• 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.

Times Exclusive: 'Indian Billionarie looks to buyout Americans'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryan

The Prophet
Member
From The Times February 9, 2010

Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani sets sights on buying Liverpool from Hicks and Gillett.
Helen Power, Business Correspondent, Matt Hughes, Patrick Kidd


Liverpool emerged as a takeover target for the seventh-richest man in the world last night as the pressure mounted on Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr to cut a deal to sell Anfield.

Mukesh Ambani, the wealthiest man in India, is one of two tycoons from the sub-continent competing to buy a stake in the Merseyside club.

The Sahara Group’s chairman, Subrata Roy, and Ambani’s Reliance Industries have each tendered similar bids to pay off Liverpool’s £237 million debt in return for a 51 per cent stake in the club.

Last night Christian Purslow, the Liverpool chief executive, denied any knowledge of either bid, but The Times understands that approaches began as early as November and that some preliminary talks have taken place.

Each deal requires that the present owners make a commitment to take no dividends or expenses out of Anfield for three years to allow the club to resume a secure financial basis. One of the potential owners has also indicated a willingness to allow supporters to take a 10 per cent stake in Liverpool.

A source close to Hicks and Gillett said that the duo would reject on principle any bid that left them with less than 50 per cent of the club’s shares unless it involved either of them selling out entirely. A sale of more than half of the total stake would mean they would lose control of the club.

It is understood that Liverpool’s banker, the state-backed Royal Bank of Scotland, is pressing Hicks and Gillett to cut their asking price.

The bank declined to comment last night, but a source close to RBS said that there has been plenty of interest in Liverpool from investors. However, the source added, the owners are blocking all deals on the table because they refuse to budge on price.

The source said the bank’s stipulation that the pair must pay off £100 million of the debt and inject tens of millions of pounds into the club was intended to push them into an agreement with a new investor that would permanently stabilise Liverpool’s finances.

A number of other potential bidders include a Saudi Arabian consortium and a United States-based buyer, who is prepared to pay the £100 million required by the lenders in exchange for 40 per cent of the club.

Roy, whose interest appears more serious, has been linked with ownership of one of the next IPL franchises, possibly to be based in the north Indian city of Lucknow, where the Sahara Group, of which he is chairman, is based.

Roy, 62, founded the company, which deals in property, media and tourism, in 1978. Its four-year sponsorship deal with the India cricket team, worth £55 million, expires this year and Roy could be looking for a new project. Sahara was linked with shirt sponsorship of Manchester United last February, a deal that fell through.

Ambani, 52, is said to be worth $19.5 billion (about £12.5 billion) — more than the combined worth of Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich — from his investment in Reliance Industries, a petrochemicals giant, according to Forbes business magazine.

His father, Dhirubhai, turned a small textiles company into one of Asia’s largest conglomerates, but after Ambani Sr’s death in 2002, Mukesh and his younger brother, Anil, had a bitter feud over the company’s direction, eventually splitting the assets.

Mukesh Ambani is already a big player in sport. In 2008 he created the Mumbai Indians, one of the eight teams in the Indian Premier League (IPL), having paid £70 million to buy the franchise. Anil Ambani has been linked with a bid for one of two new franchises in the IPL that will be put up for auction at the end of the month, with a starting price of £140 million.

Gillett and Hicks took over at Anfield three years ago in a leveraged buyout costing nearly £300 million, including £70 million for a stadium that remains unbuilt. Despite promises to the contrary, they loaded the debt on to the club via a £350 million loan with RBS and have struggled to service the debt since the credit crunch began 18 months ago.

Before the economic climate changed for the worse, the American duo turned down an offer from Dubai worth almost £500 million — a deal that would have allowed each of the owners to walk away with a clear profit in the region of £125 million.

The Americans are unpopular with the supporters and the hostility at Anfield has increased as it has become clear that there is no money available to strengthen the team.

Purslow, whose background is in private equity, joined the club last summer with a brief to bring in investment but, despite repeated briefings that an influx of cash in close at hand, there has been little to suggest investors are keen to take a minority stake in the club.

While these latest offers will almost certainly be rejected, it marks the beginning of a period of jockeying for position in the ownership battle. It is a battle that, ultimately, RBS may have to resolve.
 
The Americans really should have sold ages ago. It's amazing that men so wealthy, who clearly have some sense of financial acumen, could have been so blind to the fact that the situation could only get worse.

I've never been a massive 'Yank' basher, as I can see the positives they've bought to the club as well. But it's been clear for a long time that they have to leave and their continued reluctance to hold onto the club bemuses me. It's certainly not for love - we all know that. It's either they don't want to accept that they're not that rich, or they still see us as a hugely profitable business once the stadium is built (although clearly the first point is a slight hindrance!)

I'm slightly reluctant to believe this if Purslow has denied all knowledge of the bid. He tends to be pretty straight with people, but then maybe it's crucial to the negotiation process. He is on record saying there's three to four "seriously interested" parties, so this clearly fits with that.

I'm quite excited. Although not in favour of having a massive 'sugar daddy' Chelsea style, it's so much preferable to our current situation, and we're already a massive club so it's fundamentally very different. Our fans are the best in the land; they deserve a league title; they deserve a new stadium. And more importantly, Steven Gerrard deserves to lift the Premiership title in a red shirt, surrounded by worthy players. We shouldn't be fearing the likes of Man fucking City, and some small, plastic club on the Kings Road - but here we are...
 
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=38850.msg1051628#msg1051628 date=1265678630]
Interesting, not by Tony Barrett though.

Lets hope its true.
[/quote]

It's by 3 reputable journo's though.
 
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=38850.msg1051634#msg1051634 date=1265680059]
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=38850.msg1051628#msg1051628 date=1265678630]
Interesting, not by Tony Barrett though.

Lets hope its true.
[/quote]

It's by 3 reputable journo's though.
[/quote]

If we can get him in before the summer it would be a dream. My main concern is with it being world cup year players valuations go a bit mental, so a cash boost would be nice.
 
Ambani has been a pretty decent owner of the mumbai indians in the IPL for the last two years. Invested heavily in the squad, remained in the background, let the cricketing staff get on with their work and backed them with money during the player auctions.
 
I would prefer a wholesale buy-out not a partial buy-out. I want the Americans out but there are no guarantees that any new owners would be better. I'm hoping for the best.
 
Hope they won't go for CEO of Air Asia. He is neither a billionaire nor has sufficient funds to pay. He will only make use of the publicity like the guy from Virgin
 
Tony Fernandes?

The prat already failed with a bid to buy West Ham.

Which is funny since he's a big time Manc and his bloody airline has tie-ins with them
 
One of these speculative reports has to come true one day.

I just don't see it being trailed in the newspapers beforehand.
 
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=38850.msg1051656#msg1051656 date=1265697645]
Tony Fernandes?

The prat already failed with a bid to buy West Ham.

Which is funny since he's a big time Manc and his bloody airline has tie-ins with them
[/quote]

Yep, since the papers are speculating, sooner or later Tony's name will surface as a potential buyer.

When he was bidding for west Ham, he changed his colours to being a WH fan!

He never pays for anything. He simply wants publicity.
 
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=38850.msg1051629#msg1051629 date=1265678631]
The Americans really should have sold ages ago. It's amazing that men so wealthy, who clearly have some sense of financial acumen, could have been so blind to the fact that the situation could only get worse.

I've never been a massive 'Yank' basher, as I can see the positives they've bought to the club as well. But it's been clear for a long time that they have to leave and their continued reluctance to hold onto the club bemuses me. It's certainly not for love - we all know that. It's either they don't want to accept that they're not that rich, or they still see us as a hugely profitable business once the stadium is built (although clearly the first point is a slight hindrance!)

I'm slightly reluctant to believe this if Purslow has denied all knowledge of the bid. He tends to be pretty straight with people, but then maybe it's crucial to the negotiation process. He is on record saying there's three to four "seriously interested" parties, so this clearly fits with that.

I'm quite excited. Although not in favour of having a massive 'sugar daddy' Chelsea style, it's so much preferable to our current situation, and we're already a massive club so it's fundamentally very different. Our fans are the best in the land; they deserve a league title; they deserve a new stadium. And more importantly, Steven Gerrard deserves to lift the Premiership title in a red shirt, surrounded by worthy players. We shouldn't be fearing the likes of Man fucking City, and some small, plastic club on the Kings Road - but here we are...
[/quote]

There's no suggestion in that article that any of the bidders would be a sugar daddy though. Indeed, Purslow more or less ruled out the possibility in his interview the other day. If they were willing to plough huge amounts of cash into the club, they wouldn't be squabbling over a few million and the number of shares it will purchase. Keen as I am to get rid of Gillett and Hicks, I think we have to be fairly sceptical and vigilant about all new potential owners.
 
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=38850.msg1051677#msg1051677 date=1265703553]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=38850.msg1051629#msg1051629 date=1265678631]
The Americans really should have sold ages ago. It's amazing that men so wealthy, who clearly have some sense of financial acumen, could have been so blind to the fact that the situation could only get worse.

I've never been a massive 'Yank' basher, as I can see the positives they've bought to the club as well. But it's been clear for a long time that they have to leave and their continued reluctance to hold onto the club bemuses me. It's certainly not for love - we all know that. It's either they don't want to accept that they're not that rich, or they still see us as a hugely profitable business once the stadium is built (although clearly the first point is a slight hindrance!)

I'm slightly reluctant to believe this if Purslow has denied all knowledge of the bid. He tends to be pretty straight with people, but then maybe it's crucial to the negotiation process. He is on record saying there's three to four "seriously interested" parties, so this clearly fits with that.

I'm quite excited. Although not in favour of having a massive 'sugar daddy' Chelsea style, it's so much preferable to our current situation, and we're already a massive club so it's fundamentally very different. Our fans are the best in the land; they deserve a league title; they deserve a new stadium. And more importantly, Steven Gerrard deserves to lift the Premiership title in a red shirt, surrounded by worthy players. We shouldn't be fearing the likes of Man fucking City, and some small, plastic club on the Kings Road - but here we are...
[/quote]

There's no suggestion in that article that any of the bidders would be a sugar daddy though. Indeed, Purslow more or less ruled out the possibility in his interview the other day. If they were willing to plough huge amounts of cash into the club, they wouldn't be squabbling over a few million and the number of shares it will purchase. Keen as I am to get rid of Gillett and Hicks, I think we have to be fairly sceptical and vigilant about all new potential owners.
[/quote]

I'm more concerned with the huge dept being removed and the start of building the stadium. oddly what the current owners said they would do when they first bought the club.
 
Ambani has denied it, but Roy didn't want to comment.
The article also say that Roys interest is the most serious one.

If only the Yank twats would sell up.
 
I don't think I'd figured out the power of bankers until all this. They really do run things.
 
[quote author=Bologna link=topic=38850.msg1051662#msg1051662 date=1265698507]
At least the matchday catering might improve.
[/quote]

Ha ha !
 
Ah missed Hansern's comment. My bad.

@Yoshi, it's become a routine thing already, not much to look for. I guess when it does come I'll be happy, but I don't feel anything with speculation no more.
 
[quote author=vantage link=topic=38850.msg1051760#msg1051760 date=1265711987]
It's Cowboys & Indians time.
[/quote]
yellowCard.jpg
 
[quote author=themn link=topic=38850.msg1051776#msg1051776 date=1265712516]
Rubbish joke.

Don't make me give you a second this early in the day.
[/quote]

Go ahead Mofo.
 
[quote author=vantage link=topic=38850.msg1051793#msg1051793 date=1265713318]
[quote author=themn link=topic=38850.msg1051776#msg1051776 date=1265712516]
Rubbish joke.

Don't make me give you a second this early in the day.
[/quote]

Go ahead Mofo.
[/quote]

Oh, OH, "Mofo ?"

How about "Mofo" THIS !!!
PennantRedCard_468x528.jpg


Yeah, that's right, walk it off son !

*makes note to recommend lengthy ban*
 
The way the article reads, presumably from Purslow spin is that people are queuing up to get involved, which I don't think is probably a million miles from the truth.
I think Liverpool the brans and history is still a really attractive proposition, particularly when you consider the teams that have had money put into them.
The issue has always been that the American's won't or wouldn't, at least, agree to giving up a majority of the share. I think that is thawing.
It's this control thing that is bizarre if one side has 49% the other 51% for all intents and purposes there is very little in it, but that extra 2% is worth tens of millions of pounds more, the people with a fraction under the half have little or no control in how their investment goes.
The situation we actually have , is much much worse than that with no one in overall control, and both sides having issues with the other , how Gillet must rue the day he brought Hicks on board.
Someone asked the question earlier, Squiggles I think , what are they in it for? That's a good question.
Money is the obvious one, but if so , why did they not take the £500m that was put on the table by DIC, the easiest £200m (almost) that they would make.
Thank God they didn't by the way or we could have been in an even bigger mess than we are now.
Why are they selling their longer standing, and in some cases much loved, family jewels, seemingly to help service debts mainly being built up by LFC. Three possibilities, they are either on a mission to prove people wrong about them, they really see Liverpool as still having huge potential to make money or three, and it seems the least likely I know, a combination of those two , plus they actually care.
If I were mega-rich billionaires like them, I don't think I would have put up with all the shite, and got out sooner rather than later.
Bunny is dead right too, be careful of what we wish for, more often than not the devil you know is a better option of the one you don't.
Having said that we need a serious injection of money to build the stadium and fund bringing in some top players, we have even started setting our own sites low and think (in varying degrees) that Dirk , Yossi, Lucas, Insua, N'gog, Maxi, Riera and co should be first choice players.
There is no smoke without fire and I do believe things have been smouldering for a while behind the scenes.


regards
 
I don't know anything about either of them, but this sounds good to me:

"The Sahara Group’s chairman, Subrata Roy, and Ambani’s Reliance Industries have each tendered similar bids to pay off Liverpool’s £237 million debt in return for a 51 per cent stake in the club.

Last night Christian Purslow, the Liverpool chief executive, denied any knowledge of either bid, but The Times understands that approaches began as early as November and that some preliminary talks have taken place.

Each deal requires that the present owners make a commitment to take no dividends or expenses out of Anfield for three years to allow the club to resume a secure financial basis. One of the potential owners has also indicated a willingness to allow supporters to take a 10 per cent stake in Liverpool".
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=38850.msg1051810#msg1051810 date=1265714195]
The way the article reads, presumably from Purslow spin is that people are queuing up to get involved, which I don't think is probably a million miles from the truth.
I think Liverpool the brans and history is still a really attractive proposition, particularly when you consider the teams that have had money put into them.
The issue has always been that the American's won't or wouldn't, at least, agree to giving up a majority of the share. I think that is thawing.
It's this control thing that is bizarre if one side has 49% the other 51% for all intents and purposes there is very little in it, but that extra 2% is worth tens of millions of pounds more, the people with a fraction under the half have little or no control in how their investment goes.
The situation we actually have , is much much worse than that with no one in overall control, and both sides having issues with the other , how Gillet must rue the day he brought Hicks on board.
Someone asked the question earlier, Squiggles I think , what are they in it for? That's a good question.
Money is the obvious one, but if so , why did they not take the £500m that was put on the table by DIC, the easiest £200m (almost) that they would make.
Thank God they didn't by the way or we could have been in an even bigger mess than we are now.
Why are they selling their longer standing, and in some cases much loved, family jewels, seemingly to help service debts mainly being built up by LFC. Three possibilities, they are either on a mission to prove people wrong about them, they really see Liverpool as still having huge potential to make money or three, and it seems the least likely I know, a combination of those two , plus they actually care.
If I were mega-rich billionaires like them, I don't think I would have put up with all the shite, and got out sooner rather than later.
Bunny is dead right too, be careful of what we wish for, more often than not the devil you know is a better option of the one you don't.
Having said that we need a serious injection of money to build the stadium and fund bringing in some top players, we have even started setting our own sites low and think (in varying degrees) that Dirk , Yossi, Lucas, Insua, N'gog, Maxi, Riera and co should be first choice players.
There is no smoke without fire and I do believe things have been smouldering for a while behind the scenes.


regards

[/quote]

What are they in it for? They think if they can get the stadium built they will make an absolute fucking fortune from Liverpool FC. And they're probably right.

Also, I wasn't for a minute suggesting that I'd prefer Gillett and Hicks to remain at the club, Vlad - only that we need to seriously scrutinise any potential new owner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom