Earlier, I posted an article that categorically proved that the world's Press had got it wrong over the amount of money lent to LFCAGL (the club) by Tom Hicks and George Gillett. When asked whether the figure was accurate, Rory Smith, a Journalist from The Telegraph, proceeded to slag off this site (unprovoked), stating the amount was actually £144m. So, with that in mind, I challenge Mr Smith to prove with evidence how the £144m figure is accurate.
One of my regular detractors sent a tweet last night asking Mr Smith if my earlier article was libellous, to which he responded with the following:
I wouldn't normally give this a second though - Mr Smith is entitled to his opinion. However, the fact that he classlessly and unnecessarily denigrated this site at the same time is simply not on, and illustrates the supreme arrogance and misplaced hubris of many in the British press.
Mr Smith could've just stated his opinion, but he felt the need to get personal. I have shown through the club's accounts how the figure is wrong; the accounts are irrefutable, factual, legal evidence.
I therefore challenge Mr Smith to illustrate with evidence where he obtained the £144m figure, and why it is accurate.
If he cannot or will not, then that will just underline the inaccuracy peddled by him and his fellow broadsheet buddies.
'Total and utter rubbish'? Very easy to say. Now PROVE IT.
Jaimie Kanwar
One of my regular detractors sent a tweet last night asking Mr Smith if my earlier article was libellous, to which he responded with the following:
I wouldn't normally give this a second though - Mr Smith is entitled to his opinion. However, the fact that he classlessly and unnecessarily denigrated this site at the same time is simply not on, and illustrates the supreme arrogance and misplaced hubris of many in the British press.
Mr Smith could've just stated his opinion, but he felt the need to get personal. I have shown through the club's accounts how the figure is wrong; the accounts are irrefutable, factual, legal evidence.
I therefore challenge Mr Smith to illustrate with evidence where he obtained the £144m figure, and why it is accurate.
If he cannot or will not, then that will just underline the inaccuracy peddled by him and his fellow broadsheet buddies.
'Total and utter rubbish'? Very easy to say. Now PROVE IT.
Jaimie Kanwar
hahaha you tell them, i love these games, ppl got nothing better to do than slag each other off. Play ground stuff :)
ReplyDeleteI don't usually have the same opinion as your good-self but on this issue I think you have got it spot on about both the debt and your opinion of the mainstream press.
ReplyDeleteThank god we can now choose our own mediums and base our own opinions accordingly, instead of acting like sheeple swallowing the every word of their tripe.
Could be wrong but have the understanding that RBS are going to put the parent company, Kop Football, into administration. If H&G have loaned Kop Football £144m (as per your previous article), then this is what they stand to lose. Amounts owed between LFCAG & Kop Football might not be relevant here.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Rory Smith's one of the good guys
He's right. KFH is the entity that carries £144 million loan from H&G's sources which the accounts state cannot be called in if to do so would cause insolvency/administration. As I posted earlier, H&G are also peronally liable for £110 million of the RBS/Wells Fargo loans. The remaining £177 million (or whatever) is secured aginst KFH's assets....LFC!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment - You're right: KFL owes KFHL a similar amount; however, this is not how its been presented in the press, who have argued that H+G loaned 144m to the CLUB, which is simply not true. The true figure is 100m. Kop Football Ltd is not LFC (the club).
ReplyDeleteIt might be a small distinction for some but when it comes to presenting the true picture of things, it's vital.
The money owed by LFC to KFL (100m) is all part of the same pot, i.e. it all came down from KFCL and KFHL.
"FAO of"
ReplyDelete"For the attention of of"?
Go top yourself you c*nt
ReplyDeleteJaimie, loving your work man. Always makes me laugh.
ReplyDeleteKeep it up dude.
Haha - good spot :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing that out.
I've just given your request some serious thought but I've ultimately decided against pursuing that course of action at this time.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is how people can SEE the evidence. Actually have it there in front of them and still question it? It's farcical.
ReplyDeleteUpdate from the Court case Jaimie:
ReplyDelete"RBS reveals that it is clause C3 of the sale agreement with the bank that Hicks and Gillett signed in April 2010 that they have breached in regards to trying to change the board."
The Liverpool investment for G&T can only be viewed properly by considering all of the various companies. Not the Club "alone", or Kop Holdings "alone", etc.
ReplyDeleteIn essence, your point is pedantic one, and is not critical at all in the overall understanding that G&T will lose 144m if their investment in Liverpool (via several companies) fails.
The point that the press piggyback on each other is nothing new.
Cheers. That's an agreement to which we don't have access. Also, RBS is making the claim - it doesn't mean the court will agree.
ReplyDelete<html>
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff Jamie. i have slated you many times on this site, but have changed my opinion of your writing. you seem to be the only person not just re-regurgitating old news and factless/proofless news. spot on.
<p>
Ps. dont join SOS any1, loud mouth cretins..</p></html>
With respect, it's not a pedantic point. When all the dust settles, and whatever happens, the inescapeble fact is that Hicks and Gillet have loaned the club 100m. They will be entitled to claim that money back; it will not just be lost.
ReplyDeleteH+G's situation mirrors that of RBS:
* RBS lent H+G money
* Now they want it back.
* are RBS just going to forget about it and lose their money? No.
Same for H=G - they lent the club 100m, and they have the right to get it back. And I have no doubt they will claim for it.
This is why the distinction between the holding companies and the club is essential: LFCAGL is the only company against which they can claim - the other holding companies are owned by H+G, so they can't claim against themselves!
With respect, it's not a pedantic point. When all the dust settles, and whatever happens, the inescapeble fact is that Hicks and Gillet have loaned the club 100m. They will be entitled to claim that money back; it will not just be lost.
ReplyDeleteH+G's situation mirrors that of RBS:
* RBS lent H+G money
* Now they want it back.
* are RBS just going to forget about it and lose their money? No.
Same for H=G - they lent the club 100m, and they have the right to get it back. And I have no doubt they will claim for it.
This is why the distinction between the holding companies and the club is essential: LFCAGL is the only company against which they can claim - the other holding companies are owned by H+G, so they can't claim against themselves!
H&G representatives have admitted breach of contract on this point Jaimie, however somewhat ridiculously they're still claiming the board doesn't need to be reconstituted before Friday (when they're due to repay a £200m loan amount to RBS) to which RBS have responded by saying the suggestion is absurd.
ReplyDeleteThe Judge will decide who remains on the board today.
Jaime - I think you are correct that Kop Holdings can only claim 100m from the club.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't see where the shareholders, G&T, have any claim on the Club. Did RBS lend G&T the money personally, or was the loan to the Club and/or Kop Holdings?
I've gotta say I love watching these disputes between you, other Journo's and other sites Jaimie. They're most entertaining in my tedious Uni lectures. Keep it up chap!
ReplyDeletei dont care bout your beef
ReplyDeletei just want a resolution in the clubs best interests
somethin allowing a postive rebuild
some people at the club may need a map they are that lost!
deep cleansing of all the bravo sierra thats plauged us would help too
Gotta love it!!!
ReplyDeleteI have just 4 words to say to the media that runs this club into the ground...
EAT YOUR WORDS F******!!!
A Loan is a loan... an investment is an investment...
ReplyDeleteAnd the parent company and thier only asset should always be consider as One!(while not technically true)...
H&G may have loan just 100 Million pound to Liverpoolfc but we really don't know how much funny they have invested in the parent company.. we must always remember that parent company and liverpoolfc are one!
but the money from the owner is different becos it comes from the outside(own pocket) and are generated not from the parent company...
One must remember when the owner invest his own money into the parent company he is not liable to any debt of the company creates but is only to stand to loose his investment...
So the company's loan is not his loan.... and only the company asset can auction.
but he is bound to loose/gain from any initial and subsequence investment that the owner made.
In the end of the day if the parent company that made the RBS loan and is busted...
then all of the parent's company asset/liability is gone(that means Liverpool Fc is
sold off)..
Jaimie
ReplyDeleteI have heard the the court will make their judgement tomorrow on the case.
To me it sounds like a decision will be made whether the sale can go through. I other people telling me that the judge wont make his final decision tomorrow.
Your thoughts?
Jaimie
ReplyDeleteI have heard the the court will make their judgement tomorrow on the case.
To me it sounds like a decision will be made whether the sale can go through. I have other people telling me that the judge wont make his final decision tomorrow.
Your thoughts?
Stepping out of the blind alleys you are chasing around. I dont blame rafa for failing in his coaching job with these snakes in charge. If Broughton and his gang cannot make these yanks go away imagine how hard it has been the people at anfield. No wonder the squad looks dispirited and unmotivated. Never gave Rafa enough credit for sticking with us....
ReplyDeleteEnd of days is nigh Judas
ReplyDeletewhy print out page after page without access to real info....
ReplyDeleteHey Jamie, you're the keen eyed blogger.
ReplyDeleteAt least you've finally received some well deserved recognition (even if it's only from The Guardian) ;)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/oct/13/liverpool-martin-broughton-hicks-gillett
Hey Jamie, you're the keen eyed blogger.
ReplyDeleteAt least you've finally received some well deserved recognition (even if it's only from The Guardian) ;)
<span>http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/oct/13/liverpool-martin-broughton-hicks-gillett</span>
Pete
This is Smithy speaking Jamie we spent the whole entire amount on a month long party with free cocaine and hookers!!!
ReplyDeleteNo doubt they loaned it, they even charged interest on it, but let us spend it? No.
ReplyDelete