LFC SOLD to NESV.
- Thread starter Terrier
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
From the Daily Mirror:
Dallas to overturn injunction as Broughton tells fans: 'Keep the faith'
Published 09:39 14/10/10 By David Maddock
(3)Recommend (2)
Liverpool's board and RBS will move swiftly this morning to overturn a restraining order in a Texas court preventing them from selling the club.
The Mirror understands measures have already been taken by legal representatives of the parties involved in the sale, to overturn attempts by owner Tom Hicks to retain control of the club.
And we have learnt that New England Sports Venture (NESV), who have a binding agreement to buy Liverpool for £300million, will not walk away from the deal, despite these desperate efforts to stop the sale by the Texan businessman.
They have confirmed this morning they are prepared to wait as long as it takes to become the next owner of the Premier League football club, after the board agreed the sale in a meeting in London last night.
Hicks and his partner George Gillett obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Texas State District Court, preventing a sale until a full case – in which they allege a major fraud by RBS – can be heard on October 25.
Hicks is claiming damages of $1.6billion in his lawsuit, but Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton insisted this morning that the claims are scurrilous, and the club would act quickly to remove them.
In a message to Liverpool fans, Broughton said: “They are trying every trick in the book, but keep the faith, we are trying to overturn this and we always remain confident.â€
The Mirror understands Liverpool have already appointed lawyers in Dallas this morning to file a counter claim in the Dallas court as soon as business begins there, moving to have the restraining order removed.
Their case will revolve around jurisdiction. Legal experts are lining up to suggest that the case Hicks filed yesterday is flimsy, and the question of the jurisdiction of the Texas court over proceedings that have already been considered by the High Court in London is key to dismissing it.
They will make a strong legal argument that the case should not be heard in Texas or anywhere else in the US.
They will also present evidence that Hicks and Gillett have offered written undertakings in contracts signed with the RBS that ensures the ‘legal forum’ of any dispute will be held in the English courts. That effectively means they can not sue in the US.
The judge who granted the TRO has already expressed his unease with jurisdiction over the case, and after reviewing documents, he made clear that the claims made by Hicks were not backed by any substantial evidence.
This suggests Judge Jim Jordan, who will be the first to consider Liverpool’s move to strike the TRO, could well reverse his decision as soon as the case is heard. If not, then it will be moved to a higher United States State Court, which would be expected to respect the decision of the High Court.
Yesterday, Broughton and RBS won a ruling in the High Court allowing them to proceed with the sale, and Hicks was warned that it would be “inappropriate†to appeal.
If, as seems likely, the TRO is lifted this afternoon when the Texas District Court sits, then Broughton will act quickly to see the sale through to New England Sports Ventures, the owners of the Boston Red Sox.
The main shareholder of NESV, John W Henry, has confirmed this morning that he will not walk away from the deal, despite these desperate delaying tactics from Hicks.
He is ready to wait for the TRO to be lifted, even if the process takes longer than expected, and the RBS have indicated they too are ready to wait, to ensure that the £300million sale goes through.
Sources close to the club suggest that the sale should still be completed by this evening, but even if there are yet more delays by the increasingly desperate Hicks, the sale will go through.
There is a fear though, that the Texan has something else up his sleeve. He has been in talks with Dwight Schar, the owner of Mill Financial who now have a stake in Liverpool after Gillett had defaulted on loans to them.
The worry is that Hicks will borrow money from Mill Financial to repay the more than £200million loans to RBS that are due to be repaid on Friday. If the bank recalls those loans then Hicks, with help from Schar – the co-owner of Washington Redskins - can repay them and reclaim jurisdiction over the club.
The Mirror understands though, that RBS will wait before calling in the loans, to give time for the TRO to be lifted in the Texan court, allowing the sale to NESV to be ushered through.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-takeover-latest-Reds-appoint-lawyers-in-Dallas-to-overturn-injunction-Martin-Broughton-tells-fans-Keep-the-faith-and-John-W-Henry-pledges-not-to-walk-away-from-deal-article600701.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
From the Daily Mirror:
Dallas to overturn injunction as Broughton tells fans: 'Keep the faith'
Published 09:39 14/10/10 By David Maddock
(3)Recommend (2)
Liverpool's board and RBS will move swiftly this morning to overturn a restraining order in a Texas court preventing them from selling the club.
The Mirror understands measures have already been taken by legal representatives of the parties involved in the sale, to overturn attempts by owner Tom Hicks to retain control of the club.
And we have learnt that New England Sports Venture (NESV), who have a binding agreement to buy Liverpool for £300million, will not walk away from the deal, despite these desperate efforts to stop the sale by the Texan businessman.
They have confirmed this morning they are prepared to wait as long as it takes to become the next owner of the Premier League football club, after the board agreed the sale in a meeting in London last night.
Hicks and his partner George Gillett obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Texas State District Court, preventing a sale until a full case – in which they allege a major fraud by RBS – can be heard on October 25.
Hicks is claiming damages of $1.6billion in his lawsuit, but Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton insisted this morning that the claims are scurrilous, and the club would act quickly to remove them.
In a message to Liverpool fans, Broughton said: “They are trying every trick in the book, but keep the faith, we are trying to overturn this and we always remain confident.â€
The Mirror understands Liverpool have already appointed lawyers in Dallas this morning to file a counter claim in the Dallas court as soon as business begins there, moving to have the restraining order removed.
Their case will revolve around jurisdiction. Legal experts are lining up to suggest that the case Hicks filed yesterday is flimsy, and the question of the jurisdiction of the Texas court over proceedings that have already been considered by the High Court in London is key to dismissing it.
They will make a strong legal argument that the case should not be heard in Texas or anywhere else in the US.
They will also present evidence that Hicks and Gillett have offered written undertakings in contracts signed with the RBS that ensures the ‘legal forum’ of any dispute will be held in the English courts. That effectively means they can not sue in the US.
The judge who granted the TRO has already expressed his unease with jurisdiction over the case, and after reviewing documents, he made clear that the claims made by Hicks were not backed by any substantial evidence.
This suggests Judge Jim Jordan, who will be the first to consider Liverpool’s move to strike the TRO, could well reverse his decision as soon as the case is heard. If not, then it will be moved to a higher United States State Court, which would be expected to respect the decision of the High Court.
Yesterday, Broughton and RBS won a ruling in the High Court allowing them to proceed with the sale, and Hicks was warned that it would be “inappropriate†to appeal.
If, as seems likely, the TRO is lifted this afternoon when the Texas District Court sits, then Broughton will act quickly to see the sale through to New England Sports Ventures, the owners of the Boston Red Sox.
The main shareholder of NESV, John W Henry, has confirmed this morning that he will not walk away from the deal, despite these desperate delaying tactics from Hicks.
He is ready to wait for the TRO to be lifted, even if the process takes longer than expected, and the RBS have indicated they too are ready to wait, to ensure that the £300million sale goes through.
Sources close to the club suggest that the sale should still be completed by this evening, but even if there are yet more delays by the increasingly desperate Hicks, the sale will go through.
There is a fear though, that the Texan has something else up his sleeve. He has been in talks with Dwight Schar, the owner of Mill Financial who now have a stake in Liverpool after Gillett had defaulted on loans to them.
The worry is that Hicks will borrow money from Mill Financial to repay the more than £200million loans to RBS that are due to be repaid on Friday. If the bank recalls those loans then Hicks, with help from Schar – the co-owner of Washington Redskins - can repay them and reclaim jurisdiction over the club.
The Mirror understands though, that RBS will wait before calling in the loans, to give time for the TRO to be lifted in the Texan court, allowing the sale to NESV to be ushered through.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-takeover-latest-Reds-appoint-lawyers-in-Dallas-to-overturn-injunction-Martin-Broughton-tells-fans-Keep-the-faith-and-John-W-Henry-pledges-not-to-walk-away-from-deal-article600701.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
Hicks included RBS in his list of targets for the Texas court action, so they're hardly going to bend over backwards to help him now.
Don't know if it wold be the same in Texas, but here in England there's provision for a person or company to be declared "frivolous and vexatious litigants" if they abuse the legal process. I hope our lawyers in Texas consider whether they can apply for that where Hicks is concerned.
Hicks included RBS in his list of targets for the Texas court action, so they're hardly going to bend over backwards to help him now.
Don't know if it wold be the same in Texas, but here in England there's provision for a person or company to be declared "frivolous and vexatious litigants" if they abuse the legal process. I hope our lawyers in Texas consider whether they can apply for that where Hicks is concerned.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195327#msg1195327 date=1287047388]
Avvy, might RBS open themselves to a lawsuit from NESV if they acted in a way which frustrated the valid sale of the club to NESV, on the basis that they didn't actually *have* to accept repayment from Mill Financial? (That's if there isn't already a binding sale agreement.)
[/quote]
I think that's almost a certainty.
RBS will probably assist the Board in having the Texan order removed, but they might be constrained to return to the English courts to seek a declaration now as to the status of the sale contract ie whether it's a binding agreement or whether they'd have to be open to discussions with Mill Financial (they'd probably be joined in this by the Board and NESV)
If this happens, I hope the Board seeks an indemnity from NESV to be bound by the English ruling and not to take any action in damages in the event the High Court rules the contract not to be binding.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195327#msg1195327 date=1287047388]
Avvy, might RBS open themselves to a lawsuit from NESV if they acted in a way which frustrated the valid sale of the club to NESV, on the basis that they didn't actually *have* to accept repayment from Mill Financial? (That's if there isn't already a binding sale agreement.)
[/quote]
I think that's almost a certainty.
RBS will probably assist the Board in having the Texan order removed, but they might be constrained to return to the English courts to seek a declaration now as to the status of the sale contract ie whether it's a binding agreement or whether they'd have to be open to discussions with Mill Financial (they'd probably be joined in this by the Board and NESV)
If this happens, I hope the Board seeks an indemnity from NESV to be bound by the English ruling and not to take any action in damages in the event the High Court rules the contract not to be binding.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=41783.msg1195338#msg1195338 date=1287048441]
Generally Broughton, Ayres, Purslow, NESV and RBS have conducted themselves beautifully throughout all of this. A class and all round dignity sorely lacking from the Texan.
[/quote]
...combined with a toughness and savvy which probably came as a very nasty surprise to the fat fuck.
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=41783.msg1195338#msg1195338 date=1287048441]
Generally Broughton, Ayres, Purslow, NESV and RBS have conducted themselves beautifully throughout all of this. A class and all round dignity sorely lacking from the Texan.
[/quote]
...combined with a toughness and savvy which probably came as a very nasty surprise to the fat fuck.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195335#msg1195335 date=1287048183]
Hicks included RBS in his list of targets for the Texas court action, so they're hardly going to bend over backwards to help him now.
Don't know if it wold be the same in Texas, but here in England there's provision for a person or company to be declared "frivolous and vexatious litigants" if they abuse the legal process. I hope our lawyers in Texas consider whether they can apply for that where Hicks is concerned.
[/quote]
That would be the defence used by us in the event the fat prick actually gets a permanent injunction and tries to enforce it in England.
Hicks option yesterday was to seek leave to appeal the High Court decision, not go back to Hicksville to get a kangaroo order.
edit : He's not going to get a permanent injunction again, he's probably hoping Obama intervenes and talks crap about nasty nasty British Petroleum again.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195335#msg1195335 date=1287048183]
Hicks included RBS in his list of targets for the Texas court action, so they're hardly going to bend over backwards to help him now.
Don't know if it wold be the same in Texas, but here in England there's provision for a person or company to be declared "frivolous and vexatious litigants" if they abuse the legal process. I hope our lawyers in Texas consider whether they can apply for that where Hicks is concerned.
[/quote]
That would be the defence used by us in the event the fat prick actually gets a permanent injunction and tries to enforce it in England.
Hicks option yesterday was to seek leave to appeal the High Court decision, not go back to Hicksville to get a kangaroo order.
edit : He's not going to get a permanent injunction again, he's probably hoping Obama intervenes and talks crap about nasty nasty British Petroleum again.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195330#msg1195330 date=1287047500]
I think some people are getting a little overexcited and I think others are enjoying the turmoil and putting together scenarios to confuse.
1.If Hicks and Gillett had 'sold' the club to Mill Financial why would they file petition and not Mill Financial?
2. If their petition had any substance why has the Judge been at pains to modify it?
3. Why has such a small amount of bond been accepted?
A tactic to elicit more money to offset their costs. I don't see how they can stop the sale process they agreed to in April and which has been ruled on in the UK where the company is incorporated.
[/quote]
I hope I'm not being referred to.
I'm just trying to consider the angles and discuss what objectives are being sought here.
I am not enjoying the turmoil.
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195330#msg1195330 date=1287047500]
I think some people are getting a little overexcited and I think others are enjoying the turmoil and putting together scenarios to confuse.
1.If Hicks and Gillett had 'sold' the club to Mill Financial why would they file petition and not Mill Financial?
2. If their petition had any substance why has the Judge been at pains to modify it?
3. Why has such a small amount of bond been accepted?
A tactic to elicit more money to offset their costs. I don't see how they can stop the sale process they agreed to in April and which has been ruled on in the UK where the company is incorporated.
[/quote]
I hope I'm not being referred to.
I'm just trying to consider the angles and discuss what objectives are being sought here.
I am not enjoying the turmoil.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195337#msg1195337 date=1287048427]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195327#msg1195327 date=1287047388]
Avvy, might RBS open themselves to a lawsuit from NESV if they acted in a way which frustrated the valid sale of the club to NESV, on the basis that they didn't actually *have* to accept repayment from Mill Financial? (That's if there isn't already a binding sale agreement.)
[/quote]
I think that's almost a certainty.
RBS will probably assist the Board in having the Texan order removed, but they might be constrained to return to the English courts to seek a declaration now as to the status of the sale contract ie whether it's a binding agreement or whether they'd have to be open to discussions with Mill Financial (they'd probably be joined in this by the Board and NESV)
If this happens, I hope the Board seeks an indemnity from NESV to be bound by the English ruling and not to take any action in damages in the event the High Court rules the contract not to be binding.
[/quote]
Hopefully the indemnity point would be covered by what the "Times" business correspondent reported earlier today (see above).
Anita, injunctions are generally dealt with quickly. That's usually necessary in the kind of circs.in which they're applied for in the first place.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195337#msg1195337 date=1287048427]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195327#msg1195327 date=1287047388]
Avvy, might RBS open themselves to a lawsuit from NESV if they acted in a way which frustrated the valid sale of the club to NESV, on the basis that they didn't actually *have* to accept repayment from Mill Financial? (That's if there isn't already a binding sale agreement.)
[/quote]
I think that's almost a certainty.
RBS will probably assist the Board in having the Texan order removed, but they might be constrained to return to the English courts to seek a declaration now as to the status of the sale contract ie whether it's a binding agreement or whether they'd have to be open to discussions with Mill Financial (they'd probably be joined in this by the Board and NESV)
If this happens, I hope the Board seeks an indemnity from NESV to be bound by the English ruling and not to take any action in damages in the event the High Court rules the contract not to be binding.
[/quote]
Hopefully the indemnity point would be covered by what the "Times" business correspondent reported earlier today (see above).
Anita, injunctions are generally dealt with quickly. That's usually necessary in the kind of circs.in which they're applied for in the first place.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
Makes me think of that elevator scene towards the end of Taken.
"Please understand…it was all business. It wasn’t personal."
"It was all personal to me."
[unloads gun intoSaint Clair Hicks]
Makes me think of that elevator scene towards the end of Taken.
"Please understand…it was all business. It wasn’t personal."
"It was all personal to me."
[unloads gun into
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195344#msg1195344 date=1287048844]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195337#msg1195337 date=1287048427]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195327#msg1195327 date=1287047388]
Avvy, might RBS open themselves to a lawsuit from NESV if they acted in a way which frustrated the valid sale of the club to NESV, on the basis that they didn't actually *have* to accept repayment from Mill Financial? (That's if there isn't already a binding sale agreement.)
[/quote]
I think that's almost a certainty.
RBS will probably assist the Board in having the Texan order removed, but they might be constrained to return to the English courts to seek a declaration now as to the status of the sale contract ie whether it's a binding agreement or whether they'd have to be open to discussions with Mill Financial (they'd probably be joined in this by the Board and NESV)
If this happens, I hope the Board seeks an indemnity from NESV to be bound by the English ruling and not to take any action in damages in the event the High Court rules the contract not to be binding.
[/quote]
Hopefully the indemnity point would be covered by what the "Times" business correspondent reported earlier today (see above).
Anita, injunctions are generally dealt with quickly. That's usually necessary in the kind of circs.in which they're applied for in the first place.
[/quote]
My guess is it'll be heard before tomorrow, since Oct 15 is the RBS deadline.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195344#msg1195344 date=1287048844]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195337#msg1195337 date=1287048427]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195327#msg1195327 date=1287047388]
Avvy, might RBS open themselves to a lawsuit from NESV if they acted in a way which frustrated the valid sale of the club to NESV, on the basis that they didn't actually *have* to accept repayment from Mill Financial? (That's if there isn't already a binding sale agreement.)
[/quote]
I think that's almost a certainty.
RBS will probably assist the Board in having the Texan order removed, but they might be constrained to return to the English courts to seek a declaration now as to the status of the sale contract ie whether it's a binding agreement or whether they'd have to be open to discussions with Mill Financial (they'd probably be joined in this by the Board and NESV)
If this happens, I hope the Board seeks an indemnity from NESV to be bound by the English ruling and not to take any action in damages in the event the High Court rules the contract not to be binding.
[/quote]
Hopefully the indemnity point would be covered by what the "Times" business correspondent reported earlier today (see above).
Anita, injunctions are generally dealt with quickly. That's usually necessary in the kind of circs.in which they're applied for in the first place.
[/quote]
My guess is it'll be heard before tomorrow, since Oct 15 is the RBS deadline.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]
Did he name any Cowboys? ;D
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]
Did he name any Cowboys? ;D
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195343#msg1195343 date=1287048796]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195330#msg1195330 date=1287047500]
I think some people are getting a little overexcited and I think others are enjoying the turmoil and putting together scenarios to confuse.
1.If Hicks and Gillett had 'sold' the club to Mill Financial why would they file petition and not Mill Financial?
2. If their petition had any substance why has the Judge been at pains to modify it?
3. Why has such a small amount of bond been accepted?
A tactic to elicit more money to offset their costs. I don't see how they can stop the sale process they agreed to in April and which has been ruled on in the UK where the company is incorporated.
[/quote]
I hope I'm not being referred to.
I'm just trying to consider the angles and discuss what objectives are being sought here.
I am not enjoying the turmoil.
[/quote]
Quite.
Seriously, who's enjoying it? Everyone is just raising questions, debating and genuinely worried about what might happen, with the odd quip thrown in, because that's us isn't it?
What a load of bollocks.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195343#msg1195343 date=1287048796]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195330#msg1195330 date=1287047500]
I think some people are getting a little overexcited and I think others are enjoying the turmoil and putting together scenarios to confuse.
1.If Hicks and Gillett had 'sold' the club to Mill Financial why would they file petition and not Mill Financial?
2. If their petition had any substance why has the Judge been at pains to modify it?
3. Why has such a small amount of bond been accepted?
A tactic to elicit more money to offset their costs. I don't see how they can stop the sale process they agreed to in April and which has been ruled on in the UK where the company is incorporated.
[/quote]
I hope I'm not being referred to.
I'm just trying to consider the angles and discuss what objectives are being sought here.
I am not enjoying the turmoil.
[/quote]
Quite.
Seriously, who's enjoying it? Everyone is just raising questions, debating and genuinely worried about what might happen, with the odd quip thrown in, because that's us isn't it?
What a load of bollocks.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195343#msg1195343 date=1287048796]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195330#msg1195330 date=1287047500]
I think some people are getting a little overexcited and I think others are enjoying the turmoil and putting together scenarios to confuse.
1.If Hicks and Gillett had 'sold' the club to Mill Financial why would they file petition and not Mill Financial?
2. If their petition had any substance why has the Judge been at pains to modify it?
3. Why has such a small amount of bond been accepted?
A tactic to elicit more money to offset their costs. I don't see how they can stop the sale process they agreed to in April and which has been ruled on in the UK where the company is incorporated.
[/quote]
I hope I'm not being referred to.
I'm just trying to consider the angles and discuss what objectives are being sought here.
I am not enjoying the turmoil.
[/quote]
No, you're safe. I was referring to the more outlandish posts on the many other forums and blogs I'm viewing. I get the sense that some people revel in turmoil to the point where the more doubt they can sow the better.
Ask yourself: how many people know the law? Those lawyers who have been consulted don't seem to view this as other than a delaying tactic.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195343#msg1195343 date=1287048796]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195330#msg1195330 date=1287047500]
I think some people are getting a little overexcited and I think others are enjoying the turmoil and putting together scenarios to confuse.
1.If Hicks and Gillett had 'sold' the club to Mill Financial why would they file petition and not Mill Financial?
2. If their petition had any substance why has the Judge been at pains to modify it?
3. Why has such a small amount of bond been accepted?
A tactic to elicit more money to offset their costs. I don't see how they can stop the sale process they agreed to in April and which has been ruled on in the UK where the company is incorporated.
[/quote]
I hope I'm not being referred to.
I'm just trying to consider the angles and discuss what objectives are being sought here.
I am not enjoying the turmoil.
[/quote]
No, you're safe. I was referring to the more outlandish posts on the many other forums and blogs I'm viewing. I get the sense that some people revel in turmoil to the point where the more doubt they can sow the better.
Ask yourself: how many people know the law? Those lawyers who have been consulted don't seem to view this as other than a delaying tactic.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195350#msg1195350 date=1287049181]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195343#msg1195343 date=1287048796]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195330#msg1195330 date=1287047500]
I think some people are getting a little overexcited and I think others are enjoying the turmoil and putting together scenarios to confuse.
1.If Hicks and Gillett had 'sold' the club to Mill Financial why would they file petition and not Mill Financial?
2. If their petition had any substance why has the Judge been at pains to modify it?
3. Why has such a small amount of bond been accepted?
A tactic to elicit more money to offset their costs. I don't see how they can stop the sale process they agreed to in April and which has been ruled on in the UK where the company is incorporated.
[/quote]
I hope I'm not being referred to.
I'm just trying to consider the angles and discuss what objectives are being sought here.
I am not enjoying the turmoil.
[/quote]
No, you're safe. I was referring to the more outlandish posts on the many other forums and blogs I'm viewing. I get the sense that some people revel in turmoil to the point where the more doubt they can sow the better.
Ask yourself: how many people know the law? Those lawyers who have been consulted don't seem to view this as other than a delaying tactic.
[/quote]
I think that's why most on here are just raising questions, I can imagine what RAWK is like right now though.
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195350#msg1195350 date=1287049181]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195343#msg1195343 date=1287048796]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=41783.msg1195330#msg1195330 date=1287047500]
I think some people are getting a little overexcited and I think others are enjoying the turmoil and putting together scenarios to confuse.
1.If Hicks and Gillett had 'sold' the club to Mill Financial why would they file petition and not Mill Financial?
2. If their petition had any substance why has the Judge been at pains to modify it?
3. Why has such a small amount of bond been accepted?
A tactic to elicit more money to offset their costs. I don't see how they can stop the sale process they agreed to in April and which has been ruled on in the UK where the company is incorporated.
[/quote]
I hope I'm not being referred to.
I'm just trying to consider the angles and discuss what objectives are being sought here.
I am not enjoying the turmoil.
[/quote]
No, you're safe. I was referring to the more outlandish posts on the many other forums and blogs I'm viewing. I get the sense that some people revel in turmoil to the point where the more doubt they can sow the better.
Ask yourself: how many people know the law? Those lawyers who have been consulted don't seem to view this as other than a delaying tactic.
[/quote]
I think that's why most on here are just raising questions, I can imagine what RAWK is like right now though.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
this is my worry as I've said all along. my hope is that if such a thing were to happen LFC and NESV would sue hicks on the grounds that a deal would have been struck last week but for hick ILLEGALLY reconstituing the board.
this is my worry as I've said all along. my hope is that if such a thing were to happen LFC and NESV would sue hicks on the grounds that a deal would have been struck last week but for hick ILLEGALLY reconstituing the board.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
Maybe I'm being naive but given Broughton's track record to date I have faith that he and the other Directors are not phased by this. I also see that John Henry has stated that he won't walk away from the deal.
Maybe I'm being naive but given Broughton's track record to date I have faith that he and the other Directors are not phased by this. I also see that John Henry has stated that he won't walk away from the deal.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]
It was funny. Must you be so serious? Haven't you used up your righteous indignation and defensiveness up on other issues? You'll have to leave defending Texas to their very ample belt buckles.
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]
It was funny. Must you be so serious? Haven't you used up your righteous indignation and defensiveness up on other issues? You'll have to leave defending Texas to their very ample belt buckles.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1195353#msg1195353 date=1287049323]
this is my worry as I've said all along. my hope is that if such a thing were to happen LFC and NESV would sue hicks on the grounds that a deal would have been struck last week but for hick ILLEGALLY reconstituing the board.
[/quote]
Really? I hadn't noticed.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1195353#msg1195353 date=1287049323]
this is my worry as I've said all along. my hope is that if such a thing were to happen LFC and NESV would sue hicks on the grounds that a deal would have been struck last week but for hick ILLEGALLY reconstituing the board.
[/quote]
Really? I hadn't noticed.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195348#msg1195348 date=1287049087]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]
Did he name any Cowboys? ;D
[/quote]
Oncey hates the Cowboys, and rightly so - he's a Steelers fan. No issues with that. It's the same way you hate all Mancs.
But calling every Texan a cunt? please.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195348#msg1195348 date=1287049087]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]
Did he name any Cowboys? ;D
[/quote]
Oncey hates the Cowboys, and rightly so - he's a Steelers fan. No issues with that. It's the same way you hate all Mancs.
But calling every Texan a cunt? please.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]Lol.
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]Lol.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195357#msg1195357 date=1287049446]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1195353#msg1195353 date=1287049323]
this is my worry as I've said all along. my hope is that if such a thing were to happen LFC and NESV would sue hicks on the grounds that a deal would have been struck last week but for hick ILLEGALLY reconstituing the board.
[/quote]
Really? I hadn't noticed.
[/quote]
If NESV are prepared to wait this out and arent going to let the delay affect the contract, then I think Hicks is finishd.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195357#msg1195357 date=1287049446]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1195353#msg1195353 date=1287049323]
this is my worry as I've said all along. my hope is that if such a thing were to happen LFC and NESV would sue hicks on the grounds that a deal would have been struck last week but for hick ILLEGALLY reconstituing the board.
[/quote]
Really? I hadn't noticed.
[/quote]
If NESV are prepared to wait this out and arent going to let the delay affect the contract, then I think Hicks is finishd.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195358#msg1195358 date=1287049484]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195348#msg1195348 date=1287049087]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]
Did he name any Cowboys? ;D
[/quote]
Oncey hates the Cowboys, and rightly so - he's a Steelers fan. No issues with that. It's the same way you hate all Mancs.
But calling every Texan a cunt? please.
[/quote]I think you'll find i took Lance Armstrong off the list. You lose a ball and fuck a rockstar youre alright with me.
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195358#msg1195358 date=1287049484]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195348#msg1195348 date=1287049087]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41783.msg1195346#msg1195346 date=1287048944]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1195267#msg1195267 date=1287042635]
Your list of famous texans was special.
[/quote]
I thought it was pathetic tbh.
[/quote]
Did he name any Cowboys? ;D
[/quote]
Oncey hates the Cowboys, and rightly so - he's a Steelers fan. No issues with that. It's the same way you hate all Mancs.
But calling every Texan a cunt? please.
[/quote]I think you'll find i took Lance Armstrong off the list. You lose a ball and fuck a rockstar youre alright with me.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195361#msg1195361 date=1287049591]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195357#msg1195357 date=1287049446]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1195353#msg1195353 date=1287049323]
this is my worry as I've said all along. my hope is that if such a thing were to happen LFC and NESV would sue hicks on the grounds that a deal would have been struck last week but for hick ILLEGALLY reconstituing the board.
[/quote]
Really? I hadn't noticed.
[/quote]
If NESV are prepared to wait this out and arent going to let the delay affect the contract, then I think Hicks is finishd.
[/quote]
Agreed. It may be wishful thinking but I get the impression this has got just a little bit personal for John Henry himself now.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1195361#msg1195361 date=1287049591]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1195357#msg1195357 date=1287049446]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1195353#msg1195353 date=1287049323]
this is my worry as I've said all along. my hope is that if such a thing were to happen LFC and NESV would sue hicks on the grounds that a deal would have been struck last week but for hick ILLEGALLY reconstituing the board.
[/quote]
Really? I hadn't noticed.
[/quote]
If NESV are prepared to wait this out and arent going to let the delay affect the contract, then I think Hicks is finishd.
[/quote]
Agreed. It may be wishful thinking but I get the impression this has got just a little bit personal for John Henry himself now.
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
I'm a) surprised you knew most of 'em and b) just surprised everyone who's not Lance Armstrong falls under that category (there's no other one testicle, rockstar fucking cyclists in Texas)
I'm a) surprised you knew most of 'em and b) just surprised everyone who's not Lance Armstrong falls under that category (there's no other one testicle, rockstar fucking cyclists in Texas)
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
How do you know? 😉
How do you know? 😉
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
is there a law that says you can't profit from an illegal activity? I mean, if hicks found the 240m to pay off RBS (unsecured to bypass the board) would he get away with it given that he was found guilt of changing the board last week. anyone?
is there a law that says you can't profit from an illegal activity? I mean, if hicks found the 240m to pay off RBS (unsecured to bypass the board) would he get away with it given that he was found guilt of changing the board last week. anyone?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked