Albertini

On top of this it has been reported that the owners have £110 million in personal guarantees to the bank as well. If this goes t*** up they could lose their loan of £100 million+ (no one knows where that money came from - was it from their own funds (ha!) or did they borrow it from somewhere else) and be called upon for personal guarantees upto £110 million. George & Tom, despite all the bluster, must be s***ting themselves, particualarly if those reprts about massive increases in interest payments have any semblance of truth. They've no Chapter 11 to hide behind over here.

Yes that's why the debt is widely quoted as £350 milliion. £237 million to the bank and the rest to the owners that they personally lent to the club. That doesn't take into account the fact that the owners debt has been enjoying 10% interest and is a source of profit for them even if the sale happens with just the debt being cleared.

No me neither but i am sure there could be some kind of legal agreement / mechanism created to protect them. The point stands though what happens if they get the money in some way in advance and pay off RBS? Where does that leave the board vote? Given the meltdown they are facing and the potential losses they face if some of these new debt figures that came out today are true i wouldn't put anything past them two cancers. I hope it's just paranoia on my part. No i know this but i'm speculating on them getting money in advance, then paying off RBS, and those agreements they made with RBS regarding surrendering their rights would become null and void. What is to stop this Syrian fella lending them the money now, with an agreement that they then transfer ownership in say 3 months? They take their loaned money to RBS pay off the debt, the terms attached to it then becoming null and void, Broughton gets the push and they then sell the club to Khirdi

The only fear i have is if they have some way of selling it and bringing the money to RBS essentially cancelling the agreements they have with binds them to put bids through the board. What's to stop this Syrian fella from paying upfront for the club to H&G who then take the money to pay off RBS, cancelling the agreement they have with RBS and they then can do what they want.

I can't believe that they are right either. Where have these numbers come from? The accounts? How's he got hold of them? Why are they borrowing that money? Who is it paying off? RBS? It doesn't make sense. Is this money the club is borrowing or is it that they are borrowing it themselves or are they borrowing it and foisting on the club. How can interest payments go from £40 million last year to over £130 million now. More questions than answers unless someone is bending Bascombe's ear to force a sale?

Bascombe's latest states since April we've been paying £2.5 million per week in interest! http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/football/901858/KOP-LOSS-SHOCKER.html THE delay in selling Liverpool FC is costing the club's American owners a staggering £2.5million a week. Tom Hicks and George Gillett will see their huge debts increase to £282.4m by August 31 unless they sell the club. That's a shocking rise of £45.4m since their last refinancing deal in April. And that's why the duo are set to walk away with nothing when Chinese businessman Kenny Huang ends their reign. Under the terms of an agreement with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wells Fargo named 'Project Langworth', the owners' are accumulating escalating multi-million pound PIK fees - payments in kind - charged at a daily rate of 9 per cent per year from April 6, 2010. The rates for borrowing money this way are far higher and riskier. Interest isn't paid annually. In this case, repayments are being triggered every fortnight and their weekly interest bill is a staggering £2.5m. PIK fees are at the heart of what made the Glazers' Manchester United takeover so controversial, and explain why Hicks and Gillett are being forced out by the bank. It wasn't publicly known until now that Hicks and Gillett had such an agreement. The refinancing of £110m of the Americans' debts was agreed following the refusal by Hicks and Gillett to sell a 40 per cent stake to New York-based Rhone Group. If the club doesn't change hands by next Sunday, Hicks and Gillett (below) will pay another £7.5m. Their debt will rise by another £7.5m on August 31. On April 5, Kop Holdings owed £237m. On July 31, they owed £266.6m. On August 31, the figure will be £282.4m. Weep A Liverpool spokesman said: "This simply highlights why a sale is in everyone's interest." Liverpool fans can only weep at the thought of how that £45.4m since April could have revamped their squad. The financial implications of Hicks and Gillett refusing to accept their board's decision on who takes over are potentially catastrophic. Despite this, they are privately resisting the £450m buy-out by Huang's QSL group because they won't make a penny on the deal - getting only enough money to clear their debts. "There are people at Liverpool ready for the mother of all battles to get rid of them," a source told Sport of the World. "But this is no false dawn. It's the endgame for Hicks and Gillett now." A spokesman for Huang said: "All Kenny wants to do is close the deal and that's all he will be focused on for the next few days." Huang will immediately pay off the debt. He must then commit £135.9m equity to start work on the Stanley Park stadium, and has promised a minimum £50m initial transfer kitty.

Not really. You don't take over the front page of the Times on a football story unless you are 150% certain that what you are saying will come off. They've stepped back from it significantly already today less than 24 hours after they originally ran with it. Evans has not reported events, he's tried to gain a scoop on a story that began on the internet which now clearly appears to be bulls*** and was denied pretty much as soon as it was published by the people at CIC. Evans has form on this. He's had a s*** summer with bum stories, none of which have materialised, and he’s been a disgrace on Talksport with some of the doom mongering he's spouted there. I like the Times, it's my newspaper of choice, but all these Reds that work there haven't covered themselves in glory this summer, with the exception of Tony B who gets a pass because I know he's been away a lot. For example Oli Kay and i think Evans as well claimed that Hicks could block a bid after Roy’s & Broughton's press conference when Broughton claimed they couldn't. Oli Kay put it out that they could block a bid via his Twitter page but he never backed it up by publishing it in the Times. If you’re going to be a reporter and have something to say which contradicts the official record at least have the courage of your convictions and print it in the organ you work for rather than sniping through the “nu media”. Today we have the secretary of the club pretty much confirming that the banks have forced the sale and numerous reports over the last few days confirming that the owners actually can’t block a bid (as Broughton said at the press conference & Oli Kay contradicted through his Twitter postings) which has pretty much confirmed Oli & Tony were actually talking b******s. Yet we haven't heard a peep out of the Times, Evans or Oli Kay about it so far in the paper nor on Twitter or Talksport and i won’t be holding my breath for clarification or a correction any time soon. I respect the Times LFC fans / reporters for the way they have consistently held the owners to account, probably more so than any other paper, but it is not unreasonable to say, they have spouted complete & utter b******s this summer and got every major story about LFC wrong. I'm all for reporters reporting but clearly they have f***ed up this summer with their reporting of the situation at the club which has been both partial and without merit as things have played out. I think that you can report a story and if it doesn't pan out for whatever reason that’s fine. What I find unacceptable is that when you claim to be a fan of the club you are reporting on, working for a prestigious quality paper, commentating on the football club you are most connected to and opining a variety of doomsday scenarios and stories, some of which you aren’t prepared to commit to print, and none of which come off, you’ve overstepped the mark in terms of responsible and impartial journalism.

Yes it is, but he was adament there was nothing happening only days before Kenny appeared on the scene, and he didn't break the story, he repoorted it only after it had been all over the forums According to him it was certain he was leaving not that he was staying. Everything he has stated this summer about LFC has been wrong so far and he's been a right doom mongering and sensationalisng fecker to boot.

Which he said there was no chance of only the week before. Not to mention Torres & Gerrard leaving and the s**** he was spouting on Talksport.

Tony Evans has had a dog of a summer, getting everything wrong and being a real tool on Talksport. His piece yesterday appears to have been over the top as well. If what we hear today is right China is buying Liverpool in much the same way that Britain currently owns LFC through their funding of RBS. He said yesterday that CIC (i.e. China) was buying the club. Today that has been rowed back to them being an investor in a consortium / investment vehicle that might buy us. It's not the same at all as that front page splash made out yesterday. I know Tony B has been out of the loop a bit this summer as he has been off on paternity leave for a few weeks around Roy's press conference.

Talk about stating the obvious. It could have been paid from future operations only if they put the spade in the ground in 60 days as they promised. These two mugs could have made a whopping profit had they had the money to get the stadium going.

Well it doesn't work on the info we've been given. If they are the owners then they have all the rights and all the powers to do what they want. Broughton has been clever with his words and given the impression it was the owner's decision which technically it probably was BUTgiven what Broughton has said about them the owners rights clearly have been removed and the only people who can do that is the people they are in hoc to i.e. RBS. I can't see any other way around the fact that the decision to remove their rights and powers has been forced from them. If they had a choice do any of us really think they would have accpeted freely the removal of their rights as the owners of LFC? They have been taken out of the picture. Well if they have signed agreement to a sale under RBS's terms which we must presume include the right of the board to decide the winning bidder they can't sue as they don't have a leg to stand on.

No they can't because of their inability to meet the terms of the loan in the first place. The power that RBS, Broughton etc have will be in the terms of the refinance which H&G will have signed where they have undertaken to sell the club and for the sale process to be ratified by the board. I'd like to think RBS would have covered that eventuality in the "undertakings" they received from H&G

No RBS would want to control the sales process to protect their interests. They defaulted and therefore accepted the terms which RBS imposed which was that the sale of the club must go through Broughton and the board. Not that a sale to some parties will go through the board but not others, any and all potential sales. It will be watertight.

That's my take on it too. They have been forced to accept, no doubt in writing, that the sales process is taken out of their hands and put in the hands of "The Board". Can't imagine RBS would have allowed them any wiggle room to get out of that with £237 million riding on it. As your article shows they f***ed up on meeting the terms of the loan, and they appear to have received some kind of short term refinancing that looks like termination financing where their wings have been well and truly clipped as to what they can or can't do.

Well they are clearly quite rattled by Kenny's bid to have their mouthpiece throw out those threats and i guess this is now the test to see if what Broughton said about them being unable to block bids is true. Fecking hope so.

That article is quoting the S*n

why no mention of the syrian fella in the times article?

Times running with it tomorrow as well.

Is this how desperate it's getting?" Back our bid and we'll give you free leccy". FFS you couldn't make it up.

I have nothing more than a gut feeling but i think to a man they would be quite prepared to do the right thing and outvote them. I think they must be fed up with this s*** as much as we are. We as fans know what complete knobs they are, imagine how bad it must be working for / with them? Both Broughton and Cecil have been openly dismisive of them. Cecil's getting trashed left right and centre and hiring internet police to monitor the s*** he's taking on forums. I feel certain they want it to end as well.

What do you mean Mike? Apologies been on a plane today so the brain's a bit fried. I can't see how it helps him making RBS and Broughton look silly in public.

I think Kenny has played it really badly here, not taking into account his reluctance to put names to the people he represents. He’s tried to get the fans onboard by talking up player investment and new stadium but without throwing his backers names into the ring it leaves the door open for accusations that he is grandstanding and all mouth and no trousers simply to get the fans onboard in the event that H&G don’t sell to him. But as we know they don’t give two f***s what we think of them so it was hardly a strategy that would make them fold. The biggest error on his part is that by going public about buying the debt direct from RBS , shares being worthless etc he has antagonised H&G, RBS, Broughton & Barcap along the way. Not a smart move when you need at least Broughton & RBS onside in order to seal the deal. On top of that by going public with it of course he has handed H&G the opportunity to release their cronies into the process to try and save face. It’s one thing to humiliate them into accepting a bad deal (for them) but to humiliate them in public makes his job of buying the club so much harder because what we do know about H&G is their egos can overrule their heads. He’s made Broughton look impotent and put RBS in a tricky position with the owners (they first denied involvement with him then changed that to saying they referred him to Barcap). The annoying thing is that had he gone to Broughton with the same arguments instead of RBS and the media, he had a strong case, his points are devastatingly accurate and i am certain Broughton & RBS would have hammered it home to H&G that this was the deal that they had to take and it could probably have been done on the QT with undisclosed amounts allowing the parasites to save a little face in the media. Now he’s created a s*** storm with the owners seemingly prepared to pull every dirty trick in the book to try and scupper his bid. I just don’t think it’s a smart way to buy the club and i question whether he has the wherewithal now to pull the deal off with so much vitriol against him (that he has created himself) with so little advantage it has gained him.

True but you think that they won't be asked for the source of the funds by Broughton or Barcap? They ain't going to take him on his word without evidence as to who the backer is particularly when Broughton specifically said it's about getting the best bid for the future of the club. Plus it doesn't matter what you're waving in one hand when your argument about the value of the club is factually correct. Adopting the "cry the poor tale" attitude isn't going to work on a £350 million deal when the premise of your argument is spot on.

Well he has for the rest of the details of his bid so why not the source of funds? If it is rock solid such as CIC you would think that would be one of the main strengths of the bid and should be a selling point. Before we all start jumping up and down it might be good to know where the money is coming from, given our previous takeover.