Goerge Gillett's Takeover Bid

[Bromage]

Liverpool FC co-owner George Gillett's Montreal Canadiens in takeover bid

 

Source: Liverpool Daily Post

[Mike]

this is weird

[Swipe]

Won't have any affect on us though?

[carrafan]

Won't have any affect on us though?

 

Could possibly help him get extensions on his loan at RBS?

[muleskinner]

I'm confused.

[Zoob]

this is weird

 

I concur.

 

Not sure what GW has done to deserve such passive aggressive treatment

[Swipe]

Could possibly help him get extensions on his loan at RBS?

 

They'll get the extension. It's a cert.

 

They aren't going anywhere.

[Mike]

im sorry, im a gw man. bromage, please stop, youre creating an issue where none existed.

[9emfire]

yeah its all confusing...maybe if u want...set one youtube vault...snippets let GW handle 'em

[Rich Gobey]

yeah its all confusing...maybe if u want...set one youtube vault...snippets let GW handle 'em

 

Thanks for helping to clear up some of the confusion.

[New York Red]

It won't stop there though this deal sort of surprises me.

 

Hicks will sell the Stars and the Rangers too.

 

If there is an RBS accomodation for them, it will be a temporary bridge.

 

They will NOT be owning us this time next year.

[Mr Makaveli]

It won't stop there though this deal sort of surprises me.

 

Hicks will sell the Stars and the Rangers too.

 

If there is an RBS accomodation for them, it will be a temporary bridge.

 

They will NOT be owning us this time next year.

 

if they sell all their other assets then I certainly do see them owning us next year, or at least being in the financial position to sell us at a profit. They can use the money from the other clubs to get betetr terms on this current loan (that will stop eating them alive) then they will also probably b able to use the millions and millions as equity finance a stadium loan. this would put them in ciomplete control of a club that would then be ultra profitable in 3-4 years time.

 

they could of course then sell the club on that alright, long before the stadium is built.

[fyds]

if they sell all their other assets then I certainly do see them owning us next year, or at least being in the financial position to sell us at a profit. They can use the money from the other clubs to get betetr terms on this current loan (that will stop eating them alive) then they will also probably b able to use the millions and millions as equity finance a stadium loan. this would put them in ciomplete control of a club that would then be ultra profitable in 3-4 years time.

 

they could of course then sell the club on that alright, long before the stadium is built.

The only problems with this line of thinking are the unknowable implications of the money they already owe elsewhere - such as Hicks $525m in the states he has already defaulted on and the $75m Gillett is due tp pay back for loans on the Bell Center. The money (depending I suppose as well on how and when it's paid) should sales of the Canadiens, Stars and Rangers go through is largely accounted for and they will again be in the position of robbing Peter to pay Paul if -as I suspect you're right - they try to use a sizable chunk of it to offset refinancing of us, if they have it in time.

 

I reckon if they complete these sales the money gained or a part of it will buy them some time - how much is another question but NYR may be right - it may only see them to their next deadline when they have nothing more to sell.

[Chewie]

I'm lost in all of this... but what I don't get is why these two guys are prepared to sell all of their other assets in a bid to protect their investment in us? Especially if it is all short term financing and the likelihood is that they are supposedly staving off the inevitable...

 

it doesn't make sense to me unless they (a) actually really want to own us or (b) they don't want to be forced sellers

 

but these guys are American, they know the American market, they probably have more affinity (at least George does) for the clubs they own over there... yet they're prepared to bet it all on a game they don't understand in a league they know very little about in which there are no salary caps, draft picks etc (i.e. all the sorts of stuff that seems to ensure that major sports franchises in the US are secure)...

 

can anybody out there explain what is happening and why?

 

Chewie

[Lark]

i would hazard a guess that they 'bought' their american businesses for bare minimum outlay and probably the debt used to buy those businesses has been near enough repaid. In their eyes there probably isn't much milk left in the cow - in terms of sponsorship, stadium builds, tv deals, ticket prices, merchandise and so on and so for one last hurrah, they can sell off these businesses which will cover whatever remaining debts they may owe and leave them with a fairly decent profit.

 

Whereas over here, anfield is like a newley aquired run down property but with massive potential, with the knowledge if they do it up, be it a new stadium or just marketing and merchandise(at a bare minimum outlay of cost of course) they can either reap the rewards of increased income which will, they hope, pay off their own debts, eventually leaving them with a property which they can sell for a big fat profit.

 

And then the locusts will move on to some other venture.

[Whitey]

Gillette has got people looking at all of his sporting assets - The Canadiens (I live in Canada) are not just a business, they're a religion, and he's handled them pretty well over here, and really improved their business (sadly not so much on the playing side).

The Molson family I think owned the team in the past and still own 20%, so looks like they're wanting to take back the team, in case Gillette does go into selling mode. I'd actually be surprised if he does sell having seen him a few times, as he loves them.

And not quite sure what if any effect this has on us.

[fyds]

i would hazard a guess that they 'bought' their american businesses for bare minimum outlay and probably the debt used to buy those businesses has been near enough repaid. In their eyes there probably isn't much milk left in the cow - in terms of sponsorship, stadium builds, tv deals, ticket prices, merchandise and so on and so for one last hurrah, they can sell off these businesses which will cover whatever remaining debts they may owe and leave them with a fairly decent profit.

 

Whereas over here, anfield is like a newley aquired run down property but with massive potential, with the knowledge if they do it up, be it a new stadium or just marketing and merchandise(at a bare minimum outlay of cost of course) they can either reap the rewards of increased income which will, they hope, pay off their own debts, eventually leaving them with a property which they can sell for a big fat profit.

 

And then the locusts will move on to some other venture.

Looking around the web their american businesses were bought in the same way we were - highly leveraged buy-outs in better times - which is why they already owe so much over there.

 

They are being forced to sell other businesses precisely because they are in hock up to their ears - it's why Kop holdings etc were not part of HSG to begin with - an attempt to keep the funding seperate should the worst happen in a bear market - this is more like an elephant market though - with huge f*ck off tusks.

 

Some one better qualified than me can tell you how their individual and collective 'worth' has gone into freefall over the last 18 months - their worth largely being in shares as percentage ownership of something or in LBO'd buy-outs - the value of which has diminsished while their cash debt has increased - i.e., what they owe to the banks and other creditors.

 

I don't know what the rules are in relation to how much of what they manage to make on selling their assets (after the initial debt is covered or some arrangement entered into) will be left, and what other cqlls will be made on it. For example though, Hicks if he sells the Rangers is looking to 'make' around £400m - how much of that is left when the once his rangers debts are settled I don''t know - but he laready owes and has defaulted on loans of $525m and the banks he's done with this, contrary to his hopes have not renegotiated with him and want payment. How much would he have left to 'invest' on us (bearing in mind RBS want capital up front (in January it was said they would want £75m from each in cash, no credit notes or assets) just to refinance the existing loan and then at 10% above the going rate according to most media sources? A stadium? Forget it - but no stadium and their business plan is buggered.

 

They are selling their US assets (we are bigger than any of those) because primarily, they are being squeezed on all sides. Whether in the short term this may help them hang on to us is another question - I don't know. But what about when the next refinance comes around - what will they have left to sell? They don't have the cash to realise our potential and never have had - and now the means of acquiring the cheap loans they hoped to lever a stadium from have dried up.

 

Unless the economy picks up and loosens up massively in the next year at most, I don't see how this can be much more than a holding tactic in order at some point to get a better price - I could be wrong, but it's hard to see what else they can do.

[fyds]

Gillette has got people looking at all of his sporting assets - The Canadiens (I live in Canada) are not just a business, they're a religion, and he's handled them pretty well over here, and really improved their business (sadly not so much on the playing side).

The Molson family I think owned the team in the past and still own 20%, so looks like they're wanting to take back the team, in case Gillette does go into selling mode. I'd actually be surprised if he does sell having seen him a few times, as he loves them.

And not quite sure what if any effect this has on us.

That's the odd thing - he has been and is seen by most Canadiens fans as a good and responsible owner - despite the debt and mixed onfield performance. I'd also agree from all I've read over the last couple of years he would only sell because he had to.

 

Hicks has another problem in the size of his debt, but also that most of his major assets reside in his home state and 'powerbase' of Texas where he wines and dines the bushes and other Republican dignitaries and business types - can he afford to undermine all that without political and social consequences? Does he have a choice?

 

As ever, there are currently more obvous questions than obvious answers.

[Lark]

fyds there was an article out the other day saying that gg, for selling the canadian thing he owns, when debts are paid off will leave him with 200million.

 

200million quid gives him all kids of leeway with the banks on any kind of remaining debts he has with any of his other ventures.

 

i'm sure gg would have loved to have kept the hockey team (the prestiege of it all but more importantly the prestiege with the bank manager) but if he's reaped what he can from that venture and there is more money to potentially be earned in keeping lfc then that will be the next move.

 

and of course, if anyone offered them a sizable profit on their investment in buying lfc, beyond what they envisage they could earn from owning us, they'd probably sell up asap too.

[fyds]

fyds there was an article out the other day saying that gg, for selling the canadian thing he owns, when debts are paid off will leave him with 200million.

 

200million quid gives him all kids of leeway with the banks on any kind of remaining debts he has with any of his other ventures.

 

i'm sure gg would have loved to have kept the hockey team (the prestiege of it all but more importantly the prestiege with the bank manager) but if he's reaped what he can from that venture and there is more money to potentially be earned in keeping lfc then that will be the next move.

 

and of course, if anyone offered them a sizable profit on their investment in buying lfc, beyond what they envisage they could earn from owning us, they'd probably sell up asap too.

That's $200m Canadian (Toronto Star) (not quid) of which $75m we know is owed already on the Bell Center itself (seperate from the Canadiens buy out) so we're already down to $125m if he gets the high price he wants and if he has no other debts that need sorting - which he does, including his motor racing team which is supposedly in hock for $45m with one of his partners and several sponsors (including unsurprisingly, GM) having pulled out. Add to that (if it still holds) that the banks (RBS/Wachovia) want's much as £75m (that is quid) as collateral on the refinancing from each of them and pop - it's all gone and more besides. Of course that's just one interpretation of known facts and the guy might have room for a bit of creative accountancy 0 but selling the Canadiens certainly doesn't end his problems.

 

Still - he's in less deep sh*t than the other feller. I do agree though that with us - the moment they can get a profit they can live with or think tis as good as they're likely to get as things are, they'll be off.

Edited June 14, 2009 by fyds

[Mr Makaveli]

I'm lost in all of this... but what I don't get is why these two guys are prepared to sell all of their other assets in a bid to protect their investment in us? Especially if it is all short term financing and the likelihood is that they are supposedly staving off the inevitable...

 

it doesn't make sense to me unless they (a) actually really want to own us or (b) they don't want to be forced sellers

 

but these guys are American, they know the American market, they probably have more affinity (at least George does) for the clubs they own over there... yet they're prepared to bet it all on a game they don't understand in a league they know very little about in which there are no salary caps, draft picks etc (i.e. all the sorts of stuff that seems to ensure that major sports franchises in the US are secure)...

 

can anybody out there explain what is happening and why?

 

Chewie

 

I would say they do not want to be forced to sell Liverpool. If they are forced to sell then they will get a lot less for it. If they can afford to get working on the stadium and somehow get the debt at least under control, then they are in control and any suiots will have to pay the money to take the club off them if they do'decide' to sell.

[fyds]

I would say they do not want to be forced to sell Liverpool. If they are forced to sell then they will get a lot less for it. If they can afford to get working on the stadium and somehow get the debt at least under control, then they are in control and any suiots will have to pay the money to take the club off them if they do'decide' to sell.

I think that sums it up well - if they have to sell us, which at some point down the line would appear to any reasonable estimate a racing certainty as they don't have the naked cash or access to the huge credit facilities required to carry their plans forward, then they would rather it be at least to some extent on their terms. This is all the more so as LFC is worth more than any of their other sporting assets by some way. The question remains whether they can even manage to do this - especially Hicks who doesn't seem able to sell or raise cash in any form at the moment.

Edited June 15, 2009 by fyds

[Billy Dane]

If they can get the stadium built and the clubs can negotiate their own TV rights they will make a fortune, whether they decide to sell us or not. "Soccer" gives them the kind of global opportunities that Hockey and American football doesn't.

[Gomez]

If they can get the stadium built and the clubs can negotiate their own TV rights they will make a fortune, whether they decide to sell us or not. "Soccer" gives them the kind of global opportunities that Hockey and American football doesn't.

 

Neither of those things look like happening soon though do they?

[Billy Dane]

Neither of those things look like happening soon though do they?

 

No but I think it helps explain why they are looking to sell other assets and refinance our loans etc.