Times Exclusive: 'Indian Billionarie looks to buyout Americans'
- Thread starter Ryan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[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]
Although i admire and fully understand the corinthian nature of not wanting a sugar daddy owner of the club it has to be said that that is exactly what two of our direct competitors have, even with a "well run" club it is impossible for us to spend the silly kinds of fees that other clubs are spending right now.
Personally i do not see how our ownership situation could be any worse, selling to another businessman who will no doubt also be looking to make a profit is nothing different but this one has 12,500,000,000 pounds to actually see things through so that we are not fucked over with massive interest payments.
I just really hope the RBS make it clear to the yanks that they better do the deal.
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]
Although i admire and fully understand the corinthian nature of not wanting a sugar daddy owner of the club it has to be said that that is exactly what two of our direct competitors have, even with a "well run" club it is impossible for us to spend the silly kinds of fees that other clubs are spending right now.
Personally i do not see how our ownership situation could be any worse, selling to another businessman who will no doubt also be looking to make a profit is nothing different but this one has 12,500,000,000 pounds to actually see things through so that we are not fucked over with massive interest payments.
I just really hope the RBS make it clear to the yanks that they better do the deal.
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=38850.msg1051857#msg1051857 date=1265717436]
[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]
Although i admire and fully understand the corinthian nature of not wanting a sugar daddy owner of the club it has to be said that that is exactly what two of our direct competitors have, even with a "well run" club it is impossible for us to spend the silly kinds of fees that other clubs are spending right now.
Personally i do not see how our ownership situation could be any worse, selling to another businessman who will no doubt also be looking to make a profit is nothing different but this one has 12,500,000,000 pounds to actually see things through so that we are not fucked over with massive interest payments.
I just really hope the RBS make it clear to the yanks that they better do the deal.
[/quote]
They have H&G by the balls- so if Purslow's comments to SOS have anything in them (and I'd say they do), then the Yanks will be forced to deal if RBS feel they are rejecting a fair offer.
[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]
Although i admire and fully understand the corinthian nature of not wanting a sugar daddy owner of the club it has to be said that that is exactly what two of our direct competitors have, even with a "well run" club it is impossible for us to spend the silly kinds of fees that other clubs are spending right now.
Personally i do not see how our ownership situation could be any worse, selling to another businessman who will no doubt also be looking to make a profit is nothing different but this one has 12,500,000,000 pounds to actually see things through so that we are not fucked over with massive interest payments.
I just really hope the RBS make it clear to the yanks that they better do the deal.
[/quote]
They have H&G by the balls- so if Purslow's comments to SOS have anything in them (and I'd say they do), then the Yanks will be forced to deal if RBS feel they are rejecting a fair offer.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38850.msg1051849#msg1051849 date=1265716843]
@ Vlad. Better the devil you know alright but surely any new investor/owner could not be worse than the two clowns we have in charge ?
[/quote]
I normally hate this kind of statement but in this case it's pretty much the truth.
Let's take worst case scenario for a new ownership, they are simply here cos they want to put in as little as possible, get the stadium built, keep us hovering in CL limbo, fourth place each year, cash in & fuck off.
That's still better than under the yanks, who currently want to do that, but cant front the cash for the deposit on the stadium.
It's never what I'd have dreamt of being happy with, but considering what we have currently, it's probably the best we can hope for.
@ Vlad. Better the devil you know alright but surely any new investor/owner could not be worse than the two clowns we have in charge ?
[/quote]
I normally hate this kind of statement but in this case it's pretty much the truth.
Let's take worst case scenario for a new ownership, they are simply here cos they want to put in as little as possible, get the stadium built, keep us hovering in CL limbo, fourth place each year, cash in & fuck off.
That's still better than under the yanks, who currently want to do that, but cant front the cash for the deposit on the stadium.
It's never what I'd have dreamt of being happy with, but considering what we have currently, it's probably the best we can hope for.
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=38850.msg1051857#msg1051857 date=1265717436]
[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]
Although i admire and fully understand the corinthian nature of not wanting a sugar daddy owner of the club it has to be said that that is exactly what two of our direct competitors have, even with a "well run" club it is impossible for us to spend the silly kinds of fees that other clubs are spending right now.
Personally i do not see how our ownership situation could be any worse, selling to another businessman who will no doubt also be looking to make a profit is nothing different but this one has 12,500,000,000 pounds to actually see things through so that we are not fucked over with massive interest payments.
I just really hope the RBS make it clear to the yanks that they better do the deal.
[/quote]
Just as long as you've done your research then.
[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]
Although i admire and fully understand the corinthian nature of not wanting a sugar daddy owner of the club it has to be said that that is exactly what two of our direct competitors have, even with a "well run" club it is impossible for us to spend the silly kinds of fees that other clubs are spending right now.
Personally i do not see how our ownership situation could be any worse, selling to another businessman who will no doubt also be looking to make a profit is nothing different but this one has 12,500,000,000 pounds to actually see things through so that we are not fucked over with massive interest payments.
I just really hope the RBS make it clear to the yanks that they better do the deal.
[/quote]
Just as long as you've done your research then.
[quote author=Wilko7 link=topic=38850.msg1051891#msg1051891 date=1265719053]
Any interested parties are unlikely to be in a hurry considering the yank shite will get more desperate as July looms closer. I'd be very happy if the eventual buyer gets 100% of the club for £237m.
[/quote]
I think the actual debt is even more to be honest Wilko. The owners 'own' money is money they've borrowed from Kop Cayman - a parent company - of which very little is know as regards it's make-up. I believe borrowed £180m at an annual intrest rate of 10% . I'm still trying to find out more information. It's all very confusing
Any interested parties are unlikely to be in a hurry considering the yank shite will get more desperate as July looms closer. I'd be very happy if the eventual buyer gets 100% of the club for £237m.
[/quote]
I think the actual debt is even more to be honest Wilko. The owners 'own' money is money they've borrowed from Kop Cayman - a parent company - of which very little is know as regards it's make-up. I believe borrowed £180m at an annual intrest rate of 10% . I'm still trying to find out more information. It's all very confusing
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=38850.msg1051838#msg1051838 date=1265716260]
[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.
[/quote]
I know what you mean Bunster, we don't want to be out of the frying pan into the fire.
Sunny, it's certainly not great, but I am sure there could be much worse.
We just need a cash injection pdq, and have somone in over-all control
regards
[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.
[/quote]
I know what you mean Bunster, we don't want to be out of the frying pan into the fire.
Sunny, it's certainly not great, but I am sure there could be much worse.
We just need a cash injection pdq, and have somone in over-all control
regards
God forbid it could be any worse Vlad. According to things I've heard the debt on the club is £237m. I've also heard the debt on Hicks and Gillett for their 'own' money to their parent company - Kop Cayman - is in the region of £240m. The latter debt is a personal debt for Tom and George fortunately but it means the total debt on club and owners is not far short of half a billion quid. If that's the price that's need to see these two pricks debt free then what is the price they're putting on the club for them to walk away with a profit. It cannot be realistic. This makes me worry we'll have to put up with Tweedledumb and Tweedledope for a lot longer.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38850.msg1052219#msg1052219 date=1265737937]
God forbid it could be any worse Vlad. According to things I've heard the debt on the club is £237m. I've also heard the debt on Hicks and Gillett for their 'own' money to their parent company - Kop Cayman - is in the region of £240m. The latter debt is a personal debt for Tom and George fortunately but it means the total debt on club and owners is not far short of half a billion quid. If that's the price that's need to see these two pricks debt free then what is the price they're putting on the club for them to walk away with a profit. It cannot be realistic. This makes me worry we'll have to put up with Tweedledumb and Tweedledope for a lot longer.
[/quote]
I doubt anyone would throw money at these tossers and allow them to retain a 51% control of the club and no one is going to pay half a billion to buy them out considering the fact that, without additional investment, Laurel and Hardy are up the creek in July.
God forbid it could be any worse Vlad. According to things I've heard the debt on the club is £237m. I've also heard the debt on Hicks and Gillett for their 'own' money to their parent company - Kop Cayman - is in the region of £240m. The latter debt is a personal debt for Tom and George fortunately but it means the total debt on club and owners is not far short of half a billion quid. If that's the price that's need to see these two pricks debt free then what is the price they're putting on the club for them to walk away with a profit. It cannot be realistic. This makes me worry we'll have to put up with Tweedledumb and Tweedledope for a lot longer.
[/quote]
I doubt anyone would throw money at these tossers and allow them to retain a 51% control of the club and no one is going to pay half a billion to buy them out considering the fact that, without additional investment, Laurel and Hardy are up the creek in July.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=38850.msg1051706#msg1051706 date=1265706772]
I don't think I'd figured out the power of bankers until all this. They really do run things.
[/quote]
They've only got that power when there is no plan B - which is a pretty unusual circumstance for successful businessmen. I would imagine if RBS are going to be the decisive party in this tangled web theny they would want to act promptly; as the world economy improves their power in the whole discussion will drop exponentially.
I can't see H&G selling over 50% of the club any time soon; they've weathered the worst of it IMO and selling up now when they've just about divested themselves of their other cash burning operations would be foolish in the extreme. Once those deals have been finalised I think they'll be able to call the shots more bluntly and can afford to stonewall the wrong investor.
I don't think I'd figured out the power of bankers until all this. They really do run things.
[/quote]
They've only got that power when there is no plan B - which is a pretty unusual circumstance for successful businessmen. I would imagine if RBS are going to be the decisive party in this tangled web theny they would want to act promptly; as the world economy improves their power in the whole discussion will drop exponentially.
I can't see H&G selling over 50% of the club any time soon; they've weathered the worst of it IMO and selling up now when they've just about divested themselves of their other cash burning operations would be foolish in the extreme. Once those deals have been finalised I think they'll be able to call the shots more bluntly and can afford to stonewall the wrong investor.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38850.msg1052219#msg1052219 date=1265737937]
God forbid it could be any worse Vlad. According to things I've heard the debt on the club is £237m. I've also heard the debt on Hicks and Gillett for their 'own' money to their parent company - Kop Cayman - is in the region of £240m. The latter debt is a personal debt for Tom and George fortunately but it means the total debt on club and owners is not far short of half a billion quid. If that's the price that's need to see these two pricks debt free then what is the price they're putting on the club for them to walk away with a profit. It cannot be realistic. This makes me worry we'll have to put up with Tweedledumb and Tweedledope for a lot longer.
[/quote]
How reliable is that info Sunny? That can't be true surely?
God forbid it could be any worse Vlad. According to things I've heard the debt on the club is £237m. I've also heard the debt on Hicks and Gillett for their 'own' money to their parent company - Kop Cayman - is in the region of £240m. The latter debt is a personal debt for Tom and George fortunately but it means the total debt on club and owners is not far short of half a billion quid. If that's the price that's need to see these two pricks debt free then what is the price they're putting on the club for them to walk away with a profit. It cannot be realistic. This makes me worry we'll have to put up with Tweedledumb and Tweedledope for a lot longer.
[/quote]
How reliable is that info Sunny? That can't be true surely?
What I've heard is that the money (£180m) purported to be their own was actually leveraged from Kop Cayman, a parent company at an interest rate of 10%. Now I'm not sure how reliable the info is nor am I sure what the make up of this company is i.e. if it's just Gillet and Hicks who own it or it's a consortium of investors. Having such an interest rate appended to it would make me think the latter. If it's true - then the worrying thing is the value these two cunts are putting on our club to enable them to even break even - which would scare off potential investors. Note though I believe the debts on Tom and George and not the club.
I think our future actually could lie in us not getting any investment by July, the two tools being unable to get any finance anywhere else, and RBS forcing a sale. I would imagine that would fuck up our summer spending again. I'm no financial expert though.
Vlad's better at this stuff than me. Vlad !
I think our future actually could lie in us not getting any investment by July, the two tools being unable to get any finance anywhere else, and RBS forcing a sale. I would imagine that would fuck up our summer spending again. I'm no financial expert though.
Vlad's better at this stuff than me. Vlad !
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38850.msg1052219#msg1052219 date=1265737937]
God forbid it could be any worse Vlad. According to things I've heard the debt on the club is £237m. I've also heard the debt on Hicks and Gillett for their 'own' money to their parent company - Kop Cayman - is in the region of £240m. The latter debt is a personal debt for Tom and George fortunately but it means the total debt on club and owners is not far short of half a billion quid. If that's the price that's need to see these two pricks debt free then what is the price they're putting on the club for them to walk away with a profit. It cannot be realistic. This makes me worry we'll have to put up with Tweedledumb and Tweedledope for a lot longer.
[/quote]
That would be a consolidating entry either way Sunny and not a true cash figure unless there is a third party with an ownership stake in the parent company - which wouldn't be possible if I'm correct in my understanding that it is simply a holding company.
As for the situation and could it be worse - I think it could be immensely worse.
I never went with the theory that Parry was to blame for holding Rafa up but I think most agreed he wasn't the best CEO going around. Purslow is a very creative operator who can see the prize at all times which I think Parry lost sight of regularly. Having him come in is as good a move as we could have hoped for so that's point 1.
As much as we cry about the spending just now we were never close to paying 22m for a striker or 17m for a midfielder under Moores. He loved the club without doubt but he didn't have the funds to make it happen.
As Vlad pointed out we could have been bought by someone who wanted the fastest possible deal and that would have meant accepting DIC. Dodging a bullet takes on new meaning when you think what could have happened there.
We've got a tremendous sponsorship signed and sealed which is exactly the sort of thing we were demanding when Moores and Parry were at the helm. That our brand was, arguably, more current at that time is just a further emphasis of how good this sponsorship is.
As I've said before their failing has been the stadium - no small failing but the credit crunch came at precisely the wrong time for them and caught many far more successful businessmen in greater trouble. If they do, as Purslow has said, sell 25% for a 100m and get the stadium started I'll be happy for them to have more time. Things could be much worse for this club - though, of course, they could also be better.
God forbid it could be any worse Vlad. According to things I've heard the debt on the club is £237m. I've also heard the debt on Hicks and Gillett for their 'own' money to their parent company - Kop Cayman - is in the region of £240m. The latter debt is a personal debt for Tom and George fortunately but it means the total debt on club and owners is not far short of half a billion quid. If that's the price that's need to see these two pricks debt free then what is the price they're putting on the club for them to walk away with a profit. It cannot be realistic. This makes me worry we'll have to put up with Tweedledumb and Tweedledope for a lot longer.
[/quote]
That would be a consolidating entry either way Sunny and not a true cash figure unless there is a third party with an ownership stake in the parent company - which wouldn't be possible if I'm correct in my understanding that it is simply a holding company.
As for the situation and could it be worse - I think it could be immensely worse.
I never went with the theory that Parry was to blame for holding Rafa up but I think most agreed he wasn't the best CEO going around. Purslow is a very creative operator who can see the prize at all times which I think Parry lost sight of regularly. Having him come in is as good a move as we could have hoped for so that's point 1.
As much as we cry about the spending just now we were never close to paying 22m for a striker or 17m for a midfielder under Moores. He loved the club without doubt but he didn't have the funds to make it happen.
As Vlad pointed out we could have been bought by someone who wanted the fastest possible deal and that would have meant accepting DIC. Dodging a bullet takes on new meaning when you think what could have happened there.
We've got a tremendous sponsorship signed and sealed which is exactly the sort of thing we were demanding when Moores and Parry were at the helm. That our brand was, arguably, more current at that time is just a further emphasis of how good this sponsorship is.
As I've said before their failing has been the stadium - no small failing but the credit crunch came at precisely the wrong time for them and caught many far more successful businessmen in greater trouble. If they do, as Purslow has said, sell 25% for a 100m and get the stadium started I'll be happy for them to have more time. Things could be much worse for this club - though, of course, they could also be better.
I would imagine there might be some slight misunderstandings in there Sunny. Leveraged probably isn't strictly accurate in that sense.
Kop Football (Cayman) is the holding company which owns Kop Football, which owns LFC. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the money going from the holding company to the Kop Football company was in the form of debt, rather than equity. It probably gives them a claim on assets should things go tits up, but I'd imagine RBS would have priority over them.
It's impossible to tell whether the money Kop Football (Cayman) raised was in the form of debt or equity, but my gut feeling would be nobody would lend to the holding company when the only thing it owns is another company in significant debt. I would presume the money that was lent to Kop Football is the 130m that Purslow referred to as the owners putting their own money in recently. The last set of accounts showed we received around £50m from Kop Football (Cayman) too, add them together and you get the 180m you mention above.
Having an interest rate on the loan from one company to another is just a slightly more discreet way for them to take money out of the club for themselves. Cheeky Bastards.
Kop Football (Cayman) is the holding company which owns Kop Football, which owns LFC. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the money going from the holding company to the Kop Football company was in the form of debt, rather than equity. It probably gives them a claim on assets should things go tits up, but I'd imagine RBS would have priority over them.
It's impossible to tell whether the money Kop Football (Cayman) raised was in the form of debt or equity, but my gut feeling would be nobody would lend to the holding company when the only thing it owns is another company in significant debt. I would presume the money that was lent to Kop Football is the 130m that Purslow referred to as the owners putting their own money in recently. The last set of accounts showed we received around £50m from Kop Football (Cayman) too, add them together and you get the 180m you mention above.
Having an interest rate on the loan from one company to another is just a slightly more discreet way for them to take money out of the club for themselves. Cheeky Bastards.
I am no expert but it sounds a bit doomsday for me . the debt on the club is the value of the club itself. As far as i can make out it's like us having a mortgage on our house. They brought the club with their own money then borrowed using the club as collateral. The problem is their mortgage repayments have been a problem mainly as the banks have been tight and twitchy in the recession. Since when the club has been run on a shoestring and Purslow has been reducing debt and our income has, up to now at least been maintained. I can not see for the life of me it could practically double or be allowed to.
Regards
Regards
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=38850.msg1052359#msg1052359 date=1265751116]
That would be a consolidating entry either way Sunny and not a true cash figure unless there is a third party with an ownership stake in the parent company - which wouldn't be possible if I'm correct in my understanding that it is simply a holding company.
[/quote]
Can you explain a bit more what you mean there Wizadry. As I say, I'm no financial expert.
I agree about the positive bits but was not the new sponsorship deal the work of Purslow who, rumour has it, may have been placed into the club by request of RBS ?
I'll be honest. The mess our club in confuses me greatly at times and the conspiracy theories you hear (whether true or not) just make the whole thing even more confusing.
That would be a consolidating entry either way Sunny and not a true cash figure unless there is a third party with an ownership stake in the parent company - which wouldn't be possible if I'm correct in my understanding that it is simply a holding company.
[/quote]
Can you explain a bit more what you mean there Wizadry. As I say, I'm no financial expert.
I agree about the positive bits but was not the new sponsorship deal the work of Purslow who, rumour has it, may have been placed into the club by request of RBS ?
I'll be honest. The mess our club in confuses me greatly at times and the conspiracy theories you hear (whether true or not) just make the whole thing even more confusing.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=38850.msg1052361#msg1052361 date=1265751242]
I would imagine there might be some slight misunderstandings in there Sunny. Leveraged probably isn't strictly accurate in that sense.
Kop Football (Cayman) is the holding company which owns Kop Football, which owns LFC. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the money going from the holding company to the Kop Football company was in the form of debt, rather than equity. It probably gives them a claim on assets should things go tits up, but I'd imagine RBS would have priority over them.
It's impossible to tell whether the money Kop Football (Cayman) raised was in the form of debt or equity, but my gut feeling would be nobody would lend to the holding company when the only thing it owns is another company in significant debt. I would presume the money that was lent to Kop Football is the 130m that Purslow referred to as the owners putting their own money in recently. The last set of accounts showed we received around £50m from Kop Football (Cayman) too, add them together and you get the 180m you mention above.
Having an interest rate on the loan from one company to another is just a slightly more discreet way for them to take money out of the club for themselves. Cheeky Bastards.
[/quote]
Thanks Ross. Yeh leveraged is proabably the wrong word to use. I believe it is in the form of debt but they aren't allowed to put the club into administration if things go wrong.
I would imagine there might be some slight misunderstandings in there Sunny. Leveraged probably isn't strictly accurate in that sense.
Kop Football (Cayman) is the holding company which owns Kop Football, which owns LFC. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the money going from the holding company to the Kop Football company was in the form of debt, rather than equity. It probably gives them a claim on assets should things go tits up, but I'd imagine RBS would have priority over them.
It's impossible to tell whether the money Kop Football (Cayman) raised was in the form of debt or equity, but my gut feeling would be nobody would lend to the holding company when the only thing it owns is another company in significant debt. I would presume the money that was lent to Kop Football is the 130m that Purslow referred to as the owners putting their own money in recently. The last set of accounts showed we received around £50m from Kop Football (Cayman) too, add them together and you get the 180m you mention above.
Having an interest rate on the loan from one company to another is just a slightly more discreet way for them to take money out of the club for themselves. Cheeky Bastards.
[/quote]
Thanks Ross. Yeh leveraged is proabably the wrong word to use. I believe it is in the form of debt but they aren't allowed to put the club into administration if things go wrong.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=38850.msg1052364#msg1052364 date=1265751342]
I am no expert but it sounds a bit doomsday for me . the debt on the club is the value of the club itself. As far as i can make out it's like us having a mortgage on our house. They brought the club with their own money then borrowed using the club as collateral. The problem is their mortgage repayments have been a problem mainly as the banks have been tight and twitchy in the recession. Since when the club has been run on a shoestring and Purslow has been reducing debt and our income has, up to now at least been maintained. I can not see for the life of me it could practically double or be allowed to.
Regards
[/quote]
The other debt I'm referring to is not on the club Vlad it's on Tom and George.
I am no expert but it sounds a bit doomsday for me . the debt on the club is the value of the club itself. As far as i can make out it's like us having a mortgage on our house. They brought the club with their own money then borrowed using the club as collateral. The problem is their mortgage repayments have been a problem mainly as the banks have been tight and twitchy in the recession. Since when the club has been run on a shoestring and Purslow has been reducing debt and our income has, up to now at least been maintained. I can not see for the life of me it could practically double or be allowed to.
Regards
[/quote]
The other debt I'm referring to is not on the club Vlad it's on Tom and George.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38850.msg1052368#msg1052368 date=1265751436]
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=38850.msg1052359#msg1052359 date=1265751116]
That would be a consolidating entry either way Sunny and not a true cash figure unless there is a third party with an ownership stake in the parent company - which wouldn't be possible if I'm correct in my understanding that it is simply a holding company.
[/quote]
I'll be honest. The mess our club in confuses me greatly at times and the conspiracy theories you hear (whether true or not) just make the whole thing even more confusing.
[/quote]
x1000000
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=38850.msg1052359#msg1052359 date=1265751116]
That would be a consolidating entry either way Sunny and not a true cash figure unless there is a third party with an ownership stake in the parent company - which wouldn't be possible if I'm correct in my understanding that it is simply a holding company.
[/quote]
I'll be honest. The mess our club in confuses me greatly at times and the conspiracy theories you hear (whether true or not) just make the whole thing even more confusing.
[/quote]
x1000000
Have a look at this:
http://forum.raotl.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=149083&hilit=purslow+and+debt
http://forum.raotl.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=149083&hilit=purslow+and+debt
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38850.msg1052374#msg1052374 date=1265751602]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=38850.msg1052364#msg1052364 date=1265751342]
I am no expert but it sounds a bit doomsday for me . the debt on the club is the value of the club itself. As far as i can make out it's like us having a mortgage on our house. They brought the club with their own money then borrowed using the club as collateral. The problem is their mortgage repayments have been a problem mainly as the banks have been tight and twitchy in the recession. Since when the club has been run on a shoestring and Purslow has been reducing debt and our income has, up to now at least been maintained. I can not see for the life of me it could practically double or be allowed to.
Regards
[/quote]
The other debt I'm referring to is not on the club Vlad it's on Tom and George.
[/quote]
It's debt owed by Kop Football (LFC) to Kop Football Cayman, owned by Tom and George.
Whether it was Tom and George's money invested in Kop Football Cayman, or money that was borrowed elsewhere is unclear. But like I said in the other post I'd be surprised if KF Cayman was able to borrow any money, I'd certainly presume it was Tom and George's money which was put into KF Cayman in the form of equity, but then loaned to Kop Football to pay off debt.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=38850.msg1052364#msg1052364 date=1265751342]
I am no expert but it sounds a bit doomsday for me . the debt on the club is the value of the club itself. As far as i can make out it's like us having a mortgage on our house. They brought the club with their own money then borrowed using the club as collateral. The problem is their mortgage repayments have been a problem mainly as the banks have been tight and twitchy in the recession. Since when the club has been run on a shoestring and Purslow has been reducing debt and our income has, up to now at least been maintained. I can not see for the life of me it could practically double or be allowed to.
Regards
[/quote]
The other debt I'm referring to is not on the club Vlad it's on Tom and George.
[/quote]
It's debt owed by Kop Football (LFC) to Kop Football Cayman, owned by Tom and George.
Whether it was Tom and George's money invested in Kop Football Cayman, or money that was borrowed elsewhere is unclear. But like I said in the other post I'd be surprised if KF Cayman was able to borrow any money, I'd certainly presume it was Tom and George's money which was put into KF Cayman in the form of equity, but then loaned to Kop Football to pay off debt.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38850.msg1052397#msg1052397 date=1265752343]
So, Ross, do you essentially think it's Tom and George taking 10% a year back out the club ?
[/quote]
If the info above is true, that's certainly what it looks like mate.
They own both companies, KF Cayman lends money to KF (LFC) and then pay back interest for the privilege. Clever from an investor point of view. Sheer cuntery though, if that's a word.
So, Ross, do you essentially think it's Tom and George taking 10% a year back out the club ?
[/quote]
If the info above is true, that's certainly what it looks like mate.
They own both companies, KF Cayman lends money to KF (LFC) and then pay back interest for the privilege. Clever from an investor point of view. Sheer cuntery though, if that's a word.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=38850.msg1052361#msg1052361 date=1265751242]
I would imagine there might be some slight misunderstandings in there Sunny. Leveraged probably isn't strictly accurate in that sense.
Kop Football (Cayman) is the holding company which owns Kop Football, which owns LFC. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the money going from the holding company to the Kop Football company was in the form of debt, rather than equity. It probably gives them a claim on assets should things go tits up, but I'd imagine RBS would have priority over them.
It's impossible to tell whether the money Kop Football (Cayman) raised was in the form of debt or equity, but my gut feeling would be nobody would lend to the holding company when the only thing it owns is another company in significant debt. I would presume the money that was lent to Kop Football is the 130m that Purslow referred to as the owners putting their own money in recently. The last set of accounts showed we received around £50m from Kop Football (Cayman) too, add them together and you get the 180m you mention above.
Having an interest rate on the loan from one company to another is just a slightly more discreet way for them to take money out of the club for themselves. Cheeky Bastards.
[/quote]
I think that's a pretty good assesment Ross though I'd add a couple of things.
If my understanding is correct and the holding company is 100% owned by H&G (I don't believe it's legally a holding company if this isn't the case) then the company would be listed as their personal assets. As such, if things go tits up then any claims pursuant to the administration or liquidation can be served on them (as named directors) and their personal assets.
In terms of the 10% - that would, I think, simply be the mechanism to ensure that the transaction is viewed as commercial and at arms length otherwise it could be viewed as a gift to them (as 100% owners) and would therefore be subject to different forms of taxation.
I would imagine there might be some slight misunderstandings in there Sunny. Leveraged probably isn't strictly accurate in that sense.
Kop Football (Cayman) is the holding company which owns Kop Football, which owns LFC. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the money going from the holding company to the Kop Football company was in the form of debt, rather than equity. It probably gives them a claim on assets should things go tits up, but I'd imagine RBS would have priority over them.
It's impossible to tell whether the money Kop Football (Cayman) raised was in the form of debt or equity, but my gut feeling would be nobody would lend to the holding company when the only thing it owns is another company in significant debt. I would presume the money that was lent to Kop Football is the 130m that Purslow referred to as the owners putting their own money in recently. The last set of accounts showed we received around £50m from Kop Football (Cayman) too, add them together and you get the 180m you mention above.
Having an interest rate on the loan from one company to another is just a slightly more discreet way for them to take money out of the club for themselves. Cheeky Bastards.
[/quote]
I think that's a pretty good assesment Ross though I'd add a couple of things.
If my understanding is correct and the holding company is 100% owned by H&G (I don't believe it's legally a holding company if this isn't the case) then the company would be listed as their personal assets. As such, if things go tits up then any claims pursuant to the administration or liquidation can be served on them (as named directors) and their personal assets.
In terms of the 10% - that would, I think, simply be the mechanism to ensure that the transaction is viewed as commercial and at arms length otherwise it could be viewed as a gift to them (as 100% owners) and would therefore be subject to different forms of taxation.
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=38850.msg1052402#msg1052402 date=1265752871]
In terms of the 10% - that would, I think, simply be the mechanism to ensure that the transaction is viewed as commercial and at arms length otherwise it could be viewed as a gift to them (as 100% owners) and would therefore be subject to different forms of taxation.
[/quote]
I wondered about that, but to perfectly honest I know nothing about the taxation end of things.
In terms of the 10% - that would, I think, simply be the mechanism to ensure that the transaction is viewed as commercial and at arms length otherwise it could be viewed as a gift to them (as 100% owners) and would therefore be subject to different forms of taxation.
[/quote]
I wondered about that, but to perfectly honest I know nothing about the taxation end of things.
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38850.msg1052368#msg1052368 date=1265751436]
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=38850.msg1052359#msg1052359 date=1265751116]
That would be a consolidating entry either way Sunny and not a true cash figure unless there is a third party with an ownership stake in the parent company - which wouldn't be possible if I'm correct in my understanding that it is simply a holding company.
[/quote]
Can you explain a bit more what you mean there Wizadry. As I say, I'm no financial expert.
I agree about the positive bits but was not the new sponsorship deal the work of Purslow who, rumour has it, may have been placed into the club by request of RBS ?
I'll be honest. The mess our club in confuses me greatly at times and the conspiracy theories you hear (whether true or not) just make the whole thing even more confusing.
[/quote]
The consolidating side of it is from a balance sheet perspective Sunny in that all the entities would be consolidated to one balance sheet which is what the bank would work off; everything has to come from the ultimate holding company and then they'll drill down to the detail in each entity.
In this respect - and you're probably way ahead of what I'm saying - it's simply an in and out on the consolidated BS; the asset on one balance sheet is the debt on another balance sheet so they disappear when the bank looks at the overall picture.
As for the interest rate which I think is necessary to avoid taxation in two forms, if the loan was made externally then we'd be paying interest anyway. As it is the interest stays within the investing group and doesn't leave the circle. I don't know what they do with the interest afterwards but we'd be paying that either way so I have no real complaints.
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=38850.msg1052359#msg1052359 date=1265751116]
That would be a consolidating entry either way Sunny and not a true cash figure unless there is a third party with an ownership stake in the parent company - which wouldn't be possible if I'm correct in my understanding that it is simply a holding company.
[/quote]
Can you explain a bit more what you mean there Wizadry. As I say, I'm no financial expert.
I agree about the positive bits but was not the new sponsorship deal the work of Purslow who, rumour has it, may have been placed into the club by request of RBS ?
I'll be honest. The mess our club in confuses me greatly at times and the conspiracy theories you hear (whether true or not) just make the whole thing even more confusing.
[/quote]
The consolidating side of it is from a balance sheet perspective Sunny in that all the entities would be consolidated to one balance sheet which is what the bank would work off; everything has to come from the ultimate holding company and then they'll drill down to the detail in each entity.
In this respect - and you're probably way ahead of what I'm saying - it's simply an in and out on the consolidated BS; the asset on one balance sheet is the debt on another balance sheet so they disappear when the bank looks at the overall picture.
As for the interest rate which I think is necessary to avoid taxation in two forms, if the loan was made externally then we'd be paying interest anyway. As it is the interest stays within the investing group and doesn't leave the circle. I don't know what they do with the interest afterwards but we'd be paying that either way so I have no real complaints.
- Status
