Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[Kirkstall Blue]

felt quite sorry for Hicks following that interview on SSN

What was said mate?

Transcript from Sky
Hicks - We were swindled
Ousted former co-owner claims to be victim of 'conspiracy'

Last updated: 15th October 2010
Hicks - We were swindled

The protracted takeover saga at Liverpool has taken another twist, with former co-owner Tom Hicks vowing to fight his corner.

In an exclusive interview with Sky Sports News, the American businessman has made it clear that he does not consider the matter to be over, with further legal proceedings set to take place.

Hicks, who took charge at Anfield in 2007 alongside George Gillett, was stripped of power on Merseyside on Friday as New England Sports Ventures (NESV) completed their purchase of the club.

That deal went against Hicks and Gillett's wishes, as the £300million on the table fell considerably short of their valuation of the club.

However, with a High Court ruling siding in favour of their creditors, the Royal Bank of Scotland, the American pair were forced to begrudgingly walk away.

Upon returning to their homeland, they lodged a $1.6billion damages claim - although that has since been dropped.

Hicks and Gillett are not prepared to let the issue lie, though, and are fully prepared to take the fight back to Liverpool and the High Court.
Devastated

Hicks feels the manner in which the Reds board have acted throughout the takeover wrangle has been unprofessional, claiming he has been 'swindled', while he has also revealed that he attempted to clear the club's debts on Friday but was prevented from doing so.

RBS had set a 15th October deadline for their £237million loan, which allowed Hicks and Gillett to buy Liverpool, to be repaid in full or face the consequences - with a nine-point penalty threatened should the club's holding company, Kop Holdings, enter administration.

A disappointed Hicks told Sky Sports News: "I'm shocked, devastated, frustrated. We are being very careful to make sure we follow the High Court rules but I'm very disappointed. It's hurt my family tremendously. This very valuable asset has been swindled away me in an epic swindle. I'm very angry about it.

"I have been working very hard to solve the issue. We know there are better owners around the world who should own Liverpool Football Club than the Boston Red Sox group (NESV). We knew who they were and were frustrated every time we had conversations with them.

"Our desire was to have Liverpool in the hands of the right and proper next owner who could build the stadium and make Liverpool the top club in the world that it deserves to be."

Hicks claims he was fully prepared to part with the club and believes a witch-hunt against himself and Gillett was responsible for creating a media and fan frenzy which made the situation virtually impossible to handle.

"I accepted the club was going to be sold back in April, the question was when," he added.

"The Royal Bank of Scotland wanted it done the day after and there was no reason for that. Liverpool were a very healthy financial performing club. There was a bit too much debt, no question, but we were going to fix that.

"We were frustrated by others. I think the right owner would have paid Gillett and Hicks a fair price and would have had the resources to spend on players and the stadium."

Funds

On the issue of repaying RBS, Hicks claims he was prevented from doing so by a 'conspiracy' which included high ranking officials at Anfield, including club chairman Martin Broughton.

He said: "We did have the funds available to pay off RBS in its entirety. But between RBS and the chairman and the employees that conspired against us, we could not pay off the debt.

"I know exactly why that was, they had the ability to. This was an organised conspiracy and it went on for months. It consisted of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Martin Broughton - who wanted a good PR event in his life because he's a Chelsea fan, he's not even a Liverpool fan - he wanted to be scene as the guy who got rid of the Americans."

Hicks feels he and Gillett have been cast in an unfair light and have been wronged throughout the takeover ordeal.

He is now keen for the real story to be told and is fully prepared to go back to court in order for his side to be heard.

"I just want the truth to come out in the courts," he said.

 

[Forzacitizens]

felt quite sorry for Hicks following that interview on SSN

What was said mate?

he said that he felt betrayed by people who he trusted. He said how he's spent £300 million gross on players, £150 million net. He went on to add that he was trying to find owners like manchester city's and he wanted to sell since April. He also feels that he's been a victim of a conspiracy, and that Broughton isn't even a Liverpool fan, he's a chelsea fan. He was actually sat in front of a plan for the new stadium, but because of the economic crisis in 2008, it couldn't go ahead

 

[Dr.Faustus]

That’s a very concise summarisation the doc man,

Without the full details of the case it’s almost impossible to think hicks has as case, i can’t think of any instance where a creditor has been in such a position of power and its "appointed directors" acted for the stakeholder before the shareholder, it seems to go against everything, i can well see the yanks winning this in court and getting a payoff from rbs at our expense, so even more unusual is not only did rbs disregard the shareholders of the debtors but they waive fees and disregarded the interests of their shareholders i.e. the uk public.

It was concise, the user impliedly asked for an overview. It does seemingly (on the face of it at least- though the position will depend exclusively on the agreements (mentioned earlier in the thread)), although a directors duty is technically to promote the best interests of the company, this transpires as the shareholders in most instances- (usually the shareholders will have enough boardroom power through weighted voting to expel a director under §168 so it is not in ordinary circumstances in the self-interest of the director to go against that presumption)- it is not exclusively in their interest.

 

[NPBlue]

Is the bitterness by Hicks and Gillett over the sale due to them having lost personal fortunes?

 

[inbetween]

Is the bitterness by Hicks and Gillett over the sale due to them having lost personal fortunes?

Probably, they have lost potentially a lot of money as Hicks put it "Liverpool was a valuable asset" and it was sold pretty much under their nose by someone with no tangible stake whatsoever in the club. After reading about the whole issue of the appointment of Barclays Cap and Broughton back in April there's got to be a lot more to it. To me now its obvious there was a sinister agenda mainly on the part of RBS and the other major players, they have got their money back but things should of been done properly and with higher bids on the table RBS clearly abused their position as creditor. I'm no expert but i can see them getting took to the cleaners in court if the information available at the moment is true.

 

[StrangewaysHereWeCome]

christ. I've not read the whole thread and don't know all there is about the situation but it.s seemingly far from over? I wouldn't like to be a dipper fan right now. I know a couple who have their heads in the sand at the moment purely because they believe everything was the american duos fault

 

[bluemoon32]

christ. I've not read the whole thread and don't know all there is about the situation but it.s seemingly far from over? I wouldn't like to be a dipper fan right now. I know a couple who have their heads in the sand at the moment purely because they believe everything was the american duos fault

Successive managers buying shit players certainly didn't help, can't blame the Yanks for that.

 

[The Fixer]

Liverpool's problems imo are more deep rooted than just ownership issues, too many average players, poor management over the last couple of years..... teams like us , spuds have overtaken them and are in healthy positions both financially and in terms of far better squads.

I think we will see a slight change in fortunes ie they will prob all pull together for the next few games but their deficiencies will come back to the fore and they will struggle until better players are brought to the club!

 

[Cambridgeblue]

Not quite... you borrow £200,000 from the bank to buy a house and then a few years later you can't make the repayments. Let's say you've paid interest only rather than paying off any capital so as to make the situation a closer analogy to the H&G situation.

The bank then sells your house (we'll ignore the technicalities of repossesion for the moment) via an estate agent.

Two buyers come forward, both offering straight cash... one offers £200,000 and the other offers £220,000.

If the bank chooses the higher offer you get £20,000... so wouldn't you be pissed off if they chose the lower offer? The bank gets repaid the same either way so why should it care who buys the house???

As you were in court did the famous letter actually have any reference to placing the stakeholders above that of the shareholders and why is the nesv bid so good without promising the stadium development to red tops are harping on about

I am only privy to those parts of the CGSL that were read out in court... stakeholders were not mentioned but I am certain that H&G would not have agreed to putting fan interests above their own as to do so would be worse for them than administration.

There was no real evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the NESV bid in court because at that stage the deal had not been done and so the terms of the NESV bid were highly commercially sensitive and confidential.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Is the bitterness by Hicks and Gillett over the sale due to them having lost personal fortunes?

Undoubtedly. As far as I can see, there was a legal and binding deal between LFC & NESV, which was seen as being best for the club. Hicks was just trying to muddy the waters to try to keep control so he could attempt to cover or mitigate his personal losses.