R B S

[Flight]

All the distaste towards Hicks and Gillett seems to be allowing RBS to lay low.

 

 

1. By now they will have taken well over £100mill out of our club for extending credit facilities (latest financial report is nearly a year out of date).

 

2. They seem to be running the club now, yet they are making huge sums of money out of us being in debt.

 

3. They've played us all like muppets and continue to do so. Another 12 months extension ?

 

 

Wachovia saw us as what we are - in danger of going under. They paid nearly £4mill to get out of the agreement to lend us any money. RBS are milking us dry and pushing us towards that. This has been underlined in our last two financial reports, the latest of which is nearly a year behind where we are now, which increasingly questions our ability as an ongoing concern. Most of our supporters seem to have their fingers in their ears, deluding themselves into thinking we are too big to go under. It is not nailed on, as many seem to think, that we will rise like a Phoenix back to being a competitive team.

 

 

Wayne made a great statement last week - Rafa is the only person at the club with any authority who has our ongoing ability to compete anywhere near the top of his agenda. Don't pin any hopes on Broughton because he will balance the books when he can't find a buyer and resign when Hicks demands are seen to be unreasonable. Purslow is a poisonous deceiver.

 

 

THE TWO PEOPLE RUNNING OUR CLUB HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN OUR ON FIELD ABILITY TO COMPETE. THEY ARE ONLY IJNTERESTED IN BALANCING THE BOOKS. THE BANK RUNNING OUR CLUB IS MILKING US DRY.

 

 

 

It is time to co-ordinate a response and a deadline for RBS, whether that be now, six months time or 12 months time is the only question. Call on all LFC supporters worldwide to not only boycott RBS and its subsidiaries, but to engage in a negative spin campaign against them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RBS and subsidiaries :

 

Royal Bank of Scotland

National Westminster Bank

Ulster Bank

Direct Line

Citizens Financial Group

ABN AMRO

Coutts & Co.

Adam and Company

Child & Co.

RBS Securities

[Hassony]

 

2. They seem to be running the club now, yet they are making huge sums of money out of us being in debt.

 

 

here is the main point for them, I never understood why Fyds and others claimed that RBS were trying to force a sale, when in fact it's better for them to keep collecting those interest payments

[_00_deathscar]

By the time they're done, RBS could well have made more money just on interest payments from us than what they actually bloody loaned us.

[Hassony]

By the time they're done, RBS could well have made more money just on interest payments from us than what they actually bloody loaned us.

 

just like any mortgage

[nrkintheuk]

just like any mortgage

 

Without paying down any capital - in fact just the opposite.

[Leo No.8]

RBS are scum, but surely its obvious if the club goes under (and as the recent books show in the medium term under current ownership it would) they would lose all the money they loaned us (or Hicks & Gillett) or at least a big chunk of it.

 

They've had as much as they can take without sending us under, so its clearly in their best interests to push a sale through now.

[Ed the Wool]

xcellent post Flight.

 

Let's co-ordinate a shut out of the banking team responsible for this for starters and the board. Just a few hundred of us sending e mails in protest per day for a couple of days will get them sweating and make business as usual extremely awkward.

 

Needs to be co-ordinated between sites.

 

I think there's also a potential for having them pay some of that back if we shame them into it. It's a f***ing disgrace the way they've been ripping us off. They won't see it like that, but it is what it amounts to. I forget the exact figure, RBS is 70% publicly owned. We actually do have a say in how they are run, if we shout loud enough.

 

I do think however we need to be absolutely clear on what we want from them,

-money back?

-a sale which gives H&G no profit?

-fan representation in the sale process?

 

There's three off the top of my head, there will be others. Needs to be thought out before we go blazing in.

[Chili Palmer]

You can't blame RBS for making as much money out of a client as possible, its the two f***wits that sign the agreements.

 

 

[Leo No.8]

I do think however we need to be absolutely clear on what we want from them,

-money back?

-a sale which gives H&G no profit?

-fan representation in the sale process?

 

There's three off the top of my head, there will be others. Needs to be thought out before we go blazing in.

 

None of these things are at all realistic though are they?

 

I'd rather Hicks & Gillett took their dirty profit and f*cked off in quick time, because the sooner they leave the sooner we can get things under control and go back to being a football club rather than a circus. I agree with Maddock's piece yesterday (even though I don't agree with much he writes) that we're best sitting tight for now.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Leo No.8

[Zoob]

Wachovia saw us as what we are - in danger of going under. They paid nearly £4mill to get out of the agreement to lend us any money.

 

Good post - just one thing though - as I understand it, we paid the near £4million (another £4m down the drain) to terminate our agreement with Wachovia

[Rory Fitzgerald]

Leo is right, RBS want out.

 

RBS entered into this deal as an independent entity during the boom times and signed up for an 18 month bridge loan. Since then its under government ownership and there is no sign of getting repaid.

 

Essentially, the risk on this deal has changed drastically at a time when RBS want to exit this loan and many other loans which no longer form part of its new core lending activities the group needs to shrink its loan book and this is just the type of loan that fits the exit-strategy perfectly.

 

Another thing to remember is, banks set aside capital for loans based on their risk profile. To compensate for this capital, it needs to charge a commensurate interest rate. Low risk (low capital requirement), low rate. High risk (larger capital requirements), high rate.

 

Given that the auditors have questioned the club as a going concern, RBS need to classify this loan as very high risk. This will consume a lot of capital and therefore requires a high interest rate. RBS would like nothing more than for this loan to be repaid so it can release this capital for other projects which are deemed core and have a more reasonable risk profile.

 

Its for this reason that the banks are forcing the sale through. It may seem perverse, but RBS are the biggest factor in getting Hicks and Gillett out. They are the guys that have the leverage to deem G&H bankrupt and affect their business profile more than any supporter can.

 

Furthermore, they are not a charity case, the rules governing risk and return are simple. The UK Treasury will be delighted with any money RBS can make because that means that RBS can replenish its capital base on its own with its own retained earnings - this saves the government from pumping in more money. Essentially, the banks then take the heat instead of the voernment.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Rory Fitzgerald

[Ed the Wool]

None of these things are at all realistic though are they?

 

I'd rather Hicks & Gillett took their dirty profit and f*cked off in quick time, because the sooner they leave the sooner we can get things under control and go back to being a football club rather than a circus. I agree with Maddock's piece yesterday (even though I don't agree with much he writes) that we're best sitting tight for now.

 

That's if you believe what Maddock was saying. What if Barrett's line is right, and this is all a ploy to get them another year, and us another 40-50m in debt?

I really want to believe that Broughton is the bank's man, and he's going to do the right thing. But if so, why not sell us for what the bank wants and screw the owners? It can get voted through by the board anyway. I don't think it's clear enough for us to back off.

 

As an aside, if we do get sold, I want SOS to keep the pressure up on the FA and the club to get the fans some kind of ownership and say in the running. This can't ever happen again, and it shouldn't be happening to any football club. The Germans have managed to protect the fans interests. We should continue to push for that too.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

That's if you believe what Maddock was saying. What if Barrett's line is right, and this is all a ploy to get them another year, and us another 40-50m in debt?

I really want to believe that Broughton is the bank's man, and he's going to do the right thing. But if so, why not sell us for what the bank wants and screw the owners? It can get voted through by the board anyway. I don't think it's clear enough for us to back off.

 

 

As an aside, if we do get sold, I want SOS to keep the pressure up on the FA and the club to get the fans some kind of ownership and say in the running. This can't ever happen again, and it shouldn't be happening to any football club. The Germans have managed to protect the fans interests. We should continue to push for that too.

 

Only shareholders can vote to sell the club. The board of directors do not control the shareholders. In fact, the shareholders elect the BoD. Remember when Hick Jnr blowed off and he was replaced by 3 others when they decided to enlarge the BoD, think Ian Ayre got on at that stage.

[Leo No.8]

That's if you believe what Maddock was saying. What if Barrett's line is right, and this is all a ploy to get them another year, and us another 40-50m in debt?

I really want to believe that Broughton is the bank's man, and he's going to do the right thing. But if so, why not sell us for what the bank wants and screw the owners? It can get voted through by the board anyway. I don't think it's clear enough for us to back off.

 

As an aside, if we do get sold, I want SOS to keep the pressure up on the FA and the club to get the fans some kind of ownership and say in the running. This can't ever happen again, and it shouldn't be happening to any football club. The Germans have managed to protect the fans interests. We should continue to push for that too.

 

But I don't see what Hicks and Gillett stand to gain by keeping us for another year and the club going another £40-50m in debt? Their asset would be further devalued.

 

Its very clear from the accounts the current model of ownership, income and outgoings isn't sustainable. Its in nobodies interests for the club to remain in the current owner's hands which is why I believe we'll be sold fairly soon. They won't be selling for the good of the club, but because they can still just about make a profit.

 

There aren't any mysteries lurking in the shadows here regardless of what lying scum Hicks and Gillett are; they have to sell or everyone loses.

 

Why keep hold of something you can't maintain and let it collapse when you can still sell it for a profit? Their greed over the price could be their own as well as our undoing, but hopefully Broughton and the banks can keep that in check. I believe we'll be sold by the end of this year at the latest.

 

People need to remember that although they are a pair of disgraceful con men, they aren't actually here to destroy us. I'm sure they don't care if they do, but they are looking to make money and at the end of the day the latest accounts show the longer they hold on now the less they make.

 

Everybody desperately needs a sale now, including Hicks and Gillett. The only ones making money are RBS but they want the risk off their books.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Leo No.8

[Siang]

Someone contact StanChart Wholesale Banking Division...

They might want to re-finance RBS entire loan portion since that they are now our sponsor!!!!

 

One bottle of wine too many, folks!!

[Ed the Wool]

But I don't see what Hicks and Gillett stand to gain by keeping us for another year and the club going another £40-50m in debt? Their asset would be further devalued.

 

Its very clear from the accounts the current model of ownership, income and outgoings isn't sustainable. Its in nobodies interests for the club to remain in the current owner's hands which is why I believe we'll be sold fairly soon. They won't be selling for the good of the club, but because they can still just about make a profit.

 

There aren't any mysteries lurking in the shadows here regardless of what lying scum Hicks and Gillett are; they have to sell or everyone loses.

 

Why keep hold of something you can't maintain and let it collapse when you can still sell it for a profit? Their greed over the price could be their own as well as our undoing, but hopefully Broughton and the banks can keep that in check. I believe we'll be sold by the end of this year at the latest.

 

People need to remember that although they are a pair of disgraceful con men, they aren't actually here to destroy us. I'm sure they don't care if they do, but they are looking to make money and at the end of the day the latest accounts show the longer they hold on now the less they make.

 

Everybody desperately needs a sale now, including Hicks and Gillett. The only ones making money are RBS but they want the risk off their books.

 

See Corinthians and Texas Rangers. Hicks is a gambler who keeps on going.

 

Only shareholders can vote to sell the club. The board of directors do not control the shareholders. In fact, the shareholders elect the BoD. Remember when Hick Jnr blowed off and he was replaced by 3 others when they decided to enlarge the BoD, think Ian Ayre got on at that stage.

 

Think you are right, my corporate law is rusty. But if that was totally the case, the banks don't have them by the balls at all. Hicks can keep knocking back offers. Unless RBS repossess, he can continue with piling more and more debt on in the hope some miracle Sheik will come in and pay it all off. Except he's been hoping for that for 3 years and it's not happening.

[Flasher]

Nobody wants to buy us. RBS are propping us up. The Lib Dems of the banking world if you like.

[jimbolala]

the only way to get rid of the clowns, is to stop giving them money i.e stop going to the games. if you turn up every week and give them a load of dosh they will stay longer. if a huge amount of people dont turn up, it will look as if people are serious about getting them out

[budgie]

All the distaste towards Hicks and Gillett seems to be allowing RBS to lay low.

 

 

1. By now they will have taken well over £100mill out of our club for extending credit facilities (latest financial report is nearly a year out of date).

 

2. They seem to be running the club now, yet they are making huge sums of money out of us being in debt.

 

3. They've played us all like muppets and continue to do so. Another 12 months extension ?

 

 

Wachovia saw us as what we are - in danger of going under. They paid nearly £4mill to get out of the agreement to lend us any money. RBS are milking us dry and pushing us towards that. This has been underlined in our last two financial reports, the latest of which is nearly a year behind where we are now, which increasingly questions our ability as an ongoing concern. Most of our supporters seem to have their fingers in their ears, deluding themselves into thinking we are too big to go under. It is not nailed on, as many seem to think, that we will rise like a Phoenix back to being a competitive team.

 

 

Wayne made a great statement last week - Rafa is the only person at the club with any authority who has our ongoing ability to compete anywhere near the top of his agenda. Don't pin any hopes on Broughton because he will balance the books when he can't find a buyer and resign when Hicks demands are seen to be unreasonable. Purslow is a poisonous deceiver.

 

 

THE TWO PEOPLE RUNNING OUR CLUB HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN OUR ON FIELD ABILITY TO COMPETE. THEY ARE ONLY IJNTERESTED IN BALANCING THE BOOKS. THE BANK RUNNING OUR CLUB IS MILKING US DRY.

 

 

 

It is time to co-ordinate a response and a deadline for RBS, whether that be now, six months time or 12 months time is the only question. Call on all LFC supporters worldwide to not only boycott RBS and its subsidiaries, but to engage in a negative spin campaign against them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RBS and subsidiaries :

 

Royal Bank of Scotland

National Westminster Bank

Ulster Bank

Direct Line

Citizens Financial Group

ABN AMRO

Coutts & Co.

Adam and Company

Child & Co.

RBS Securities

 

 

How exactly do you expect RBS to have acted? They are in the business of making money from lending to others. They are just doing what they do. It's the two muppets that can't afford us.

[fyds]

But I don't see what Hicks and Gillett stand to gain by keeping us for another year and the club going another £40-50m in debt? Their asset would be further devalued.

 

Its very clear from the accounts the current model of ownership, income and outgoings isn't sustainable. Its in nobodies interests for the club to remain in the current owner's hands which is why I believe we'll be sold fairly soon. They won't be selling for the good of the club, but because they can still just about make a profit.

 

There aren't any mysteries lurking in the shadows here regardless of what lying scum Hicks and Gillett are; they have to sell or everyone loses.

 

Why keep hold of something you can't maintain and let it collapse when you can still sell it for a profit? Their greed over the price could be their own as well as our undoing, but hopefully Broughton and the banks can keep that in check. I believe we'll be sold by the end of this year at the latest.

 

People need to remember that although they are a pair of disgraceful con men, they aren't actually here to destroy us. I'm sure they don't care if they do, but they are looking to make money and at the end of the day the latest accounts show the longer they hold on now the less they make.

 

Everybody desperately needs a sale now, including Hicks and Gillett. The only ones making money are RBS but they want the risk off their books.

 

Is the right answer. Hicks and Gillett are selling because they have to, 1 because Hicks is in meltdown in the US and needs cash, 2 because RBS are forcing their hands. RBS want the sale for all the reasons Rory and Leo have said and hope to come out of it in the position of doing more 'basic' less risky long-term business with the club and its by then new owners.

[JonShar]

Not sure why anyone is blaming RBS - they're a bank, their objective is to make money.

[Flight]

I don't blame RBS for making money. I'm saying it's time to stand up against them and make them pay a price if they continue to use us.

 

 

Is the right answer. Hicks and Gillett are selling because they have to, 1 because Hicks is in meltdown in the US and needs cash, 2 because RBS are forcing their hands. RBS want the sale for all the reasons Rory and Leo have said and hope to come out of it in the position of doing more 'basic' less risky long-term business with the club and its by then new owners.

 

 

 

It's all very well constantly espousing your opinions as facts, but if Hicks doesn't get a price he wants he isn't going to sell. If that happens RBS will continue to bleed us.

 

Here are some facts for you, instead of your opinions dressed up as facts. Day by day we are being bled for well over £100k a pop. The money the club owe to G&Hs Cayman business has grown from £60mill to £140mill, while you have constantly presented Hicks as having no options.

 

 

I'm looking ahead to 12 months time and saying we need to be ready to force RBS to pull the rug on refinancing and forcing a sale if it isn't dusted by then. They are forcing f*** all while they continue to refinance, no matter what you say.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't blame the banks for making money. The real liability here is G&H and, equally, us the fans for allowing our club to be raped. And SoS for thinking they are achieving anything at all by being constantly negated by poorly thought out meetings with club officials.

[Chili Palmer]

I don't blame RBS for making money. I'm saying it's time to stand up against them and make them pay a price if they continue to use us.

 

 

If you don't blame them for making money why do you want them to pay a price for continuing to do so?

 

I appreciate the feelings but no one should divert their focus from the Yanks and board. They have got us in this mess and they are the ones that need to 'pay a price'

[budgie]

I don't blame RBS for making money. I'm saying it's time to stand up against them and make them pay a price if they continue to use us.

 

 

If you don't blame RBS why are you suggesting a boycott of them?

[Molby]

If you don't blame RBS why are you suggesting a boycott of them?

 

 

to get the job done

 

they hold the cards so it's not unreasonable to consider a way of getting at them if it serves the cause

 

remember, unlike G and H they care about reputational risk - ironically, that's why they will allow Gerrard and Torres to be sold, because they would rather allow that than get embroiled in being seen to effect club decisions day-to-day or get in to the political b******s that would ensue