Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[not my fault!]

Wiki says this....

The Clearing House Automated Payment System or CHAPS is a British company established in London in 1984, which offers same-day sterling fund transfers. CHAPS used to offer euro fund transfers, the service which is now closed. CHAPS is a member of the trade organisation APACS, and the EU-area settlement system TARGET.

A CHAPS transfer is initiated by the sender to move money to the recipient's account (at another banking institution) where the funds need to be available (cleared) the same working day. Unlike with a bank giro credit, no pre-printed slip specifying the recipient's details is required. Unlike cheques, the funds transfer is performed in real-time removing the issue of float or the potential for payments to be purposefully stopped by the sender, or returned due to insufficient funds, even after they appear to have arrived in the destination account.

CHAPS is used by 19 settlement banks including the Bank of England and over 400 sub member financial institutions. In its first year of operation, average daily transactions numbered 7,000 with a value of 5 billion pounds sterling. In 2004, twenty years later, average daily transactions numbered 130,000 with a value of 300 billion pounds sterling.

CHAPS transfers are relatively expensive, with banks typically charging as much as £35 for a transfer. The cost of fast transfers and the slow speed of free transfers (such as BACS) is sometimes a subject of controversy in the UK, although low value transactions are now available from CHAPS from its Faster Payments Service.

And I am claiming this as my second of a brace of clarkies. ;-)

****does celebratory dance****

Ah sorry to burst your bubble but I wasnt "Clarkied" I was pointing out what was written in Wiki, at no point did I dispute, agree or comment on what was said....

**** Does a smug "told you so, there!" dance **** ;0)

 

[fbloke]

And I am claiming this as my second of a brace of clarkies. ;-)

****does celebratory dance****

Ah sorry to burst your bubble but I wasnt "Clarkied" I was pointing out what was written in Wiki, at no point did I dispute, agree or comment on what was said....

**** Does a smug "told you so, there!" dance **** ;0)

***slumps shoulders in a deflated opposite of a gallic shrug***

(Still secretly claiming a half-clarkie though)

 

[Cambridgeblue]

And I am claiming this as my second of a brace of clarkies. ;-)

****does celebratory dance****

Ah sorry to burst your bubble but I wasnt "Clarkied" I was pointing out what was written in Wiki, at no point did I dispute, agree or comment on what was said....

**** Does a smug "told you so, there!" dance **** ;0)

Overruled

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

All true

An "epic swindle" perhaps?

Yeah the great "(Red) Sock and Dole Swindle"

 

[inbetween]

Not really sure how it does stink.

It stinks because the fact that Mill approached the PL surely points to the fact that Mill and Hicks had a deal agreed, one that would have paid RBS in full. For the PL to refuse them says nothing other than they were also in cahoots with regards to blocking any deals other than the NESV one and firmly placing their full support behind Liverpool instead of remaining impartial.

As for RBS writing off monies in this current climate is just unbelievable.....im sure they will also be letting off their thousands of customers this month of scandelous bank charges?

No.....i didnt think so.

H&G appointed Barclays Cap/Broughton to sell the club months ago, Broughton went through with the sale because he was legally in a position to, i've no doubts that RBS were cautious about Mill getting involved because it involved a potential legal problem and also where were the funds coming from it would just be a nightmare option compared with NESV who had everything in place. With the deadline looming and money being put on the table by NESV, the deal was found acceptable by all parties except for the ones not in a position to make the decision. The PL refused them because H&G were in no position solely nor legally to sell the club and that decision was made through the courts not the PL.

Why does it matter anyway, the club was always going to be sold and exchanging debt for debt would just be ridiculous. As far as RBS is concerned they made a tidy profit on the finance they provided H&G trust me. Not to mention they only would of recieved the money they lent them, they couldn't profit off the sale of Liverpool whether they sold it for 1 Billion or 20 quid it doesn't matter, as long as they recouped the money they were owed as a creditor it wouldn't matter and as far as that loan is concerned its been repaid in full.

 

[The Fixer]

@pkelso - JWH very careful to promise nothing - nothing on stadium, players, performance, spending. No hostages. #LFC

 

[Marvin]

Not really sure how it does stink.

It stinks because the fact that Mill approached the PL surely points to the fact that Mill and Hicks had a deal agreed, one that would have paid RBS in full. For the PL to refuse them says nothing other than they were also in cahoots with regards to blocking any deals other than the NESV one and firmly placing their full support behind Liverpool instead of remaining impartial.

As for RBS writing off monies in this current climate is just unbelievable.....im sure they will also be letting off their thousands of customers this month of scandelous bank charges?

No.....i didnt think so.

You are confusing Liverpool, who are the commodity being traded here, with the factions trying to buy it.

The Premier league should be behind their member.

How do you know that LFC are any better off under NESV than they would have been under Mills Financial?

 

[blueinsa]

It stinks because the fact that Mill approached the PL surely points to the fact that Mill and Hicks had a deal agreed, one that would have paid RBS in full. For the PL to refuse them says nothing other than they were also in cahoots with regards to blocking any deals other than the NESV one and firmly placing their full support behind Liverpool instead of remaining impartial.

As for RBS writing off monies in this current climate is just unbelievable.....im sure they will also be letting off their thousands of customers this month of scandelous bank charges?

No.....i didnt think so.

H&G appointed Barclays Cap/Broughton to sell the club months ago, Broughton went through with the sale because he was legally in a position to, i've no doubts that RBS were cautious about Mill getting involved because it involved a potential legal problem and also where were the funds coming from it would just be a nightmare option compared with NESV who had everything in place. With the deadline looming and money being put on the table by NESV, the deal was found acceptable by all parties except for the ones not in a position to make the decision. The PL refused them because H&G were in no position solely nor legally to sell the club and that decision was made through the courts not the PL.

Why does it matter anyway, the club was always going to be sold and exchanging debt for debt would just be ridiculous. As far as RBS is concerned they made a tidy profit on the finance they provided H&G trust me. Not to mention they only would of recieved the money they lent them, they couldn't profit off the sale of Liverpool whether they sold it for 1 Billion or 20 quid it doesn't matter, as long as they recouped the money they were owed as a creditor it wouldn't matter and as far as that loan is concerned its been repaid in full.

We will agree to disagree.

Whilst not a financial or legal expert, im not stupid and whilst i couldnt give 2 shits about H & G, this whole deal stinks to high heaven. Hicks had a deadline to repay RBS and thus regain control of a club, one that he bought. RBS and the PL have bent over backwards to block him paying those monies imo and whilst i can see the possible reasons for RBS doing so, the PL have got no fooking right too imo and they should remain completely impartial and if Mill and Hicks have a deal agreed to refinance and satisfy RBS and the debt, what right have the PL to REFUSE to even allow Mill to sit the test?

Nothing but a stitch up and as posted earlier, i would implore a few clubs around the country to pick through all this mess, just to confirm that the rules applied to them in the past were equally applied in Liverpools case?

 

[Marvin]

H&G appointed Barclays Cap/Broughton to sell the club months ago, Broughton went through with the sale because he was legally in a position to, i've no doubts that RBS were cautious about Mill getting involved because it involved a potential legal problem and also where were the funds coming from it would just be a nightmare option compared with NESV who had everything in place. With the deadline looming and money being put on the table by NESV, the deal was found acceptable by all parties except for the ones not in a position to make the decision. The PL refused them because H&G were in no position solely nor legally to sell the club and that decision was made through the courts not the PL.

Why does it matter anyway, the club was always going to be sold and exchanging debt for debt would just be ridiculous. As far as RBS is concerned they made a tidy profit on the finance they provided H&G trust me. Not to mention they only would of recieved the money they lent them, they couldn't profit off the sale of Liverpool whether they sold it for 1 Billion or 20 quid it doesn't matter, as long as they recouped the money they were owed as a creditor it wouldn't matter and as far as that loan is concerned its been repaid in full.

We will agree to disagree.

Whilst not a financial or legal expert, im not stupid and whilst i couldnt give 2 shits about H & G, this whole deal stinks to high heaven. Hicks had a deadline to repay RBS and thus regain control of a club, one that he bought. RBS and the PL have bent over backwards to block him paying those monies imo and whilst i can see the possible reasons for RBS doing so, the PL have got no fooking right too imo and they should remain completely impartial and if Mill and Hicks have a deal agreed to refinance and satisfy RBS and the debt, what right have the PL to REFUSE to even allow Mill to sit the test?

Nothing but a stitch up and as posted earlier, i would implore a few clubs around the country to pick through all this mess, just to confirm that the rules applied to them in the past were equally applied in Liverpools case?

The Premier League's own rules mean that they could not undertake a Fit and Proper test unless that request came from the club.

As far as I can see both bids would have cleared the RBS debt so why should you be backing one set of financiers over another?

 

[inbetween]

H&G appointed Barclays Cap/Broughton to sell the club months ago, Broughton went through with the sale because he was legally in a position to, i've no doubts that RBS were cautious about Mill getting involved because it involved a potential legal problem and also where were the funds coming from it would just be a nightmare option compared with NESV who had everything in place. With the deadline looming and money being put on the table by NESV, the deal was found acceptable by all parties except for the ones not in a position to make the decision. The PL refused them because H&G were in no position solely nor legally to sell the club and that decision was made through the courts not the PL.

Why does it matter anyway, the club was always going to be sold and exchanging debt for debt would just be ridiculous. As far as RBS is concerned they made a tidy profit on the finance they provided H&G trust me. Not to mention they only would of recieved the money they lent them, they couldn't profit off the sale of Liverpool whether they sold it for 1 Billion or 20 quid it doesn't matter, as long as they recouped the money they were owed as a creditor it wouldn't matter and as far as that loan is concerned its been repaid in full.

We will agree to disagree.

Whilst not a financial or legal expert, im not stupid and whilst i couldnt give 2 shits about H & G, this whole deal stinks to high heaven. Hicks had a deadline to repay RBS and thus regain control of a club, one that he bought. RBS and the PL have bent over backwards to block him paying those monies imo and whilst i can see the possible reasons for RBS doing so, the PL have got no fooking right too imo and they should remain completely impartial and if Mill and Hicks have a deal agreed to refinance and satisfy RBS and the debt, what right have the PL to REFUSE to even allow Mill to sit the test?

Nothing but a stitch up and as posted earlier, i would implore a few clubs around the country to pick through all this mess, just to confirm that the rules applied to them in the past were equally applied in Liverpools case?

I agree but you can't argue that the deal that took place today was the best one available for Liverpool. So the Premier League did act in the best possible way in being impartial and doing whats best for its member clubs. I don't think the PL were bending backwards or being bent or anything they were just doing what's best.

You could argue how did Thaksin even pass the test years ago, i'm sure many other clubs would also have something to say so we have no place to argue really, i'm just glad we are in the position we are.. We are very lucky.