Dipper Takeover? [Merged]

[fbloke]

Surely Woy would stay as Woy?
If he introduced himself with his sad old lady face and said "Hewow I Woy" in that weird cockney speech impediment they all seem to possess in Eastenders.
They'll just assume there is no R to mispronounce!

He could get fired for appaelently taking the piss ;-)

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

So you take a loan out and use your fund as callaterol on the loan?

Basically - the fund and all the assets which make up such (equities. bonds etc)

So a loan will be used to buy a loan and then another loan will provide the cash. But obviously as its a chinese wealth fund its a safe as it could possibly be

Yet he dealing with RBS and i would thought that break the rules. Hicks and Gillett would surely not be stupid enough to not have a something written in the agreement that no deal is done without there consent

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

I have a different take on this.

Its quite possible that Huang can bid RBS for the loan. RBS will be at liberty to move that loan on to another party without Liverpool's consent. Huang is also likely to be offering a discount to its face value, arguing that certainty now for RBS is preferential to a) the politics of a government backed bank being involved in a high profile debt exposure; and b) any write off of part of the loan that would come if Liverpool have another poor season. So on the face of it, Huang could buy the debt and could do a deal quickly. I don't see the litigation risk as described by PB (why do you think that, PB?)

At that point, Huang would hold Liverpool to all the covenants (ie conditions) of the loan. Once breached, Huang calls for full repayment and Hicks and Gillet have a choice. Pay up or let Huang take control.

Given the publicised difference in valuations, there is no way a conventional deal can be done here. These moves, if genuine, are very aggressive by Huang and it all smacks of a financial rather than an altruistic deal. It would be bad news for Hicks and Gillett but not necessarily good news for Liverpool fans.

As for a Syrian bidder, that has all the hallmarks of a typical football timewaster.

I agree with Tolmie in that taking over Liverpool at this point is a very high risk deal given the expenditure required but stranger things have happened close to home...

Interesting ...... sounds like a typical scouse bailiff!!

 

[slbsn]

Basically - the fund and all the assets which make up such (equities. bonds etc)

So a loan will be used to buy a loan and then another loan will provide the cash. But obviously as its a chinese wealth fund its a safe as it could possibly be

Yet he dealing with RBS and i would thought that break the rules. Hicks and Gillett would surely not be stupid enough to not have a something written in the agreement that no deal is done without there consent

Hicks and Gillett are borrowers - the balance of power isn't with the borrower. Loan books are traded from time to time in lots of scenarios be it mortgages or corporate debt.

As for the analysis of SWF. There is one Chinese SWF, it is absolutely enormous and full of genuine wealth, cash, hard assets. They will not, however, be involved in a deal like this. Not a chance.

If Huang buys the debt, he will hand over cash to RBS. How he gets the cash will be his business.

 

[Matty]

Basically - the fund and all the assets which make up such (equities. bonds etc)

So a loan will be used to buy a loan and then another loan will provide the cash. But obviously as its a chinese wealth fund its a safe as it could possibly be

Yet he dealing with RBS and i would thought that break the rules. Hicks and Gillett would surely not be stupid enough to not have a something written in the agreement that no deal is done without there consent

I'd have thought the loan, and therefore the debt, was held by RBS and therefore it is their call what they do with it. If they wanted to sell that debt on to a third party then Hicks and Gillett, and LFC, would have absolutely no say in the matter. If the new debt holder stuck more stringently to the rules agreed to and signed up to by LFC with regards to repayment of the loan etc then that would be within their rights as as well. LFC could well find themselves in the situation where the debt is called in by Huang (something RBS would have been highly unlikely to do) and have to settle it or, if they can't/won't then, hand over ownership (kind of like happened at Portsmouth). Huang buying up the debt wouldn't work out well for Hicks/Gillett and may, or may not, work out for Liverpool.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Now I'm no finance expert but if I had a mortgage with Nationwide I don't see how they could simply say the next day sorry your mortgage is no longer with us it's with Barclays without my permission.

You choose who you take a loan out with and I would have thought that no one could arbitrarily and without my permission move that to another company.

Someone please explain how and why this could happen in Liverpools case ?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Chinese takeaway...

If there was something concrete in it, do you seriously think it would be conducted out in the press?

The fact that continued links about takeovers are, should tell anyone what they need to know.

The status quo remains. There is no serious bidder, the drip of tenuous interest is all just a crap attempt to force the Americans to sell at a low price.

RBS will NEVER EVER call that loan on its book in. They can't.

Hence, Hicks and Gillet have them over a barrel.

The same reasons RBS were forced to refinance again. Wachovia didn't want a non-American debt on their books. RBS had to cough for the lot or lose half a
million depositers and threats to every branch.

TH - can you explain why they can´t call loan in ? - is it to do with not being within their remit (as they seem to be de facto administrators) or to do with the terms of the loan contract
I agree I can´t see H&G walking away with only the debts cleared - they want big bucks on their investment , then there´s the stadium on top - bollox imo

I will clarify, of course they could. But they WON'T AND WILL NOT.

This is a decision that was made 12 months ago, around this time last summer.

Refinancing was again on the agenda. The fly in the ointment was that Wells Fargo had sold their loan on to Wachovia a few months previously.

About £80m.

The meltdown was in full swing and Wachovia were very reluctant to refinance their part of the debt.

They would have perhaps looked on more kindly if it had been an American sporting concern.

Wachovia had started to pull all monies back home. RBS had a hell of a decision to make.

It's no exaggeration to say that Liverpool were on the edge last July.

RBS had touted the remainder of about £200m loan elsewhere, but with no interest.

RBS had wanted to reign in their sports sponsorship across the board. Liverpool has been a constant thorn in their side.

A decision was eventually made for RBS to cover the entire total debt.

Their stance is they are caught between a rock and hard place. The financial and worrying fallout from calling in on a club with the standing of Liverpool FC.

The Americans have actually got their borrowing down over last 12 months.

A majority stake in the Canadien Montreal ice hockey team was sold to reduce Gillett's personal liabilities for his portion of the debt.

All this means that RBS have to sit tight until Hicks and Gillett decide to set the agenda - nobody else can do it for them.

I just happen to know somebody who was directly involved.

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Basically - the fund and all the assets which make up such (equities. bonds etc)

So a loan will be used to buy a loan and then another loan will provide the cash. But obviously as its a chinese wealth fund its a safe as it could possibly be

Yet he dealing with RBS and i would thought that break the rules. Hicks and Gillett would surely not be stupid enough to not have a something written in the agreement that no deal is done without there consent

This is what I asked TH or anyone else to clarify - I´m not totally au fait with the intricacies as I´m just an English teacher on trading floors of major banks

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I don't see the litigation risk as described by PB (why do you think that, PB?)

I'm not 100% au fait with the financial arrangements at Liverpool and how the debt is structured but Hicks & Gillett reckon the club is worth £600m (which I think would give them a small profit).

If this deal is as I understand it to be, then Huang is offering something like £350m to RBS (who are owed £270m). Under the terms of the covenant attached to that loan, RBS can over-ride the board and force them to accept this offer but that would leave H & G nursing a massive loss of damn near everything they put in, assuming most of that would go to RBS to clear their debt.

In that case, H&G might well take legal action against RBS to cover their losses as they would argue that they (i.e. RBS) had been negligent in not getting an acceptable price. It's a common class action in the US but usually by shareholders against the board.

I know that certain shareholders were watching City's takeover by Thaksin carefully to ensure that Wardle didn't accept an offer that benefitted him (as a loan creditor) at the expense of the other shareholders. In the end I believe he was the one who lost out as Thaksin only paid him a proportion of what his loans were worth (50-75%) for the assignation but took the whole £20m from ADUG 12 months later.

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Re: Chinese takeaway...

TH - can you explain why they can´t call loan in ? - is it to do with not being within their remit (as they seem to be de facto administrators) or to do with the terms of the loan contract
I agree I can´t see H&G walking away with only the debts cleared - they want big bucks on their investment , then there´s the stadium on top - bollox imo

I will clarify, of course they could. But they WON'T AND WILL NOT.

This is a decision that was made 12 months ago, around this time last summer.

Refinancing was again on the agenda. The fly in the ointment was that Wells Fargo had sold their loan on to Wachovia a few months previously.

About £80m.

The meltdown was in full swing and Wachovia were very reluctant to refinance their part of the debt.

They would have perhaps looked on more kindly if it had been an American sporting concern.

Wachovia had started to pull all monies back home. RBS had a hell of a decision to make.

It's no exaggeration to say that Liverpool were on the edge last July.

RBS had touted the remainder of about £200m loan elsewhere, but with no interest.

RBS had wanted to reign in their sports sponsorship across the board. Liverpool has been a constant thorn in their side.

A decision was eventually made for RBS to cover the entire total debt.

Their stance is they are caught between a rock and hard place. The financial and worrying fallout from calling in on a club with the standing of Liverpool FC.

The Americans have actually got their borrowing down over last 12 months.

A majority stake in the Canadien Montreal ice hockey team was sold to reduce Gillett's personal liabilities for his portion of the debt.

All this means that RBS have to sit tight until Hicks and Gillett decide to set the agenda - nobody else can do it for them.

I just happen to know somebody who was directly involved.

Cheers - what about project drivers theory - possible?