensure that the deal is in favour for future shareholders?
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1149472#msg1149472 date=1281095256]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149435#msg1149435 date=1281093284]
Apparently (I'm waiting to be corrected by Rosco)- Under the agreement with RBS to extend the loan period the Yanks agreed to commit to selling the club, and Broughton was appointed to oversee the process. Some reports have it that the offers for the club will be judged by the 5 person board. Under the rules they agreed to, H&G cannot just accept money from the Rhone group for a share of the club, or accept an offer from Yirdi unless it is approved by the board. Therefore they take whatever deal is put in front of them, or thet default on their agreement with RBS who can affectively take control of the club (I think). If this is something close to the truth, and given the nature of the Huang approach with no profit for the yanks, I'd say it must be, then the Huang bid maximises the benefit for the club to the detriment of owner profit. I'm very happy with that.
[/quote]
I don't disagree the board has been given the right to pick the bidder. But they still have to act on behalf of the shareholders.
For the sake of the argument, lets say there are two offers on the table, and one gives zero value for the equity, and another that gives a better valuation for the LFC equity. I don't see how the board can decide on the zero value offer because it promises better long term prospects for the club. The board has to act in the interest of its present share-holders not future share-holders.
I, as anyone else on this board, want the new owner to be able to fund stadium and support squad additions. But that owner also needs to match or come very very close to the best valuation of the club's equity. He can't say he will pay less to the owners because he wants to spend more on the asset. That doesn't sound logical.
Waldorf and Statler are not thick, they would have been advised on proper valuation of the club by independent investment broker houses. Every one in our board will be aware of what that value is, and any bid has to come close to that valuation. "I would prefer not to enrich the out going owners", is an idiotic stand point for that reason....at least i feel it is. If the clubs Debt and Equity is actually valued lower than the actual value owed to the banks, then tough luck. But i doubt thats the case. We are talking about a club that is certainly in the top 15 in world football in terms of Revenue generation, and a fan base that suggests that it has the potential to be top of that chart.
I would be massively surprised if the Americans make a loss out of their Liverpool investments. I have no opinion on whether they deserve a profit or not. I think, they deserve what the club is worth. If it's zero it's zero. Because they own it now. If i owned the club, i would expect my buyer to pay me what its worth. I'm not going to accept significantly less, because the new owner will run the club well.
[/quote]
From Broughton's own word, he will choose based on the bid that best guarantees the succesful future of LFC. So not in favour of shareholders present or future, but the institution of LFC itself. All things being equal, 2 bids, both offering to develop the club, build the stadium and with proof of the finance to do it, and one additionally offers a profit for H&G, of course, he will go with it.
Huang's gamble seem to be that no such bid will emerge that offers the benefits to the club as his bid- and these are the terms in which Broughton says he will choose. 'Not the highest bid' he said, but the best for LFC. The Huang gang's bid appears to be based on the sincerity of that statement. I repeat, the fact that the outline of their proposal was 'welcomed' by the board (and clearly that did not include H&G) suggests that Broughton sees their offer as feasible.
[/quote]
I think it is safe to say that Broughton will ensure that the deal is in favour for future shareholders?
Broughton's words seems to be designed to keep the media and fans at bay.
Of the criterias you listed;
1. Proof of financing ability
2. Valuation of the club
3. Ability to buy out the debt completely from the lending institutions
4. Willingness or ability to invest further into the club for stadium and squad
The last part will have to be the least priority. I don't see how the board can prioritize that over the other three and expect to not get in trouble for that. Especially when it can't even be policed. Even H & G said they will build stadium buy snoogy doggy. Are we going to hold the then out-going board responsible for this in the court of law?
Don't get me wrong. I want willingness and ability to invest further to be the highest priority, but i struggle to see how that can be ensured, due to the situation we are in.
I do agree that Huang is gambling on there not being an immediate bid for the club with similar financial backing. That is actually the reason he is forcing a decision by setting deadlines. He knows the moment there is a competing bid, he is likely to lose out. It's not because he wants to invest in the squad in this transfer window. In the grand scheme of things the impact of missing this transfer window is not going to be that great.
Of the criterias you listed;
1. Proof of financing ability
2. Valuation of the club
3. Ability to buy out the debt completely from the lending institutions
4. Willingness or ability to invest further into the club for stadium and squad
The last part will have to be the least priority. I don't see how the board can prioritize that over the other three and expect to not get in trouble for that. Especially when it can't even be policed. Even H & G said they will build stadium buy snoogy doggy. Are we going to hold the then out-going board responsible for this in the court of law?
Don't get me wrong. I want willingness and ability to invest further to be the highest priority, but i struggle to see how that can be ensured, due to the situation we are in.
I do agree that Huang is gambling on there not being an immediate bid for the club with similar financial backing. That is actually the reason he is forcing a decision by setting deadlines. He knows the moment there is a competing bid, he is likely to lose out. It's not because he wants to invest in the squad in this transfer window. In the grand scheme of things the impact of missing this transfer window is not going to be that great.
If Broughton is true to his word then then all things being equal the bid plan which does not include the club having to line the pockets of previous owners is the winning bid. Huangs bid as reported works due to the fact that he values the club dead right, zero. You could easily point out its potential and claim that as adding value but it only adds value if you have the financial capability of realising it, GnH patently do not, they have bitten of moré than they can chew, they know it, we know it, the Bank knows it and so does Huang.
At varios points ive seen our owners lauded for their hard headed business acumen, well the truth is if business is as cut throat as i suspect it is they have just got fucked by a sharper operator and they deserve neither profit ñor sympathy. I hope broughton has the balls to make the call.
At varios points ive seen our owners lauded for their hard headed business acumen, well the truth is if business is as cut throat as i suspect it is they have just got fucked by a sharper operator and they deserve neither profit ñor sympathy. I hope broughton has the balls to make the call.
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=41235.msg1149506#msg1149506 date=1281096960]
If Broughton is true to his word then then all things being equal the bid plan which does not include the club having to line the pockets of previous owners is the winning bid
[/quote]
If he does that, he will be fighting law suits the rest of his life. His credibility as a chairman of a board will be shot.
If Broughton is true to his word then then all things being equal the bid plan which does not include the club having to line the pockets of previous owners is the winning bid
[/quote]
If he does that, he will be fighting law suits the rest of his life. His credibility as a chairman of a board will be shot.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1149496#msg1149496 date=1281096546]
Broughton's words seems to be designed to keep the media and fans at bay.
Of the criteria's you listed.
1. Proof of financing ability
2. Valuation of the club
3. Ability to buy out the debt completely from the lending institutions
4. Willingness or ability to invest further into the club for stadium and squad
The last part will have to be the least priority. I don't see how the board can prioritize that over the other two criteria's and expect to not get in trouble for that. Especially when it can't even be policed. Even H & G said they will build stadium buy snoogy doggy. Are we going to hold the then out-going board responsible for this in the court of law?
I do agree that Huang is gambling on there not being an immediate bid for the club with similar financial backing. That is actually the reason he is forcing a decision by setting deadlines. He knows the moment there is a competing bid, he is likely to lose out. It's not because he wants to invest in the squad in this transfer window. In the grand scheme of things the impact of missing this transfer window is not going to be that great.
[/quote]
The latest statement contradicts the earlier 'deadline'. It will take as long as it takes, though it will all happen in the next week or so you'd think. The transfer deadline clearly isn't a priority though.
You say the development of the club is the least priority, but surely that is up to Broughton? All I'm repeating is what *he said* were his priorities. Broughton said the biggest bid would not be the winning bid. He said that, and his reputation is staked to that statement. His ordering of priorities contrasts with yours. In terms of 'policing' investment in the club, it is the mistakes of H&G, and the Portsmouth fiasco that are influencing this. Part of the deal is that they can see the money and plans are in place for development (something they *can* check). No they can't prosecute if it doesn't happen but they can choose on the basis of their confidence that it will happen.
I think you're also underestimating how much power H&G divested when agreeing to the loan extension and concomitant sales process.
Broughton's words seems to be designed to keep the media and fans at bay.
Of the criteria's you listed.
1. Proof of financing ability
2. Valuation of the club
3. Ability to buy out the debt completely from the lending institutions
4. Willingness or ability to invest further into the club for stadium and squad
The last part will have to be the least priority. I don't see how the board can prioritize that over the other two criteria's and expect to not get in trouble for that. Especially when it can't even be policed. Even H & G said they will build stadium buy snoogy doggy. Are we going to hold the then out-going board responsible for this in the court of law?
I do agree that Huang is gambling on there not being an immediate bid for the club with similar financial backing. That is actually the reason he is forcing a decision by setting deadlines. He knows the moment there is a competing bid, he is likely to lose out. It's not because he wants to invest in the squad in this transfer window. In the grand scheme of things the impact of missing this transfer window is not going to be that great.
[/quote]
The latest statement contradicts the earlier 'deadline'. It will take as long as it takes, though it will all happen in the next week or so you'd think. The transfer deadline clearly isn't a priority though.
You say the development of the club is the least priority, but surely that is up to Broughton? All I'm repeating is what *he said* were his priorities. Broughton said the biggest bid would not be the winning bid. He said that, and his reputation is staked to that statement. His ordering of priorities contrasts with yours. In terms of 'policing' investment in the club, it is the mistakes of H&G, and the Portsmouth fiasco that are influencing this. Part of the deal is that they can see the money and plans are in place for development (something they *can* check). No they can't prosecute if it doesn't happen but they can choose on the basis of their confidence that it will happen.
I think you're also underestimating how much power H&G divested when agreeing to the loan extension and concomitant sales process.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149514#msg1149514 date=1281097242]
The latest statement contradicts the earlier 'deadline'. It will take as long as it takes, though it will all happen in the next week or so you'd think. The transfer deadline clearly isn't a priority though.
You say the development of the club is the least priority, but surely that is up to Broughton? All I'm repeating is what *he said* were his priorities. Broughton said the biggest bid would not be the winning bid. He said that, and his reputation is staked to that statement. His ordering of priorities contrasts with yours. In terms of 'policing' investment in the club, it is the mistakes of H&G, and the Portsmouth fiasco that are influencing this. Part of the deal is that they can see the money and plans are in place for development (something they *can* check). No they can't prosecute if it doesn't happen but they can choose on the basis of their confidence that it will happen.
[/quote]
The reason i'm skeptical about that is because it cannot be policed. All he needs is a promise from the buyers. He can always turn around and say "they said they will invest." We know H&G did exactly that. Is Moores' reputation shot because of that? It will be the one criteria that least affects Broughton.
Even in the latest "show me the money" press release to the potential investors, the investors have only been asked to show funding for the 300+ million pounds required to completed the purchase. They are not asked to show the 300 + 200 it would cost to build the stadium etc...
The good thing is they appear to be looking for an owner who will not fund the deal through debt. Which in itself would give a lot of maneuverability in terms of financing the stadium etc for the club.
I guess we should just wait and see.
The latest statement contradicts the earlier 'deadline'. It will take as long as it takes, though it will all happen in the next week or so you'd think. The transfer deadline clearly isn't a priority though.
You say the development of the club is the least priority, but surely that is up to Broughton? All I'm repeating is what *he said* were his priorities. Broughton said the biggest bid would not be the winning bid. He said that, and his reputation is staked to that statement. His ordering of priorities contrasts with yours. In terms of 'policing' investment in the club, it is the mistakes of H&G, and the Portsmouth fiasco that are influencing this. Part of the deal is that they can see the money and plans are in place for development (something they *can* check). No they can't prosecute if it doesn't happen but they can choose on the basis of their confidence that it will happen.
[/quote]
The reason i'm skeptical about that is because it cannot be policed. All he needs is a promise from the buyers. He can always turn around and say "they said they will invest." We know H&G did exactly that. Is Moores' reputation shot because of that? It will be the one criteria that least affects Broughton.
Even in the latest "show me the money" press release to the potential investors, the investors have only been asked to show funding for the 300+ million pounds required to completed the purchase. They are not asked to show the 300 + 200 it would cost to build the stadium etc...
The good thing is they appear to be looking for an owner who will not fund the deal through debt. Which in itself would give a lot of maneuverability in terms of financing the stadium etc for the club.
I guess we should just wait and see.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1149524#msg1149524 date=1281098912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149514#msg1149514 date=1281097242]
The latest statement contradicts the earlier 'deadline'. It will take as long as it takes, though it will all happen in the next week or so you'd think. The transfer deadline clearly isn't a priority though.
You say the development of the club is the least priority, but surely that is up to Broughton? All I'm repeating is what *he said* were his priorities. Broughton said the biggest bid would not be the winning bid. He said that, and his reputation is staked to that statement. His ordering of priorities contrasts with yours. In terms of 'policing' investment in the club, it is the mistakes of H&G, and the Portsmouth fiasco that are influencing this. Part of the deal is that they can see the money and plans are in place for development (something they *can* check). No they can't prosecute if it doesn't happen but they can choose on the basis of their confidence that it will happen.
I think you're also underestimating how much power H&G divested when agreeing to the loan extension and concomitant sales process.
[/quote]
The reason i'm skeptical about that is because it cannot be policed. All he needs is a promise from the buyers. He can always turn around and say "they said they will invest." We know H&G did exactly that. Is Moores' reputation shot because of that? It will be the one criteria that least affects Broughton.
Even in the latest "show me the money" press release to the potential investors, the investors have only been asked to show funding for the 300+ million pounds required to completed the purchase. They are not asked to show the 300 + 200 it would cost to build the stadium etc...
The good thing is they appear to be looking for an owner who will not fund the deal through debt. Which in itself would give a lot of maneuverability in terms of financing the stadium etc for the club.
I guess we should just wait and see.
[/quote]
To be honest, Moores' reputation *is* pretty shot among many Liverpool fans for failing to do his homework. He is forgiven (by some), for being too trusting that he was selling to good people who would follow through on their promises. Again, this investigation of the resources of the buyer is to circumvent this sort of eventuality. Broughton will certainly not want to repeat the mistakes of Moores, especially when he's made a big deal about the sort of buyer he will favour.
As to what these people have to show, quite frankly, we don't know what they have to show to get the gig. They will *definitely* have to convince of their commitment to implement a very positive infrastructure. I am also certain they will need a detailed account of how they will raise the money to build the stadium. Though as Broughton has said previously, whoever is buying the club would be mad not to do so anyway.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1149514#msg1149514 date=1281097242]
The latest statement contradicts the earlier 'deadline'. It will take as long as it takes, though it will all happen in the next week or so you'd think. The transfer deadline clearly isn't a priority though.
You say the development of the club is the least priority, but surely that is up to Broughton? All I'm repeating is what *he said* were his priorities. Broughton said the biggest bid would not be the winning bid. He said that, and his reputation is staked to that statement. His ordering of priorities contrasts with yours. In terms of 'policing' investment in the club, it is the mistakes of H&G, and the Portsmouth fiasco that are influencing this. Part of the deal is that they can see the money and plans are in place for development (something they *can* check). No they can't prosecute if it doesn't happen but they can choose on the basis of their confidence that it will happen.
I think you're also underestimating how much power H&G divested when agreeing to the loan extension and concomitant sales process.
[/quote]
The reason i'm skeptical about that is because it cannot be policed. All he needs is a promise from the buyers. He can always turn around and say "they said they will invest." We know H&G did exactly that. Is Moores' reputation shot because of that? It will be the one criteria that least affects Broughton.
Even in the latest "show me the money" press release to the potential investors, the investors have only been asked to show funding for the 300+ million pounds required to completed the purchase. They are not asked to show the 300 + 200 it would cost to build the stadium etc...
The good thing is they appear to be looking for an owner who will not fund the deal through debt. Which in itself would give a lot of maneuverability in terms of financing the stadium etc for the club.
I guess we should just wait and see.
[/quote]
To be honest, Moores' reputation *is* pretty shot among many Liverpool fans for failing to do his homework. He is forgiven (by some), for being too trusting that he was selling to good people who would follow through on their promises. Again, this investigation of the resources of the buyer is to circumvent this sort of eventuality. Broughton will certainly not want to repeat the mistakes of Moores, especially when he's made a big deal about the sort of buyer he will favour.
As to what these people have to show, quite frankly, we don't know what they have to show to get the gig. They will *definitely* have to convince of their commitment to implement a very positive infrastructure. I am also certain they will need a detailed account of how they will raise the money to build the stadium. Though as Broughton has said previously, whoever is buying the club would be mad not to do so anyway.
[quote author=DBP link=topic=41235.msg1149454#msg1149454 date=1281094156]
So your sister, her husband and presumably you have known about Huang "all along" - think it's you that's trying to look like you've been in the loop all along.
Bamba was the first person to mention Yang Guang last night and a few hours later all the main tabloids were following his lead. If you guys still want to discredit him then it makes absolutely no difference to me. I just think that this site is extremely insular and too quick to dismiss anything else...
[/quote]
Yes, this site is massively insular. That's why we're talking about an individual poster on another forum at great length, quoting everything he's had to say for the last several days. You've nailed us.
By the way, I don't know anything, but I could act like I did, sufficiently to impress the retards on RAWK, by cobbling together conjecture and a couple specifics. Anyway, that's not the issue here, it's whether he's getting all wierd about it.
There's a pattern to people who post inside info on football sites. Some do it consistently and are very helpful, and upfront about the information they know, and the certainty. Others rise to prominence in certain situations, clearly enjoy it, but start to feel uncomfortable or less certain with their grasp on the situation, despite initially presenting it with absolute authority. At that point they generally start to talk about it compromising their job, or radio silence, or some other dumb thing because they are uncomfortable. They then don't like the lack of attention, so they start to flirt with it again, once news reports and the like bolster their account once more. They may also toss in some explanation of why their original timeline was problematised.
I've posted on Liverpool forums too long, I think.
So your sister, her husband and presumably you have known about Huang "all along" - think it's you that's trying to look like you've been in the loop all along.
Bamba was the first person to mention Yang Guang last night and a few hours later all the main tabloids were following his lead. If you guys still want to discredit him then it makes absolutely no difference to me. I just think that this site is extremely insular and too quick to dismiss anything else...
[/quote]
Yes, this site is massively insular. That's why we're talking about an individual poster on another forum at great length, quoting everything he's had to say for the last several days. You've nailed us.
By the way, I don't know anything, but I could act like I did, sufficiently to impress the retards on RAWK, by cobbling together conjecture and a couple specifics. Anyway, that's not the issue here, it's whether he's getting all wierd about it.
There's a pattern to people who post inside info on football sites. Some do it consistently and are very helpful, and upfront about the information they know, and the certainty. Others rise to prominence in certain situations, clearly enjoy it, but start to feel uncomfortable or less certain with their grasp on the situation, despite initially presenting it with absolute authority. At that point they generally start to talk about it compromising their job, or radio silence, or some other dumb thing because they are uncomfortable. They then don't like the lack of attention, so they start to flirt with it again, once news reports and the like bolster their account once more. They may also toss in some explanation of why their original timeline was problematised.
I've posted on Liverpool forums too long, I think.
- Status
