Jump to content
I am no longer developing resources for Invision Community Suite ×
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Hus

Sponsors
  • Posts

    14,796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hus

  1. Oops must have missed that bit
  2. I want Rafa back!
  3. I thought he did alright tbh, not as eloquent or well spoken as some but came across ok.
  4. Just heard that t*** - i was thinking the same unbelievable, anyone know who he is?
  5. Its also online to watch here: LFC WWW
  6. MB definitely talks a good game, you can just imagine the legal workings that must have gone on for them to be in this position and be so confident of the sale. It bodes well but i wont get too happy till its confirmed!
  7. The interview on BBC news is much more extensive, some great questions from Pester
  8. If its a seperate entity and they are personally liable then I dont think RBS will let up, if it doesnt effect LFC i reckon they wont stop and will chase them till they get it! woohoo - karma
  9. More: MB Sky They G&H gave written commitments to RBS that they wouldnt intefere with the sale, there act of blocking the sale is in breach of this agreement - this should all contribute to the G&H being screwed
  10. Yep , confirms that as none of us were too sure if they were current or still applied
  11. To add to that: When questioned about the penalty fees etc that are payable to RBS, he said that was confidential between the owners (current i would assume) and RBS... Is that circa 40million? That to me sounds like they are liable - wouldnt that be great!
  12. Comment from MB - on sky sports news, part of the terms of the his appointment is that only he could change the board, the same commitments to RBS too If thats true then H&G should be screwed
  13. First job of the new owners should be to get rid - i really dont want him let loose with any funds in Jan
  14. Yep....
  15. Yep he has been pretty much on the money (excuse the pun) so far with alot of the takeover stuff - must have good sources
  16. V true, I expect it will be on LFC WWW soon too
  17. Not quite sure where this Broughton interview is going to hit first, radio tv etc...does anyone know if there is a industrial precedent set for takeover matters like this? I saw someone on Twitter mention Easyjet but I am not sure of the relevance
  18. Sure, we heard about them attempting to refinance based on assets etc a few months back (june?) but if true this would be another attempt - they would have required legal backing to do so as they are in direct conflict with the interests of the shareholders. Ah well, I thought it was a interesting bit of info. Right off to bed!
  19. Eh? I have no idea whether he has been mainly right or wrong in the past, I thought it was an interesting bit of info and shared it.
  20. LFC board at war as multi-millionaire John W Henry bids for the club Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/10/06/lfc-board-at-war-as-multi-millionaire-john-w-henry-bids-for-the-club-100252-27410865/#ixzz11X2y3Oty LFC board at war as multi-millionaire John W Henry bids for the club Oct 6 2010 By John Thompson & Ben Schofield Comments (5) Recommend (3) * 1 * 2 * next The Shankly Gates at Anfield The Shankly Gates at Anfield 300 WAR has broken out in the campaign to rescue Liverpool Football Club from its ownership crisis. The club issued a dramatic statement late last night saying it has received two top class bids to buy the Reds. But hours before an Anfield board meeting was called to discuss them yesterday, American co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett sensationally tried to sack managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre. Instead the Americans tried to replace the Reds’ two top boardroom executives – both lifelong Liverpool fans – with their own new people – Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutcheon. Mack Hicks is the son of Texan Tom Hicks senior, while McCutcheon is vice-president and financial controller of Hicks Holdings. The ECHO can confirm one of the bidders for the Reds involves the owner of the Boston Reds Sox baseball team, John W Henry, a multi-millionaire Wall Street trader. The second bidder is from Asia but is not linked to Kenny Huang, who led a Chinese consortium interested in investing in Liverpool this summer. The ECHO understands a sale is very close, unless Hicks and Gillett succeed with their legal challenge to the make-up of the board. The fact that it is two members of the Hicks camp the owners are trying to shoehorn on to the board also suggests George Gillett’s influence at Anfield is now minimal. No-one at Anfield would today comment, confirm the claims or discuss any details at all regarding the official statement issued. All three key parties – Hicks, Gillett and the three remaining board members – have consulted lawyers to try to break the stalemate. The ECHO understands meetings continued all night at Anfield, with the non-owners on the board clearly maintaining control of the club’s official website which issued last night’s extraordinary statement. It read: "The Board of Directors have received two excellent financial offers to buy the Club that would repay all its long-term debt. "A Board meeting was called today to review these bids and approve a sale. Shortly prior to the meeting, the owners – Tom Hicks and George Gillett – sought to remove managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre from the Board, seeking to replace them with Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutheon. "This matter is now subject to legal review and a further announcement will be made in due course. "Meanwhile Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre continue to explore every possible route to achieving a sale of the Club at the earliest opportunity." The hugely dramatic development clearly pitches at least two of Anfield’s non-owner directors – Purslow and Ayre – publicly against the American co-owners. Hicks and Gillett are due to repay their loans – belatedly taken out to buy the club three years ago – later this month. Last week Purslow made it clear in an interview that the Reds’ non-owner directors would firmly resist any bid by the Americans to refinance those loans. Hicks and Gillett are, it seems, furious that a coup attempt is now being made to drive them out of Anfield, without them getting the huge profits they had hoped for from a sale of the crisis-hit club. The pair, who have been the target of a long-running fans campaign to oust them led by the Spirit of Shankly and others, agreed publicly to sanction a sale of the club in spring after an offer of investment from the New York based Rhone group (£110m for 40%) was rejected by them. It all means the battle for the future of Britain’s most successful ever football club may well now be fought out in the courts, who must decide who holds sway going forward – Hicks and Gillett or Purslow, Ayre and Broughton. British Airways chairman Broughton was brought in by Barclays to oversee the sale process. Liverpool are currently paying between £30m and £40m a year in crippling interest payments to service the Hicks and Gillett loans. Today fans union Spirit of Shankly said supporters will want to probe any bidder to make sure the club ends up in the right hands. James McKenna, spokesman for SoS, said: "Liverpool is engulfed in a board room war. "The club statement underlines the need we have – Hicks and Gillett aren’t good enough for Liverpool Football Club."
  21. atk on TLW - I've been reliably informed that Ayre, Purslow and Broughton this week blocked a refinancing offer that Hicks and Gillett put to the board. They were using the ground Melwood etc up as clout to get refinance.
  22. True but we are alot wiser now, plus though there is alot of press about who one of the bidders is...we dont know if there bid has been accepted or they are the ones. We need to focus on getting these two cancers out first.
  23. True - if the board were able to block requests by the shareholders in relation to refinance then hopefully the same can be applied to there attempts at ousting members of the BOD without proper reason. I would assume the board could also argue that the reason for them looking to oust them is so that they can refinance as was previously attempted.
  24. Agree with this, probably the reason for all the media blackout the independant board needed to be seen to be acting a certain way. Anything else could have been used against them as part of a legal challenge.
  25. Thanks - was posted on here too from Rawk iirc, if the articles are current and they stand upto legal challenge then it should be the end for H&G, the only thing i can think of in favour of H&G is CP & IA are not acting in the best interest of the shareholders.
×
×
  • Create New...