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

LFC SOLD to NESV.

Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41783.msg1190319#msg1190319 date=1286386154]
Good post grjt.

I'll also add the fact that if all goes as planned H&G will lose 144 mill £. Which is the icing on the cake.
[/quote]

I see the Guardian reporting that but I'm not entirely sure that it's correct. We'll see, but they are usually spot on.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41783.msg1190319#msg1190319 date=1286386154]
Good post grjt.

I'll also add the fact that if all goes as planned H&G will lose 144 mill £. Which is the icing on the cake.
[/quote]

No they won't. But it won't have been profitable for them in any way.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1190322#msg1190322 date=1286386465]
[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41783.msg1190319#msg1190319 date=1286386154]
Good post grjt.

I'll also add the fact that if all goes as planned H&G will lose 144 mill £. Which is the icing on the cake.
[/quote]

No they won't. But it won't have been profitable for them in any way.
[/quote]

Yes they will. The 144 mill £ is "invested" by the owners, as a loan. Broughton said this aswell in the interview.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41783.msg1190320#msg1190320 date=1286386324]
[quote author=grjt link=topic=41783.msg1190316#msg1190316 date=1286386032]Anyone who cant get excited, or see the benefits, is simply self-flagellating. Noones pretending this is a fairy story, or in any way ideal - but it is a huge step change from where we are today.
[/quote]

No one can deny it's exciting times. They're fucking soul dead if so. For me, it's the chance of a fresh start and it should be judged on its merits and not completely denounced on the basis of flimsy assumptions and paranoia of what may happen
[/quote]

It's only a couple of weeks ago we were about to join Linkerton FC supporters club mate.. It's looking a hell of a lot more encouraging now.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41783.msg1190272#msg1190272 date=1286383440]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=41783.msg1189908#msg1189908 date=1286360280]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1189904#msg1189904 date=1286359936]
Brendan, I've got a question. Putting aside all the usual forum points-scoring and one-upmanship, do you honestly believe this is bad news? Do you think Liverpool supporters should be out on the streets protesting against it? Do you have any alternatives in mind?
[/quote]

It's going to be more of the same. It might be slightly better, it could even be worse. It isn't great news. It smacks of desperation.
[/quote]

Amidst a whole lot of wrist-slitting type of posts, this was the only relevant question and answer i found. So i'm going to try and reply to this...apologies if someone has already done that.

This i believe is how they will be looking to finance the deal.

New York times is looking to divest its 17% investment in NESV for a value of around 170 million USD to 200 million USD. (I posted a wall-street journal link that was suggesting this valuation, this could be over or under valued, but lets assume its fair). So that puts the value of NESV at 1 billion USD approximately.

I think they will effect a leverage buy-out of LFC, and then sell some of the shares to a new or existing party to call back the LBO debt. In doing so they would be selling the shares at a higher value, as the value of NESV with LFC as an added asset will be more than the value of NESV without LFC. Debt fuels that value growth.

Is it significantly better than what H&G did?

I think it is.

Why?

Because, H&G floated a new company Kop Holdings Inc, to effect the LBO. They both had some personal assets as guarantees they used to secure the loan at high interest. But the value of their assets and their credit worthiness were all smothered by the financial crisis. To top it off "statler and waldorf" were not willing to sell some of their shares to bring in new investors either. They both wanted controlling stature. This pushed us and them into the corner from which we are struggling to get out.

NESV, on the other hand, is already a well run company with several profitable assets in its portfolio.

1. NESV has survived the worst of the financial crisis and it is still one the most valued company in this business. Its assets are profitable (i'm not sure about the Nascar one..that might be leaking money, but thats a smaller asset anyway).

2. NESV will be able to get a better deal on the LBO than what H&G managed, because of NESV's stature and due to the fact NESV is directly effecting the LBO, and not some company that was created overnight. Because of this they can have the Asset (LFC) functioning on its own, without having to use Cashflow from LFC to service the financial charges (i.e NESV has more than one money making asset in its portfolio, they are not completely dependent on LFC like Kop Holdings was. NESV has the resource and management nous to pump in some money and get LFC to function independently & profitably...more so than H&G. I think we can only think about the stadium when we reach that level, and i'm ok with that....as Kenny Dalglish wrote in his column.

3. NESV already has a ownership structure that is willing to let some control go in order to grow its wealth. So no "Statler and Waldorf" scenario there.

4. and this is probably the only point you needed to read...Even in the scenario, that they don't have any long term interest of having LFC in their portfolio (Which is dumb, because they need to buy to grow in value and all their existing assets are quite mature), they are better owners to just hang on to the club "till the new tv deal comes in" - because a) they are solvent and not on the verge of bankruptcy b) they are already effecting this purchase during a major economic downturn, unlike H&G, who bought LFC when the global economy had gone on the longest bull run in over 100 years and was in the pink of it health.

On what basis are you saying "it is more of the same" --- all the evidence points to that not being the case.


[/quote]

Cheers, good post that. I think I get it.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41783.msg1190323#msg1190323 date=1286386601]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1190322#msg1190322 date=1286386465]
[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41783.msg1190319#msg1190319 date=1286386154]
Good post grjt.

I'll also add the fact that if all goes as planned H&G will lose 144 mill £. Which is the icing on the cake.
[/quote]

No they won't. But it won't have been profitable for them in any way.
[/quote]

Yes they will. The 144 mill £ is "invested" by the owners, as a loan. Broughton said this aswell in the interview.
[/quote]


If it's a loan, then they can still get it back from the club eventually, even after they've sold it. So it doesn't really make any sense.

But then maybe there were probably more conditions to the loan that we don't know about.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=SummerOnions link=topic=41783.msg1190350#msg1190350 date=1286387936]
Not going to bother reading 40 pages, whats happened?
[/quote]

42
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41783.msg1190353#msg1190353 date=1286388187]
[quote author=SummerOnions link=topic=41783.msg1190350#msg1190350 date=1286387936]
Not going to bother reading 40 pages, whats happened?
[/quote]

42
[/quote]
The answer is right.
Now you need to figure out what the question is
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

By Nabil Hassan

Tom Hicks and George Gillett's legal bid to thwart the takeover of Liverpool is likely to end in failure according to an insolvency expert.

Hicks and Gillett argue Liverpool's directors have dramatically undervalued the club by agreeing a £300m sale to New England Sports Ventures.

But Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton says that he has the final say when it comes to the sale of the club.


Hicks and Gillett tried to sack managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre in a last-ditch bid to keep control of the club on Tuesday night, looking to replace them with with Hicks's son, Mack Hicks, and Lori Kay McCutcheon, a vice president at Hicks Holdings.

And Purslow, Ayre and Broughton are now consulting lawyers over whether they can resist Hicks and Gillett's attempts to replace them and force through a sale to the owners of the Boston Red Sox.

Broughton claimed the American owners were going back on pledges made when major creditor Royal Bank of Scotland extended their finance arrangement until next week, with changes implemented to remove Hicks and Gillett's power to veto a sale.

"When I took the role they gave a couple of written undertakings to Royal Bank of Scotland - that I was the only person entitled to change the board and that they would take no action to frustrate any reasonable sale," Broughton said.

"I think they flagrantly abused both of those written undertakings. I have the casting vote."

It is because of this that Thomas, Head of Insolvency at SA Law LLP, believes that the power is resting with Liverpool's directors.

"It depends on the strength of that drafting but I'm imagining it was very, very carefully worded," stated Thomas.


"If the wording isn't strong enough then the default position is that you've got to go and get permission from the shareholders that says, yes you can sell this business.

"Now if Broughton found a way when he was appointed to overcome that and the drafting of his agreement with them gives them that power then the owners have a real problem in being able to block the sale because they have already in effect, if the chairman has things lined up properly, given him permission in place before he was appointed."

Thomas added: "Broughton says he had got Hicks and Gillett to agree to changes in the Kop's constitution before he took the role.

"Broughton wanted [and says he got] the ability to deliver a sale if it was a reasonable deal.

"The first part of this was the ability of the board to sell the club and the second was his ability as chairman of the board to control the board's membership. Broughton says this was backed up with the owners' undertakings not to frustrate a reasonable transaction."

Liverpool's three directors could though be forced to take Hicks and Gillett to court to force the sale through, something Broughton is confident will result in victory.

It [the sale] has got to go ahead because the consequence of it not happening is administration

Guy Thomas - SA Law LLP

Thomas explains: "In essence, any application to the Court would be to authorise the sale of the club.

"Put another way the board is saying that not only did they try to authorise a "reasonable deal" - i.e. what they were authorised by the owners to do, but that now, those same owners are now trying to kill it."

The looming threat of administration, however unpalatable for most fans, also strengthens the directors' hand in Thomas' opinion

It is likely that if Liverpool is not sold before the 15 October deadline that RBS has set to pay back the £240m of loans and £40m of fees owed to them, the Reds could be placed in administration and Hicks and Gillett would lose control of the club.

"In simple terms, unless the owners and the directors come to an agreement or it is resolved that quickly over the next few days then the bank will make the decision for them," added Thomas.

"The sale has got to go ahead because without more funding the consequence of it not happening is administration."

Ultimately, Thomas believes that time is running out for Liverpool's owners.

"The board had a number of bids in front of them, they appear to have considered them carefully and chosen a preferred bid," he said.

"Broughton says he effectively obtained "pre approval" of a "reasonable transaction" before he took the job. He also says he obtained the power to hire and fire the board.

"This is what appears to have saved him and the commercial director last night. These "undertakings" as Broughton refers to them are also the basis for any application to the Court to enforce if Hicks and Gillett don't back down.

"There is another option: before the 15th, citing the impasse with shareholders and the cost of such an application to the court, the board could also consider inviting RBS to appoint an administrator or seek to appoint one themselves."
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

Tom Hicks;

"We've legally reconstituted the board and the board is not in favour"
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41783.msg1190389#msg1190389 date=1286390274]
Tom Hicks;

"We've legally reconstituted the board and the board is not in favour"
[/quote]

Which means what?
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=SummerOnions link=topic=41783.msg1190396#msg1190396 date=1286390531]
[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41783.msg1190389#msg1190389 date=1286390274]
Tom Hicks;

"We've legally reconstituted the board and the board is not in favour"
[/quote]

Which means what?
[/quote]

I'm guessing it means that the board then would not have voted in favour of a sale. Not with Hicks appointing 2 of his own people.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

It also sounds like he's still insisting that the attempt to replace Purslow and Ayre was legally valid, hence also that what's been done since then is not legally valid. The fat b@stard's doing the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "Lalala, I can't hear you!"
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

Tony Evans on Talksport claiming this will get very messy before it's resolved and could drag on forever.

I've decided not to listen to you Tony, as you've made a bit of a tit of yourself in the last few months..
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

Hmm, it does sound like he's going to argue that Broughton had no right to block the removal of the directors and is then in breach of his fiduciary duties to the shareholders.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

Great posts in this thread tho; and kudos to kingjulian.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

A lot will depend on the credibility of the mysterious second bid.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=Hansern link=topic=41783.msg1190407#msg1190407 date=1286391050]
Tony Evans on Talksport claiming this will get very messy before it's resolved and could drag on forever.

I've decided not to listen to you Tony, as you've made a bit of a tit of yourself in the last few months..
[/quote]

Broughton was extremely bullish in those interivews today, not only about the board's chances of success but also about the fact that the legal stuff will not take long. I'm sure he'll have taken advice about that before going public as he did, and I suspect top London lawyers are likely to know more about these things than Tony Evans does.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

Anyone know if this is true;

Look at the timing the winning bid was announced, 9 days before D day. Now they have stated both bids have been about for a while (months by the sounds of it) So instead of announcing it then, they leave it until there is 9 days left, which is quite significent when you consider any change of board takes 10 days, so even if Hicks found a legal loop hole to change the board, RBS would own the club 1 day before it went through.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

Well, the bids would have taken a long time to process properly in any case, but it's certainly possible that Broughton and RBS used that to their advantage. As grjt and others have said, this does have the look of a very well-planned strategy indeed.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

I started a thread on a Red Sox forum I'm registered on last night asking about what they'd heard (before the bid was confirmed).... it's since been viewed 13000 times (probably the most on their site), has had numerous people banned, other fans having a pop at Liverpool, and other such shenanigans.

Oops 🙁
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41783.msg1190421#msg1190421 date=1286391944]
I started a thread on a Red Sox forum I'm registered on last night asking about what they'd heard (before the bid was confirmed).... it's since been viewed 13000 times (probably the most on their site), has had numerous people banned, other fans having a pop at Liverpool, and other such shenanigans.

Oops 🙁
[/quote]

Link.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

One would hope that a battle of lawyers from a fading billionaire, and RBS on home turf would only go one way.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

Hicks spokesman tells Bloomberg Broughton didn't have power to block changes to #LFC board. Sale unlawful owners claim
4 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

Quote from: Arse on Today at 07:58:09 PM
Hey guys, as a Sox fan and Arsenal supporter, I figured I'd try to offer my take on the situation. Yes I'm a Yank, so please forgive me that.

Prior to Henry and Co. purchasing the Sox in 2002, we had become a second tier team. While the Sox typically won a fair amount of games, the top clubs in our division and elsewhere in baseball were far ahead of us in spending, club operations, and player development. The general manager and club manager had both put up an impressive string of expensive but disappointing teams, and our beloved Fenway Park was in serious need of an update. The team hadn't won a championship in 84 years.

2002 and 2003 saw the new ownership undergo a drastic change from their predecessors in how they approached club operations. They brought up a young and intelligent general manager who quickly made important personnel changes on the roster and began drafting players that would later make important contributions to the club. From a business standpoint, Henry invested a decent sum of cash, managing in the process to fix what needed to be fixed, and answered a lot of questions about the organization in the process. In those two years, great skepticism and doubt faded turned into a "can do" attitude across the board. Eight and a half decades of disappointment had created an extremely pessimistic fan base who, while dedicated and loyal, expected the team to try hard but fail anyway. That changed pretty quickly in 03/04 with deep playoff trips and finally a World Series victory.

Going with popular sentiment, rather than building a shiny new park with 60,000 seats, they kept old Fenway Park and have made new improvements to it every off-season. I'm not 100% sure, but I get a similar feeling when folks talk about Anfield.

Overall, the owners have done a great job hiring the proper staff, staying out of the way of team management, and making improvements in many different areas, all the while making the Sox one of the biggest clubs in baseball, winning games, and making a LOT of money. Also, anyone concerned that this is strictly a business deal and that LFC will simply become a mediocre football club at the expense of being Henry's cash cow, consider the fact that the Sox typically rank between 2-6 in team payroll from year to year. The only team that inevitably spends more on players and trades are the Yankees, essentially the MLB version of Chelsea or Man City, and they spend 20-30% more than anyone else. Rest assured though, that while NESV isn't going to throw down a half billion euros of oil money to buy 11 of the world's best players, they will likely fund an upper-tier team who won't spend extravagantly, but will be intelligent with wages and transfers.

No one can see the future, but I would definitely be more confident in NESV than I was in H+G. I also wouldn't mind seeing you Reds bump Sp*rs out of their Champions League spot. Anyway, best of luck to your club and I hope the new owners can bring you back into prominence and avoid the disgusting amounts of debt that Chelsea and Man U are running into now.
 
Re: LFC Sold to NESV (New England Sports Ventures)

[quote author=ibromurph link=topic=41783.msg1190248#msg1190248 date=1286381701]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41783.msg1190217#msg1190217 date=1286378617]
[quote author=tombrown link=topic=41783.msg1190212#msg1190212 date=1286377658]
Brendan is always right, ultimately ... always!
[/quote]

tom brownnose
[/quote]

Ha! This thread has been amazing. Comedy and all sorts.

I'm just astounded that so many of you 'experienced' posters still try to engage in a logical debate with Brendan (over anything the involves football). Rosco, Mark, Del, Grjt, Stu.. Like, how long have you been here for? Whatever good points you make will be overlooked, and he’ll quote you on one ‘subjective’ line that can be argued. Like really.. give up.. you’re not going to win.. Brendan’s got all day..

Brendan is good for 2 things:
1) Telling us how right he is. And to be fair, he has been right more than he has been wrong, although I think that’s because he’s been telling us how shite (or a cunt) everyone is within our club and to be honest, we’ve got more a lot more shite (and shitcunts) than we’ve got *anything remotely positive*.

2) Comedy. Love him or Hate him, you can’t deny he can be very funny. “Clunezâ€, “Slosemiâ€, “Fernando Meijerentesâ€, “The Invisible Cnutâ€, “Budgie faced Twatâ€, “The Twinsâ€. The man has talent for insulting people with creative nicknames. He’s even adapted his comedy to posters on here with Headwand, Massive Zlatan, Baldrick and my new favourite StulikesBudgie (I literally LOL’d when I read that - even though Stu has clearly stated of numerous occasions why he’s backed Roy; the more you squirm Stu, the more Brendan pushes)

3) That’s about it.

The old Brendan who used to post the occasional cracking 'football' thread (admist his slanging) has gone. Long gone. He’s spent so long selflessly batting away the loonies; the likes of Glock, Rebel, Kanwar and Momo FOR SCM, it was only a matter of time till it took its toll on him personally. I think that’s why he rightly gets a given a lot of leeway around here. I think the mods recognise his selfless work in the past, which is still (even in the latter years) filled with comedy.
Unfortunately though, like an old war hero who’s gone a little loopy, his problem is that he doesn’t know that the war is over and can no longer recognise the enemy. He used to be able to separate the loons from the decent posters. But now he simply scolds whoever has the temerity to disagree with him.

So what to do, eh?

Well we simply have got to keep him around here (he's done so much for us) and he’s the first you want to have your back should any loons from RAWKITES (or a Kanwar) ever decide to rear their ugly heads back on to SCMs.

I think Tombrownose’s approach could be the right one (it’s unexplored right?). Perhaps we should all just agree with him and bask in his general awesomeness.

[/quote]Hehe. I think thats pretty much perfect.
 
Back
Top Bottom