Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[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.

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?

I dont know mate but what i have seen is not a transparent process and i just think its fair that all the facts are laid bare asap. The PL has a duty to all its member clubs, not just Liverpool and imo, shouldnt be refusing tests as that smacks of them colluding in what was by then, a very much them against us case. Surely the whole point of the test is to see if they are fit and proper owners or do we just allow someone to say no now if it feels the right thing to do?

As for the bank, if its right they have forgone payments to facilitate this deal, payments they wouldnt have done had they not got their own way then morally its fooking disgusting and they should be brought to book over it imo.<br /><br />-- Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:56 pm --<br /><br />

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?

Fair enough mate on the PL rule, i wasnt aware that the club itself had to ask so apologies for my wrongful stance on that.

As for backing one bid over the other, im not, just seems a bit fishy all of this and if im honest, feel a little for H & G as they have been shafted, although for them to sign over the power they did was possibly the most stupid thing ive ever come across.

Lets all be clear here though, Liverpool as a brand is way more important to the PL as Portsmouth ever were or will be and all i want as im sure every other football supporter, is to see the rules applied in a fair and consistent way and i stand by what i said, that lawyers for a few other clubs should really go through all this very carefully to ensure that they have been.

 

[Marvin]

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?

I dont know mate but what i have seen is not a transparent process and i just think its fair that all the facts are laid bare asap. The PL has a duty to all its member clubs, not just Liverpool and imo, shouldnt be refusing tests as that smacks of them colluding in what was by then, a very much them against us case. Surely the whole point of the test is to see if they are fit and proper owners or do we just allow someone to say no now if it feels the right thing to do?

As for the bank, if its right they have forgone payments to facilitate this deal, payments they wouldnt have done had they not got their own way then morally its fooking disgusting and they should be brought to book over it imo.

You might find the Fit and Proper rules in the Handbook on the Premier League web-site, but the request had to come from LFC - not Mill Financial.

Why feel angry on behalf of H&G?

How do we judge whether LFC are a bigger threat backed by NESV or Mill Financial? As far as I can see both bids would have left them free of the RBS debt.

Now that the ownership situation is out of the way - for now - the pressure and focus will shift to the manager, and the stalking horse of Dalglish looms large

 

[BobKowalski]

I disagree. The UK High Court also disagrees. The Directors have a statutory duty to shareholders but H&G waived that statutory duty when they signed off on the refinancing deal.

If and until, the judges verdict and summary is made available to legal databases and the ratio of the court is expressly evidenced (and by extension it is analysed), I think you both may as well, from what is known so far, concede that there is an element of truth in either explanation. I am sure the debate surrounding board control over the company; with regards to general duties, fiduciary (in this case directors) duties and the validity of a waiver and of course the (at the time) pending creditor involvement (i.e. whether the board owed a duty to the creditors in the light of the impending takeover by RBS) - will be fleshed out in further court verdicts as the dispute shows no sign of ending. Furthermore, until the aforementioned verdict/future verdicts and/or (more unlikely) substantial details of the early agreements of the tripartite contractual dispute are made available- the debate is still a speculative one.

You mean we both may be right or both may be half right or half wrong? Well you are probably right on that one :)

Personally I am going on cause and effect. The cause of this was H&G not having a pot to piss in when their lenders wanted their money back and the effect is H&G having LFC sold from under them with the UK courts saying this is perfectly legal as per the conditions of the refinancing deal.

Everything else is irrelevant and the only arena in which H&G may get some mileage is in a US court and the basis of their argument is that they were swindled by the British Establishment which is another way of saying RBS had them by the bollocks and squeezed hard at the right time which they were legally entitled to do. Frankly H&G were stupid and this tends to happen to the stupid.

 

[cleavers]

Why feel angry on behalf of H&G?

Why anyone would want to feel sorry for them I have no idea, they were bad for Liverpool, and were bad for football, the fact that they clearly tried to get Liverpool into administration, as their parting shot, should serve enough warning to others, that the vast majority of these owners don't care for football, only their own ego's.

If I was a Liverpool fan (and thankfully I'm not), I'd be just as worried tonight about the future, because I don't think this deal is especially good for them either. Its cleared the debt but where too exactly ? Nobody seems to really know, and then there is the small matter of replacing the shite that Benitez brought in.

Its just a slower death as far as I can see, but we will have to wait a while to find out.

 

[marco]

i hope every club now treats liverpool as a cup final starting with everton and they slowley disapear into the bowles of the championship

 

[inbetween]

Why feel angry on behalf of H&G?

Why anyone would want to feel sorry for them I have no idea, they were bad for Liverpool, and were bad for football, the fact that they clearly tried to get Liverpool into administration, as their parting shot, should serve enough warning to others, that the vast majority of these owners don't care for football, only their own ego's.

If I was a Liverpool fan (and thankfully I'm not), I'd be just as worried tonight about the future, because I don't think this deal is especially good for them either. Its cleared the debt but where too exactly ? Nobody seems to really know, and then there is the small matter of replacing the shite that Benitez brought in.

Its just a slower death as far as I can see, but we will have to wait a while to find out.

Its put them in a better position but quite frankly as far as the actual football is concerned nothing has changed, a false dawn really. No transfer money, no stadium they just have no debt burden anymore. Lets just see if the Liverpool fans understand this but i can't see it, give it a few months when no money is available and they'll all be crying how crap their new owner is.

 

[VOOMER]

what an article talk about deluded

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8067294/Liverpool-takeover-deal-will-enable-to-Roy-Hodgson-to-compete-in-transfer-market.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... arket.html</a>

 

[bluemoon32]

Forgive me for being thick but how does this baseball fella get his money back.
He's paid 300m for the club & cleared the debts i understand but how does he get that back & then his profit on top ?
Is it just a case of him selling in a year or two for 400m etc ?

 

[The Fixer]

John Henry talking to the media.......

Journalist: What's your message for the fans?

JH: "We're not going to have a lot to say, our actions will hopefully speak for us. We are going to do a lot of listening and we have a lot to learn. Our actions will hopefully speak for us.

Journalist: How much are you going to invest in Liverpool's squad to return it to its former glories?

JH: "It's too early to say what we're going to do but we're here to win, we have a tradition of winning - we (the Boston Red Sox) are the second-highest spending club in Major League Baseball and we're here to win, we will do whatever is necessary."

Journalist: Mr Henry, what do you think of the legal challenge made by Tom Hicks and George Gillett? They are claiming damages of one billion dollars?

JH: "Well, why is it only that much?"


Journalist: Will you build a new stadium for Liverpool?

JH: "It's too early to say what's going to happen on the stadium front."


Journalist: Can you guarantee this is not a leverage buyer?

JH: "I can guarantee that."

Journalist: How are you funding Liverpool, Mr Henry?

JH: "With pounds."

 

[Cambridgeblue]

I disagree. The UK High Court also disagrees. The Directors have a statutory duty to shareholders but H&G waived that statutory duty when they signed off on the refinancing deal.

If and until, the judges verdict and summary is made available to legal databases and the ratio of the court is expressly evidenced (and by extension it is analysed), I think you both may as well, from what is known so far, concede that there is an element of truth in either explanation. I am sure the debate surrounding board control over the company; with regards to general duties, fiduciary (in this case directors) duties and the validity of a waiver and of course the (at the time) pending creditor involvement (i.e. whether the board owed a duty to the creditors in the light of the impending takeover by RBS) - will be fleshed out in further court verdicts as the dispute shows no sign of ending. Furthermore, until the aforementioned verdict/future verdicts and/or (more unlikely) substantial details of the early agreements of the tripartite contractual dispute are made available- the debate is still a speculative one.

Having been there for the Tuesday hearing and the Wednesday verdict I can categorically state that the question of whether the duties of the directors (which are statutory and not fiduciary following the Companies Act 2006) were somehow bypassed by the CGSL was not pleaded by either side.

As this was an interim application made at very short notice by RBS there was no way that sufficient evidence would have been available for Hicks & Gillette to argue the point which is why one of the applications made by counsel for Hicks and Gillette was for disclosure of documents (which was granted by Mr Justice Floyd).

What I took issue with is BobKowalski's assertion that the High Court disagreed with me, something he was in no position to know because, and please correct me if I'm wrong, he was not there.

The fact remains that directors owe a duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole... that is legal fact enshrined in statute and unless a judge rules differently based on the novel aspect of the terms of the CGSL (which I freely admit are not fully known) it is reasonable to assert that that is the default position under English law.

The fact that counsel for Hicks and Gillette explicitly stated the possibility of a double derivative action in the event the NESV deal went through suggests to me that they intend to test this point at full trial.

I would also point out that the judge's verdict is not a complete record of what was said by the parties in a trial or application - you would instead need to refer to the transcript of the trial (if one was indeed produced). Everything I have written on here with regard to the specific goings on in court has been from my own notes which I took at the time of the application hearing and subsequent judgement.