Makes perfect sense now that
They tried to copyright "Liverpool" If the deal is linked to sales
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Makes perfect sense now that
They tried to copyright "Liverpool" If the deal is linked to sales
So what you're saying is it's completely fine that a bank that two years previously had been bailed out by myself and every other Blue Moon taxpayer to the tune of £45.5bn can lend two US citizens £350 million - two years later - in the hope they'd get it back? What a load of bollocks. I'll be honest with you, I was struggling to pay my mortgage in those years and couldn't find someone to lend me the difference - and in real terms I was more credit worthy than Hicks & Gillette. Red tinted glasses again, you should have entered administration and had the 10 points deduction. Another Cult airbrushed from history revelation.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog
A bailout is when a company, football club in this case borrows money as can no longer finance itself, exactly the position liverpool found themselves in with Hicks and Gillette, the money is borrowed to them on condition they sold the club within six months, why you think this was not a bailout is beyond me as the club needed the money or to be sold ASAP to carry on operating as they were only able to service the debt they were in, A BAILOUT.
Also due to the ongoing issues worldwide financial situation at the time, many people though that a government owned bank had better things to lend public money to then a football club bought by two chancers who were then supported by public money.
As above link states, without being sold liverpool would more than likely of entered administration that very week, the money your current owners paid was only to clear The RBS debt and they pretty much bought liverpool for free other than the debt repayment, even though at the time there was legal argument over two other bids which were greater than the Fenwick bid, but due to liverpool board inside dealings were ignored, so liverpool bankrupt, owners supported by public money, inside dealing on the board for the lowest bid, a public owned bank excepting just debt repayment when they could have actually sold for a profit, all to avoid liverpool going into administration, BAILOUT.
The RBS loaned public money to liverpool’s owners and then had to take them to court as those very same owners were going to enter administration and fuck off much of that public money, and then when the RBS took them to court to get the money back, still ended up selling it for the least bid as board members had obviously made backhanded deals with the current owners, the liverpool way la...
I'm sorry, but that's just not what a bailout is. RBS made a poor decision to lend money to the previous owners which they then could not repay. In this situation the bank has a few options to try and get some or all of it's money back (essentially). In this case (it's been a while) it tried to force a sale of the asset and get repaid that way, or it could've forced them into bankruptcy and try to gain control through the courts. No lender actually wants to do the second option because it costs a ton of money, time, and effort, and also in cases like this one, degrades the value of the asset it's trying to sell to get repaid. If anyone "bailed them out" it was Fenway Sports, RBS just wanted to get their money back.
Last edited:
Their money ? Countries bloody money Rbs have none it’s ours !I'm sorry, but that's just not what a bailout is. RBS made a poor decision to lend money to the previous owners which they then could not repay. In this situation the bank has a few options to try and get some or all of it's money back (essentially). It can try to force a sale of the asset and get repaid that way, or it can force it into bankruptcy and try to gain control through the courts. No lender actually wants to do the second option because it costs a ton of money, time, and effort, and also in cases like this one, degrades the value of the asset it's trying to sell to get repaid. If anyone "bailed them out" it was Fenway Sports, RBS just wanted to get their money back.
ScottSinclair
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 5,867
Injury on van djik they would ship goals like its no tomorrow
Yes, they were trying to get as much of your money back as possible from a failed loan. It's how a bank works.Their money ? Countries bloody money Rbs have none it’s ours !
In the land of Barcodes
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but that's just not what a bailout is. RBS made a poor decision to lend money to the previous owners which they then could not repay. In this situation the bank has a few options to try and get some or all of it's money back (essentially). It can try to force a sale of the asset and get repaid that way, or it can force it into bankruptcy and try to gain control through the courts. No lender actually wants to do the second option because it costs a ton of money, time, and effort, and also in cases like this one, degrades the value of the asset it's trying to sell to get repaid. If anyone "bailed them out" it was Fenway Sports, RBS just wanted to get their money back.
Absolute bollocks. They (the Dippers) had no money. A UK publicly owned bank lent them the money to keep going otherwise the business would fold. That's the definition of a Bailout. The UK Government did it with RBS, RBS did it with Liverpool,. WIthout that money they would have folded. The fact that it was my money and many other's money on here is the most controversial point. I'm sorry but Scousers have never paid £45.5bn in tax in the last 200 years!!!!!!
SilvaisSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,777
I'm sorry, but that's just not what a bailout is. RBS made a poor decision to lend money to the previous owners which they then could not repay. In this situation the bank has a few options to try and get some or all of it's money back (essentially). It can try to force a sale of the asset and get repaid that way, or it can force it into bankruptcy and try to gain control through the courts. No lender actually wants to do the second option because it costs a ton of money, time, and effort, and also in cases like this one, degrades the value of the asset it's trying to sell to get repaid. If anyone "bailed them out" it was Fenway Sports, RBS just wanted to get their money back.
You just wrote utter bollocks, it’s exactly what a bailout is, they were going into administration without the money, the bank against all sane advice still borrowed them the money, then had to go to court to get the money back and sold to the lowest bidder, all above board.
Without the money from RBS, they could not go on operating though that season, exactly what a bailout is!?! liverpool could not operate without the money, bailout with public money that should have never been given and then had to go through the courts to get back and then sold to the lowest bidder! All above board, ffs...
Reading some of your recent posts, you condemn Bernardo at every opportunity, you are currently calling City fans snowflakes for saying what does liverpool fielding an ineligible player in the league cup have to do City via the Sam Lee tweet.
You also think the liverpool hacking was all good. Your posting seems familiar, have you had another username on here?
I'm not really that interested in debating commercial lending with you guys, call it whatever you want.You just wrote utter bollocks, it’s exactly what a bailout is, they were going into administration without the money, the bank against all sane advice still borrowed them the money, then had to go to court to get the money back and sold to the lowest bidder, all above board.
Without the money from RBS, they could not go on operating though that season, exactly what a bailout is!?! liverpool could not operate without the money, bailout with public money that should have never been given and then had to go through the courts to get back and then sold to the lowest bidder! All above board, ffs...
Reading some of your recent posts, you condemn Bernardo at every opportunity, you are currently calling City fans snowflakes for saying what does liverpool fielding an ineligible player in the league cup have to do City via the Sam Lee tweet.
You also think the liverpool hacking was all good. So posting seems familiar, have you had another username on here?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.