RBS and MPs - No to Refinancing

[MaschedUp]

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/RBS-and-MPs-_-No-to-Refinancing.html

Get on it people.

 

[Mystic]

Oh fuck off, this won't help anything.

Just because you don't like the owners doesn't mean doing something that will fuck them over will benefit the club.

 

[Whitey85]

Spirit of Shankly are still trying hard then. They have made such an impact i had forgotten they existed.

 

[rage]

the refinancing or not will happen on financial ability to service the debt, nothing else. get real!

 

[spider-Neil]

the yank being unable to get refinace will definately aid the club. there are suiters waiting in the wings and they are being put off by a frankly ridiculous 500 million price tag the yanks have put on us, if they HAD to sell that price would drop and we'd get snapped up. I really hope the banks tell the yanks to sell up and fuck off.

 

[David Byrne]

First time I've heard of a set of fans taking direct action against a bank to actively put their club into administration and potential free fall on the off chance that there's a sugar daddy waiting in the winds to rescue them.

All very romantic but ultimately bollocks. SOS, like most of these idealistic fan groups, are a shambles and should stick to ticketing and real fan issues.

 

[rage]

as long as they can make the payments the banks will take their (or should i say OUR) money all day long.

our income has increased with them in charge and i doubt they've missed any payments etc. it's not like they're looking to borrow new money but rather refinance an existing loan. this is just grasping at straws. the bank will just increase the interest rates and the extra income from champions league, sky etc will just offset this

 

[David Byrne]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882934#msg882934 date=1244211092]
the yank being unable to get refinace will definately aid the club. there are suiters waiting in the wings and they are being put off by a frankly ridiculous 500 million price tag the yanks have put on us, if they HAD to sell that price would drop and we'd get snapped up. I really hope the banks tell the yanks to sell up and fuck off.
[/quote]

You're dreaming. If there was genuine interest RBS would have already done that.

 

[Sunny]

If G&H are refused the refinance can that place us into administration ? If yes, can we not suffer penalties such as hefty points deductions ?

 

[Le Chacal]

[quote author=rage link=topic=34009.msg882939#msg882939 date=1244211354]
as long as they can make the payments the banks will take their (or should i say OUR) money all day long.

our income has increased with them in charge and i doubt they've missed any payments etc. it's not like they're looking to borrow new money but rather refinance an existing loan. this is just grasping at straws. the bank will just increase the interest rates and the extra income from champions league, sky etc will just offset this
[/quote]
I agree with most of this but increase interest rates ?!?
They're already around 10% which is huge at the moment

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882940#msg882940 date=1244211385]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882934#msg882934 date=1244211092]
the yank being unable to get refinace will definately aid the club. there are suiters waiting in the wings and they are being put off by a frankly ridiculous 500 million price tag the yanks have put on us, if they HAD to sell that price would drop and we'd get snapped up. I really hope the banks tell the yanks to sell up and fuck off.
[/quote]

You're dreaming. If there was genuine interest RBS would have already done that.
[/quote]

there is an offer from the DIC sitting on the yanks table but it doesn't meet the yanks (bollox) valuation of the club.

 

[David Byrne]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882945#msg882945 date=1244211767]
[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882940#msg882940 date=1244211385]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882934#msg882934 date=1244211092]
the yank being unable to get refinace will definately aid the club. there are suiters waiting in the wings and they are being put off by a frankly ridiculous 500 million price tag the yanks have put on us, if they HAD to sell that price would drop and we'd get snapped up. I really hope the banks tell the yanks to sell up and fuck off.
[/quote]

You're dreaming. If there was genuine interest RBS would have already done that.
[/quote]

there is an offer from the DIC sitting on the yanks table but it doesn't meet the yanks (bollox) valuation of the club.
[/quote]

Haha, you're not seriously clinging to the idea that DIC are waiting to rescue us are you? They're just a bigger set of con merchants with better PR. They've long gone...thankfully.

 

[rage]

[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34009.msg882943#msg882943 date=1244211619]
[quote author=rage link=topic=34009.msg882939#msg882939 date=1244211354]
as long as they can make the payments the banks will take their (or should i say OUR) money all day long.

our income has increased with them in charge and i doubt they've missed any payments etc. it's not like they're looking to borrow new money but rather refinance an existing loan. this is just grasping at straws. the bank will just increase the interest rates and the extra income from champions league, sky etc will just offset this
[/quote]
I agree with most of this but increase interest rates ?!?
They're already around 10% which is huge at the moment
[/quote]

yea i know but these two clowns are desperate and i'm afraid the banks will exploit that amigo.

still can't believe we sold the club to these idiots and if anyone really thinks dubai would be as bad you're deluded

 

[Glock21]

[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882950#msg882950 date=1244212005]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882945#msg882945 date=1244211767]
[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882940#msg882940 date=1244211385]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882934#msg882934 date=1244211092]
the yank being unable to get refinace will definately aid the club. there are suiters waiting in the wings and they are being put off by a frankly ridiculous 500 million price tag the yanks have put on us, if they HAD to sell that price would drop and we'd get snapped up. I really hope the banks tell the yanks to sell up and fuck off.
[/quote]

You're dreaming. If there was genuine interest RBS would have already done that.
[/quote]

there is an offer from the DIC sitting on the yanks table but it doesn't meet the yanks (bollox) valuation of the club.
[/quote]

Haha, you're not seriously clinging to the idea that DIC are waiting to rescue us are you? They're just a bigger set of con merchants with better PR. They've long gone...thankfully.
[/quote]

Haha! I thought you've gone to YNWA!

Boy, you're a daisy!

 

[Le Chacal]

[quote author=Glock link=topic=34009.msg882957#msg882957 date=1244212622]
[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882950#msg882950 date=1244212005]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882945#msg882945 date=1244211767]
[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882940#msg882940 date=1244211385]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882934#msg882934 date=1244211092]
the yank being unable to get refinace will definately aid the club. there are suiters waiting in the wings and they are being put off by a frankly ridiculous 500 million price tag the yanks have put on us, if they HAD to sell that price would drop and we'd get snapped up. I really hope the banks tell the yanks to sell up and fuck off.
[/quote]

You're dreaming. If there was genuine interest RBS would have already done that.
[/quote]

there is an offer from the DIC sitting on the yanks table but it doesn't meet the yanks (bollox) valuation of the club.
[/quote]

Haha, you're not seriously clinging to the idea that DIC are waiting to rescue us are you? They're just a bigger set of con merchants with better PR. They've long gone...thankfully.
[/quote]

Haha! I thought you've gone to YNWA!

Boy, you're a daisy!
[/quote]
Haha
He's funny! ;D

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882950#msg882950 date=1244212005]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882945#msg882945 date=1244211767]
[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882940#msg882940 date=1244211385]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=34009.msg882934#msg882934 date=1244211092]
the yank being unable to get refinace will definately aid the club. there are suiters waiting in the wings and they are being put off by a frankly ridiculous 500 million price tag the yanks have put on us, if they HAD to sell that price would drop and we'd get snapped up. I really hope the banks tell the yanks to sell up and fuck off.
[/quote]

You're dreaming. If there was genuine interest RBS would have already done that.
[/quote]

there is an offer from the DIC sitting on the yanks table but it doesn't meet the yanks (bollox) valuation of the club.
[/quote]

Haha, you're not seriously clinging to the idea that DIC are waiting to rescue us are you? They're just a bigger set of con merchants with better PR. They've long gone...thankfully.
[/quote]

I'm starting to like this guy.

Re: DIC - I posted last month (and got no replies) about the company they and PCP had formed to bid for the club being dissolved. So it's less likely they're interested these days.

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882936#msg882936 date=1244211271]
First time I've heard of a set of fans taking direct action against a bank to actively put their club into administration and potential free fall on the off chance that there's a sugar daddy waiting in the winds to rescue them.

All very romantic but ultimately bollocks. SOS, like most of these idealistic fan groups, are a shambles and should stick to ticketing and real fan issues.
[/quote]

Nail on head.

 

[KopKing]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=34009.msg883034#msg883034 date=1244219937]
[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882936#msg882936 date=1244211271]
First time I've heard of a set of fans taking direct action against a bank to actively put their club into administration and potential free fall on the off chance that there's a sugar daddy waiting in the winds to rescue them.

All very romantic but ultimately bollocks. SOS, like most of these idealistic fan groups, are a shambles and should stick to ticketing and real fan issues.
[/quote]

Nail on head.
[/quote]

Some would argue that at least they are doing something rather than whinging on chatroom forums. Good luck to them, I say

 

[Rosco]

Shouldn't they try to do something constructive though ?

 

[SummerOnions]

Like what exactly?

 

[Frogfish]

I'm afraid Dubai blew their image when the begging of Abu Dhabi to loan them cash came to light. Dubai has taken a very serious knock. But then, their building projects were way over-leveraged unless there was huge growth in the commercial and residential property markets over another decade. Highly unlikely that an up-cycle would have been maintained that long. Al Maktoums screwed up, simple as that and financially they are fucked big time.

Compare them with say Berkshire Hathaway who took massive knocks with the global fiinancial crisis. Dubai managed their resources so badly that they can't even pay the interest on their Government debt whilst BH saw their fundamentally sound investments decline in value with no liability. Berkshire has regained almost all their negative positions whereas Dubai's situation worsens by the day.

I don't see an Arab knight in shining armour on a white horse galloping in to save us.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

[quote author=David Byrne link=topic=34009.msg882936#msg882936 date=1244211271]
First time I've heard of a set of fans taking direct action against a bank to actively put their club into administration and potential free fall on the off chance that there's a sugar daddy waiting in the winds to rescue them.

All very romantic but ultimately bollocks. SOS, like most of these idealistic fan groups, are a shambles and should stick to ticketing and real fan issues.
[/quote]

Well, said. Could not agree more.


regards

 

[Delinquent]

[quote author=Gareth link=topic=34009.msg883193#msg883193 date=1244245742]
Like what exactly?
[/quote]

I think they should use more exclamation marks in their appeals. That would certainly persuade me.

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=Gareth link=topic=34009.msg883193#msg883193 date=1244245742]
Like what exactly?
[/quote]

Something that doesnt damage the club long term, possibly permanently, would be a start.

 

[Squiggles]

Liverpool's American dream looks like a dead end

Andy Hunter and David Conn

When Tom Hicks and George Gillett strode on to the Anfield pitch in February 2007 to announce their acquisition of Liverpool Football Club, they presented themselves as the guys to pump the club with finance, provide the wherewithal to build the long-mooted new stadium, and lift the club back to the pre-eminence it had lost in football's moneyed, Premier League era. All their talk was of cherishing Liverpool's heritage, of the Kop, name-checked repeatedly by Hicks in his Texan drawl, of a golden future to replicate the glorious past. Debts of £313m 18 months later, the club paying £36.5m interest to service them, auditors delivering grave warnings of "material uncertainty" about Liverpool's ability even to continue in business were, to quote a phrase, never in the brochure.

The accounts released on Thursday, covering the year to 31 July 2008 for Liverpool Football Club and Hicks' and Gillett's holding company, Kop Football – ultimately owned, naturally, in the low-tax US state of Delaware via the Cayman Islands – set this out in black and white. In part the figures, revealing a £42.6m loss made in a bumper year when the club turned over £164.2m, confirmed what we already knew. The North American pair borrowed the £185m to take over Liverpool and although they promised in those choreographed public appearances not to "do a Glazers", they have loaded the responsibility for paying those debts on to the club itself.

With £313m already spent of a £350m loan facility with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia few believe the new stadium will be built anytime soon, since that, too, has to be financed with borrowed money, currently projected at about £400m.

The stadium was first planned over a decade ago, when the cost was estimated at less than a quarter of that. The necessity then was to stop Manchester United, merrily slapping extra tiers on Old Trafford, stretching away financially. But controversies over the initial proposals, followed by an exhaustive planning process, a three-year search for a buyer, then inaction under Hicks and Gillett, have left Liverpool still at historic, 45,000-seat Anfield, and dramatically further in debt. During the same period, United have filled the Old Trafford corners to allow a 76,000 capacity, Arsenal moved to the 60,000-seat Emirates Stadium whose construction, in inner-city London, was more complex than anything Liverpool face, and Chelsea have been handed £700m to spend by Roman Abramovich.

New owners were sought for Liverpool because the chairman, David Moores, and chief executive, Rick Parry, believed they could not build the new stadium without a rich backer standing behind the club. Hicks and Gillett, however, have not delivered, releasing the briefest of statements last August that the new stadium would be "subject to delay", which they blamed on "global market conditions".

It was of course true that the banking system had collapsed, but the club was sold to Hicks and Gillett because they were supposed to have the muscle to build the stadium. There is no sign that they are any further forward now; one Liverpool source, asked about the project yesterday, said: "You can forget about that."

Liverpool city council, which has worked patiently with the club to produce regeneration plans for the Anfield area based around a new stadium, expressed frustration after the project was shelved last year, and there is widespread disillusion, from fans and Liverpool people, about the conduct of the owners.

Yet, despite KPMG's warning, the figures do not signal that Liverpool is in danger of imminent collapse. The £350m loan facility does fall for renewal next month, which is why KPMG identified it as "a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt upon [liverpool's] ability to continue as a going concern". Hicks, however, is said to be "very relaxed" that Royal Bank of Scotland will extend the loan and that seems a reasonable assumption. Any customer which can pay £36.5m interest is good business, and it is difficult to envisage Liverpool, still generating so much income, being repossessed by the banks.

Hicks and Gillett have put money in, a significant difference from the Glazers, who have provided nothing for United to invest. The accounts show that £58m was loaned from the Cayman Islands holding company, which is understood to have funded player signings. Significant sums have been made available to Rafael Benítez under the new owners, including the totemic £26.5m arrival of Fernando Torres in July 2007, and during the year covered by these accounts, Benítez signed Andrea Dossena and the £20m Robbie Keane, who returned to Spurs for £12m six months later.

It is still part of Hicks and Gillett's plans to back Benítez. They can point to progress, with the improved squad having rampaged gleefully for much of last season, beating Manchester United 4–1 at Old Trafford, and finishing second, which will deliver the club more money from both the Premier League and Champions League distributions.

The club, however, will not generate enough, even in what is certain to have been a record year financially, to spend £20m on players as well as service the debt burden. So Hicks and Gillett will either have to borrow up to the full £350m, or find more cash themselves. They are said to be looking for new investment or to sell, but Hicks denies that, insisting he will hang on, and see Liverpool eventually into the Shangri-La of the new stadium.

While Chelsea have Abramovich reaching into his pockets again, and Manchester City were bought by an owner blessed with an outrageous fortune, Manchester United and Arsenal have major borrowings to service too. Liverpool may not fall too far behind just yet if Benítez can spend his budget wisely this summer and has luck with injuries next season.

It is, though, difficult to see where the club can get to under the current owners. Even if the £350m loan is continued there are questions over Hicks and Gillett's ability or willingness to fund the club further themselves. Two and a half years since the arrival of these "good" Americans, the new stadium remains on the drawing board, and Liverpool are servicing huge debts, including the £185m cost of being taken over by the pair in the first place. It is difficult to see quite how it all fits in with that rose-tinted commitment, made at the beginning, to cherish the heritage of Liverpool FC.

 

[foureyes]

Its an interesting point about the banks being happy about making over 3Omill a year in interest. If we have a viable and secure future, why would the banks want to change the current set up? They're laughing.

With regards to our future, the yanks obviously have several franchises and business concerns, but how valuable an asset is lfc in comparison to the others? They seem to think its worth ploughing millions of their own dollars into the club, so maybe we are a priority over their other assets. Hopefully they may sell some for their other clubs/franchises to prevent us from falling by the wayside. If, that is, the situation really is that dire.

 

[FoxForceFive]

They definitely see as the priority, as they're both selling off (or attempting to sell off) their other interests to keep their stake in us.

We make the most profit from a sale so they need to keep us viable.

 

[Judge Jules]

[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=34009.msg883257#msg883257 date=1244282433]

Liverpool's American dream looks like a dead end

Andy Hunter and David Conn

When Tom Hicks and George Gillett strode on to the Anfield pitch in February 2007 to announce their acquisition of Liverpool Football Club, they presented themselves as the guys to pump the club with finance, provide the wherewithal to build the long-mooted new stadium, and lift the club back to the pre-eminence it had lost in football's moneyed, Premier League era. All their talk was of cherishing Liverpool's heritage, of the Kop, name-checked repeatedly by Hicks in his Texan drawl, of a golden future to replicate the glorious past. Debts of £313m 18 months later, the club paying £36.5m interest to service them, auditors delivering grave warnings of "material uncertainty" about Liverpool's ability even to continue in business were, to quote a phrase, never in the brochure.

The accounts released on Thursday, covering the year to 31 July 2008 for Liverpool Football Club and Hicks' and Gillett's holding company, Kop Football – ultimately owned, naturally, in the low-tax US state of Delaware via the Cayman Islands – set this out in black and white. In part the figures, revealing a £42.6m loss made in a bumper year when the club turned over £164.2m, confirmed what we already knew. The North American pair borrowed the £185m to take over Liverpool and although they promised in those choreographed public appearances not to "do a Glazers", they have loaded the responsibility for paying those debts on to the club itself.

With £313m already spent of a £350m loan facility with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia few believe the new stadium will be built anytime soon, since that, too, has to be financed with borrowed money, currently projected at about £400m.

The stadium was first planned over a decade ago, when the cost was estimated at less than a quarter of that. The necessity then was to stop Manchester United, merrily slapping extra tiers on Old Trafford, stretching away financially. But controversies over the initial proposals, followed by an exhaustive planning process, a three-year search for a buyer, then inaction under Hicks and Gillett, have left Liverpool still at historic, 45,000-seat Anfield, and dramatically further in debt. During the same period, United have filled the Old Trafford corners to allow a 76,000 capacity, Arsenal moved to the 60,000-seat Emirates Stadium whose construction, in inner-city London, was more complex than anything Liverpool face, and Chelsea have been handed £700m to spend by Roman Abramovich.

New owners were sought for Liverpool because the chairman, David Moores, and chief executive, Rick Parry, believed they could not build the new stadium without a rich backer standing behind the club. Hicks and Gillett, however, have not delivered, releasing the briefest of statements last August that the new stadium would be "subject to delay", which they blamed on "global market conditions".

It was of course true that the banking system had collapsed, but the club was sold to Hicks and Gillett because they were supposed to have the muscle to build the stadium. There is no sign that they are any further forward now; one Liverpool source, asked about the project yesterday, said: "You can forget about that."

Liverpool city council, which has worked patiently with the club to produce regeneration plans for the Anfield area based around a new stadium, expressed frustration after the project was shelved last year, and there is widespread disillusion, from fans and Liverpool people, about the conduct of the owners.

Yet, despite KPMG's warning, the figures do not signal that Liverpool is in danger of imminent collapse. The £350m loan facility does fall for renewal next month, which is why KPMG identified it as "a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt upon [liverpool's] ability to continue as a going concern". Hicks, however, is said to be "very relaxed" that Royal Bank of Scotland will extend the loan and that seems a reasonable assumption. Any customer which can pay £36.5m interest is good business, and it is difficult to envisage Liverpool, still generating so much income, being repossessed by the banks.

Hicks and Gillett have put money in, a significant difference from the Glazers, who have provided nothing for United to invest. The accounts show that £58m was loaned from the Cayman Islands holding company, which is understood to have funded player signings. Significant sums have been made available to Rafael Benítez under the new owners, including the totemic £26.5m arrival of Fernando Torres in July 2007, and during the year covered by these accounts, Benítez signed Andrea Dossena and the £20m Robbie Keane, who returned to Spurs for £12m six months later.

It is still part of Hicks and Gillett's plans to back Benítez. They can point to progress, with the improved squad having rampaged gleefully for much of last season, beating Manchester United 4–1 at Old Trafford, and finishing second, which will deliver the club more money from both the Premier League and Champions League distributions.

The club, however, will not generate enough, even in what is certain to have been a record year financially, to spend £20m on players as well as service the debt burden. So Hicks and Gillett will either have to borrow up to the full £350m, or find more cash themselves. They are said to be looking for new investment or to sell, but Hicks denies that, insisting he will hang on, and see Liverpool eventually into the Shangri-La of the new stadium.

While Chelsea have Abramovich reaching into his pockets again, and Manchester City were bought by an owner blessed with an outrageous fortune, Manchester United and Arsenal have major borrowings to service too. Liverpool may not fall too far behind just yet if Benítez can spend his budget wisely this summer and has luck with injuries next season.

It is, though, difficult to see where the club can get to under the current owners. Even if the £350m loan is continued there are questions over Hicks and Gillett's ability or willingness to fund the club further themselves. Two and a half years since the arrival of these "good" Americans, the new stadium remains on the drawing board, and Liverpool are servicing huge debts, including the £185m cost of being taken over by the pair in the first place. It is difficult to see quite how it all fits in with that rose-tinted commitment, made at the beginning, to cherish the heritage of Liverpool FC.

[/quote]

Very good article indeed IMO, a sober and balanced summary of a complex situation.

 

[Frogfish]

Maybe someone can explain this point as I'd like to know how they accomplished it and maybe use it myself to take over a large multinational company with no debt to my name :

Liverpool are servicing huge debts, including the £185m cost of being taken over by the pair in the first place

At the time of the takeover the costs incurred by G&H for due diligence and, I'm assuming, other legal and banking costs - were not costs incurred by LFC. Therefore they were therefore incurred prior to G&H owning the club and as such not an LFC liability ..... so how did they end up on the club's plate ?

 

[Tinto]

[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=34009.msg883363#msg883363 date=1244295711]
Maybe someone can explain this point as I'd like to know how they accomplished it and maybe use it myself to take over a large multinational company with no debt to my name :

Liverpool are servicing huge debts, including the £185m cost of being taken over by the pair in the first place

At the time of the takeover the costs incurred by G&H for due diligence and, I'm assuming, other legal and banking costs - were not costs incurred by LFC. Therefore they were therefore incurred prior to G&H owning the club and as such not an LFC liability ..... so how did they end up on the club's plate ?
[/quote]

This is how I understand it... G&H borrowed money to buy the Liverpool shares from Moores and the other shareholders. They then refinanced that loan and the new loan ended up on the books of Kop Football Holdings and LFC.

I reckon any new owner would buy our club in this fashion.