Albertini

This is what he said: "There have not been any offers at this stage. There haven't been any offers to turn down and I wouldn't have expected there to have been at this stage." "There are a number of interested parties but there's no specific deadline on it. We are looking to the middle of July-ish for the first round of bids but that's not a final stage - that's a first entry through. "We're hopeful - and I wouldn't put it any stronger than that - that a deal can be done by the end of the transfer season. That was always from the outset a hope rather than necessarily an expectation, because these things can take time. "We are on course, pretty well, with where we would have expected to be." "The process is well under way and if I can remind you of what that process is - I've been brought in to oversee the sale process. The owners have stepped aside, stepped down. I'm overseeing the process and Barclays Capital are running the process." "The process is a structured one. The information memorandum has gone out to a number of people who have expressed an interest. We're still in that process" The owners can't block the sale of the club. I read all too frequently numbers being floated about in the media, normally associated with Tom Hicks's name. I would like to make it clear there is no number. There is no base line. "This is a willing buyer, willing seller auction. We will do a deal with what we consider to be the best bidder. The best bidder may not be the highest bidder. It's about more than just money. It's about stadium development, the team and the whole piece. "Once we've been through the process, the best bidder gets it." You can infer what you like out of it but that is what he said verbatim. you have your own conclusions i have mine. He has made perfectly clear the owenrs have stepped down from the sale process there and that no baseline has been set. If any of this doesn't happen i'll come back on here and take my medicine. At the moment though given all the wild speculation and barrack room analysis this is the only concrete information we have had so far to go on. I'd take this over speculative doom mongering from people nowhere near the process at this moment in time. If this is proven wrong i'll be happy to switch and join the barrack room doom mongers condemning Broughton as a stooge. As above really. What people have you dealt with like Broughton? In what way are they "like" Broughton? Have you dealt with Broughton himself? If not you can't really compare people you may have dealt with with Broughton himself, can you?

So it wasn't what he meant at all then was it? It. it is what you think it means which wasn't what Broughton said or indeed what he meant. But it wasn't though. he was asked a question and he answered giving his idea of the timeline. Given that he said first bids are being looked for / at around 15th July it is clear that there will be further time taken from then to whittle down the bidders and select the "best" one. Hardly an empty soundbite. It was clear information as to the stages and time frames of the process and the most information we have had from anyone at the club about the sale since Broughton was appointed. If he'd had said "the process is ongoing and we're sure it would be done soon" i'd agree that that was an empty sound bite.

Nope it doesn't mean that. It means that it is a hope that is done by end of August but not an expectation. He never said there isn't a hope in hell of it being done by end of August. The point stands to a degree. You can't infer that he was attempting to placate fans by giving an optimistic date when the man himself was the one sounding out the warning of hope rather than expectation.

Who has said the bit on bold? Think you will find his exact words were that it was more hope than expectation on Broughton's part. Broughton himself inferred August was optimistic he never said it would all be dealt with by August.

No i thought you were referring to the manager issue rather than the ownership. I haven't heard him say that about the ownership nor in what context. I don't think he said it in the PC last week. Adds more fuel to the fire about a forced sale if true. I can't think of any "normal" situation where the board would determine whether an offer was successful over and above the shareholders. The board could recommend an offer but not accept it normally. It begs the question why would the owners lose control of a sale of their shares unless they were forced into it.

That was authority to appoint a manager. Not sell the club. It would not be a board decision to sell the club. The board don't own the club. The owners and / or the secured creditor decide on selling the club.

When did he say that? I didn't hear him say at the PC last week.

Well we'll never find out the detail of the arrangements between the owners and bankers. We can only look at what has been said and draw conclusions. You are drawing yours and i am drawing different conclusions. Why would they turn down good bids for the club 12-18 months ago and now have the chairman say the process is willing buyer willing seller and that the owners can't block bids in a live press conf? Let's look at some facts then. Hicks said he was in in it for the long haul and he didn't want to sell. Now he has said he wants to exit sports and all his other sports teams are up for sale. Broughton said the owners cant block a bid. He also said no baseline has been set. He specifically referred to Hicks valuation and poo pooed it. RBS sent an email basically saying they wanted to work with new owners. Broughton has said the club will be sold and he is hopeful but not expectant that it will be done as early as August. Why would these people say these things to the world if the situation hadn't changed? Do you think they would commit to these statements only on the strength of Tom Hicks's word? Why would Broughton be talking about an auction? Or RBS talking about new owners if there was some way it could be blocked? To buy Hicks more time to do what? What is he going to do? Asset strip? That will see the value of the club plummet.. Sell players and we become like Newcastle or City and are worth no more than £100 million - £150 million, with £137 million still owing to RBS. The numbers don't add up. Because Hicks is playing everyone? Really?? If Hicks is pulling the wool over people's eyes what is his end game? How does he exit in the future with more than he will get now? He loses the support of his chairman whose position would become untenable, he loses the support of his main banker which would then no doubt have repercussions on his ability to borrow money ever again in this country and the US. He becomes more of a basket case and laughing stock than he is now. The only way to make money is to build the stadium. No one will lend him money. If someone would don't you think he'd have secured it by now after 3 years? He has bankrupted the Rangers in the US and missed countless deadlines on reduction of debt for LFC. How will he get the stadium built? By selling more players? No one will come watch and fill it and the value of the players left wouldn't cover half the cost of building it. RBS never previously commented on the future of the club when this £100 million was needed. Now they have said they look forward to working with new owners. Do you think they would put their name to this if there was any chance Hicks could wriggle out of it? Forget the interest they don''t need the hassle they are getting. Hester must be pissed off with opening several hundred / thousand emails on a regular basis from LFC fans. In relation to Purslow can we finally nail this one. Purslow DID bring investment to the table. He brought Rhone. The owners rejected it. Kidoriginal said he brought others all rejected. And you can see from that statement that you quoted from Purslow that the owners clearly didn't meet the requirements of their bankers. Don't you think that adds fuel to the fire that the bank have terminated the deal?

But you would have to imagine given the unequivocal nature of both RBS's press email and Broughton's comments that the ship has sailed in terms of reducing the debt to satisfy RBS. If player sales to reduce debt was a viable option now surely it would have played out before the comments of last week were announced. I read the situation as they had a deadline to put in the £100 million and they missed it and the inference i draw, rightly or wrongly, is that the agreement appears to be in some kind of termination process. You are right to be wary and correct to say we won't know for certain without seeing the documentation but given the huge shift in the position of the chairman, which hasn't been contradicted by Hicks since, would suggest that RBS are looking to collect on the full amount, I can understand the wariness of many people on here given the lies we've been fed over the years but i feel that the nature of the comments last week suggest that the game is up for them.

The house analogy was to demonstrate the principal that an asset, whether it be a house or the football club, is still worth the same whether it has loans against it or not. The size of the debts do not equate to or alter the value of the asset. For example the £50 million "spent" on the pretty pictures of the new stadium, will any new owner be prepared to pay for that at cost? I think it is unlikely. Plus anything in life is worth only what a buyer is prepared to pay for it not what the owners think it is worth. That is what Broughton was alluding to when he debunked Hicks' valuation at the press conference. My point is that it is widely accepted that any new owner would have to clear debts of £351 million plus give them a profit. I don't think it will work like that. Offers will be made for the club on it's own merits and the money from the sale will have to be divvied up accordingly. If that leaves them a shortfall well that's tough for them.

and that is kind of my point. It is just paperwork over and above the RBS debt. A buyer will pay what they think the club is worth not what the owners have lumbered onto the club as well. At the end of the day they are at the back of the queue for their money and if it doesn't get paid well that's just tough titty. In much the same way that if you own a house worth £100,000 but you have borrowings of £150,000 on it the house is still worth £100,000 and you have a shortfall to find if you sell it. This is why i feel the amount the club owes is a bit of a red herring. Doesn't matter what the leeches have lumbered onto it. It's worth what someone is prepared to pay for the club on its own merits & not the club plus their over exposed borrowing as well.

I meant in relation to the total debt. Thought it was established as £351 million as per Tim's post on rawk from the 2009 accounts. Not sure how the Times had it at over £400 million for the same period. In relation to the interest i thought it included all interest including owner's interest. I seem to recall seeing about 8% interest on the bank debt as being the figure the club is paying, Interest payments of £41 million don't tally as that would indicate interest of nearly 20% on the 237 million owed to the bank. Could be wrong though.

Not sure where those figures come from. Tim (TTNBD) on Rawk offered this summation as of last accounts upto July 09

All the talk in the papers is of £351 million being owed. The important number is £237 million. That is what is owed to RBS. The rest is owed to the owners who put that money in themselves to reduce RBS debt and are charging 10% per annum interest which is part of the £30 - £40 million interest payments and is really a red herring. The interest on the £110-£120 million invested by the owners through Kop Caymen is not being paid out every year it is being rolled up onto the debt. It is not leaving the club's cashflow. The owners will want this paying when the club is sold but whether they get it is another matter. It is a paper debt and any potential buyer may / should turn round and tell them to get lost. Where they got this money from and whether it is borrowed or from their own cash (ha!) is another matter. It seems like this interest is another way for them to take money out of the club. Whether they get it back from a potential buyer is not certain, and if i was buying the club i would tell them it is their problem and deduct it off any amount paid for the club.

As a point of interest how long did City's take? Seem to think that was done quite quickly.

Yep there's now going to be loads of new rumours using Broughton's comments yesterday as the starting point. Anyone could have knocked that up based on what was said yesterday.

Yes that's right. You can either trust an un-named source feeding info to a journalist at a rag (albeit a quality rag) or you trust what was said definitively by the man leading the process in front of and directly to the world's media. If Broughon is full of s**t then he will get it from all on here including me. and all LFC fans around the world who heard what he said. So far he has told no lies and has not made any false promises. Once he does (if he does) start telling porkies then i will not believe another word he says and his credibility will be in pieces. I don't beleive he'd take that risk unless he was confident of his position. Until then i'll take what he says as direct evidence over and above what a journalist with un-named sources writes or tweets. Not at all i was simply drawing a conclusion why Purslow said what he said. He tried to cover it up but it still came out which led me to believe he is immune from the leeches wrath. Like Broughton. You have chosen to beleive the conspiracy theory that this is all some kind of Machiavellian strategy by Hicks. That is fine but the other evidence direct from Broughton yesterday doesn't support this theory in my opinion. How many chief execs do know the football business though? None of them are ex-players or managers. Almost to a man they are money men. Most other chef execs appoint managers. It was clear from yesterday Dalglish was heavily involved and interviewed candidates. So a football man was involved in the process but ultimately like any club the money men made the final decision. It's the same at every other club. I tend to agree that Dalglish being completely overlooked was wrong from my perspective as a fan but i can see (but not agree) with the decision not to consider him. He's been out of the game a long time at top level management and perhaps they felt that he wasn't as much a steadying influence as Hodgson. As i say my heart said Dalglish like most on here but i can understand the head saying someone else who has been involved more recently in top flight management. I don't think the decision not to appoint Kenny is related to the sales process and part of the same underhand strategy you infer Hicks is running with, which i disagree with. RBS have not formally repossessed, no. We would have heard about it if they were. Evidence suggests based on comments yesterday that the owners either have been forced or convinced that unless they agree to sell without restriction that is the way they will go. After all something must have changed for Hicks to go from saying he was in it for the long haul to Broughton saying no baseline has been set and the owners can't block a bid. If not pressure from the bank what do you think has forced such a dramatic change? No we haven't he said the owners can't block a bid. He then said the owner's can't block any reasonable bid. That is the only uncertainty from yesterday's interview but that was also countered when he said no baseline price had been set. Looking at those statements the conclusion i draw is that if there is only one bidder offering say £10.57 and a pack of jaffa cakes it will be rejected. I don't take it to mean that if an offer at market value, say £300-£400 million comes in, the owners can block it. Nothing from those three statements can possibly lead to the conclusion that Hicks can block any sensible bid. Maybe he has put it in writing but we'll never know and you wouldn't expect anyone to state whether that is the case or not. I simply do not beleive that a man of Broughton's calibre and standing would be that easily misled. Anyone with any sense, never mind a leading businessman, would want guarantees and undertakings about their remit, their powers and the nature of the job they have been hired to do written into their contract. I would.

Have to say i'm a bit disappointed with the papers this morning, particularly the Times. Not one of them appears to have picked up on the comments made by Broughton and the Times only appears to have gone with his words saying no offers had been made but Broughton was more hopeful than expectant of completing a sale by August.. What about the other more important things he said? You don't get the context of what was actually said by simply quoting only that bit. Apparently Oli Kay has tweeted that Hicks can block a sale and a reserve price has been agreed. I therefore look forward to the Times tomorrow calling Broughton a liar. Seems that the lads at the Times maybe aren't as well connected as we thought or their connections are no longer at the club.

As i said previously Purslow did bring investment but it was rejected by the owners. Broughton made clear the owners can't block a sale. Also you can speculate that perhaps Purslow is untouchable by the owners and is not dancing to their beat like Broughton either. Perhaps it adds fuel to the fire about who is running the show at the club. What Purslow said was in a private meeting which he swiftly denied and tried to change. Broughton made his comments unambiguously in a live press conference which will have been beamed around the world. If i was a betting man i'd wager Broughton doesn't even know about the protests. He works one day a week presumably out of London and the protests have hardly gathered any news outside of Liverpool. Broughton hasn't lied. He made a point of stating that day to day decisions are nothing to do with him. The board of directors appointed Kenny & Purslow to find a manger and they, as they have to under their "fiduciary duties" ratified their selection. The board decided Kenny wasn't a candidate and Broughton as Chairman told Kenny that. I can't see anything untoward in that that would suggest Broughton is acting duplicitously. Why is it disturbing who appointed him? It seems to me someone ( one can only presume the bank) said "you need an independent chairman to oversee the sale. Hire someone" - The bank may have even put his name forward. As owners and joint chairman at the time they had to make the appointment technically. Doesn't mean the decision to appoint an independent chairman was theirs. It was clear yesterday from the dismissive sneer on his face what Broughton thinks of Hicks and his mouthing off and if Broughton did work for the owners and said what he said about them being unable to block to a sale and it wasn't true i'm sure Hicks would have fired him by now.

Because of his ego. If Hicks could control the sale process and Broughton said what he said about the owners being unable to block a sale, no baseline price etc, don't you think he would have said so? Since when has Hicks cared what the fans think.

Tom Hicks would have been on SSN saying it wasn't true.

I thought Cecil was only here whilst the club was sold as well. I am certain he will feck off back to leveraged buyouts once it's done. No doubt he's had enough of his address plastered all over the internet and rude words painted on walls around Anfield. Why didn't they take the £500 million offer from DIC a year or two back? They were greedy. and thought they could get more. Seems like the rug has been pulled out from underneath them now.

As i said earlier RBS have acknowledged a sale in that email of last week. Barcap have been employed like Broughton to achieve the sale. Why would they block the sale having been brought in to sell it?. The only way they will block a sale is if the person is not right (as Broughton said about not necessarily the highest bidder) which after what we've all been through over the last 3 years is perfectly understandable. He also said there are interested parties. Broughton said today: "The owners can't block the sale of the club. I read all too frequently numbers being floated about in the media, normally associated with Tom Hicks's name. I would like to make it clear there is no number. There is no base line." So we can assume with direct quotes no minimal price has been agreed. So to surmise: No baseline price Owners can't block the sale open auction best bidder gets it Interested parties If Evans or Barrett or the Echo quote Broughton's comments tomorrow then will you believe what he said?

In relation to rejecting any bid let me ask this. Who else other than the owners and the parties mentioned can block a bid? Answer? No-one. Agreed? Or is there is some other bid-blocker out there we don't know about. Please elaborate. If so is it safe to assume that as Broughton has said the sale will be completed. He said today G&H cannot block a sale. so we can cross that off the list now can't we as a reason to be miserable about the club being sold. Agreed? To be fair to Cecil he did bring investment in from that Rhone Group mob but the owner's blocked it. We now know they can't do this on this new auction process that Broughton is overseeing. In relation to the journalist thing, do you know which bidders this was and when? Before this auction began or after it? How can that be when the prospectus only went out last month? How many journalists serious or otherwise have told us that the sale was an auction that the owners couldn't block? None. Perhaps the journalist know as much as we do.

Who other than H&G would block and sale and for what reason? Barcap will get a completion fee and only last week Natwest sent that email out regarding wanting to work with new owners. No problem in people being cynical but this what pretty clear cut. H&G cannot block a sale. All other parties Broughton, Barcap (by definition of their remit) & RBS have said there will be a sale and that is precisely why Broughton & Barcap have been brought in. So why would they block it.? Upto the press conference all the talk on this thread was they don't want to sell, asking price is too high, they'll reject all bids etc. This has been debunked by Broughton in a live press conference which RBS, the owners & Barcap will have seen. Why would he say it if it was b******s? Because in your first post you said ""Why? When he can wait until 3 days before a huge protest to put out some non-specific, non-committal positive news? " Then when i replied to that you said "Well I have seen the relevant part now, on YouTube and I still think he is non-committal. He was talking about 'hope' and being 'on course' but warned 'these things can take a long time" Implying you had not seen what had been said before you wrote it off as non specific and non committal. I presumed you had based your first statement on what you had read on the internet rather than what he actually said in the press conference.