Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[Prestwich_Blue]

Will they get a 9 point deduction still?

Still not entirely clear. They supposedly have until tomorrow to repay RBS and, if they don't, then administration and the subsequent 9-point deduction, is a real possibility.

However, no one really knows what's happening with the sale of the club, which would repay RBS. If it's just a matter of days away then RBS will probably hang on. But if they think H&G are stalling for time and there is no realistic prospect of a sale in the foreseeable future then they almost certainly will not wait.

They also have to consider whether administration would help or hinder a sale that ended up with thme getting their money back.

 

[Bluemoon115]

This is the best episode of Brookside ever!

I don't think Liverpool can really "win" anymore can they? Just a case of "losing by less".

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This is the best episode of Brookside ever!

I don't think Liverpool can really "win" anymore can they? Just a case of "losing by less".

It's like the first Chilean miner being winched to the surface and the cable snapping.

Whatever happens, they're unlikely to be a major power again for the foreseeable future I reckon. They'll be fighting it out with Villa, Stoke & Blackburn for the last Europa League place. In a good year.

 

[mancmackem]

I keep hearing from the scouse that H&G put no money into the club at all for players/improve facilities etc. Someone previously posted the list of transfers from when H&G took over, and it did come to a tidy sum.

Does anyone know if this is the case? If the club may go for £300m, and i am quite sure that list of transfers came close to that figure, surely they must have put SOMETHING in?

 

[Braggster]

I suspect the argument will be that, under English private international law, the Texas court did not have jurisdiction to issue the injunction.

If correct, the Texas injunction is not enforceable as a matter of English law and will not therefore impede the sale.

There is no reciprocal agreement between the US and UK re the enforcement of judgements.

The reason the US injunction has been effective is that the parties have assets in the US which could be called upon if they breached the restraining order.

I am no expert on US law but I would imagine that the restraining order acts in the same way as our equitable orders (like prohibitory or mandatory injuctions) i.e. that they operate "in personam" (meaning against the person) rather than "in rem" (meaning against the asset).

Interesting dilemma.

Perhaps they will argue that H&G are in breach of contract, as you say, and therefore can be enjoined from enforcing the Texas restraining order.

There's no argument that I can see that would allow Hicks and Gillett to argue that the Texas order has any power in England.

I do find it extraordinary that the Texas court would be prepared to accept jurisdiction, even on an interim basis.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I keep hearing from the scouse that H&G put no money into the club at all for players/improve facilities etc. Someone previously posted the list of transfers from when H&G took over, and it did come to a tidy sum.

Does anyone know if this is the case? If the club may got for £300m, and i am quite sure that list of transfers came close to that figure, surely they must have put SOMETHING in?

I think they put just over £100m in but they borrowed that on a personal basis. They will almost certainly lose this which is why they're fighting so hard.

 

[Cambridgeblue]

There is no reciprocal agreement between the US and UK re the enforcement of judgements.

The reason the US injunction has been effective is that the parties have assets in the US which could be called upon if they breached the restraining order.

I am no expert on US law but I would imagine that the restraining order acts in the same way as our equitable orders (like prohibitory or mandatory injuctions) i.e. that they operate "in personam" (meaning against the person) rather than "in rem" (meaning against the asset).

Interesting dilemma.

Perhaps they will argue that H&G are in breach of contract, as you say, and therefore can be enjoined from enforcing the Texas restraining order.

There's no argument that I can see that would allow Hicks and Gillett to argue that the Texas order has any power in England.

I do find it extraordinary that the Texas court would be prepared to accept jurisdiction, even on an interim basis.

The Texas order does have no power over assets in England but it will, I imagine, have power over US assets and therein lies the rub. NESV and RBS in particular would not want to risk breaching it as they have substantial US assets that would be at risk.

I don't see the order lasting, one way or the other, and I think H&G will know that... I can only see this as a delaying tactic whilst the Mill Financial share sale is completed and the RBS loan agreement is repaid.

I agree with you it is extraordinary - I don't think ANYONE saw this coming yesterday.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I keep hearing from the scouse that H&G put no money into the club at all for players/improve facilities etc. Someone previously posted the list of transfers from when H&G took over, and it did come to a tidy sum.

Does anyone know if this is the case? If the club may got for £300m, and i am quite sure that list of transfers came close to that figure, surely they must have put SOMETHING in?

Liverpool made £5.4m profit this summer on transfers, the season before it was a £5.8m profit, the season before they lost £22.4m and in H&G's first season they lost £38m on transfers.

So in total there's a loss on transfers alone since they took over of £49.2m.

 

[The Fixer]

Notice how keen this red sox owner is to get liverpool? he knows he got them way bmv, hicks has every right to shaft them imo.

 

[marco]

looks like the likely result today is that it will be refferd to the usa court