LFC SOLD to NESV.
- Thread starter Terrier
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=Asbo link=topic=41783.msg1171635#msg1171635 date=1284046438]
I stopped at where it said 'So what stopped the sale' and the Answer was The Americans have invested too much money to let it go cheaply.
WHAT FUCKING MONEY!!
[/quote]
Indeed.
[quote author=Asbo link=topic=41783.msg1171635#msg1171635 date=1284046438]
I stopped at where it said 'So what stopped the sale' and the Answer was The Americans have invested too much money to let it go cheaply.
WHAT FUCKING MONEY!!
[/quote]
Indeed.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
That Maddock article is pretty terrifying.
If I was closer to Liverpool, i would be camped outside of Anfield with pitchforks and banners to get those cunts out.
But of course, that's just not the Liverpool way now, is it.
That Maddock article is pretty terrifying.
If I was closer to Liverpool, i would be camped outside of Anfield with pitchforks and banners to get those cunts out.
But of course, that's just not the Liverpool way now, is it.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41783.msg1171628#msg1171628 date=1284044702]
So could someone have a stab at what we think it says in a couple of lines?
regards
[/quote]
If we don't get rid of the Yanks in the next three weeks we'll end up like Leeds or Portsmouth, but the banks will probably refinance because it's guaranteed money for them.
So either we're in a really risky situation or there's no risk at all depending on which part of the article you're buying into.
Then it's got some facts wrong at the end about us being profitable but for the debt and if it wasn't for that we'd be buying players left right and centre.
If you want a two word summary though: unreliable nonsense.
It's a journo writing about something that he has no grasp of.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41783.msg1171628#msg1171628 date=1284044702]
So could someone have a stab at what we think it says in a couple of lines?
regards
[/quote]
If we don't get rid of the Yanks in the next three weeks we'll end up like Leeds or Portsmouth, but the banks will probably refinance because it's guaranteed money for them.
So either we're in a really risky situation or there's no risk at all depending on which part of the article you're buying into.
Then it's got some facts wrong at the end about us being profitable but for the debt and if it wasn't for that we'd be buying players left right and centre.
If you want a two word summary though: unreliable nonsense.
It's a journo writing about something that he has no grasp of.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1171667#msg1171667 date=1284052708]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41783.msg1171628#msg1171628 date=1284044702]
So could someone have a stab at what we think it says in a couple of lines?
regards
[/quote]
If we don't get rid of the Yanks in the next three weeks we'll end up like Leeds or Portsmouth, but the banks will probably refinance because it's guaranteed money for them.
So either we're in a really risky situation or there's no risk at all depending on which part of the article you're buying into.
Then it's got some facts wrong at the end about us being profitable but for the debt and if it wasn't for that we'd be buying players left right and centre.
If you want a two word summary though: unreliable nonsense.
It's a journo writing about something that he has no grasp of.
[/quote]
Oh I got the drift of Maddocks scaremongering bit Ross, it was the other translated one that I could not get to grips with
regards
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1171667#msg1171667 date=1284052708]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41783.msg1171628#msg1171628 date=1284044702]
So could someone have a stab at what we think it says in a couple of lines?
regards
[/quote]
If we don't get rid of the Yanks in the next three weeks we'll end up like Leeds or Portsmouth, but the banks will probably refinance because it's guaranteed money for them.
So either we're in a really risky situation or there's no risk at all depending on which part of the article you're buying into.
Then it's got some facts wrong at the end about us being profitable but for the debt and if it wasn't for that we'd be buying players left right and centre.
If you want a two word summary though: unreliable nonsense.
It's a journo writing about something that he has no grasp of.
[/quote]
Oh I got the drift of Maddocks scaremongering bit Ross, it was the other translated one that I could not get to grips with
regards
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
A long read, but spells it all out...
LFC Finances, debt and administration
WARNING: This is long and only intended for those really interested in LFC.
The following is an attempt to summarise the background to the current takeover speculation. There’s a lot missed out, particularly the £40m+ a year in interest that’s being accumulated: whilst this is of critical importance, it slightly clouds the issue.
If anyone wants to skip most of what follows, points 8 and 9 are the important ones…
1. Debt for equity
When the club was originally sold to Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the price paid was £218.9m, which included the £44.8m of debt the club had at the time – that’s like having a £20,000 mortgage on a £100,000 house.
The club was financially independent and the many years of good stewardship, particularly under Sir John Smith and Peter Robinson, had seen the books balanced and the long-term financial security of the club kept as a priority.
Whilst the new owners promised no debt on the club, that was only technically correct: the new ownership structure was complex and involved significant debt, albeit this was put against one of the holding companies rather than the club itself.
The new ownership structure comprised a Delaware-registered company co-owned by Gillett and Hicks, the four subsidiaries:
Kop Investment LLC
^
Kop Football (Cayman) – registered in the Cayman Isands, presumably for tax reasons
^
Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd – the UK holding company (‘Kop Holdings’)
^
Kop Football Ltd – a UK intermediary company, whose purpose is a little unclear
^
The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd – the club itself
The purchase of the club was initially funded by a loan from RBS and Wachovia, which took the form of an initial loan of £185m to Kop Holdings.
Although there was no significant debt taken on by the club itself, the financial structure via the holding company only briefly disguised the fact that the purchase of the club had been funded by debt and not by equity.
2. How much does the club owe?
Recent press speculation suggests that the loan from RBS/Wachovia was restructured sometime in the spring of 2010 and that the debt is now held solely by RBS, amounting to £237m (albeit this may be growing due to rolled-up interest and potential penalty clauses.)
The structure of the debt is complicated, to say the least: the £233m bank borrowing was held by the club and Kop Football Ltd, whilst Kop Holdings owed £144m to Kop (Cayman).
The loan from Kop (Cayman) is interesting, in that it appears to be the ‘equity’ put in by Hicks and Gillett in order to get RBS to agree to the refinancing. Speculation as to the source of these funds is rife, but suffice to say that (i) it doesn’t seem likely that it’s pure ‘equity’; and (ii) it attracts a 10% annual interest charge, so it’s hardly equity: it’s just another loan.
So, that’s £377m of debt, even if accruals, trade creditors, tax owed and deferred income are overlooked.
3. Where did the debt come from?
Over three years, bank borrowing has risen from £185m to £377m, caused by two main factors.
Firstly, the club has been spending money, with the new stadium design costs (about £45m) contributing a large part of this.
Secondly, it appears that the interest costs of the loans have not necessarily been covered by the club’s operating profit and that the interest has merely been added to the value of the loan. This is, in blunt terms, a spiral of unsustainable debt.
4. How bad is it?
The blunt assessment of the club’s auditors is that there is uncertainty as to whether the club can continue as a going concern.
This is underlined by the worth of the group, which is insolvent to the tune of £128m, up from £75m the year before.
More than annoy other statistic, this figure is worth underlining: the value of the club, less the debt secured against it, is minus £128m. It is insolvent, bankrupt, broke, whatever else you want to call it.
To make matters worse, some of the assets of the group are probably worth less than they might appear to be.
Firstly, design costs and professional fees for the new stadium are included as assets of the club, totalling £45m. Whilst this is not unusual for a project that is in progress, were the plans not to go ahead in their current form, there is a massive loss to be taken when the costs are written off.
Secondly, there are two amount of ‘goodwill’ capitalised in the accounts: these represent the difference paid for an asset and its book value, which are then written down over a prescribed period.
On the books of the club is £13m of goodwill relating to the purchase of 50% of the LTC TV joint venture, from when the club bought out Granada.
Kop Holding has £46m of goodwill, relating to the original purchase of the club.
The significance of the stadium costs and the ‘goodwill’ is that they’re not actually asset that could be relied upon to be sold if an urgent sale were required: it’s thus possible to consider that there’s an additional £104m that could be added to the funding shortfall, thus bringing the level of insolvency to £232m.
It might also be worth mentioning ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ at this juncture: these account for another £28m of assets, although in reality these probably do have a real-world worth.
Remember, though, that figure of £232m is as at 31st July 2009: it’s got worse since then.
5. What’s the club actually worth?
According to the accounts, the club has a total of £150m of assets:
Players (net book value): £108m
Tangible assets, cash & debtors: £14m
Land & buildings: £28m
Total: £150m
In addition to this are the new stadium costs (£45m) and the LFC TV goodwill (£13m)
However, in my opinion, the players are undervalued; and taking into account some of the stadium costs and in particular ‘brand value’, Liverpool Football Club would be worth perhaps £300m – £350m to a buyer, assuming it carried no debt.
That figure is – of course – speculative, but if you were to consider that Manchester United is reputed to be ‘worth’ around £700m including a 75,000 capacity stadium; and that a new 75,000 capacity stadium for Liverpool would cost approximately £350m, then the figures lead towards a value in the region of £350m maximum.
6. RBS
RBS is the key to Liverpool’s future: according to recent newspaper reports, the debt with RBS currently stands at somewhere in the region of £280m, taking into account various interest charges and the fees associated with the spring refinancing.
The current loan is due for review in October, but RBS have assured the Premier League that they will continue to support the club until the end of the 2010/11 season.
It now seems almost certain that the most recent refinancing was only approved by RBS as a temporary measure pending sale of the club.
The arrival of Martin Broughton as chairman, to oversee the sale of the club coincided with the resignation of Foster Gillett and Casey Shilts from the board of Kop Holdings – this gives RBS a 3-2 majority on the board, as long as Ian Ayre and Christian Purslow vote with Broughton’s vote.
The reasoning behind this is pretty simple: RBS were not willing to allow Hicks and Gillett to retain a veto over the sale of the club and this would have been a condition of the refinancing.
7. Breaking point
Aside from the intricacies of the group structure and the fine detail of the accounts, the current situation is pretty simple.
Kop Holdings, considered as a group, owes £280m to RBS and £144m+ to its parent company, ie Hicks and Gillett.
It owns a single asset, Liverpool Football Club, which is probably worth between £300m and £350m.
The debt to RBS continues to grow, but – crucially – it is still less than the value of the club at the moment.
RBS have gained the ability to force the sale of the club, via its control of the boardroom: they have to do this while the debt they are owed is lower than the value of the club, otherwise they will make a loss.
The £144m owed to Kop Cayman is not a particular consideration to them: if the proceeds of the sale can cover that, all the better, but when it comes to the crunch, RBS’s only responsibility is to its shareholders – and if that means selling the club for £290m when the debt is £290m; and Hicks and Gillett making a loss of £144m+, then so be it.
This, of course, explains the rumoured legal threats by Gillett and Hicks to allow them to attempt to refinance with someone other than RBS, with it appearing that RBS will only accept outright sale.
Similar, it would explain the apparent attempts by the owners to obfuscate the sales process, if anything just to buy time until richer buyers come along and enable them to find an exit strategy that includes a profit.
8. Administration looms?
Newspaper reports suggest that the current loan is due to be refinanced in October, with RBS having every intention of selling before then.
There is also some suggestion that the bank could then take effective control of the club at that point, by calling in the loan: if the owners were not able to find the money then the bank would become de facto owners, free to dispose of the club to cover the debt.
This strategy would, almost certainly, be subject to legal challenge by the owners, who would stand to lose in excess of £144m, that being the sum owed to Kop Cayman. However, it is likely to be the case that RBS has written provisions for such an eventuality into the current loan agreement, so any such challenge may be destined to failure.
The question then would be whether or not the bank assuming control of Kop Holdings in October would be considered ‘administration’ by the Premier League: that’s not an easy one to call at this stage, but it has to be a concern.
Were the club to be put into administration in October, then the 9 point deduction would immediately harm the potential sale value of the club, thus if RBS can avoid administration, they will do so. It is, certain that any October refinancing would be accompanied by even more onerous conditions imposed, removing yet more control from the owners.
If, by some combination of events, the club remained unsold at the end of this season, the value of the debt to RBS would almost certainly exceed the value of the club, even if there had been player sales in the January transfer window in an effort to bring down the debt. Under those circumstances, administration must be considered a very strong prospect.
The likelihood, however, must be that the club is sold at some point between now and October: that is what RBS are pushing for and that is the only means by which the spectre of administration will be lifted.
9. The point of no return
The words of Philip Long of PKF accountants, quoted in the Telegraph, are probably the most salient on the subject:
“Liverpool’s is not a long-term business model. There simply is not a happy ending to leveraged buy-outs. The burden of the interest outweighs any profits the club make, and that becomes unmanageable.
“The two Americans hanging on and seeing their debt refinanced by RBS, continuing to pay interest, is a far worse scenario than the bank taking over the running of the club. The debt burden will just increase to a point where the interest is not being servced any more. The ultimate end game, if Hicks and Gillett cling on, is that Liverpool goes bust.â€
That point of no return, where the profits no longer cover the interest, has probably already been passed. The only question now is whether or not RBS can sell the club before it is forced into administration.
A long read, but spells it all out...
LFC Finances, debt and administration
WARNING: This is long and only intended for those really interested in LFC.
The following is an attempt to summarise the background to the current takeover speculation. There’s a lot missed out, particularly the £40m+ a year in interest that’s being accumulated: whilst this is of critical importance, it slightly clouds the issue.
If anyone wants to skip most of what follows, points 8 and 9 are the important ones…
1. Debt for equity
When the club was originally sold to Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the price paid was £218.9m, which included the £44.8m of debt the club had at the time – that’s like having a £20,000 mortgage on a £100,000 house.
The club was financially independent and the many years of good stewardship, particularly under Sir John Smith and Peter Robinson, had seen the books balanced and the long-term financial security of the club kept as a priority.
Whilst the new owners promised no debt on the club, that was only technically correct: the new ownership structure was complex and involved significant debt, albeit this was put against one of the holding companies rather than the club itself.
The new ownership structure comprised a Delaware-registered company co-owned by Gillett and Hicks, the four subsidiaries:
Kop Investment LLC
^
Kop Football (Cayman) – registered in the Cayman Isands, presumably for tax reasons
^
Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd – the UK holding company (‘Kop Holdings’)
^
Kop Football Ltd – a UK intermediary company, whose purpose is a little unclear
^
The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd – the club itself
The purchase of the club was initially funded by a loan from RBS and Wachovia, which took the form of an initial loan of £185m to Kop Holdings.
Although there was no significant debt taken on by the club itself, the financial structure via the holding company only briefly disguised the fact that the purchase of the club had been funded by debt and not by equity.
2. How much does the club owe?
Recent press speculation suggests that the loan from RBS/Wachovia was restructured sometime in the spring of 2010 and that the debt is now held solely by RBS, amounting to £237m (albeit this may be growing due to rolled-up interest and potential penalty clauses.)
The structure of the debt is complicated, to say the least: the £233m bank borrowing was held by the club and Kop Football Ltd, whilst Kop Holdings owed £144m to Kop (Cayman).
The loan from Kop (Cayman) is interesting, in that it appears to be the ‘equity’ put in by Hicks and Gillett in order to get RBS to agree to the refinancing. Speculation as to the source of these funds is rife, but suffice to say that (i) it doesn’t seem likely that it’s pure ‘equity’; and (ii) it attracts a 10% annual interest charge, so it’s hardly equity: it’s just another loan.
So, that’s £377m of debt, even if accruals, trade creditors, tax owed and deferred income are overlooked.
3. Where did the debt come from?
Over three years, bank borrowing has risen from £185m to £377m, caused by two main factors.
Firstly, the club has been spending money, with the new stadium design costs (about £45m) contributing a large part of this.
Secondly, it appears that the interest costs of the loans have not necessarily been covered by the club’s operating profit and that the interest has merely been added to the value of the loan. This is, in blunt terms, a spiral of unsustainable debt.
4. How bad is it?
The blunt assessment of the club’s auditors is that there is uncertainty as to whether the club can continue as a going concern.
This is underlined by the worth of the group, which is insolvent to the tune of £128m, up from £75m the year before.
More than annoy other statistic, this figure is worth underlining: the value of the club, less the debt secured against it, is minus £128m. It is insolvent, bankrupt, broke, whatever else you want to call it.
To make matters worse, some of the assets of the group are probably worth less than they might appear to be.
Firstly, design costs and professional fees for the new stadium are included as assets of the club, totalling £45m. Whilst this is not unusual for a project that is in progress, were the plans not to go ahead in their current form, there is a massive loss to be taken when the costs are written off.
Secondly, there are two amount of ‘goodwill’ capitalised in the accounts: these represent the difference paid for an asset and its book value, which are then written down over a prescribed period.
On the books of the club is £13m of goodwill relating to the purchase of 50% of the LTC TV joint venture, from when the club bought out Granada.
Kop Holding has £46m of goodwill, relating to the original purchase of the club.
The significance of the stadium costs and the ‘goodwill’ is that they’re not actually asset that could be relied upon to be sold if an urgent sale were required: it’s thus possible to consider that there’s an additional £104m that could be added to the funding shortfall, thus bringing the level of insolvency to £232m.
It might also be worth mentioning ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ at this juncture: these account for another £28m of assets, although in reality these probably do have a real-world worth.
Remember, though, that figure of £232m is as at 31st July 2009: it’s got worse since then.
5. What’s the club actually worth?
According to the accounts, the club has a total of £150m of assets:
Players (net book value): £108m
Tangible assets, cash & debtors: £14m
Land & buildings: £28m
Total: £150m
In addition to this are the new stadium costs (£45m) and the LFC TV goodwill (£13m)
However, in my opinion, the players are undervalued; and taking into account some of the stadium costs and in particular ‘brand value’, Liverpool Football Club would be worth perhaps £300m – £350m to a buyer, assuming it carried no debt.
That figure is – of course – speculative, but if you were to consider that Manchester United is reputed to be ‘worth’ around £700m including a 75,000 capacity stadium; and that a new 75,000 capacity stadium for Liverpool would cost approximately £350m, then the figures lead towards a value in the region of £350m maximum.
6. RBS
RBS is the key to Liverpool’s future: according to recent newspaper reports, the debt with RBS currently stands at somewhere in the region of £280m, taking into account various interest charges and the fees associated with the spring refinancing.
The current loan is due for review in October, but RBS have assured the Premier League that they will continue to support the club until the end of the 2010/11 season.
It now seems almost certain that the most recent refinancing was only approved by RBS as a temporary measure pending sale of the club.
The arrival of Martin Broughton as chairman, to oversee the sale of the club coincided with the resignation of Foster Gillett and Casey Shilts from the board of Kop Holdings – this gives RBS a 3-2 majority on the board, as long as Ian Ayre and Christian Purslow vote with Broughton’s vote.
The reasoning behind this is pretty simple: RBS were not willing to allow Hicks and Gillett to retain a veto over the sale of the club and this would have been a condition of the refinancing.
7. Breaking point
Aside from the intricacies of the group structure and the fine detail of the accounts, the current situation is pretty simple.
Kop Holdings, considered as a group, owes £280m to RBS and £144m+ to its parent company, ie Hicks and Gillett.
It owns a single asset, Liverpool Football Club, which is probably worth between £300m and £350m.
The debt to RBS continues to grow, but – crucially – it is still less than the value of the club at the moment.
RBS have gained the ability to force the sale of the club, via its control of the boardroom: they have to do this while the debt they are owed is lower than the value of the club, otherwise they will make a loss.
The £144m owed to Kop Cayman is not a particular consideration to them: if the proceeds of the sale can cover that, all the better, but when it comes to the crunch, RBS’s only responsibility is to its shareholders – and if that means selling the club for £290m when the debt is £290m; and Hicks and Gillett making a loss of £144m+, then so be it.
This, of course, explains the rumoured legal threats by Gillett and Hicks to allow them to attempt to refinance with someone other than RBS, with it appearing that RBS will only accept outright sale.
Similar, it would explain the apparent attempts by the owners to obfuscate the sales process, if anything just to buy time until richer buyers come along and enable them to find an exit strategy that includes a profit.
8. Administration looms?
Newspaper reports suggest that the current loan is due to be refinanced in October, with RBS having every intention of selling before then.
There is also some suggestion that the bank could then take effective control of the club at that point, by calling in the loan: if the owners were not able to find the money then the bank would become de facto owners, free to dispose of the club to cover the debt.
This strategy would, almost certainly, be subject to legal challenge by the owners, who would stand to lose in excess of £144m, that being the sum owed to Kop Cayman. However, it is likely to be the case that RBS has written provisions for such an eventuality into the current loan agreement, so any such challenge may be destined to failure.
The question then would be whether or not the bank assuming control of Kop Holdings in October would be considered ‘administration’ by the Premier League: that’s not an easy one to call at this stage, but it has to be a concern.
Were the club to be put into administration in October, then the 9 point deduction would immediately harm the potential sale value of the club, thus if RBS can avoid administration, they will do so. It is, certain that any October refinancing would be accompanied by even more onerous conditions imposed, removing yet more control from the owners.
If, by some combination of events, the club remained unsold at the end of this season, the value of the debt to RBS would almost certainly exceed the value of the club, even if there had been player sales in the January transfer window in an effort to bring down the debt. Under those circumstances, administration must be considered a very strong prospect.
The likelihood, however, must be that the club is sold at some point between now and October: that is what RBS are pushing for and that is the only means by which the spectre of administration will be lifted.
9. The point of no return
The words of Philip Long of PKF accountants, quoted in the Telegraph, are probably the most salient on the subject:
“Liverpool’s is not a long-term business model. There simply is not a happy ending to leveraged buy-outs. The burden of the interest outweighs any profits the club make, and that becomes unmanageable.
“The two Americans hanging on and seeing their debt refinanced by RBS, continuing to pay interest, is a far worse scenario than the bank taking over the running of the club. The debt burden will just increase to a point where the interest is not being servced any more. The ultimate end game, if Hicks and Gillett cling on, is that Liverpool goes bust.â€
That point of no return, where the profits no longer cover the interest, has probably already been passed. The only question now is whether or not RBS can sell the club before it is forced into administration.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
I thought the piece about the woman earning $7285 per month working online, was quite interesting
I thought the piece about the woman earning $7285 per month working online, was quite interesting
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
the interesting point from that article is whether RBS taking control of the club would be considered by the premier league to be a form of administration, with the points deduction being applied.
anyone able to shed any light on that? i mean, the spirit of the rule is presumably to stop clubs gaining an unfair advantage by running up debts they're unable to repay...should that apply to our situation? we haven't gained any advantage from our debts, but we are unable to repay them...it's a tough one to call.
the interesting point from that article is whether RBS taking control of the club would be considered by the premier league to be a form of administration, with the points deduction being applied.
anyone able to shed any light on that? i mean, the spirit of the rule is presumably to stop clubs gaining an unfair advantage by running up debts they're unable to repay...should that apply to our situation? we haven't gained any advantage from our debts, but we are unable to repay them...it's a tough one to call.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
I can't believe the mess we're in to be honest. It's just incredible that this magnificent club is just months away from going bust.
I hate H and G with so much passion that it can't be described with words.
I can't believe the mess we're in to be honest. It's just incredible that this magnificent club is just months away from going bust.
I hate H and G with so much passion that it can't be described with words.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
Just in Apparently from the Guardian - looks like good news to me...
[size=11pt]RBS moves to force George Gillett and Tom Hicks to sell Liverpool
[/size]• RBS places club's loans into its toxic-assets division
• Deadline for refinancing of owners' loans is 6 October
Tom Hicks and George Gillett's ill-starred reign as owners of Liverpool looks like having less than a month to run after the club's loans with Royal Bank of Scotland were placed into its toxic-assets division.
The deadline for the refinancing of the owners' personal loans from RBS is 6 October, and that now looks set to be the date that Hicks and Gillett's association with England's most successful club will end. The bank's decision to switch the debts to its Global Restructuring Group is the strongest possible signal that these loans will not be extended.
The co-owners' previous attempt to refinance the debts in June, when they are believed to have offered to secure the loans against their US assets, was overruled by the club's board, led by the chairman, Martin Broughton. Now, with the loans having been shifted into RBS's so-called "bad bank", where all toxic assets have been housed since last year, it is clear the club's lender has also adopted a more steely stance towards the Americans.
One source with a knowledge of Liverpool's dealings with RBS said: "If it has been taken out of the hands of the corporate banking department they'll have a much more ruthless approach on 6 October." An informed view from another source close to the situation is that the bank would hope to sell the club, possibly at a knockdown price, in the coming weeks or as soon possible after 6 October.
According to the club's accounts to July 2009 Liverpool's owners owe £237.4m to RBS. Through a variety of companies in the UK and overseas, Hicks and Gillett are also personally exposed to tens of millions of pounds in other commitments to the club and its lender. These have been in the form of a mixture of cash, which the pair have injected through equity, and guarantees to the RBS loans. Last year's accounts stated this combination amounted to £145.3m, although it is believed to have risen dramatically after the last refinancing agreed five months ago.
RBS would hope to achieve an orderly sale without having to take control of Liverpool. However, depending on the terms of the April refinancing agreement – which have never been made public – that may prove difficult if the co-owners, who value the club at £800m, refuse to go quietly.
One tool at RBS's disposal is to force the insolvency of Liverpool's UK parent and associated companies. It is clear from mortgage documents lodged with Companies House that in the event of default RBS has the power to place Kop Football and Kop Football (Holdings), as well as Gillett's loan-security vehicle, Football UK Ltd, into administration. However that would be unpalatable for the bank, Liverpool's board and the Premier League since it would require the imposition of a nine-point penalty on the club.
By exercising those clauses the bank would also effectively take control of Liverpool. Although RBS's restructuring group describes itself as being responsible for "the management of any problem lending portfolios", the bank has no long-term plans to hold the club as its subsidiary. Instead it is expected RBS would prefer to fulfil another of its stated aims – the "maximising [of] debt recoveries" – by selling the club in short order.
That means there are also strong signs RBS will now be prepared to accept a knockdown price in order to cut its ties. During negotiations with prospective buyers Broughton, and the investment bank advising him, Barclays Capital, have maintained that Liverpool's debts with RBS must be paid in full as a minimum sale price.
Provided buyers still retain an interest in taking over Liverpool beyond 6 October, it will mean a more orderly sale process. There would be only one party for purchasers to negotiate with and the club would be debt free.
The departure of Hicks and Gillett is an outcome that would delight Liverpool fans. The Kop Faithful group wrote in an open letter to the RBS group's chief executive, Stephen Hester, this week: "Hicks and Gillett were proved to be no more than a pair of liars. The promised 'no Glazer style buy out' was all of a sudden [a leveraged buy out] – a club £350m in debt to effectively buy itself, when it had been sold for less than £180m in what seemed no time before."
The increased pressure on the Americans was thought to be prompted by talk of a Groundshare with Everton on a usually fairly mature and sensible LFC fan site. Sources close to RBS thought this was a terrifying scenario, and prompted their move
Just in Apparently from the Guardian - looks like good news to me...
[size=11pt]RBS moves to force George Gillett and Tom Hicks to sell Liverpool
[/size]• RBS places club's loans into its toxic-assets division
• Deadline for refinancing of owners' loans is 6 October
Tom Hicks and George Gillett's ill-starred reign as owners of Liverpool looks like having less than a month to run after the club's loans with Royal Bank of Scotland were placed into its toxic-assets division.
The deadline for the refinancing of the owners' personal loans from RBS is 6 October, and that now looks set to be the date that Hicks and Gillett's association with England's most successful club will end. The bank's decision to switch the debts to its Global Restructuring Group is the strongest possible signal that these loans will not be extended.
The co-owners' previous attempt to refinance the debts in June, when they are believed to have offered to secure the loans against their US assets, was overruled by the club's board, led by the chairman, Martin Broughton. Now, with the loans having been shifted into RBS's so-called "bad bank", where all toxic assets have been housed since last year, it is clear the club's lender has also adopted a more steely stance towards the Americans.
One source with a knowledge of Liverpool's dealings with RBS said: "If it has been taken out of the hands of the corporate banking department they'll have a much more ruthless approach on 6 October." An informed view from another source close to the situation is that the bank would hope to sell the club, possibly at a knockdown price, in the coming weeks or as soon possible after 6 October.
According to the club's accounts to July 2009 Liverpool's owners owe £237.4m to RBS. Through a variety of companies in the UK and overseas, Hicks and Gillett are also personally exposed to tens of millions of pounds in other commitments to the club and its lender. These have been in the form of a mixture of cash, which the pair have injected through equity, and guarantees to the RBS loans. Last year's accounts stated this combination amounted to £145.3m, although it is believed to have risen dramatically after the last refinancing agreed five months ago.
RBS would hope to achieve an orderly sale without having to take control of Liverpool. However, depending on the terms of the April refinancing agreement – which have never been made public – that may prove difficult if the co-owners, who value the club at £800m, refuse to go quietly.
One tool at RBS's disposal is to force the insolvency of Liverpool's UK parent and associated companies. It is clear from mortgage documents lodged with Companies House that in the event of default RBS has the power to place Kop Football and Kop Football (Holdings), as well as Gillett's loan-security vehicle, Football UK Ltd, into administration. However that would be unpalatable for the bank, Liverpool's board and the Premier League since it would require the imposition of a nine-point penalty on the club.
By exercising those clauses the bank would also effectively take control of Liverpool. Although RBS's restructuring group describes itself as being responsible for "the management of any problem lending portfolios", the bank has no long-term plans to hold the club as its subsidiary. Instead it is expected RBS would prefer to fulfil another of its stated aims – the "maximising [of] debt recoveries" – by selling the club in short order.
That means there are also strong signs RBS will now be prepared to accept a knockdown price in order to cut its ties. During negotiations with prospective buyers Broughton, and the investment bank advising him, Barclays Capital, have maintained that Liverpool's debts with RBS must be paid in full as a minimum sale price.
Provided buyers still retain an interest in taking over Liverpool beyond 6 October, it will mean a more orderly sale process. There would be only one party for purchasers to negotiate with and the club would be debt free.
The departure of Hicks and Gillett is an outcome that would delight Liverpool fans. The Kop Faithful group wrote in an open letter to the RBS group's chief executive, Stephen Hester, this week: "Hicks and Gillett were proved to be no more than a pair of liars. The promised 'no Glazer style buy out' was all of a sudden [a leveraged buy out] – a club £350m in debt to effectively buy itself, when it had been sold for less than £180m in what seemed no time before."
The increased pressure on the Americans was thought to be prompted by talk of a Groundshare with Everton on a usually fairly mature and sensible LFC fan site. Sources close to RBS thought this was a terrifying scenario, and prompted their move
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
What other fan site is discussing ground-share???
What other fan site is discussing ground-share???
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=localny link=topic=41783.msg1171694#msg1171694 date=1284060289]
Just in Apparently from the Guardian - looks like good news to me...
[size=11pt]RBS moves to force George Gillett and Tom Hicks to sell Liverpool
[/size]• RBS places club's loans into its toxic-assets division
• Deadline for refinancing of owners' loans is 6 October
Tom Hicks and George Gillett's ill-starred reign as owners of Liverpool looks like having less than a month to run after the club's loans with Royal Bank of Scotland were placed into its toxic-assets division.
The deadline for the refinancing of the owners' personal loans from RBS is 6 October, and that now looks set to be the date that Hicks and Gillett's association with England's most successful club will end. The bank's decision to switch the debts to its Global Restructuring Group is the strongest possible signal that these loans will not be extended.
The co-owners' previous attempt to refinance the debts in June, when they are believed to have offered to secure the loans against their US assets, was overruled by the club's board, led by the chairman, Martin Broughton. Now, with the loans having been shifted into RBS's so-called "bad bank", where all toxic assets have been housed since last year, it is clear the club's lender has also adopted a more steely stance towards the Americans.
One source with a knowledge of Liverpool's dealings with RBS said: "If it has been taken out of the hands of the corporate banking department they'll have a much more ruthless approach on 6 October." An informed view from another source close to the situation is that the bank would hope to sell the club, possibly at a knockdown price, in the coming weeks or as soon possible after 6 October.
According to the club's accounts to July 2009 Liverpool's owners owe £237.4m to RBS. Through a variety of companies in the UK and overseas, Hicks and Gillett are also personally exposed to tens of millions of pounds in other commitments to the club and its lender. These have been in the form of a mixture of cash, which the pair have injected through equity, and guarantees to the RBS loans. Last year's accounts stated this combination amounted to £145.3m, although it is believed to have risen dramatically after the last refinancing agreed five months ago.
RBS would hope to achieve an orderly sale without having to take control of Liverpool. However, depending on the terms of the April refinancing agreement – which have never been made public – that may prove difficult if the co-owners, who value the club at £800m, refuse to go quietly.
One tool at RBS's disposal is to force the insolvency of Liverpool's UK parent and associated companies. It is clear from mortgage documents lodged with Companies House that in the event of default RBS has the power to place Kop Football and Kop Football (Holdings), as well as Gillett's loan-security vehicle, Football UK Ltd, into administration. However that would be unpalatable for the bank, Liverpool's board and the Premier League since it would require the imposition of a nine-point penalty on the club.
By exercising those clauses the bank would also effectively take control of Liverpool. Although RBS's restructuring group describes itself as being responsible for "the management of any problem lending portfolios", the bank has no long-term plans to hold the club as its subsidiary. Instead it is expected RBS would prefer to fulfil another of its stated aims – the "maximising [of] debt recoveries" – by selling the club in short order.
That means there are also strong signs RBS will now be prepared to accept a knockdown price in order to cut its ties. During negotiations with prospective buyers Broughton, and the investment bank advising him, Barclays Capital, have maintained that Liverpool's debts with RBS must be paid in full as a minimum sale price.
Provided buyers still retain an interest in taking over Liverpool beyond 6 October, it will mean a more orderly sale process. There would be only one party for purchasers to negotiate with and the club would be debt free.
The departure of Hicks and Gillett is an outcome that would delight Liverpool fans. The Kop Faithful group wrote in an open letter to the RBS group's chief executive, Stephen Hester, this week: "Hicks and Gillett were proved to be no more than a pair of liars. The promised 'no Glazer style buy out' was all of a sudden [a leveraged buy out] – a club £350m in debt to effectively buy itself, when it had been sold for less than £180m in what seemed no time before."
The increased pressure on the Americans was thought to be prompted by talk of a Groundshare with Everton on a usually fairly mature and sensible LFC fan site. Sources close to RBS thought this was a terrifying scenario, and prompted their move
[/quote]
Good news apart from the fact that we don't want the shit to refinance.
[quote author=localny link=topic=41783.msg1171694#msg1171694 date=1284060289]
Just in Apparently from the Guardian - looks like good news to me...
[size=11pt]RBS moves to force George Gillett and Tom Hicks to sell Liverpool
[/size]• RBS places club's loans into its toxic-assets division
• Deadline for refinancing of owners' loans is 6 October
Tom Hicks and George Gillett's ill-starred reign as owners of Liverpool looks like having less than a month to run after the club's loans with Royal Bank of Scotland were placed into its toxic-assets division.
The deadline for the refinancing of the owners' personal loans from RBS is 6 October, and that now looks set to be the date that Hicks and Gillett's association with England's most successful club will end. The bank's decision to switch the debts to its Global Restructuring Group is the strongest possible signal that these loans will not be extended.
The co-owners' previous attempt to refinance the debts in June, when they are believed to have offered to secure the loans against their US assets, was overruled by the club's board, led by the chairman, Martin Broughton. Now, with the loans having been shifted into RBS's so-called "bad bank", where all toxic assets have been housed since last year, it is clear the club's lender has also adopted a more steely stance towards the Americans.
One source with a knowledge of Liverpool's dealings with RBS said: "If it has been taken out of the hands of the corporate banking department they'll have a much more ruthless approach on 6 October." An informed view from another source close to the situation is that the bank would hope to sell the club, possibly at a knockdown price, in the coming weeks or as soon possible after 6 October.
According to the club's accounts to July 2009 Liverpool's owners owe £237.4m to RBS. Through a variety of companies in the UK and overseas, Hicks and Gillett are also personally exposed to tens of millions of pounds in other commitments to the club and its lender. These have been in the form of a mixture of cash, which the pair have injected through equity, and guarantees to the RBS loans. Last year's accounts stated this combination amounted to £145.3m, although it is believed to have risen dramatically after the last refinancing agreed five months ago.
RBS would hope to achieve an orderly sale without having to take control of Liverpool. However, depending on the terms of the April refinancing agreement – which have never been made public – that may prove difficult if the co-owners, who value the club at £800m, refuse to go quietly.
One tool at RBS's disposal is to force the insolvency of Liverpool's UK parent and associated companies. It is clear from mortgage documents lodged with Companies House that in the event of default RBS has the power to place Kop Football and Kop Football (Holdings), as well as Gillett's loan-security vehicle, Football UK Ltd, into administration. However that would be unpalatable for the bank, Liverpool's board and the Premier League since it would require the imposition of a nine-point penalty on the club.
By exercising those clauses the bank would also effectively take control of Liverpool. Although RBS's restructuring group describes itself as being responsible for "the management of any problem lending portfolios", the bank has no long-term plans to hold the club as its subsidiary. Instead it is expected RBS would prefer to fulfil another of its stated aims – the "maximising [of] debt recoveries" – by selling the club in short order.
That means there are also strong signs RBS will now be prepared to accept a knockdown price in order to cut its ties. During negotiations with prospective buyers Broughton, and the investment bank advising him, Barclays Capital, have maintained that Liverpool's debts with RBS must be paid in full as a minimum sale price.
Provided buyers still retain an interest in taking over Liverpool beyond 6 October, it will mean a more orderly sale process. There would be only one party for purchasers to negotiate with and the club would be debt free.
The departure of Hicks and Gillett is an outcome that would delight Liverpool fans. The Kop Faithful group wrote in an open letter to the RBS group's chief executive, Stephen Hester, this week: "Hicks and Gillett were proved to be no more than a pair of liars. The promised 'no Glazer style buy out' was all of a sudden [a leveraged buy out] – a club £350m in debt to effectively buy itself, when it had been sold for less than £180m in what seemed no time before."
The increased pressure on the Americans was thought to be prompted by talk of a Groundshare with Everton on a usually fairly mature and sensible LFC fan site. Sources close to RBS thought this was a terrifying scenario, and prompted their move
[/quote]
Good news apart from the fact that we don't want the shit to refinance.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41783.msg1171698#msg1171698 date=1284061484]
Just a guess, but did you add in the last line?
Call me Columbo, eh.
[/quote]
Yeah, bad joke, but all else is the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/09/rbs-tom-hicks-george-gillett-sell-liverpool
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41783.msg1171698#msg1171698 date=1284061484]
Just a guess, but did you add in the last line?
Call me Columbo, eh.
[/quote]
Yeah, bad joke, but all else is the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/09/rbs-tom-hicks-george-gillett-sell-liverpool
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=41783.msg1171713#msg1171713 date=1284063323]
I'm worried now
[/quote]
And you weren't before? Rosco is right the club does lose money but he's wrong by playing that up when in fact regardless of our profitability or lack thereof we've gone from being badly run to disastrously run.... If, as that report suggests, the bank is going to get tough and do all they can to dispose of them two chancers 9 point deduction will mean fuck all to us in the long run as the fact is we are a mid table clubwith them in charge Get fucking rid
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=41783.msg1171713#msg1171713 date=1284063323]
I'm worried now
[/quote]
And you weren't before? Rosco is right the club does lose money but he's wrong by playing that up when in fact regardless of our profitability or lack thereof we've gone from being badly run to disastrously run.... If, as that report suggests, the bank is going to get tough and do all they can to dispose of them two chancers 9 point deduction will mean fuck all to us in the long run as the fact is we are a mid table clubwith them in charge Get fucking rid
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
The bank is highly unlikely to put us into administration even if they do take over, hence the 9-point deduction is equally unlikely, though if it WERE the price of getting rid of Gillett and Hicks I agree it would be worth paying.
The bank is highly unlikely to put us into administration even if they do take over, hence the 9-point deduction is equally unlikely, though if it WERE the price of getting rid of Gillett and Hicks I agree it would be worth paying.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1171720#msg1171720 date=1284066051]
The bank is highly unlikely to put us into administration even if they do take over, hence the 9-point deduction is equally unlikely, though if it WERE the price of getting rid of Gillett and Hicks I agree it would be worth paying.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it is Jules and I'm certainly not hoping it is i just feel sure, rightly or wrongly, that them cunts have fucked us over for too long now and do not have the power nor the inclination to make it right. It hasbeen a disastrous takeover and everyone involved with the club including the current manager thinksso ... 9 points would be horrific in terms of this season but ... If it meant genuine investment well ... What is one more year watching somebody else win the fucking thing ?
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41783.msg1171720#msg1171720 date=1284066051]
The bank is highly unlikely to put us into administration even if they do take over, hence the 9-point deduction is equally unlikely, though if it WERE the price of getting rid of Gillett and Hicks I agree it would be worth paying.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it is Jules and I'm certainly not hoping it is i just feel sure, rightly or wrongly, that them cunts have fucked us over for too long now and do not have the power nor the inclination to make it right. It hasbeen a disastrous takeover and everyone involved with the club including the current manager thinksso ... 9 points would be horrific in terms of this season but ... If it meant genuine investment well ... What is one more year watching somebody else win the fucking thing ?
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
The 9 points doesnt happen if RBS take us over. The article last week made it clear RBS have shown the PL what they aim to do & that wages are guaranteed by them as are all running costs. The PL basically said they believe the RBS plan is the right one.
The 9 points doesnt happen if RBS take us over. The article last week made it clear RBS have shown the PL what they aim to do & that wages are guaranteed by them as are all running costs. The PL basically said they believe the RBS plan is the right one.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
I'm seeing the light lads. The final piece of the puzzle in is nearly here.....
A few more weeks, and we'll be home and dry......
We'll know soon enough by mid/late September if H and G have found a new buyer - or if they plan on suing RBS for taking over "their assets". They must be going mental at the minute, plotting and wheeeling and dealing...
I'm seeing the light lads. The final piece of the puzzle in is nearly here.....
A few more weeks, and we'll be home and dry......
We'll know soon enough by mid/late September if H and G have found a new buyer - or if they plan on suing RBS for taking over "their assets". They must be going mental at the minute, plotting and wheeeling and dealing...
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
I'm not sure if it's fantastice news, but this does look like refinancing is dead in the water.
There was always a fear that the banks would just refinance and increase their interest earned, but it does look like RBS thinks this would mean another pile of unserviceable interest. The Americans would probably still tr to refinance elsewhere, but any bank which does so faces massive risks. Their shareholders might wonder why their bank is willing to grant loans, if even a formerly bankrupt bank like RBS is unwilling to.
My guess is that the Yanks are going to use litigation as a final threat to squeeze some profits out.
I'm not sure if it's fantastice news, but this does look like refinancing is dead in the water.
There was always a fear that the banks would just refinance and increase their interest earned, but it does look like RBS thinks this would mean another pile of unserviceable interest. The Americans would probably still tr to refinance elsewhere, but any bank which does so faces massive risks. Their shareholders might wonder why their bank is willing to grant loans, if even a formerly bankrupt bank like RBS is unwilling to.
My guess is that the Yanks are going to use litigation as a final threat to squeeze some profits out.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
as long as they can't refinance it'll be all over for them in less than a month.
there's no way these two will just walk away. expect to see even more ridiculous finance proposals and stories of even higher interest rates.
why won't rbs refinance? its not due to fan pressure, if it was these guys will re-finance easily with some other bank. the payments are being met. there's money to be made for some cunt here and that's why i'm doubtful its all over for these guys.
as long as they can't refinance it'll be all over for them in less than a month.
there's no way these two will just walk away. expect to see even more ridiculous finance proposals and stories of even higher interest rates.
why won't rbs refinance? its not due to fan pressure, if it was these guys will re-finance easily with some other bank. the payments are being met. there's money to be made for some cunt here and that's why i'm doubtful its all over for these guys.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
RBS won't refinance because the club is being financially supported by it's parent company, it isn't self sustaining. If they were to refinance again they would be depending on the Yanks to stump up the interest every year indefinitely.
And they would be nuts to rely on that.
RBS won't refinance because the club is being financially supported by it's parent company, it isn't self sustaining. If they were to refinance again they would be depending on the Yanks to stump up the interest every year indefinitely.
And they would be nuts to rely on that.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=41783.msg1171717#msg1171717 date=1284065705]
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=41783.msg1171713#msg1171713 date=1284063323]
I'm worried now
[/quote]
And you weren't before? Rosco is right the club does lose money but he's wrong by playing that up when in fact regardless of our profitability or lack thereof we've gone from being badly run to disastrously run.... If, as that report suggests, the bank is going to get tough and do all they can to dispose of them two chancers 9 point deduction will mean fuck all to us in the long run as the fact is we are a mid table clubwith them in charge Get fucking rid
[/quote]
You could be dramatically negative and go for the worst case scenarios every time as an almost given, if you really wanted to.
Oh.
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=41783.msg1171717#msg1171717 date=1284065705]
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=41783.msg1171713#msg1171713 date=1284063323]
I'm worried now
[/quote]
And you weren't before? Rosco is right the club does lose money but he's wrong by playing that up when in fact regardless of our profitability or lack thereof we've gone from being badly run to disastrously run.... If, as that report suggests, the bank is going to get tough and do all they can to dispose of them two chancers 9 point deduction will mean fuck all to us in the long run as the fact is we are a mid table clubwith them in charge Get fucking rid
[/quote]
You could be dramatically negative and go for the worst case scenarios every time as an almost given, if you really wanted to.
Oh.
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1171787#msg1171787 date=1284101767]
RBS won't refinance because the club is being financially supported by it's parent company, it isn't self sustaining. If they were to refinance again they would be depending on the Yanks to stump up the interest every year indefinitely.
And they would be nuts to rely on that.
[/quote]
so why did they refinance in april?
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1171787#msg1171787 date=1284101767]
RBS won't refinance because the club is being financially supported by it's parent company, it isn't self sustaining. If they were to refinance again they would be depending on the Yanks to stump up the interest every year indefinitely.
And they would be nuts to rely on that.
[/quote]
so why did they refinance in april?
Re: Liverpool Board set to block G+H's mortgage attempts
It's hard to say, but my first guess would be because they thought we'd be sold within a few months and that they'd find a quick profit.
I'd suggest that now means that RBS have no real belief that we'll be sold anytime soon.
It's hard to say, but my first guess would be because they thought we'd be sold within a few months and that they'd find a quick profit.
I'd suggest that now means that RBS have no real belief that we'll be sold anytime soon.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked