Dipper Takeover? [Merged]

[slbsn]

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.

I don't read this situation like that at all. Its also very different from the Thaksin situation as the issues their were as much about public company takeover rules as company law. RBS will also have no duty of care to H&G so there can be no negligence claim.

First there is no way RBS will have a say for anything more than they are owed (inc interest). Unless they go through the process of calling in the loan as a bank would in a domestic mortgage situation they can't just sell the asset - they are a debt provider not the equity (share) holder.

This offer will be to take RBS out of the equation. Huang will then be in their seat without the political issues RBS face. That's when H&G's issues commence. Even worse for H&G is that whilst RBS would be free to move the debt to a third party without consent, there is no way H&G could do a deal without the consent of the senior debt provider (RBS). It is 100% certain there is a change of control provision giving RBS rights to repayment or, if they prefer, to consent to the new owners. That sort of deal would not happen quickly.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Chinese takeaway...

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?

It's more than a theory!

RBS would snap anybody's hand off tomorrow, who basically wanted to give them their money back.

There has been nobody. Everyone who has come forward have been bullshitters.

The closest they came was DIC. There was a kuwaiti, also, but it was highly leveraged.

If this Kenny chap is being named in the press, it is only for one reason - to try and kickstart a campaign and ramp up pressure.

Which is why I believe it is not just a straight-forward takeover proposal.

Instead of just Hicks and Gillett, Liverpool would simply have a new debtor/stakeholder.

You are hardly in a postion of strength trying to buyout two guys, by making a hostile purchase of their portion of the debt.

The Americans have substantial equity of their own in LFC, and aren't about to do anyone any favours by turning tail.

If the money was out there, I will say again, United are a money making machine...

But the Glazersalready know that, don't they!

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

So if most of it is bullshit why is everyone excited in the press, and i mean everyone

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

So if most of it is bullshit why is everyone excited in the press, and i mean everyone

Because it's a big story.

No one is saying it's bullshit. There is a clear scenario for RBS to simply sell the loan on, but that's all it is.

What I am saying is this is leaked for a reason, seemingly to sell the idea and create even more pressure on the Americans.

Franny Lee did the same with Swales. He didn't have the money, either!

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Re: Chinese takeaway...

Cheers - what about project drivers theory - possible?

It's more than a theory!

RBS would snap anybody's hand off tomorrow, who basically wanted to give them their money back.

There has been nobody. Everyone who has come forward have been bullshitters.

The closest they came was DIC. There was a kuwaiti, also, but it was highly leveraged.

If this Kenny chap is being named in the press, it is only for one reason - to try and kickstart a campaign and ramp up pressure.

Which is why I believe it is not just a straight-forward takeover proposal.

Instead of just Hicks and Gillett, Liverpool would simply have a new debtor/stakeholder.

You are hardly in a postion of strength trying to buyout two guys, by making a hostile purchase of their portion of the debt.

The Americans have substantial equity of their own in LFC, and aren't about to do anyone any favours by turning tail.

If the money was out there, I will say again, United are a money making machine...

But the Glazersalready know that, don't they!

You mentioned the perfect storm would this not be the quintessential hurricane? Could drag on and on with a devastating impact on the brand
As for the Glazers a good bet maybe but when will their market value recover and how much would the brand suffer meantime if hopefully we had 10 years of unbridled success and they slipped out of C.L. places? All conjecture of course

 

[AntonDonJuan]

projectrivers is a great poster

 

[fbloke]

Re: Chinese takeaway...

Cheers - what about project drivers theory - possible?

It's more than a theory!

RBS would snap anybody's hand off tomorrow, who basically wanted to give them their money back.

There has been nobody. Everyone who has come forward have been bullshitters.

The closest they came was DIC. There was a kuwaiti, also, but it was highly leveraged.

If this Kenny chap is being named in the press, it is only for one reason - to try and kickstart a campaign and ramp up pressure.

Which is why I believe it is not just a straight-forward takeover proposal.

Instead of just Hicks and Gillett, Liverpool would simply have a new debtor/stakeholder.

You are hardly in a postion of strength trying to buyout two guys, by making a hostile purchase of their portion of the debt.

The Americans have substantial equity of their own in LFC, and aren't about to do anyone any favours by turning tail.

If the money was out there, I will say again, United are a money making machine...

But the Glazersalready know that, don't they!

Its hugely significant that they suggest he is backed by an unnamed SWF - that sounds very strange to me.

City were (as S04 will no doubt testify to) an arms length private purchase not one from the UAE SWF.

So he is either a speculator with other peoples money or a leveraged purchaser.

Either way it aint what we got at City.

 

[inbetween]

Whoever would take over Liverpool now would have to be mad, debt liabilities to clear, stadium guarantees to live up to and then actually remaining competitive in the meantime with the financial fair play monitoring coming soon, makes no financial/business sense whatsoever.

 

[fbloke]

Whoever would take over Liverpool now would have to be mad, debt liabilities to clear, stadium guarantees to live up to and then actually remaining competitive in the meantime with the financial fair play monitoring coming soon, makes no financial/business sense whatsoever.

Someone agrees with you....

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.lfcreds.com/reds/index.php?topic=32072.new#new" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.lfcreds.com/reds/index.php?t ... 72.new#new</a>

 

[Bluemoon115]

They're ruining football.