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

The Chinese have pulled the plug

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158541#msg1158541 date=1282346501]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41525.msg1158522#msg1158522 date=1282344948]
G&H aren't going to sanction a sale unless they are compensated for their 'trouble' and rbs aren't going to call in the debt whilst we have the ability to pay it, they'd sooner refinance first.
that was staring us in the face from day one and we chose to ignore it.
[/quote]

1. G&H don't have to sanction a sale for a sale to be made.
2. RBS won't refinance - it would exacerbate the situation and they may end up losing if we go tits up and get sold on the cheap.
3. Chinese walking away from the table is a legitimate negotiating tactic over here. Seen it numerous times, though naturally can't say if that is the situation in this case.
[/quote]

Ezackerly
 
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158541#msg1158541 date=1282346501]

1. G&H don't have to sanction a sale for a sale to be made.

[/quote]

Oh yes they do.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41525.msg1158589#msg1158589 date=1282352083]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158541#msg1158541 date=1282346501]

1. G&H don't have to sanction a sale for a sale to be made.

[/quote]

Oh yes they do.
[/quote]

Ezackmundo too. I agree with froggy on 1 & 2
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41525.msg1158589#msg1158589 date=1282352083]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158541#msg1158541 date=1282346501]

1. G&H don't have to sanction a sale for a sale to be made.

[/quote]

Oh yes they do.
[/quote]

So what you are saying is that the board voting 3-2 on a sale means nothing ? And that RBS telling G&H to sell the club (i.e. pay up or lose it) also means nothing ?

In other words G&H are not in the shit and can still do whatever they like ? That seems to be completely contrary to RBS's stance.
 
[quote author=Asim link=topic=41525.msg1158593#msg1158593 date=1282353115]
I think Ross is disagreeing with Froggy Y1, you can't agree with both of them
[/quote]

ah the beauty of being sleep deprived. I meant I agree with Froggy on 2 & 3. I agree with Ros on 1, despite what Broughton said, ultimately the owners have the final say in any sales. There sorted.
 
If they jumped ship this easily (they were rushing it too much), they were wither outbid, or not serious buyers to begin with. someone who rushes you is usually a little dodgy. Just my guess..
 
I think if the Sahara group bought us then they'd be in for the long haul.

They wouldn't desert us.
 
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158594#msg1158594 date=1282353472]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41525.msg1158589#msg1158589 date=1282352083]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158541#msg1158541 date=1282346501]

1. G&H don't have to sanction a sale for a sale to be made.

[/quote]

Oh yes they do.
[/quote]

So what you are saying is that the board voting 3-2 on a sale means nothing ? And that RBS telling G&H to sell the club (i.e. pay up or lose it) also means nothing ?

In other words G&H are not in the shit and can still do whatever they like ? That seems to be completely contrary to RBS's stance.
[/quote]

Ross's interpretation of it is that as the Board are not actuallythe shareholders, the Boards duty is to get the best deal for the shareholders and ultimately if the Board tries to push through a bid lower that other offers, it opens up the possibility of the Shareholders (G&H) taking legal action against the Board. G&H's camp have already suggested that they might explore this options.

That saying, we also have no way of knowing what conditions the RBS put in place when they agreed to the re-financing - and Broughton has gone on record as stating that his job is not necessarily about realising the most value for the shareholders. So you have to ask why he would delare that publicly if it was all bullshit.
 
EXCLUSIVE: Kenny Huang pulls out of Liverpool bid
By Nick Harris
20 August 2010
Kenny Huang has pulled out of the running as a potential bidder for Liverpool. The New York-based Chinese businessman released a statement this evening (below) to that effect, although he did not provide reasons as to why he was pulling out.
He said he had a plan to provide money to build a new stadium and buy players but added, without explanation: “We regret that we will not have the opportunity to implement this strategyâ€.
Huang’s withdrawal from the bidding process will raise numerous questions about his bid, its seriousness (or not), and the reasons why so many people considered him a credible candidate for so long when there was scant reason, based on hard facts, to believe he could pull off such a deal.
As sportingintelligence has reported since the start of August, reliable sources in China, Hong Kong and America have cast doubt on Huang’s ability to buy Liverpool, not through any malicious agenda but because his track record in sport to date amounts to being a middle man in some sponsorship deals, commercial ownership of two minor and marginal sports leagues in China, and ownership of a Chinese basketball team and magazine. More on his background here.
On the flip side, there have been, and remain, serious doubts about his credibility and honesty in other areas of his business life, more details of which will emerge in time.
Liverpool’s supporters are those who continue to suffer most as the board looks for a buyer; the danger now is that some of those fans will (wrongly) perceive that the board have somehow driven Huang away, when in fact it is not the case.
There was never any hard, credible evidence presented to show Huang ever had CIC backing for a bid; indeed in one of his own statements sent from his own phone he expressly denied that. The inquest into how so many people were fooled by Huang’s purported plans for so long can now begin. The search for a Liverpool buyer will continue.
And Kenny Huang will now be the man “who almost bought Liverpool.â€
.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41525.msg1158386#msg1158386 date=1282332193]
I'm still holding out hope that the person who will actually be taking over has kept his cards close to his chest throughout this process. And that person's bid is the reason why Huang is pulling out.


[/quote]

Agreed Ross. I really hope this aswell. There were rumours of a third bid on last friday, and that caused the delay in the announcement that was planned. Fingers crossed.
 
The same journo is convinced that Huang’s proposed takeover has come down to a blinking match. Martin Broughton is looking for a richer valuation than Huang is prepared to pay. Huang is adamant he’ll put as little profit as possible in the current owners’ pockets. Something has to give, and it could be that Huang retires for the time being, if a deal can’t be concluded in time for Roy Hodgson to invest in the current transfer market

This is what Bamba said, looks like he was right aswell.
 
So how does that fit with your belief that the Yanks have no power to stop the sale ?

What does Broughton care how much they walk away with ?
 
Ross, Broughton has said numberous of times that the Yanks can't block a sale. Why would he do that? In official statements. Why?

They could have set a minimum valuation that would cover the debt, stadium and transfers, maybe Huang was lower than that valutation. I have no idea to be honest and I don't care either.

Maybe Huang is a chancer and only wanted to get PR for QSL, maybe a dark horse out there has outbid him.

This Bamba lad knows pretty much the same as Tony and Tony, they get their info from the same people probably. They have all very one sided information and it's all from the Huang camp.
All I said was that he once again dropped some news about what could happen, and it did. From Huangs perspective of course. If that really is why only Broughton knows.


To be honest I still have faith in Broughton, he has at least told it like it is in my opinion.

The key date will probably be the 6th of October now.
 
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=41525.msg1158600#msg1158600 date=1282355666]
No need for the use of "chinks" up there like.
[/quote]

x2
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=41525.msg1158426#msg1158426 date=1282333590]
Christ doc mac, is this really the time for shit puns?

*narrows eyes*
[/quote]

Hey that was a fucking great pun. It was so clever I think it confucius you.
 
Just three weeks after he emerged as the latest Liverpool saviour, Kenny Huang vanished from the scene on Friday night.

During that time we never heard from him in person, saw him at a game at Anfield or got any real sense of who might be backing him.

And yet ask any football follower who Huang is and they would probably be able to tell you - such is the publicity he has received.

Two weeks ago I went to Anfield to cover the story and was amazed to find a fan had already gone out and adapted his club shirt to reflect the possible arrival of Huang. The story had only broken two days earlier.

Many are questioning whether Huang actually had the money to buy Liverpool. Photo: Getty Images

That supporter was no doubt seeking publicity on television for his efforts, something we duly gave him. But there are plenty of people who are wondering whether Huang was any different, just chasing his moment in the spotlight or using the media to encourage people with money to get behind him and back his idea.

It wouldn't be the first time. The Premier League is now so high profile and a club like Liverpool so famous, that linking your name to a possible takeover is a sure-fire way of seeing it in headlines around the world.

Liverpool were initially put up for sale by their American owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks in April with debts of £351.4m.

Their largest creditor, the Royal Bank of Scotland, are thought to be owed in the region of £237m and will invoke a £60m penalty fee is it is not repaid, or renegotiated, by 6 October.

Now I am not saying Huang was not a credible bidder for Liverpool. Barclays Capital and Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton, who are handling the protracted sale of the club, said they were treating him as one.

He may have had the Chinese government's China Investment Corporation behind him, but we are all still waiting for confirmation one way or another and, in such a hazy environment of claim and counter-claim, it is virtually impossible to know the truth of that one.

He may have had the backing of a gentleman called Guang Yuang of United States finance house Franklin Templeton Investments, although a spokeswoman for Franklin Templeton was very quick to go on the record and dismiss the suggestion.

He may also have had the help of former Chelsea and Manchester United chief executive Peter Kenyon. It is certainly true Huang and Kenyon know each other but the idea that a man who ran Old Trafford was now involved with a bid to rescue Liverpool may not have gone down well among those fans on the Kop Huang was trying to woo.

There is, of course, the possibility that all this is just a scare tactic, and that when Huang says in his statement, "I am now considering my future options", he is fully expecting Broughton to come rushing to find him clutching a sale contract.

But if he was the only real bidder, why take that chance? Why not sit tight and complete the deal?

The first we all knew about the Roman Abramovich and Abu Dhabi takeovers of Chelsea and Manchester City was when the deals were done. Abramovich didn't threaten Ken Bates across the back pages before closing his deal to buy Stamford Bridge. It just happened and any bid which makes as much noise as Huang's without anything apparently behind it has to be treated with a serious measure of suspicion.

There are plenty of people who may now wonder whether all the talk of frustration at delays is a smoke screen to disguise the fact that he simply didn't have the money. His advisers claim otherwise, saying he had provided proof of funds and every piece of paper required by Barclays Capital.

The club don't deny this, but they insist that just because he may have submitted a bid, they still have a duty to explore all the other offers on the table and that if Huang can't bide his time, then so be it.

So what happens now?

Broughton and Barclays Capital will continue to talk to those bidders still in the auction. There were said to be five last Friday so one assumes there are now four. But there are question marks over how serious they are.

The Syrian-born Canadian businessman Yahya Kirdi, the Rhone Group from New York and the Al Kharafi family of Kuwait are all said to be interested but so far we have seen no evidence of any progress with their bids.

It is known Broughton wanted to choose a preferred bidder last Friday but Liverpool were only able to issue a holding statement saying they were continuing the process and that a sale would be completed soon.

Christian Purslow, the club's managing director, went on Sportsweek last Sunday to say a deal was not close and the briefing from the club's advisers is 'don't expect anything any time soon'. Does that mean that no one wants to buy the club or is the problem that the American owners won't budge unless they get a profit from their three years in charge?

However, the clock is ticking. Hicks and Gillett have six weeks to repay or refinance their hefty loan with RBS. They are incurring hefty penalties as each month passes and they fail to agree a sale.

RBS are desperate for them to find a buyer to take on or pay off the debt while Liverpool know they risk falling further behind if this uncertainty continues.

But Broughton and Barclays won't be rushed and have repeatedly insisted they not only want to find a buyer but the right owner too.

It could be some time until that fan at Anfield has a new name to put on his shirt.
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=41525.msg1158665#msg1158665 date=1282382612]
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=41525.msg1158600#msg1158600 date=1282355666]
No need for the use of "chinks" up there like.
[/quote]

x2
[/quote]
x3 Fucking disgraceful
 
[quote author=StevieM link=topic=41525.msg1158616#msg1158616 date=1282367284]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158594#msg1158594 date=1282353472]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41525.msg1158589#msg1158589 date=1282352083]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158541#msg1158541 date=1282346501]

1. G&H don't have to sanction a sale for a sale to be made.

[/quote]

Oh yes they do.
[/quote]

So what you are saying is that the board voting 3-2 on a sale means nothing ? And that RBS telling G&H to sell the club (i.e. pay up or lose it) also means nothing ?

In other words G&H are not in the shit and can still do whatever they like ? That seems to be completely contrary to RBS's stance.
[/quote]

Ross's interpretation of it is that as the Board are not actuallythe shareholders, the Boards duty is to get the best deal for the shareholders and ultimately if the Board tries to push through a bid lower that other offers, it opens up the possibility of the Shareholders (G&H) taking legal action against the Board. G&H's camp have already suggested that they might explore this options.

That saying, we also have no way of knowing what conditions the RBS put in place when they agreed to the re-financing - and Broughton has gone on record as stating that his job is not necessarily about realising the most value for the shareholders. So you have to ask why he would delare that publicly if it was all bullshit.
[/quote]

What we do know about RBS is that their CEO, Stephen Hester, said recently that they had probably loaned too much to Statler and Waldorf in the first place. That doesn't sound to me like someone who'd be prepared to increase, yet again, his outfit's exposure to their ongoing inability to pay what they owe. BTW a friend of mine came across him on a big property deal in his previous job and reckons he's hard as nails, one of the most focused individuals she's ever worked with. If H and G are taking it for granted that they'll be left in place indefinitely by RBS to do whatever the feck they like, they could well be making a very serious mistake.
 
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41525.msg1158738#msg1158738 date=1282395855]
[quote author=StevieM link=topic=41525.msg1158616#msg1158616 date=1282367284]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158594#msg1158594 date=1282353472]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41525.msg1158589#msg1158589 date=1282352083]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=41525.msg1158541#msg1158541 date=1282346501]

1. G&H don't have to sanction a sale for a sale to be made.

[/quote]

Oh yes they do.
[/quote]

So what you are saying is that the board voting 3-2 on a sale means nothing ? And that RBS telling G&H to sell the club (i.e. pay up or lose it) also means nothing ?

In other words G&H are not in the shit and can still do whatever they like ? That seems to be completely contrary to RBS's stance.
[/quote]

Ross's interpretation of it is that as the Board are not actuallythe shareholders, the Boards duty is to get the best deal for the shareholders and ultimately if the Board tries to push through a bid lower that other offers, it opens up the possibility of the Shareholders (G&H) taking legal action against the Board. G&H's camp have already suggested that they might explore this options.er is p[

That saying, we also have no way of knowing what conditions the RBS put in place when they agreed to the re-financing - and Broughton has gone on record as stating that his job is not necessarily about realising the most value for the shareholders. So you have to ask why he would delare that publicly if it was all bullshit.
[/quote]

What we do know about RBS is that their CEO, Stephen Hester, said recently that they had probably loaned too much to Statler and Waldorf in the first place. That doesn't sound to me like someone who'd be prepared to increase, yet again, his outfit's exposure to their ongoing inability to pay what they owe. BTW a friend of mine came across him on a big property deal in his previous job and reckons he's hard as nails, one of the most focused individuals she's ever worked with. If H and G are taking it for granted that they'll be left in place indefinitely by RBS to do whatever the feck they like, they could well be making a very serious mistake.
[/quote]

My greatest fear is that G&H will pull some sort of re-financing deal out of a hat. Was it not rumoured that BARCAP where willing to take on the debt themselves... whomever... their is probably an opportunity for some finance company to make some money by taking on the debt in the hope that a sale can be agreed relatively quickly ( and 6 months would be relatively quickly in corporate terms). The costs can all be leeched out of the club.
 
If a respected figure like Broughton was hired to find appropriate new owners for Liverpool who will clear debt, build the stadium and provide funding for players and is then threatened with legal action for doing just this, then surely he would simply resign.
 
[quote author=Wilko link=topic=41525.msg1158914#msg1158914 date=1282422734]
If a respected figure like Broughton was hired to find appropriate new owners for Liverpool who will clear debt, build the stadium and provide funding for players and is then threatened with legal action for doing just this, then surely he would simply resign.
[/quote]

He was hired to sell the club... in ideal world he'd find the perfect bidder who was willing to pay off the debt, build the stadium, fund new players & pay a premium price for the opportunity to do so.

Whatever happens.... I'm pretty sure he'll walk away smelling of roses.
 
The more I hear about Huang jumping out of the window at the first hurdle, the stranger it seems

regards


It is believed Huang was unimpressed at Liverpool’s unwillingness to set a general “horizon date†for the completion of a sale.

He is also thought to have been concerned by Broughton’s insistence that the board should reserve the right to accept an 11th-hour bid from another candidate even if the terms of sale had been agreed.

Related Articles

*
Huang out of Liverpool race
*
Aquilani joins Juve on loan
*
David Silva fears Torres impact
*
'No Inter move for Mascherano'
*
Sport on television
*
Kenny MacAskill blames British Government for Lockerbie furore

Broughton has been persistent in his assertion that he will not be corralled into rushing a sale by any candidate while sources close to the process are adamant it is in the club’s best interests to keep an open mind on the winning bidder until the very last minute.

Huang, the only contender to buy the debt-laden club who had made his intentions plain, issued a statement on Friday night.

In it he revealed that he had informed Liverpool’s board that he no longer wished to be considered a candidate to buy out the stakes of current owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

Though his bid has been laced with questions over the provenance of its funding since it was first revealed earlier this month, his advisers insist his finances were checked and approved by the Royal Bank of Scotland, who hold Liverpool’s £237 million debt, and Barclays Capital, the bank mandated to run the sale process.

He is also believed to have supplied all supporting paperwork requested by the club.

Huang was viewed as a “serious contender†by all parties linked to the sale, but grew frustrated at the board’s perceived prevarication.

He was refused a period of exclusivity in which to finalise his bid last week – he had wanted a deal to be agreed before the closure of the transfer window.

He was also concerned by the revelation that BarCap had been involved in an abortive attempt in June by Hicks and Gillett to refinance their debt and forego a sale.

Sources at Liverpool and BarCap have insisted the departure of Huang from the negotiating table is not a hammer blow to the sales process.

It has been suggested there may be as many as four other bids on the table, though as yet no other group has confirmed its interest. Liverpool’s board are believed to be discussing their options should no sale be secured.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom