Redray

11 years ago? Case concerned what exactly?

When desperate thought becomes illogical action; “I want at least two months, two months to see everything. After that if everything is OK it’s a deal. If not, ‘Thank you very much,’”

That was just speculation. They are still over 10% and experts are commenting as to how such a sophisticated organisation could have so miscalculated. "How a huge, sophisticated sovereign fund like CIC could have so miscalculated its ownership, which it has stated it wanted to maintain at 9.9% or so, is a matter of debate. CIC even purchased another nearly 14.9 million shares on the open market with the last purchases as recently as June." http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201008041721DOWJONESDJONLINE000715#ixzz0wD8Erepm

Most likely? I would say not but it's just opinions at this stage, truth is we don't know. There could be a whole range of reasons why they are backtracking, to you use your term. Maybe Broughton told them to cool it, Maybe CIC did. If you look at the Cavaliers bid, Huang seemed to be the fall guy who took all the flak and then stepped aside for Hung to make the investment. Maybe something not too disimilar is happening here.

On 4 August Huang denied making a bid or having backing from CIC.

He is basically reiterating Huang's statement of last week. Interesting that Harris was happy to verbatim recall that part of Ganis's email in support of his rather tenous suggestion that it was all some kind of a hoax but then glossed over what seemed to be some kind of a dressing down from Ganis regarding the Huang court cases.

What's actually in that article of any substance? Isn't Ganis saying more or less what Huang said last week?

Article no. 7 from Nick Harris EXCLUSIVE – Kenny Huang’s business partner: ‘No decision on Liverpool proposal, CIC never mentioned’ By Nick Harris 10 August 2010 Kenny Huang, the Chinese businessman linked to a potential Liverpool takeover, has yet to decide whether to send the club a proposal, let alone a bid for the club, one of his American business partners has told sportingintelligence. Marc Ganis, of the Chicago-based Sportscorp Ltd, contacted this website last night about a story involving Huang published yesterday (more of which in a moment), and in an extensive email exchange, said that “no proposal has been made and no decision to offer a proposal has been made.” This will come as a shock to many Liverpool fans, who rightly or wrongly believe that Kenny Huang, backed by the sovereign resources of China, is a frontrunner to take control at Anfield. During the email conversation with Mr Ganis late last night and in the early hours of this morning, sportingintelligence told Mr Ganis that his clarification of the situation was exactly the kind of information fans are seeking from him and Huang, if only to set the record straight on what they are proposing, or not. Sportingintelligence requested permission to reproduce a key email from this exchange, verbatim, so here it is, solely and wholly in the words of Marc Ganis: . Email from Marc Ganis to Nick Harris of Sportingintelligence, received 1.24am UK time “I have tried to not only be honest, but set the record straight. “Among the most important points I have tried to get out, either directly or through Kenny’s releases, is that no proposal [in relation to a Liverpool bid] has been made and no decision to offer a proposal has been made. “There were many reports about CIC, yet at no time to [any] party, whether [to] the media, Sir Martin [broughton] or Barcap, have we ever identified that CIC was an investor. “We have not identified any investors and I offered only one point about CIC in the AP story, and at that I made it clear they were not committed in any way. “I made it clear there were no deadlines, meetings or discussions with players, their reps or managers, nor issue with regard to the date the transfer window would close. And I clarified many other points. I also made it clear that the PR firm that purported to represent us has and had no role with us. “But for whatever reason our efforts to offer accurate information often falls on deaf ears. “Kenny made it clear in a press release on April 12, 2010 that he had no interest in the Cavaliers. Yet the media continued to write he did. [Extract from aforementioned press release: ‘QSL Sports also confirmed that its two co‐founders and co‐chairmen Huang and Cheng do not hold any stake personally in Cleveland Cavaliers of NBA in the US.’] “It’s hard to say why this all has been the case, but the facts are the facts. “Reporters want Kenny to demonstrate all aspects of a bid – yet no bid has been presented and no decision to submit one has been made. If and when that time comes, the financial support will be presented to Barcap and the board. “It is entirely inappropriate to do so to the media, despite requests and demands that it be done. That is simply not the way sports deals are done – and on this I have a fair amount of experience. “If a proposal is submitted [and] if it is lacking in financial wherewithal that will be demonstrated by its rejection or its inability to close. “For some reason, some in the media are insistent on tasting the cake before it is fully baked, when the very process of opening the oven and taking a taste in itself will adversely impact its baking. “I know this is a difficult concept to recognize but it is the case in such deals. “In any event, good luck with your columns. “All the best “Marc.” . Mr Ganis gave his permission, unconditionally, for this email to be published. We publish it on its own merit, without comment, to allow fans to make up their own minds about a week of reports that led them to believe Huang and the Chinese state would save Liverpool from Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Mr Ganis did request that sportingintelligence “revisit the story on Kenny” from yesterday, “particularly the headline, and see whether attaching his name to the claim that was found by a federal court and unanimously by a jury to be sheer rubbish is appropriate. There is no confusion on the fact that the federal court and unanimous jury found for Kenny and against these scurrilous charges.” As sportingintelligence has made clear, Huang has prevailed in four cases (one appeal in motion against one win, according to his own lawyer, and other action pending say plaintiffs in other cases), and has one judgement against him. We will continue to look at these, in detail, and as soon as we are able (if we are able) to substantiate some suggestions made to us by Mr Ganis, who tells us he is considering his own legal action against certain parties in these cases; as and when he takes that action, we will be happy to report it. The embezzlement case remains a genuine puzzle and that headline was intended to reflect the puzzle that it was business colleagues of Kenny Huang himself who accused him, and those same business colleagues who ended up losers; and the ongoing puzzle is that he is still closely linked to one or more of those colleagues on his own websites. Our story yesterday prompted a response that can most generously be described as “passionate”. Sportingintelligence would like to make clear that we have tried to ascertain verifiable facts about Mr Huang and his bid direct from him, from Mr Ganis and from Mr Huang’s various representatives at Hill & Knowlton PR firm over the past eight days. We have had limited replies. We will be happy to publish detailed replies as we receive them, and provide evidence about who said what at trial, including publishing transcript screen-grabs where appropriate.

Look at the email sent to him. The author clearly identifies himself as a Liverpool fan. Using the Copyright analogy, the public exposure would not extend to oversea territories and therefore the information still confidential. That's the way I've always interpreted it.

There is no way the information contained in that email can be disclosed by a lawyer without the clients consent. That's the position in the UK anyway.

Irrelevant. Lawyers cannot reveal (or confirm) any details of their clients affairs (even that a person is infact their client) without express instructions from the client. Just seemed a quickfore response.

Quick respones from the lawyer. What about client confidentiality? Must have his client's instructions to respond.

Correct. Confirmed by Reuters here; http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1419171320091214 It's all bulls***. They've got nothing on him.

On that website, six in a week! Liverpool’s suitor Kenny Huang ‘doesn’t have the money’ to buy the club himself Kenny Huang denies any ‘formal bid’ for Liverpool; plot thickens amid rival claims REVEALED: Kenny Huang tells Liverpool his backers are C.I.C, worth $330bn; no proof of funds yet Kenny Huang: ‘No more updates until Liverpool choose to talk’ Kenny Huang drafts CIC denial statement as confusion surrounds Liverpool’s Chinese bid REVEALED: Liverpool bidder Kenny Huang in embezzlement puzzle as doubts remain over background

Nick Harris is still at it; REVEALED: Liverpool bidder Kenny Huang in embezzlement puzzle as doubts remain over background Kenny Huang, the Chinese businessman who hopes to lead a takeover of Liverpool financed by backers yet to made public, was sued in March last year in America over allegations that he embezzled $2.9m in a business deal. This is one of five legal actions against him in the USA, past or ongoing, that sportingintelligence has learned about to date, and details of each have been confirmed by his Miami lawyer. In the $2.9m case, it was alleged he was given the money by a Florida-based import company, AutoChina, to help pay for deals involving the exportation of vehicles from China. The case initially went against Huang when the judge made a “default motion” against him; this was because Huang did not respond to the writ against him. After a civil trial in Florida earlier this year, Huang won, with none of the claims against him proven. He was also awarded costs of more than $300,000. An AutoChina appeal is ongoing. In a twist today, sportingintelligence has discovered that Huang lied under oath about his background during the trial. He claimed to be the leader of an investment group that owned 15 per cent of the NBA basketball team, the Cleveland Cavaliers. He was asked directly: “You are the leader of an investment group that owns 15 percent of that basketball club?” He replied: “Correct”. As the NBA told the Financial Times last week: “Mr Huang has never had an ownership interest in the Cleveland Cavaliers or any other NBA team nor was he ever affiliated with an owner of an interest in an NBA team.” Huang also claimed, according to an official transcript of the trial, which is available for public scrutiny and has been obtained by sportingintelligence, that he was “sitting on the board of Bank of Communications, assets management, which is the fourth largest bank of China.” According to the Bank of Communications, he is not on the main board. A spokesman for Huang said: “He is on the board of one of the bank’s asset management funds, not the main board.” A number of other claims that Huang made in court about his background and business dealings have yet to be verified as true. Concerns over the authenticity of Huang’s current business credentials are heightened by the fact that one of the parties behind the allegations of embezzlement was David Herzig, who remains, with Huang, listed as a co-director in one of Huang’s firms, Aspen Infrastructure. But Huang’s lawyer, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, a partner in Duane Morris LLP, based in Miami, says that the business relationship between Huang and Herzig “has been over for a very long time, and it is purely through oversight of the parties to remove the website [from the internet] that it is still there.” Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff has told sportingintelligence that Huang has won three other cases against him; these were related to AutoChina and involved accusations of tortious inference with a business relationship, fraud, and defamation (and conspiracy to commit all three of those), and a breach of fiduciary duty. Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff insists Huang has “won” all those cases and says they are, effectively, finished for good. She concedes, however, that “a lawsuit stays on the books for ever and ever”, and sportingintelligence understands parties involved in those cases are pursuing, or are planning to pursue, further action. Kenny Huang has one judgement against him, Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff confirmed, relating to unpaid debt from the 1990s. The debt at the time of the judgement against him was $788,300 (and 54 cents), according to a legal document that states the debt would accrue interest at 10 per cent per year. Huang was resident in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the time of judgement (1998), and his appeal is ongoing. Sportingintelligence has put a series of questions to Huang’s PR representatives at Hill & Knowlton in their offices in London and Hong Kong relating to his background and business dealings. The majority have yet to be answered. Sportingintelligence has established that Huang is now a US citizen and US passport holder whose main residence is in New York, where he lives with his wife, Louise, and two children. He may or may not have a qualification from Columbia University, New York. He says he studied there. Checks show he never graduated. He has claimed he was the first person educated in mainland China to work on the New York Stock Exchange. No corroborative evidence has been produced. It remains possible that Huang does front a “credible” bidding team for Liverpool, although the most substantial business figure so far linked to that group has yet to confirm or deny his own involvement. That person is Dr Guang Yang of the hugely respected Templeton Equity Group. In statements to the Telegraph newspaper and to the Financial Times late last week, different spokespeople for Templeton denied the involvement of either Templeton or Yang in Huang’s group. Dorine Johnson, a spokeswoman for Templeton, reiterated to sportingintelligence today: “I’d like to confirm that we have no involvement with the Liverpool FC bid. I would refer you again to our statement: ‘Franklin Templeton has no involvement in the Liverpool FC bid and Guang Yang, EVP, Templeton Equity Group, has also stated that he has no involvement’.” Liverpool’s board wants proof of funding from bidding groups to be provided this week. The Independent reported on Saturday that Huang remained in talks at that time with Liverpool about a £400m – £450m package to safeguard the club’s future. This piece included “an acknowledgement that the consortium of investors he has gathered does not have the funds to relocate Liverpool immediately to a new stadium and that he cannot say when that vital move might happen.” http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/

Well to start off he is close friends with Foster Gillett. You can probably plot the rest from there.

It's moronic isn't it? You are offering circa £400 million, club is worth £600 million (see bid from Kirdi), let's split the difference and call it £500 million?

True.

Done deal? Otherwise timing of this is very odd.

Probably a bit self-serving but this gives an insight how Huang operates. If it goes through he will hopefully have some recipricol partnership arrangem,ents for us in China. China Won Title at the 28th Boys Nankyu World Championship ; A Breakthrough Performance in QSL and CBA's Year Long Partnership Mr. TIAN Yuan, a senior executive of Chinese Baseball Association, said, "QSL promised the target of delivering a baseball world championship to CYBL when negotiating the exclusive 15-year contract with us. But we never expected getting a world championship trophy within the first year of the privatization of CYBL. Mr. Huang, as the founder of QSL, is a man who can keep his promise and always delivered." http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/148420034

Did they? I know Forbes had us at £530 million in May.

Reports now emerging he is going to bid £400 million this week. So much misinformation being put out at the moment it is impossible to tell if this is true or who is putting them out.

Nice one Rafa. Keep having a dig at them till they are out the door. Rafael Benitez: After Liverpool experience it's nice to have an owner who understands football and loves the club "The chairman here is a very nice person and he has passion for his club. He understands the game. So that is totally different to the situation that we had in the last years at Liverpool." http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3276/serie-a/2010/08/05/2056684/inter-boss-rafael-benitez-after-liverpool-experience-its-nice-to-

Huang Reveals $332bn Trump Card An eventful 24hrs has seen a mixture of misdirection, dubious PR, mind games and claims from various parties involved in the takeover of Liverpool Football Club. Kenny Huang, the Chinese businessman linked with a takeover bid for Liverpool in recent days, started the morning as very much the front runner to gain control at Anfield. As many people sat this morning taking in breakfast or making their way to work, Syrian investor Yahya Kirdi made his move to claim pole position and steal some of the limelight with a series of claims and statements. The Canada-based former Syria international player represents an investment group of Middle Eastern and Canadian individuals creating a consortium, who state they are are in “advanced negotiations” with Liverpool’s current owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Kirdi is a long term friend of George Gillett’s son Foster and previously presented his interest to the club back in April of this year, alongside former Celtic player Andy Lynch but his efforts could not be finalised. Many quarters saw Kirdi’s bid as favourable to the American owners as his 100% direct purchase of the club could in theory force a bidding war, one that would allow Hicks & Gillett to potentially walk away with a higher profit margin as opposed to the believed more hostile takeover methods of Huang and his partners. Kirdi’s group laid claim they are close to finalising a purchase price, repayment of debt and financing for Liverpool’s planned new stadium in Stanley Park via a statement from their public relations company. “Yahya Kirdi, who represents a select group of investors from the Middle East and Canada, confirmed today that his group is in advanced negotiations with Thomas Hicks and George Gillett, co-owners of Liverpool Football Club, to purchase 100 per cent of the club. “Agreement has been reached on all major terms including the purchase price, repayment of the existing bank debt from RBS and Wells Fargo and financing of a new stadium in Liverpool’s Stanley Park. A formal purchase agreement between the parties is in the final stage of negotiation.” Mr Kirdi said: “Liverpool is a massive football club with passionate and proud fans in Merseyside and in every part of the world. With additional money to improve the squad and financing in place to build the new stadium, LFC will be on a solid foundation to compete in the Premiership and in Europe for years to come.” In a fresh twist to the takeover saga, just hours later Huang issued a statement via his people, seemingly to try and dilute some of the press attention that he was receiving and take somewhat of a backwards step in to the shadows for a moment as the PR machines of the so called leading bidders jostled for the upper hand. The statement reads: “In response to widespread media reports that Kenny Huang had made a formal bid for Liverpool Football Club, Mr. Huang would like to emphasise that he has registered interest in investing in Liverpool FC but has made no formal bid. “There has been much speculation and commentary from a wide array of people, many of whom have little knowledge of the facts. Unless there is a statement that specifically comes from Mr. Huang or his authorised representatives, which presently is solely Hill & Knowlton Hong Kong office, we would suggest such comments should be given little credence. Huang’s Hong Kong-based public relations advisers Hill and Knowlton announced: “In response to widespread media reports that Kenny Huang had made a formal bid for Liverpool Football Club, Mr. Huang would like to emphasise that he has registered interest in investing in Liverpool FC but has made no formal bid. “There has been much speculation and commentary from a wide array of people, many of whom have little knowledge of the facts. Unless there is a statement that specifically comes from Mr. Huang or his authorised representatives, which presently is solely Hill & Knowlton Hong Kong office, we would suggest such comments should be given little credence. “At this point in time there is nothing further for Mr. Huang to announce. If there comes a time where this changes, we will make the appropriate announcements.” Kirdi may have enjoyed a few hours of limelight this afternoon but tonight it is reported that Huang has placed a multi billion trump card on the table by confirming to the Liverpool board that his financial backing comes in the form of the China Investment Company (CIC). The CIC are presently China’s largest sovereign wealth fund with assets of circa $332bn (£208bn) but at present it is understood that no party has provided proof of funding to either Liverpool Football Club or in turn the Premier League. Should this be the case, further confirmation is expected in the next 24hrs on this element, and in turn funding proof is provided, Liverpool may find themselves with an opportunityimpossible to turn down. With CIC being in partnership with Huang, or as is expected, his skill sets are being used to front the package and conclude a deal then Liverpool would find themselves moving from crisis point to not just the wealthiest football club in the world but also in the history of sport. Aside from the financial aspect, which to some degree is unfathomable in many ways, Liverpool could find themselves via the connections of the bidder, as major force in Asia which is currently an untapped market in the world of football. Avenues may become available to Liverpool Football Club that to some degree could previously of only ever been dreamed off, as well as the opportunity to extend an already passionate, dedicated and global fan base to a whole new level. Liverpool’s board is presently believed to be considering “five or six” proposals for the takeover of the club. It is logical that this list, if it hasn’t already, is going to be cut down very quickly indeed to a couple of front runners, maybe no different to that of Huang and Kirdi as already expected. The road ahead, projected at lasting ideally around no more than another 10 days due to the pressures of the transfer window, will probably be littered with many more twists, turns and element of misdirection as each consortium look for victory. Kirdi has already made moves to dampen the CIC breaking news, which is only expected to escalate over the next 24hrs, with talk of more extensive development of a new Anfield than previously planned. As an attractive option as it could be in many ways to the local community and for a whole variety of reasons, it remains as this day closes that the reach of CIC has sent many an imagination into overdrive. http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfield/?p=19077

You can f*** right off with this Chairman Mao totalitarianism s*** right now. Too Many Bush speeches for Mr Syed methinks?