Can the Board sell the Club over the Heads of the Owners?

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="GMF"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="GMF"]

Broughton was brought in by the Bank to give credabilty to the whole sale process and, as part of his requirements, he insisted on signed legal undertakings from the owners that they would sell if a reasonable bid was received. The present fall out seems to be centred on differences in opinion as to what RBS and the owners think is "reasonable" hence the reason why it''s going to the High Court to be settled.

[/quote]

GMF, that is the fascinating - and perhaps worrying - point. The High Court is not being asked to judge a point of law, but to make a subjective judgment on who should own a football club, based on some vague notion of reasonableness.

[/quote]

Not really Purple, it would depend on the detail contained within the undertakings signed. From what I can gather, Broughton thinks H&G are wasting their times, but it''s the last throw of the dice by two desperate men!

[/quote]

As I understand it, the court case is not to do with who owns the club.  When Broughton took over as chairman, he demanded (and was given) a written undertaking that the composition of the board could not be changed without his consent.  This was to prevent H&G blocking a potential sale that might be in the club''s best interests but not their own, by filling the boardroom with their own people.

Last week H&G attempted to change the board by removing the CEO and commercial director and replacing them with two of their own people (Hicks''s son is one of them, I believe).  Now they''ve gone to court to challenge the undertaking given to Broughton. 

That''s what the court has to decide - whether the undertaking given to Broughton holds water, ie. whether it takes precedence over the wishes of the club''s owners.  If it does then H&G can be outvoted by the existing board and the sale can go ahead.  If it doesn''t then H&G can block the sale by changing the composition of the board.

Next Friday (15th) Liverpool are due to repay the RBS loan in full.  If the sale goes through this week they''ll have the money, if it doesn''t they won''t.  Administration looks like the only other option - unless RBS blink and agree to extend the loan yet again.  I think that''s what H&G are ''banking'' on, so to speak. 

 

[/quote]

Cherub, unless I have misunderstood the situation, it IS to do with who owns the club. There are (assuming what Broughton says is true) TWO undertakings at issue. The first, as you say, is whether Hicks and Gillett could change the make-up of the board. You''re right that the aim was to prevent Hicks and Gillett going back to a position where they controlled the board.

The second undertaking - and the one that really matters -  is whether, irrespective of the make-up of the board, Hicks and Gillett AS MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS can stand in the way of a reasonable offer.

The point is that the board, whatever its make-up, can only recommend to shareholders to accept or reject an offer. Broughton is saying he was given an undertaking by the duo that they would not use their shareholder majority to reject a reasonable offer if one came along.

[/quote]

I wasn''t aware that it went any further than the issue of the first undertaking, but you may be right Purple.

On a slightly different tack, do you think Liverpool (and by implication Man U who are also leveraged up to the hilt) are too big to fail?  Can the banks afford to let them go into admin, or will they have to go on extending the debt until the market in football clubs improves (if it ever does)? 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

I wasn''t aware that it went any further than the issue of the first undertaking, but you may be right Purple.

On a slightly different tack, do you think Liverpool (and by implication Man U who are also leveraged up to the hilt) are too big to fail?  Can the banks afford to let them go into admin, or will they have to go on extending the debt until the market in football clubs improves (if it ever does)? 

 

[/quote]Cherub, this is what Broughton has said:"When I took the role they gave A COUPLE [my emphasis] of written undertakings to

Royal Bank of Scotland - that I was the only person entitled to change

the board and that they would take no action to frustrate any reasonable

sale," Broughton said. I assume by "take no action to frustrate a reasonable sale" he means vote against as shareholders, irrespective of what the board might recommend. And this is what I mean about a judge having to decide who owns Liverpool. A judge is going to have to decide (assuming H&G gave that second undertaking) whether the US proposal is reasonable. Would we want that with Norwich?As to your question, honestly I don''t know. Part of me wants a big club to fail, because there would be a slim  chance it might brings some sanity back into the game. And there is also the point that while these clubs might in footballing terms be too big to fail, as companies go they are actually quite small beer. This is not one of the club''s affected but I just happen to have this statistic in mind as a vague example. The market capitalisation of Birmingham is around £80m. That''s peanuts. Obviously Man Utd and Liverpool are bigger, but not so much. Not remotely comparable to a Footsie 100 company.

[Kathy 733]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Well, gang, I have to say that I have not seen so much hair splitting since Custer''s last stand so here is my stab at PURE SPECULATION...( it went something like this ):

Early April 1st/2009 ... Delia and Michael are out for dinner. Michael mentions to Delia that a mutual friend has suggested David McNally is interested in the CEO job at Norwich should it become available. Michael has arranged for he and Delia to meet with David in two days time in Suffolk.

Suffolk meeting on April 3rd: After a wonderful dinner Michael sounds McNally out about the prospect of taking on a role at Norwich. Michael points out that, while Norwich are just above the relegation zone, with six games remaining there is a real possibility they could go down. Should that happen, Michael states, then it is clear to both Delia and himself that sweeping changes are required througout the club including at the board level. They would both like to know what McNally''s interest might be in joining the organisation should changes be required. McNally makes it clear he would only be interested in coming to Norwich if the role is that of CEO and a position on the board. S & J indicate they had not decided upon the structure of any new board yet so this would have to be taken into consideration at a later date. However, after much discussion it is clear that the chemistry is excellent for all three and they agree to think the matter over during the next few  weeks or so before getting together again at the end of the month. Before they depart S & J have a question of McNally. "If the worst happens and we are relegated we are committed to announcing changes as soon as the season ends. If we are able to convince you to join us would that timing work for you?" McNally is reluctant to commit to this at this stage but responds that all things are possible. S & J have one final question. "If we do make changes at the board level in early to mid May we will need to have  a plan in place for the off-season and pre-season as far as the manager is concerned. If we''re relegated we obviously would not be confident going forward with the current manager. On the other hand, May and June tends to go by very quickly. We would not want to be without a football manager during that time for a number of reasons but you must have given this matter some thought prior to this meeting. Two questions for you....if you do take on the role of CEO do you have any particular managers in mind that you would wish to recruit and secondly, what would you advise we do with our current manager in the interim?" McNally responds in the affirmative. He has a very clear idea who he would like to bring in but it might require a little time to land him. In the interim he would suggest keeping the current manager in place on the shortest contractual situation possible and see how things develop for the balance of the season and during the off-season activity.

F/U meeting April 29th/2009 S&J with McNally: It is now clear that the fate of whether Norwich is relegated is not in their own hands. It is dependent upon winning the final match and Barnsley doing us a favour by losing. McNally knows if this does not work out he will be joining a Division One club with a significant debt and a further 2.5 million pound shortfall right off the bat strictly due to the relegation. McNally has a very clear sense that S & J definitely want him to join the club and the cards are in his favour relative to the negotiations.He lays out his requirements, particularly stressing the importance of him having a seat on the board . S & J want to leave this meeting with an agreement in principle in place. They point out they have some board issues to resolve but provide their assurance that, if they can agree on the basic contract first, McNally will have a seat on the board in fairly short order thereafter. They will have their legal counsel draw up a contract over the coming week to ten days. McNally agrees to this but stresses that it is of utmost importance for the board position to happen plus that he has a clear mandate and autonomy when it comes to desisions regarding the football manager at the club.

May 3rd/2009: Norwich''s fate is sealed with a dismal performance at Charlton.

May11th/2009: S& J arrange with their counsel to meet with Munby and Doncaster to discuss their resignations and terms of severance, with the announcements to be made public the following day. A meeting is also conducted with Bryan Gunn to make him aware of what is transpiring on May 12th. He is made aware that further organisational changes will be forthcoming in due course but no further details can be provided at this point. Gunn is worried about his future and seeks some assurances that he will retain his position. S & J say nothing in life can be guaranteed because there will be new people joining the organisation, but they assure Gunn that he is the manager, they want him to go into the off-season activity and preparations for next season and that he will have a contract for the coming season. He just needs to do his best and show the people coming into the club that he is the right man for the job. Until that happens he will directly communicate with S & J. The board ratifies this decision.

May 12th/2009: Munby and Doncaster resignations are announced.

The remainder of May is consumed by numerous discussions with others as S & J seeks to put in place a new board. Although the board position cannot be confirmed yet, David McNally finally agrees to take on the role of CEO and the announcement is made on June12th/2009. On July 2nd a further announcement is made confirming Alan Bowkett, Stephen Phillips and David McNally will be joining the NCFC board.   

[/quote]

 

I''m sure thats quite close to the truth but why on earth did they let Gunn spend the money? Surely McNally wouldnt have endorsed that?

[ron obvious 1,499]

Excellent piece of speculation Yankee; do you write scripts for a living? You could get a decent film out of that - sod "The Damned United", bring on "NCFC - The Neverending Story".Thinking about Kathy''s point re transfers: if they''d have said no, would he have read the writing on the wall & buggered off post haste? Meaning bringing in another manager before Bowkett & McNally were ready - & possibly not sure how bad the then incumbent actually was. And Bryan''s transfers weren''t that awful (pace Theo), it was his overall management skills that let him down.We''ll never know .....

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Ron Obvious - Well there''s plenty of theories been bandied around on here about the Turners. Nearly all of them have been to suggest that they couldn''t work with Delia because she always wanted her own way. And that''s par for the course with a lot of posters on here because when anything happens they don''t like they will fit a scenario to blame Delia. All I do know is that from the time Roeder was appointed the Turners were very hands on at the club. The cook was off doing books and tv to provide for the club. I also heard that Andrew Turner thought the sun shone out of  all Roeder''s orifices at once. The same Turner who was supposed to be managing the CE who was supposed to be managing Roeder.

 

Purple - Yes the "putting the cart before the horse argument" also applies to appointing Gunn. But not as you say "equally". There''s a huge investment in interviewing, making a shortlist, and then offering a long and good enough contract to secure the man who probably wouldn''t sign it anyway because the people he would be working for weren''t appointed yet. Smith & Jones knew Gunny, trusted him to run the show while they sorted the boardroom. He was probably already a long way through the process of spending the next seasons budget anyway. A month or more without a manager at the same time as there was no CE would have been dangerous to say the least.

 

Yankee - Brilliant speculation that I feel may not be too far from the truth. It won''t satisfy those on here with insatiable appetites for ridiculing the clubs owners though.

 

Kathy - Why would McNally not have endorsed spending the money? I reckon much of the groundwork for many of the signings had already been done before we were relegated. Gunny did quite well with his player budget. There were some mistakes but not many expensive ones. Apart from the additions of Forster and Russell Martin Gunny cobbled together enough talent to win the league. Spending more money in the January and bringing in a couple of loans later if we were at or near the top of the league would have been expected anyway. So the one BIG mistake was the goalkeeper which meant the fee for Forster would not have been expected. Russell Martin may not even have come to the club if Spillane hadn''t got injured, or maybe not ''til the January. So Forster was Lamberts stroke of genius and a very important aquisition too. But Holt, Martin and Hoolahan plus Doherty and Nelson were hugely influential too last season. As was Lappin, a player who Gunn brought in from the cold and Smith, a player who Gunn had given a debut to.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]
Excellent piece of speculation Yankee; do you write scripts for a living? You could get a decent film out of that - sod "The Damned United", bring on "NCFC - The Neverending Story".
Thinking about Kathy''s point re transfers: if they''d have said no, would he have read the writing on the wall & buggered off post haste? Meaning bringing in another manager before Bowkett & McNally were ready - & possibly not sure how bad the then incumbent actually was. And Bryan''s transfers weren''t that awful (pace Theo), it was his overall management skills that let him down.

We''ll never know .....


[/quote]

Hi Ron. Thanks for the praise but no scriptwriting income for me. I''m just a crusty old retiree who has less time to annoy people on here than I used to. I did just notice I made a typo when I meant to type  "decision" earlier. I point it out as I''d hate to let The Butler think I have a spelling problem although, quite frankly, I don''t think he''d notice the difference. [:D] 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Ron Obvious - Well there''s plenty of theories been bandied around on here about the Turners. Nearly all of them have been to suggest that they couldn''t work with Delia because she always wanted her own way. And that''s par for the course with a lot of posters on here because when anything happens they don''t like they will fit a scenario to blame Delia. All I do know is that from the time Roeder was appointed the Turners were very hands on at the club. The cook was off doing books and tv to provide for the club. I also heard that Andrew Turner thought the sun shone out of  all Roeder''s orifices at once. The same Turner who was supposed to be managing the CE who was supposed to be managing Roeder.

 

Purple - Yes the "putting the cart before the horse argument" also applies to appointing Gunn. But not as you say "equally". There''s a huge investment in interviewing, making a shortlist, and then offering a long and good enough contract to secure the man who probably wouldn''t sign it anyway because the people he would be working for weren''t appointed yet. Smith & Jones knew Gunny, trusted him to run the show while they sorted the boardroom. He was probably already a long way through the process of spending the next seasons budget anyway. A month or more without a manager at the same time as there was no CE would have been dangerous to say the least.

 

Yankee - Brilliant speculation that I feel may not be too far from the truth. It won''t satisfy those on here with insatiable appetites for ridiculing the clubs owners though.

 

Kathy - Why would McNally not have endorsed spending the money? I reckon much of the groundwork for many of the signings had already been done before we were relegated. Gunny did quite well with his player budget. There were some mistakes but not many expensive ones. Apart from the additions of Forster and Russell Martin Gunny cobbled together enough talent to win the league. Spending more money in the January and bringing in a couple of loans later if we were at or near the top of the league would have been expected anyway. So the one BIG mistake was the goalkeeper which meant the fee for Forster would not have been expected. Russell Martin may not even have come to the club if Spillane hadn''t got injured, or maybe not ''til the January. So Forster was Lamberts stroke of genius and a very important aquisition too. But Holt, Martin and Hoolahan plus Doherty and Nelson were hugely influential too last season. As was Lappin, a player who Gunn brought in from the cold and Smith, a player who Gunn had given a debut to.

 

[/quote]

Now this is the second time today that we''re in agreement. Hmmm.

As the story is told by Yankee, it is quite logical that Gunn''s transfer market work would have been subject to the secret approval of McNally

Now, moving on, how did Gunn''s McNally-approved signings eventually work out? Maybe you''d like to work it out and tell us whether in your view these assumed activities enhance or detract from McNally''s burgeoning reputation!

[:)]

OTBC

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="ron obvious"]
Excellent piece of speculation Yankee; do you write scripts for a living? You could get a decent film out of that - sod "The Damned United", bring on "NCFC - The Neverending Story".
Thinking about Kathy''s point re transfers: if they''d have said no, would he have read the writing on the wall & buggered off post haste? Meaning bringing in another manager before Bowkett & McNally were ready - & possibly not sure how bad the then incumbent actually was. And Bryan''s transfers weren''t that awful (pace Theo), it was his overall management skills that let him down.

We''ll never know .....


[/quote]

Hi Ron. Thanks for the praise but no scriptwriting income for me. I''m just a crusty old retiree who has less time to annoy people on here than I used to. I did just notice I made a typo when I meant to type  "decision" earlier. I point it out as I''d hate to let The Butler think I have a spelling problem although, quite frankly, I don''t think he''d notice the difference. [:D] 

[/quote]

Excellent YC by all the laws of this forum it will be fact by next week.

No you are right as always, I would not notice any spelling mistakes, as I am not as petty minded as you seem to be and have taken it in the spirit it was meant. 

I would still like answers to all the questions you avoided if, of course, you can find the time.

 

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "]

I wasn''t aware that it went any further than the issue of the first undertaking, but you may be right Purple.

On a slightly different tack, do you think Liverpool (and by implication Man U who are also leveraged up to the hilt) are too big to fail?  Can the banks afford to let them go into admin, or will they have to go on extending the debt until the market in football clubs improves (if it ever does)? 

 

[/quote]

Cherub, this is what Broughton has said:

"When I took the role they gave A COUPLE [my emphasis] of written undertakings to Royal Bank of Scotland - that I was the only person entitled to change the board and that they would take no action to frustrate any reasonable sale," Broughton said.

I assume by "take no action to frustrate a reasonable sale" he means vote against as shareholders, irrespective of what the board might recommend. And this is what I mean about a judge having to decide who owns Liverpool. A judge is going to have to decide (assuming H&G gave that second undertaking) whether the US proposal is reasonable. Would we want that with Norwich?


[/quote]

Thanks Purple.  My interpretation the second undertaking is, given that H&G have agreed to the first undertaking about changing the board, they will take no other action to frustrate a reasonable sale.  I''m still unclear whether the second undertaking is the subject of the court case or only the first, but my understanding is that H&G (mostly H it seems) have applied to the court to get the first undertaking overturned so that they can bring their own people onto the board.  

This action would clearly be designed to frustrate a sale, but I think it''s very unlikely that a judge would be called upon to decide whether this particular sale (or indeed any other) is "reasonable".  I expect the adjudication to be confined to the first undertaking - which presumably overrides the club''s constitution.  So which takes precedence, the undertaking or the constitution? 

As posted above, I suspect that the main reason H&G have gone to court is to play for time - hoping that either the new buyers will pull out, or that if a decision has not been made by 15th October RBS will blink and extend the loan yet again instead of calling it in.  If in the meantime the first undertaking is upheld, no doubt they will apply for leave to appeal thus wasting even more time . . .

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user=YankeeCanary]

Excellent YC by all the laws of this forum it will be fact by next week.

No you are right as always, I would not notice any spelling mistakes, as I am not as petty minded as you seem to be and have taken it in the spirit it was meant. 

I would still like answers to all the questions you avoided if, of course, you can find the time.

[/quote]

I''ll make a deal with you Butler. You meet the challenge I set out for you ( you do remember what it was don''t you? If not, I''ll be happy to remind you ) and publish it on this forum ( after all you will want to get your commitments out to the widest audience possible ) and I will answer all your questions or any others you can think of. Now this sounds like a fair bargain to me. After all, I''m just a simple PUP while you are the one with the responsibilty of leading NCISA over new horizons. Now, don''t use that lame, weak-kneed excuse that all can be seen on the NCISA website. I''m sure that this website has multi times the traffic and if you are truly committed to make NCISA significantly more effective then you won''t have any qualms about publishing your objectives on the widest possible basis. Is it a deal?  

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "]

I wasn''t aware that it went any further than the issue of the first undertaking, but you may be right Purple.

On a slightly different tack, do you think Liverpool (and by implication Man U who are also leveraged up to the hilt) are too big to fail?  Can the banks afford to let them go into admin, or will they have to go on extending the debt until the market in football clubs improves (if it ever does)? 

 

[/quote]Cherub, this is what Broughton has said:"When I took the role they gave A COUPLE [my emphasis] of written undertakings to Royal Bank of Scotland - that I was the only person entitled to change the board and that they would take no action to frustrate any reasonable sale," Broughton said. I assume by "take no action to frustrate a reasonable sale" he means vote against as shareholders, irrespective of what the board might recommend. And this is what I mean about a judge having to decide who owns Liverpool. A judge is going to have to decide (assuming H&G gave that second undertaking) whether the US proposal is reasonable. Would we want that with Norwich?

[/quote]

Thanks Purple.  My interpretation the second undertaking is, given that H&G have agreed to the first undertaking about changing the board, they will take no other action to frustrate a reasonable sale.  I''m still unclear whether the second undertaking is the subject of the court case or only the first, but my understanding is that H&G (mostly H it seems) have applied to the court to get the first undertaking overturned so that they can bring their own people onto the board.  

This action would clearly be designed to frustrate a sale, but I think it''s very unlikely that a judge would be called upon to decide whether this particular sale (or indeed any other) is "reasonable".  I expect the adjudication to be confined to the first undertaking - which presumably overrides the club''s constitution.  So which takes precedence, the undertaking or the constitution? 

As posted above, I suspect that the main reason H&G have gone to court is to play for time - hoping that either the new buyers will pull out, or that if a decision has not been made by 15th October RBS will blink and extend the loan yet again instead of calling it in.  If in the meantime the first undertaking is upheld, no doubt they will apply for leave to appeal thus wasting even more time . . .

 

[/quote]Cherub. we shall see on Tuesday, but for now I stick to my point that it is the second supposed undertaking - not blocking a "reasonable" offer - that is the important one. It overrides the first one. I''m sure Broughton has tried to tie H&G in to not standing in the way of a  decent offer. But I don''t see how any undertaking - assuming there was one - could possibly have been so precisely worded and also so all-encompasing as to cover all "reasonable" eventualities.

[GMF 736]

So a decision has been reached in the High Court, Broughton had appropraite undertakings from H&G, he can sell the Club and, more importantly, H&G walk away with nothing.

Common sense seems to have prevailed and it''s one in the eye for leveraged buy-outs.

[T 190]

Nothing wrong with leverages buyouts per se any more than there is buying a house with a mortgage. But just like buying a house the level of debt needs to be sensible which was not the case very often in recent years.

[. 0]

God this thread is boring.......Anyone fancy a bum?

[GMF 736]

[quote user="T"]Nothing wrong with leverages buyouts per se any more than there is buying a house with a mortgage. But just like buying a house the level of debt needs to be sensible which was not the case very often in recent years.[/quote]

Agreed T, to a point. However, two further things spring to mind, firstly, interest payments can seriously erode your cashflow position if you''re not careful, as we''re now finding out, albeit to a lesser extent. Secodnly, no one in their right mind would buy a house on the equivilant to a three year mortgage, which is what H&G effectively did, thereby exposing themselves to the whims of the commercial debt market.

Okay, I accept hindsight is a wonderful thing, but not let''s not forget that Peter C has made a habit of buying businesses with leveraged finance! Cash is cash, leveraged finance is someone else''s cash!

[ca 1]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user=YankeeCanary]

Excellent YC by all the laws of this forum it will be fact by next week.

No you are right as always, I would not notice any spelling mistakes, as I am not as petty minded as you seem to be and have taken it in the spirit it was meant. 

I would still like answers to all the questions you avoided if, of course, you can find the time.

[/quote]

I''ll make a deal with you Butler. You meet the challenge I set out for you ( you do remember what it was don''t you? If not, I''ll be happy to remind you ) and publish it on this forum ( after all you will want to get your commitments out to the widest audience possible ) and I will answer all your questions or any others you can think of. Now this sounds like a fair bargain to me. After all, I''m just a simple PUP while you are the one with the responsibilty of leading NCISA over new horizons. Now, don''t use that lame, weak-kneed excuse that all can be seen on the NCISA website. I''m sure that this website has multi times the traffic and if you are truly committed to make NCISA significantly more effective then you won''t have any qualms about publishing your objectives on the widest possible basis. Is it a deal?  

[/quote]

 

You sound like Noel Edmonds on Deal or no deal [:)] ( do you get that over there? )

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"]God this thread is boring.......

Anyone fancy a bum?
[/quote]

Wrong place.

You should check that inner circle. I''m told they''re full of them. All types apparently.

OTBC

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"]God this thread is boring.......

Anyone fancy a bum?
[/quote]

Wrong place.

You should check that inner circle. I''m told they''re full of them. All types apparently.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

Despite your usual delusions of grandeur every reference to God is not an invitation for you to subject the board to even more of your drivel......

 

[. 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"]God this thread is boring.......Anyone fancy a bum?[/quote]

Wrong place.

You should check that inner circle. I''m told they''re full of them. All types apparently.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

Despite my usual delusions of grandeur every reference to God is an invitation for me to subject the board to even more of my drivel......

 

[/quote]That''s better..........

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"]God this thread is boring.......

Anyone fancy a bum?
[/quote]

Wrong place.

You should check that inner circle. I''m told they''re full of them. All types apparently.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

Despite Nora''s usual delusions of grandeur every reference to God is not an invitation for her to subject the board to even more of her drivel...... God I hope I don''t get stuck tonight with a boring delusional megalomaniac like her ''til closing time...

 

[/quote]

That''s better..........
[/quote]

Sure is [Y]

 

[canary cherub 1]

Any chance of getting this thread back on topic?

Well it appears that there were two court cases not one - the first one on Monday where RBS got an injunction to stop H&G changing the composition of the Liverpool board, and the second one today where a decision was made on the sale of the club over the heads of the owners. 

In the interim, a billionaire from Singapore popped up with what looked on the surface to be a better offer.  Now a Liverpool supporting acquaintance of mine tells me that said Singapore billionaire owns a chain of Manchester United themed sports bars in the Far East so he wasn''t at all keen, understandably so.  It also raises legitimate concerns about a potential conflict of interests. 

Anyway, it now appears that the Singapore offer has been rejected and the American one accepted.  Mind you, it''s been at least 10 minutes since I checked the latest news so it could all have changed by now . . . 

I trust that''s clear  [8-)]

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

Any chance of getting this thread back on topic?

 

[/quote]

OK Sportsdesk Cherub...

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

Any chance of getting this thread back on topic?

 

[/quote]

OK Sportsdesk Cherub...

 

[/quote]

lol [:)]

Told you so, I''ve just heard the 5pm news and it HAS changed - or, more than likely, I didn''t understand it properly in the first place [:$]  It now appears the court has NOT decided which bid should be accepted - only that the club can, in principle, be sold without the consent of the owners.  I must say that''s what I would have expected - it''s not the court''s place to decide which bid to accept.

 

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"]God this thread is boring.......

Anyone fancy a bum?
[/quote]

Wrong place.

You should check that inner circle. I''m told they''re full of them. All types apparently.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

Being another continent away from ''the inner circle'', I can''t imagine who would tell you. [:P]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="First Wazzock"]Being another continent away from ''the inner circle'', I can''t imagine who would tell you. [:P][/quote]Which continent is he in Wazzy? Or is he just incontinent? [^o)]

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

Any chance of getting this thread back on topic?

 

[/quote]

OK Sportsdesk Cherub...

 

[/quote]

lol [:)]

Told you so, I''ve just heard the 5pm news and it HAS changed - or, more than likely, I didn''t understand it properly in the first place [:$]  It now appears the court has NOT decided which bid should be accepted - only that the club can, in principle, be sold without the consent of the owners.  I must say that''s what I would have expected - it''s not the court''s place to decide which bid to accept.

 

[/quote]Cherub, in all the vast acres of coverage at least one question has not been answered, and that''s the one posed by the OP and which exercised me. Even if Hicks and Gillett gave up their boardroom veto (and it was pretty obvious all the way through they had) what happened to the veto they would normally have as majority shareholders?As to you saying the judge didn''t decide which bid to accept, that''s true but he still got involved in judging the bids. In practice he has ruled that the US bid is reasonable and the proper (anti-H&G) board was within its rights to accept it as such. H&G say there are better bids out there. So the judge has effectively come to a (positive) view on the US bid. He also seems to have accepted one side''s view that there are deadlines that require an immediate decision when it turned out there was a fallback deadline two weeks after the well-publicised deadline of Friday.Luckily (I hope) this case has no relevance to NCFC or to most other clubs, but - although I''m sure Liverpool are well shot of L&G - I think the fewer takeovers that are settled this way the better.

[canary cherub 1]

Oh my gawd, apparently there''s THREE bids not two [:O] - the other one is from an organisation called Mill Holdings or some such [8-)] 

afaik the court hasn''t explicitly told them to accept the US bid rather than one of the others, but it''s difficult to be sure without seeing the precise wording of the judgement. 

The Liverpool board is due to meet at 8pm to finalise the sale, with H&G participating via a video link from the US.  Now modern technology is a wonderful thing, but if they can''t even be bothered to turn up in person . . . [:S]

 

[canary cherub 1]

PS.  It seems that the third bidder is Mill Financial, a hedge fund which in effect controls Gillette''s 50% stake in Liverpool because he''s defaulted on the loan he took out with them to buy the club. 

I think I''m losing the will to live . . . [:|]

 

[. 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

Oh my gawd, apparently there''s THREE bids not two [:O] - the other one is from an organisation called Mill Holdings or some such [8-)] 

afaik the court hasn''t explicitly told them to accept the US bid rather than one of the others, but it''s difficult to be sure without seeing the precise wording of the judgement. 

The Liverpool board is due to meet at 8pm to finalise the sale, with H&G participating via a video link from the US.  Now modern technology is a wonderful thing, but if they can''t even be bothered to turn up in person . . . [:S]

 

[/quote]Feckin roll on......I''d hate to see you unwrap a Christmas present if you find this so exciting............  [:|]

[GMF 736]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

Any chance of getting this thread back on topic?

 

[/quote]

OK Sportsdesk Cherub...

 

[/quote]

lol [:)]

Told you so, I''ve just heard the 5pm news and it HAS changed - or, more than likely, I didn''t understand it properly in the first place [:$]  It now appears the court has NOT decided which bid should be accepted - only that the club can, in principle, be sold without the consent of the owners.  I must say that''s what I would have expected - it''s not the court''s place to decide which bid to accept.

 

[/quote]

Cherub, in all the vast acres of coverage at least one question has not been answered, and that''s the one posed by the OP and which exercised me. Even if Hicks and Gillett gave up their boardroom veto (and it was pretty obvious all the way through they had) what happened to the veto they would normally have as majority shareholders?

As to you saying the judge didn''t decide which bid to accept, that''s true but he still got involved in judging the bids. In practice he has ruled that the US bid is reasonable and the proper (anti-H&G) board was within its rights to accept it as such. H&G say there are better bids out there. So the judge has effectively come to a (positive) view on the US bid. He also seems to have accepted one side''s view that there are deadlines that require an immediate decision when it turned out there was a fallback deadline two weeks after the well-publicised deadline of Friday.

Luckily (I hope) this case has no relevance to NCFC or to most other clubs, but - although I''m sure Liverpool are well shot of L&G - I think the fewer takeovers that are settled this way the better.

[/quote]

Purple, it''s one thing to be a majority shaeholder, but it''s another thing altogether when you''ve used someone else''s money in the first place to buy those shares.

That''s what happened with H&G and when it came to pay back time, just three years down the line, unfortunately for them, the money markets had changed beyond all recognition and they were unable to refinance. Undoubtedly, RBS was holding the share certificates as collateral and were therefore in a position to force a sale.