Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[TonyM]

Why dowsn't Lim (was that his name?) give H&G a loan to pay RBS the 240m they expect, then Monday he buys the club for 80m (i.e. 320-240). He still gets the club for 320m, H&G get 20m more and are happy their "enemies" didn't get what they wanted.

The fans can then bad mouth Singapore instead of America for the next few years.

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Admin completely off the table now - RBS would be writing their own suicide note to do that - the other thing they desperately need to avoid is expensive litigation and losses in US courts - the Commons would be up in fookin arms if that happened
So whats it gonna be MB ? Mill cover the notes or you sell over the heads of H&G?
Go ahead punk , make my day!!

 

[mat]

I'm still waiting for the premier league to bail the dippers out.

 

[Mikeegrini]

Cheers PB

Again, that is subject to the question: in effect, who now legally controls the decision to sell as laid out in the AoA (part of the constitution of the company)?

Regardless of who 'owns' the company by 4pm the finality of 'ownership' will be decided by the above.

I was under the impression that the court ruled on who has the decision to sell this week in London???

 

[AntonDonJuan]

Well i'm more confused than the 2 lezzas in Corrie, but i hope to fuck Hicks pays off the refinance before 4pm i'd piss myself

 

[Dr.Faustus]

Again, that is subject to the question: in effect, who now legally controls the decision to sell as laid out in the AoA (part of the constitution of the company)?

Regardless of who 'owns' the company by 4pm the finality of 'ownership' will be decided by the above.

I was under the impression that the court ruled on who has the decision to sell this week in London???

Possibly, I haven't heard much of the court case beyond the newspapers (who never report legal issues with any degree of evidence), if that is exactly what the court case decided (that MB and the board have the right to sell via the AoA) then there is little that can be done by Mills really, the deal is nearly ratified (Unless the deal was between RBS- upon control, and NESV- though that would mean that the board ultimately did not have control to sell). It would take a completely unforeseen event for that to change.

Edit: The coverage I can find of the court case in the newspapers is ambiguous, taken one way it merely allows the sale to proceed, a sale which is of course subject to the permission of those under the AoA who have the authority to sell. Taken the other it states that this issue is decided. * CambridgeBlue, having I believe, visited the court on the day may be able to shed light on this.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Again, that is subject to the question: in effect, who now legally controls the decision to sell as laid out in the AoA (part of the constitution of the company)?

Regardless of who 'owns' the company by 4pm the finality of 'ownership' will be decided by the above.

I was under the impression that the court ruled on who has the decision to sell this week in London???

That's effectively correct. But it's not clear yet what the impact of Hicks selling his shares has on that.

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Henry publicly claiming "binding agreement" - his final gambit ? Surely then you´d have to go to court to prove that - verbal or written ?<br /><br />-- Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:07 pm --<br /><br />Henry publicly claiming "binding agreement" - his final gambit ? Surely then you´d have to go to court to prove that - verbal or written ?
Popcorn time again me thinks

 

[mat]

Just wind the fuckers up!!!!!!

 

[Swordfish7]

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/77906-new-twist-in-liverpool-fc-sale-drama.html?

THE Liverpool FC takeover saga took yet another twist today as controversial US owner Tom Hicks tried to scupper the £300m sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures by offloading his stake to a US hedge fund.

The hedge fund, Mill Finance, already controls 50% of Liverpool after taking control of George Gillett's stake after he defaulted on a loan payment.

If Hicks succeeds Mill could pay off Royal Bank of Scotland, which is owned £240m by the close of business today - and then try and sell the club to a higher bidder, scuppering the deal agreed by the board and NESV, owner of the Boston Red Sox baseball team

This has sparked outrage from New England Sports Ventures boss John W Henry, who used his Twitter account to pledge to fight on, even if the Hicks plan succeeds.

He said: "We have a binding contract. Will fight Mill Hicks Gillett attempt to keep club today. Their last desperate attempt to entrench their regime."

Then last two weeks has seen a TransAtlantic tug of war erupt between Tom Hicks and the rest of the board, led by chairman Martin Broughton.

The row over the takeover has sparked bitter rows and legal cases in London and Texas, which has left fans bewildered and fearing for the future.

Speaking last night chairman Mr Broughton said he was confident the agreed deal would go though.