14 Oct 2010

H+G's loans to LFC: 'The Guardian' vindicates my story, then backtracks. Here's why...

Earlier this week, I posted an Exclusive detailing how the World's Press got it wrong over the amount of money loaned by Tom Hicks and George Gillett to Liverpool FC. Earlier today, journalist David Conn posted an article on The Guardian's website specifically validating my story, and conceding that the my argument was correct. A couple of hours later, that section of the article was removed. Soon afterwards, Mr Conn emailed me with his reasons for backtracking...

Quick overview:

* Without exception, the entire World's media repeatedly reported that Hicks and Gillett had loaned LFCAGL (i.e. the club) £144m, and that is the amount they would lose if/when the club was sold.

* I argued (with extensive, irrefutable evidence) that the actual amount loaned to Liverpool FC (the CLUB), was £100.8m

* I used evidence from the accounts of the club itself and two of its holding companies.

* The Guardian posted an article last night vindicating my story, and directly referencing the article I posted on the subject.

* A couple of hours later, that part of the story was removed, and the figure of £144m was once again used.


Mr Conn was kind enough to send me a very gracious email explaining why that section of his article was removed. In it, he stated:

"One of my colleagues has pointed out that that is not quite the full picture. In fact, Martin Broughton has said in an interview H & G stand to lose £140m - which I take to be an approximation. RBS' barrister also said that Kop Football Ltd is the company which owes the bank the £200m. If you look at the July 31 2009 accounts for Kop Football Limited, you will see that Kop Football Holdings lent it £145m. It seems to us that it is Kop Football which is being sold, not the club...and H & G will lose around that figure [£145m], not just the £101m which was loaned to the club directly".


I replied to Mr Conn, providing extensive reasons why it would be the CLUB (LFCAGL) that would be sold to NESV (and retained), and NOT H+G's holding company, Kop Football Ltd (KFL).

The proof is found in Hicks and Gillett's petition for a temporary restraining order, which was filed yesterday). In that petition, the following is stated (verbatim):

Broughton, Ayre and Purslow...have conspired with RBS [and] NESV...to devise and execute a scheme to sell the iconic Liverpool Football Club and Athletics Grounds Limited ("Liverpool FC" or "the Club") to NESV.

Here is the documentary evidence:



So, as you can see, it is the club (LFCAGL) that will be sold. toDespite the evidence above, Mr Conn edited his article, and added the following:



I have the greatest respect for Mr Conn, and I completely understand why he made the edit - this issue is very hard to pin down accurately, and he is entitled to believe a trusted colleague over me. However, facts are facts: It seems clear that LFCAGL is the company that will be sold, not KFL.

I will post my reasons for arriving at the (correct) conclusion at a later date. For now, I just wanted to clarify this situation. Why? Well, I've been inundated with emails from people who saw Mr Conn's original article, then noticed it had been edited. They wanted answers, so I felt compelled to provide them. Additionally, the Press is still running with the £144m figure, and for the sake of accuracy, this needs to stop!

Hicks and Gillett loaned LFC £100.8m to LFC, and that's how much they stand to lose in real terms. Of course, there is potential for further losses depending on the terms of the sale agreement with NESV (and how the sale is actually structured), but until the details are released, we cannot be sure.

Jaimie Kanwar


67 comments:

  1. Please abide by the comment policy or your comments will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yawn, more baw bawing about being the only journalist with integrity. You are the most self important person I have ever seen.

    Don't think too many people care for your holier than thou attitude you take towards everyone.

    You may delete this now, you read it and that's all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally, I'd prefer those two scumbags lost 144m not 100m but oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. U go Jaimie :)  and i think everyone whether they support lfc or not would love hicks and his lover jilly to be out of pocket and personally bankrupt. I would just love to know how they even get loans in the first place? Everything with them is 100% mortgage lol. No wonder finances of world a total mess

    ReplyDelete
  5. How do you feel the latest actions of H&G impact on a potential 9 point deduction?

    I see two possible approaches:
    1) It shows LFC management and H&G are acting in a totally independently
    2) Administration is caused by events outside of control e.g. US court action. A buyer was ready and the sale process would have been concluded but for this.

    I doubt RBS will put the company in to administration yet but this maybe the only option now that biased Texas courts are involved.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As usual, great detective work JK.  As a teacher of Economics and history I'm glad to see someone is interested in accuracy and honesty.  Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is the first time I am commenting, Jaimie. Though I don't agree with what you have to say in all your articles, I still respect that these are your opinions and thoughts. I must also say that some of the things that you have written have given another insight to the otherwise, what we always read from the media.

    So, what is your view on this latest restraining order brought on by the infamous duo? What will be the immediate effect and what would happen in the coming weeks? Most importantly, will these heartless people succeed?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I dont see why they would even bother. LFC will just be taken away from them due to the failure of paying back loans and other fees etc. Hicks and Jilly have run this club very poorly and now all of a sudden there's all these last minute deals coming in. These deals have come a little too late and its all so convenient for dumb n dumber. MB must of signed the deal with NESV as everyone else was playing around. If you keep waiting, which has been the case for too long, the deadline with RBS will come and the club will be still in the same predicament.  

    ReplyDelete
  9. Personally I wouldn't waste a brain cell on H&G. Just to see the back of them is good enough. Our focus must be on what lies ahead. Is Hodgson the man to take us forward? I don't think he is but just having that dought float around can be very damaging. If results don't improve it will be interesting to see how the new owners (god willing) will react.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just what is your true agenda Kanwar? Why do you constantly defend the shitehawk Yanks? If we end up in administration, I suppose you'll blame Benitez for that too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. G+H borrows debt to buy Liverpool. Debt in name of Kop Holdings. G+H puts debt on  Liverpool's balance sheet. Liverpool pays interest on G+H's behalf. G+H puts 140m into Liverpool. most of it goes to service their debt interest. G+H declares this as loan to Liverpool and potentially they will lose this amount. What kind of logic is this?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Again I sympathise with you Jamie with soft lads like GutBucket around. What is the hold that Benitez has over these people, he was an average manager AT BEST! I personally hold him responsible, more than the Yanks or anybody, for the demise of our club. Hey GutBucket and the rest of the anti-Jamie, pro Rafa brigade, please counter his facts with facts of your own, don't just accuse him of being in the Yanks pocket.

    ReplyDelete
  13. he's not defending G&H, he's just correcting the facts that most media tend to twist around, which i for one, hate it to the guts. all this while kanwar's agenda is to correct the facts, never his article was about defending G&H.

    perhaps you should change your tone a bit, kanwar. one's thoughts can't be changed over night, time will tell the truth. why don't tune down the tone a bit, show us what you want to tell us and let time do its work. i guess this is the reason why there are so many agitated readers and agitated readers will not open up their minds

    this is off-topic but in response to Greg. I highly doubt that liverpool will go into admin. even with the on-going saga, all RBS needs to do is to not recall the loan while they're sorting things out in the court. There's no benefit in RBS recalling the loan, it will only jeopardise potential sales and making themselves unpopular. i guess RBS will recall the debt only if they ran out of options to get rid of G&H and get their money back but i can see G&H running out of breathe sooner or later.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kanwar seems more interested in petty pedantics than the fact that LFC is in serious trouble. Administration, points deducted, vultures hovvering, our best players sold in January and the real threat of relegation. But according to morons like Kanwar and jesimps Hicks and Gillette are blameless Prove you're a real LFC fan Kanwar.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just another comment, from what I understand, the 144mil (or 100mil, whichever it is), was converted to equity and no longer is a debt to the owners, which is why they will 'lose' it rather than be in a position to claim it from the new buyers.  Is that correct?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think that Benitez is a world class manager, but that's only my opinion. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the articles on this site. In fact I keep an eye out for them because they offer facts when they are called for. However this doesn't mean I agree with all opinions expressed, but again that is just opinion. Everyone has a right to one. Benitez loved our club, took us to two champion leage finals, won one of them as well as the FA cup, Super cup and came very close to winning the league in 08/09. Add to that his history of results with other teams and it stacks up a whole lot better than Hodgson. For my money he's the manager to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I dont care if u r right or wrong...I want H&G out...and most LFC fans dont care about this argument.  The only point of this article is that you want to be seen as a very knowledgable, and intelligent man...well, I DONT CARE ....I want to read about my Liverpool and not you!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey Jaimie,

    I thibk there are much more important things to discuss about the club than you trying to prove a point about being correct!
    Seriously, Grow UP!

    ReplyDelete
  19. In most US States, Hicks would be laughed out of court with their restraining order. Firstly,he omitted to inform the court regarding the English High Court judgement regarding the status of Purslow and Ayre and many other issues. Second, as the matter was already settled in one jurisdiction, it is not the standard practice to consider the same issues again in another jurisdiction. However this is Texas and a positive result for Hicks is possible.

    I believe the High Court ordered H&G to re-instate Purslow and Ayer by 8pm. Did this happen? If not are they not in contempt of court (Texas court can't set aside High Court judgement). Is there any possibility of initiating contempt proceedings against H&G at the High Court?

    ReplyDelete
  20. As per TRO, RBS can't foreclose the asset. There will be no administration unless/until TRO is removed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is no disputing that based on the above evidence that Jamie is correct. I have to tell you that I am from South Africa and all the sport headlines this side start with the Liverpool Saga, be it radio or television. These have been tirbulent times for us all, and you would be surprised how much everybody around the world loves this club.

    RBS has a lot more to gain "for now" by not calling back on the loan, what we really need to do is stand together and support the club as unit. That's what made me fall in love with this club 25 years ago, lets not lose it now.

    I am sure that that's the true "Spirit of Shankley"

    ReplyDelete
  22. <span>Jaimie,</span><span> </span><span>Liverpool are going through probably the most important transition in the history of the club and all you can do is highlight that your article was right and the Guardian was wrong.  Thats probably something H&G would also do - very "me, me, me".</span>

    My trust is with <span>Martin Broughton - so £140m it is.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  23. Now that the restraining order has been lodged; an absurdity in itself, I question if RBS played the wrong card. What would have happened if they had waited until the loan repayment expiry? They then could excercise their right to sell the club to recover its losses which could conceivably have even been less than the 300m NESV are offering. I understand Hicks and Gilletts beef but they practically signed over their rights to this sale by agreeing to the loan terms. I can't see how this injuction has any merit nor importantly any jurisdiction. Neither the asset in question or the loan or the law in which the agreements were written under, reside in the US, let alone a poke hole court in Texas. Why isn't anyone saying how absurd this is? As for the valuation of the club, its worth however much a buyer pays for it, I don't see the shares listed on the stockmarket! How they can expect to recoup much more than what they paid 3 years ago after the financial crisis is beyound me.  I can't understand why it was left so late, I'm no lawyer, yet it seems Broughton and co have acted legally and responsibly but some of the mutterings I am reading about RBS recommendations for any potential buyer and a desire to omit any provisions for Hicks and Gillett to recoup there own 100m+ sounds rather like they over-stepped their boundaries. Despite that it sounds like we have a strong case but Hicks will almost certainly drag this out as long as possible and try every avenue so it aint over by a long shot. After this eventful week and the swing in support for the board I wonder how the SOS gang and co will respond on Sunday.  Hope a good performance on the pitch against our neighbours can remind us all that this about 22 men and 90 mins of sweat, tears and passion. YNWA

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think Vinnie said it best. Most of the time it's not what you say Jaimie, it's how you say it :D - sound like a woman don't I?

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's not about whether I'm right or wrong; it's about the veracity of information being reported about LFC.  That has to be right, and at the moment it's not right.  People might see it as a small thing but when it's wrong all the time - and when it's wrong again in the future - that becomes a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I do not believe that is correct.  There is no evidence to support that.  If you have evidence, please post it :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. How have I defended Hicks and Gillett here? Please explain that one. And yes, Benitez is to blame, for everything, including the economic crisis, those Miners being trapped in Chile, and also the BP Oil spill.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Rick - thanks for commenting.  I'll be posting something about the TRO later; unfortunately not, I don't have time.  Short version: nothing to worry about at all.  Just posturing and delay tactics from H+G.

    ReplyDelete
  29. <span>Hi Jamie. Having read guite a few of your articles on LFC's finances, I have a headache! and a couple of questions. (And yes, personally I put the blame for where LFC are now at 90% owners, 10% bad signings by Rafa, but am playing devil's advocate here as I want the full picture.) 
     
    1. Acc. to the club's latest accounts the interest paid by the club to G&H (Kop Holdings) was only 10m pa. However, Mr Broughton has said repeatedly that the LBO and its debt payments were damaging the club, surely implying that the debt payments were much higher than 10m a year. I know a similar sum is paid to banks but on LFC's turnover such interest payments are not unbearable. So of the owners and Mr Broughton, whose account is true?
     
    2. You have stated that you did/do want G&H to sell the club on; however acc. to the accounts you've reproduced they have put at least 100m-120m in to the club sine 2007 - as much if not more than the amount loaned to Villa by Randy Lerner (and no one is calling for his head on a stick!)  
     
    Is any of this 100m interest due on the original 60m loan? </span>

    <span>Also, even were it just 60m, that is money in out of their pockets (as it were) so why do you think the owners still have to go? </span>

    <span>Oh - and one more thing. Whatever the amount, where has that money gone? On players - transfers and salaries? if so, what of the 100m made from the Champions League 2005-2009: where has that gone? It can't all have gone on players/salaries. I just can't square this financial circle!<span>


    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think this debacle has only reiterated the need for better regulations by the premier league, FA, UEFA and FIFA. I don't know whom the 9pts deduction for going into administration serves? The entity or persons responsible for putting the club in the position where it cannot service its debts are removed at administration and the club's assets are stripped to pay off the debts. Why is the club then kicked when its down by the Premier League who did nothing to protect the club from their fate by putting in regulations to prevent (Portsmouth, Leeds) from happening. I mean you wouldn't watch a child kick around a grenade then ground him when he lost a leg. Graphic analogy I know but it seems an entirely logical analysis of the current regulations regarding the administration penalty to me.
    I have long degraded the structure of American sports and there are many points to choose from. However, one thing that should be thought about is a salary cap but not equally throughout the league like in the US but by a percentage of the revenue the club generates. This cap should also include transfer fees and and associated payments. Most of the clubs that make it to the premier league realise that they should only spend within their means as a swift return to the Championship hits the coffers hard despite the parachute payments. Another policy that should be considered is the ownership structure.  In Germany I think no one entity can own more than 49% as at least 51% has to be owned by the fans. That seems possibly unrealistic but I'll be researching further into how it came about.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Regarding RBS wanting to "omit any provisions for Hicks and Gillett to recoup there own 100m+<span>" this may well be mis-construed. It would appear that RBS was willing to write-off certain penalty fees due/becoming due to it from LFC. It is likely that RBS would only do so in the event there was no return on the equity. It would have been in RBS interest to have a small equity return to H&G to re-coup the fees due from H&G.</span>

    <span>Much of the TRO petition is contradicted by the words of Girolami QC in the High Court. It is intersting that the Texas judge has hand-written "solely" with respect to every single provision. Much of the pleading can be dis-credited, hopefully so much of the original pleading will be dis-credited that even a Texan judge will throw it out.</span>

    Interestingly too the security given by Hicks is $15,000. When RBS argues the potential loss to it is much higher, Hick will have to find many milllions in security.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Guys, this is exactly what Hicks did when they tried and succeeded in getting rid of him at the Texas Rangers. He's just trying everything he can to keep his fingers in the pie - in a legal sense of course! The injunction will be removed shortly and we'll be back to the table for NESV to sign on the dotted line, be prepared for Hicks to pull more slippery rabbits from his snakeskin hat however.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Has anyone noticed that Mill Finance have so far distanced themselves from H&G's legal activities? Strange considering they own more than half of Gillett's share in LFC, unless of course they think H&G's actions would be damaging to their reputation if they were to become involved. I for one believe this is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Had RBS let the loan expire, the PL authorities would have come under pressure from all the other clubs to hand out 9pt penalty. And obviously the board at LFC not want that. RBS may yet say, Enough of this BS! and pull the plug ... there will be 9pt deduction ... and that may well trigger the departure of Torres. (I mean, who could blame him?) So, as they say in Texas, Stakes is high.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jamie,

    If you look at page 10 of the petititon submitted to the Texas court by H&G you will see that H&G discsuss receiving an offer in July 2010 of £377m for Kop Holdings i.e. Messrs Hicks and Gillett's equity interest in Liverpool FC. Am I wrong or does this not imply that any sale could involve the purchase of kop holdings and as such LFC? 

    ReplyDelete
  36. I often ask myself this question..where is there own money? I know Hicks bankrupt the Texas Rangers so he didn't come out of that very well but Gillett made something like $300m profit off the sale of the Montreal Canadiens? If they didn't use any of there own money and its essentially a loan against the club, please formerly accept my bid of 325m which trumps all others at the table and I'll make the payments on time and gradually sell the club to the fans thus making back the loan payments. I'll do all this for no salary all I ask is for a seat next to Kenny, unless of course we elect to make him the manager. Quite simply the best proposal on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  37. <span>Jamie,  
     
    If you look at page 10 of the petititon submitted to the Texas court by H&G you will see that H&G state they received an offer in July 2010 of £377m for Kop Holdings 'i.e. Messrs Hicks and Gillett's equity interest in Liverpool FC'. Am I wrong or does this not imply that any sale could or would involve the purchase of kop holdings and as such LFC.<span>

    Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/hgs-loans-to-lfc-guardian-vindicates-my.html#ixzz12JrnQG3o</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  38. His there - that constitutes Hicks + Gillett's shares.  Whoever buys the club will have the shares transferred to them; this process does not transfer Kop Holdings at the same time. 

    1. New buyer puts in an offer
    2. H+G accept

    3. Shares (held in Kop Holdings, hence the term 'holding company), are transferred to the new buyer.

    4. LFCAGL is sold.

    5. Kop Holdings ceases to exist

    ReplyDelete
  39. His there - that constitutes Hicks + Gillett's shares.  Whoever buys the club will have the shares transferred to them; this process does not transfer Kop Holdings at the same time.   
     
    1. New buyer puts in an offer  
    2. H+G accept  
     
    3. Shares (held in Kop Holdings, hence the term 'holding company), are transferred to the new buyer.  
     
    4. LFCAGL is sold.  
     
    5. Kop Holdings ceases to exis.

    This is why in the petition, the sale refers only to LFCAGL - it does so because that is the company that is being sold.

    ReplyDelete
  40. <span>
    <p><span>Jamie</span>
    </p><p><span>Thank you for these articles.<span>  </span>I have tried to understand the situation at Liverpool for a while but the coverage in the press often confuses issues more, I suspect because the journalists writing the pieces do not fully understand the financial position themselves.</span>
    </p><p><span>From my reading of your articles I understand the position to be that LFCAGL has a total debt of £226 million, of which £100.8 million is owed to KFL.</span>
    </p><p><span>Presumably under the terms of any loan agreement between LFCAGL and KFL, LFCAGL will have given KFL security (ie a fixed or floating charge) over these sums?<span>  </span>This security will exist and continue regardless of the sale of LFCAGL to NESV.<span>  </span>Therefore how can KFL be out of pocket for £100.8 million in the event of the sale to NESV?</span>
    </p><p><span>Thanks in advance for any thoughts you have on this?</span>
    </p><p> 
    </p></span>
    <p> 

    </p><p> 
    </p>

    ReplyDelete
  41. I honestly don't see the point.

    This is one of the biggest weeks in the history of the club and all you are interested in is proving how you're right with your maths and everybody else is wrong.

    So what.

    ReplyDelete
  42. No, you don't see the point, which is the problem.

    I love the way you massively over-simplify things.  You just cannot seem to grasp that this is not about ME - it's about fighting for accurate info about LFC to presented by the mainstream media.

    Is that not a battle worth fighting?  Or do you prefer to read inaccurate, embellished, factually incorrect information about the club?

    The sheer amount of inaccurate stuff written about LFC is mind-boggling, yet fans like you are the reason it happens - you're willing to condone it; accept it.  Who cares about the truth, right?

    Well, that's not me.  There has to be one place where people can go to get the truth; you seem to think people aren't interested in reading correct info, but they are.

    And this is what this site is all about; if you or anyone else has a problem with me trying present accurate facts (!), then I suggest that's your problem rather than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jaimie - why wont the new owners of Kop Holdings and the club not still owe the parent companies owned by H & G the money they have loaned...the loan agreements between those companies dnt just go away do they ?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jamie,

    I'm not a lawyer but in various places in the petition H&G refer to different entities that did not agree with the board's attempts to negotiate a potential sale including Kop Holdings & Kop Football. Also as far as I understand it the shares for LFC are not necessarily held in Kop holdings e.g. what is the purpose of kop football... 

    ReplyDelete
  45. The Roy Hodgson Brigade5:49 pm, October 14, 2010

    I have been waiting for this moment all day...

    <span><span>Me</span><img></img></span> says:Today, 01:57:20 PM<span><span>“</span></span>Hmmm! Purlsow, Broughton et-al have screwed up again and sold us down the river. Jaime, you're brilliant at predicting the complete opposite of reality. We're now owned by a Hedge fund in America who want nothing else but to sell us for a massive profit to the biggest bidder, not the best buyer. Hope you are happy.

    Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/sos-rawk-eotk-publicly-apologise-to.html#ixzz12LubwFus




    Guess what Me...

    Hmmm! Purlsow and Broughton have just told you to go play with yourself...

    Plain and simple, you should not have the right to call yourself a fan... Me...  

    ReplyDelete
  46. No longer bored of Kanwar5:50 pm, October 14, 2010

    So let me get this right - Jaimie is being told he is wrong for saying someone else is wrong by somebody who has probably argued that Jaimie was wrong when he has maintained for months that the press have got their facts wrong, which Jaimie was actually right about!

    GutBucket you're just wrong and by reading what you've written a bit xenophobic too!

    ReplyDelete
  47. No longer bored of Kanwar6:01 pm, October 14, 2010

    Most fans want H+G out but if you keep basing you're opinion on misguided and inaccurate press coverage then you are just a blind sheep. Why is it easier to accept what the gutter press say is gospel as rather than do the intelligent thing and listen to someone who works hard to research the facts and then present them to everyone else?

    I'm glad that H+G have finally been shown the exit, but I'm also glad that what I've argued has been based on the truth rather than jumping on the bandwagon and gone off half cocked.



    YNWA.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The Roy Hodgson Brigade6:02 pm, October 14, 2010

    Hey Me...

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Roy Hodgson Brigade6:03 pm, October 14, 2010

    Go play with yourself...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Totally behind your push for truthful and well researched journalism.  And I enjoy your articles and the debate their stir up.  

    But I also think there is a better way to present your point, especially when there are things flying all over the place. I don't think anyone has full information, let alone you. This has been proven recently with the documents that no one had not seen which were presented in the first court case.  

    It appears to the casual reader that you are a triumphalist, black and white, dogmatic on points which you have no right to be. At the very best some of these points are still debatable.  Yes it's possible that you will end up to be correct, but not necessarily because of the reasons you suggest.  As of yet nothing has been sold, so you cannot state for certain if Kop or LFCAG is being sold.  The document you have quoted has already been held in high court as being factually inaccurate.

    Some contrition in your arguments, and a nod to the fact that nobody has full information, would enhance your standing in my opinion.  At the moment you are not coming across in the light that your research and endeavour deserves, which is a shame.  

    Quick grammatical point. You say "verbatim" then precede to cut up the quote so that it reads easier, ie the opposite of verbatim.  

    ReplyDelete
  51. Do you really think the board are doing the right thing for the club, or the right thing for RBS? We all want the club sold, and to the right buyer, with the right agenda. RBS put Broughton in charge, and Broughton doesn't look like he's looking at all options, just one's that suit RBS. If the club are finally sold, then it's all good news, but just how good ...

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Rory Smith has not replied"

    Maybe he's too busy with his successful career as one of the top sports journalists writing for a mainstream newspaper....why the hell should he bother pandering to you?!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Or, maybe he doesn't have an answer because he knows he's wrong.  Who gives a damn if he writes for a 'mainstream newspaper'?!  That doesn't mean he's always right.  And re 'pandering' to me - I've been in regular contact wit several top journos for ages, discussing football, their articles etc.  For example, Guardian writer David Conn has sent me two (unsolicited) emails over the last 24 hours re my story about the 144m loans to LFC.  It's not pandering, it's discussion.

    Rory Smith got it wrong, just like every other journalist on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Yes...he has...the content of the second of which confirmed you were wrong!

    Doh.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The Roy Hodgson Brigade10:07 pm, October 14, 2010

    I see you are coming back for more Me...

    "If the club are finally sold"? (I am sure you meant is not are?)

    The last time I checked, RBS and the Liverpool Board sold the club last week. So my question to you Me...

    How can you make a comment like " If the club are finally sold"?

    Please go take a ICE COLD SHOWER and then come back and answer your own question...

    ReplyDelete
  56. What are you on about?  it might be helpful if you actually refer to some kind of subject matter in your replies.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Jaimie - any chance you can answer my question posted earlier above - many thanks in advance

    ReplyDelete
  58. I will do as soon as I can (within the next hour or so).  Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hi Questioner,

    1. Kop Holdings (KFHL) /Kop Football (KFL) are not being sold. Only LFCAGL is being sold.

    2. LFC's shares are held in KFL.  When the sale goes through, the shares will be transferred from KFL to NESV (also a holding company)

    3. Once that happens, KFL will be an empty vessel.  Having said that, it will still have a claim against LFCAGL for the 101m in loans given to the club by Hicks and Gillett.

    4. The new owners will own LFCAGL; since there will still be 101m in loans still payable to KFL, Hicks and Gillett will be able to launch an action to have their loans repaid. How successful that action will be is another story.

    5.  As for KFHL - that is another company owned by H+G; KFL owes KFHL 145m, but in reality, the outstanding amount is only 45m (101m of that 145 went to LFCAGL).  There may be loan agreements between KFL and KFL, but Hicks and Gillett won't claim against themselves (!), so there only recourse will be to claim against LFCAGL.

    6. I suspect, however, that LFC will come to some kind of compensatory agreement with H+G at some point, which would be the best deal for all concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hi Ian - thanks for your comments. I do take them on board.  In this current situation there may be no contrition in my arguments, but that's because I'm pretty sure I'm right on this particular issue. And given the fact that it's explicitly stated in Hicks' petition (prepared by lawyers) that it is LFCAGL that will be sold, I think it's safe to be emphatic on that point.  The document may be factually inaccurate in places, but that does not mean that particular pieces of information is factually inaccurate.

    To be honest, I don't concern myself with how I come across - I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, and I'm not in this to be praised.  If people don't like me, that's fine with me. As long as am respectful and civl with people, and present my arguments in a robust manner, that's good enough for me.

    And you're absolutely right about the verbatim issue - I guess I planned to include the entire snippet, but must have unconsciously changed my mind when typing it. I'll remove that from the article.

    Thanks again for your observations :)

    ReplyDelete
  61. @Gut
    he has the right to choose the topics for his blogs and there are sooooo many coverage on those serious issues out there, i guess we could afford to have one less blog to cover it. kanwar's coverage on actual figures and facts is definitely welcomed by me (well, i can't speak for everyone, can i?) the accuracy of his reports may or may not be accurate but i can't live an ignorant life and be narrow-minded, so i strife to be open-minded

    ReplyDelete
  62. I appreciate the thought and effort that has been put into this series of articles.  I think they are important beyond the simple need for accuracy.  They are also important if one is to understand the competing interests and tactics of the various parties. 

    It's a shame we don't have the RBS loan agreements and all the board minutes that would definitively answer the question.  But I will hazard a guess that the Guardian might be right.  I don't know anything about debt collection, but here is my thinking.  First, I'd hesitate to rely on a H&G filing to prove that LFC is the entity being sold.  Second, it seems to me that the only way for NESV to cut H&G out of the usurious loan they levied on LFC would be to acquire one of the holding companies and keep it insolvent.

    Here is the ownership chain: KI - KFCay - KFH - KFL - LFC

    If NESV were to buy LFC, they would pay money to KFL which would then transfer 300m to the various non H&G creditors who are first in line, primarily RBS.  However, the outstanding loan of 100m would still be due to KFL.  Since LFC is a viable entity with working capital and would not become insolvent if it paid KFL (ultimately owned by H&G), the bad guys would be able to collect on the loan plus the 10% annually accrued interest (which today is essentially a usurious rate).

    On the other hand, if NESV were to buy KFL, they would pay money to KFH which would then transfer 300m to RBS and others.  Although the outstanding 144m? loan would still be due to KFH (ultimately owned by H&G), couldn't the new owners make KFL a shell with no available capital and in such a condition insure that it became insolvent if H&G tried to collect?  Under the terms of the loan, H&G can't collect if it would result in the corporation's insolvency.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thanks Jaimie...........that's the way i see it which is why the press and everyone reporting that H and G stand to lose all of their money isn,t accurate and I find it odd that the fact that H and G will have an ongoing claim against LFC has not been mentioned at all. Maybe h and g,s claim gets settled upon completion with nesv......I would find it odd if nesv would want to start off it's ownership still bleeding 10m a year or so to H and g.................maybe they,ll have to and are keeping quiet about it

    ReplyDelete
  64. good luck mate, but find your attitude pretty disgusting, especially your facebook anti pages, attacks on anyone with opinion that differs to your own, and your seeming lack of concern at what is happening to the club so long as your can prove that your facts are better than anyone elses.

    Again, good luck to you, good luck to your attacks on "dim-witted" fans and whatever other insults you feel are necessary to prove your point, personally I find your approach pathetic, but hey that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thanks Jaimie...........that's the way i see it which is why the press and everyone reporting that H and G stand to lose all of their money isn,t accurate and I find it odd that the fact that H and G will have an ongoing claim against LFC has not been mentioned at all. Maybe h and g,s claim gets settled upon completion with nesv......I would find it odd if nesv would want to start off it's ownership still bleeding 10m a year or so to H and g.................maybe they,ll have to and are keeping quiet about it

    ReplyDelete
  66. Well at least you Liverpool fans can be slightly happier now that you've got new owners. Even if you did lose to Everton!

    ReplyDelete