Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[VOOMER]

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."

reading between the lines, I think he's trying to say "I've just bought Liverpool for £200 million below its real value and I will sell it in 12 months and make £150 million pound profit!". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what he's trying to say.

 

[Marvin]

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 ?

Going to be very difficult to turn them around on the pitch.

A new stadium will drain profits as that will presumably involve finance costs - borrowing.

Very few football clubs are profitable - Utd without debt, and Arsenal - but if clubs manage to takeover broadcasting of TV rights then they can make a lot of money - and there are few clubs with the worldwide appeal of Liverpool. That seems a while off. Real Madrid and Barca negotiate their own TV deals unlike the Premiership collective deal, and that puts them at a huge advantage because it is almost impossible for a domestic rival to challenge them -rest of Spanish football is bankrupt

Unless they turn things round very quickly, I think LFC are history

 

[waspish]

don't know if these facts are true(some one told me em) liverpool wage bill is £107m and there turn over last year was £177.9 million. If that is true now they have no debt a profit of 70 million is a tidy sum...........are these new owners going to milk it or invest?!!........

 

[bluemoon32]

don't know if these facts are true(some one told me em) liverpool wage bill is £107m and there turn over last year was £177.9 million. If that is true now they have no debt a profit of 70 million is a tidy sum...........are these new owners going to milk it or invest?!!........

There are a lot more costs than just wage costs at any club.

 

[fbloke]

don't know if these facts are true(some one told me em) liverpool wage bill is £107m and there turn over last year was £177.9 million. If that is true now they have no debt a profit of 70 million is a tidy sum...........are these new owners going to milk it or invest?!!........

There are a lot more costs than just wage costs at any club.

Lets not forget that they are likely to be about £40m short on T/O with no Champs L'ge for this season and, as the table looks very wrong for them, perhaps next year as well.

 

[Blue Mooner]

I'm disgusted by the outcome of this whole debacle.

Its clear that Liverpool have been in administration in all but name for the last 6 months. RBS could have called in their debts 6 months ago but instead just took control of the board and appointed their own directors to go out and recover the debt.

The disgusting thing is that by doing it this way Liverpool avoided the 9 point penalty that they should have received - and this at a time when they were still in with a chance of making 4th place. Disgusting.

Anyone not of a scouse persuasion should boycott RBS after all it was no doubt the backlash they feared from placing Liverpool into administration - especially as they were also govt owned with political implications of doing so - that prevented them doing so and instead just seizing control.

Rather than being stupid H&G simply had no choice (for they clearly couldn't meet their obligations) but to take that offer in the now foolish belief that RBS would look to achieve full value for the club precisely because they weren't a club officially in administration. The reality was that Liverpool were a club in administration in all but name.

I will never do business with RBS.

 

[blueinsa]

I'm disgusted by the outcome of this whole debacle.

Its clear that Liverpool have been in administration in all but name for the last 6 months. RBS could have called in their debts 6 months ago but instead just took control of the board and appointed their own directors to go out and recover the debt.

The disgusting thing is that by doing it this way Liverpool avoided the 9 point penalty that they should have received - and this at a time when they were still in with a chance of making 4th place. Disgusting.

Anyone not of a scouse persuasion should boycott RBS after all it was no doubt the backlash they feared from placing Liverpool into administration - especially as they were also govt owned with political implications of doing so - that prevented them doing so and instead just seizing control.

Rather than being stupid H&G simply had no choice (for they clearly couldn't meet their obligations) but to take that offer in the now foolish belief that RBS would look to achieve full value for the club precisely because they weren't a club officially in administration. The reality was that Liverpool were a club in administration in all but name.

I will never do business with RBS.

Sums it up for me as well mate and is the reasons im disgusted by it all.

Fair and level playing field for all.........MY ARSE!

 

[Dr.Faustus]

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.

I very much doubt, the decision being a High Court one, that a full transcript of the trial will be produced (or if the issue does not go to an appeal, even a judges verdict report on a legal database is somewhat unlikely for some time- though I stated this would shed some light as it would be the more likely attainable document, pending further trials).

As I pointed out earlier in the thread to another member you, having been to the trial, are more acquainted with the facts of the case than others merely reading media reports- so thanks for clearing up the uncertainty of whether the AoA and directors duties were advanced and advocated during the trial (seemingly not).

As a default position I would agree with you that it would be contrary to CA 2006 and any case that I have before read, for a board of directors to sell the company without regard to the 'benefit of the company as a whole'. It will be interesting if this, as it appears, goes on to a full trial on appeal as the role RBS played, in negotiations both in previous months (when the re-structuring of leveraged debt was agreed) and now, was obviously a significant one. It seems to be the case that RBS, having played a role in the appointment of MB, also forced upon H&G a change of boardroom power in the Articles of Association so that this type of event could happen (a sale without the permission of H&G). I would agree with you here that the board should still have had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the 'company as a whole' under §171-177 CA 2006, however this may be a case (the first I can think of) where §172 will be argued by the board as the rationale for the selling decision. Inconceivable, I know, as §172 since its inception has been thought of as 'window-dressing' and, in reality, not in the self-interest of directors. It will further be interesting to see whether, subject to appeal, the board has acted with proper purpose (as seemingly the finance forwarded by Mills was rejected by both the board and RBS).

To postulate on this matter further, the priority relationship- between the directors duties to the company (since administration was pending) and, with this to mind, directors duties to the creditors- is unclear and a string of case law for prioritising either can be drawn from precedent. Maybe the fact that Administration was a certainty formed part of the decision not to strictly adhere to §171-177. A definitive decision on this basis would be an authoritative one that could refine and bring clarity to the law- for this reason a court case argued on this basis may be, as well as quite entertaining for those looking in, important.

 

[u2fme2]

all done now

 

[Chippy_boy]

no Champs L'ge for this season and, as the table looks very wrong for them, perhaps next year as well.

Forgive me while I fall about laughing. There's more chance of them finishing bottom four than top four.