11 Jan 2013

It's all over: Great news for Liverpool FC as FSG sale 'conspiracy' drama ends

After months of legal wrangling, former Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have finally settled their legal action against former Reds Directors Christian Purslow and Martin Broughton.

In October 2010, Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited ("Liverpool FC") was sold to the Fenway Sports Group (FSG). As a consequence of that sale, Hicks and Gillett made a number of allegations against Broughton, Purslow and Ian Ayre, all of which were denied. Those allegations and claims were denied.

Hicks and Gillett duly filed legal proceedings, and at the time, Hicks labelled the transaction an 'organised conspiracy'. He told The Telegraph:

"This has been an organised conspiracy over many months. [Liverpool independent chairman] Martin Broughton wanted a good PR event in his life and be seen as the guy that got rid of those Americans - and he sold to another group of Americans.

"I can't go into the details but I can confirm the funds were available to pay off Royal Bank of Scotland entirely but between Royal Bank of Scotland, the chairman and the employees that conspired against us, they would not let us. They were people I thought were our friends, people I thought were loyal, and I was wrong."


Broughton et al have now settled with Hicks and Gillett. Liverpool today released the following statement:

"The parties have now agreed a settlement (the terms of which are confidential). All claims and allegations made against Messrs Broughton, Purslow and Ayre have been withdrawn by Messrs Hicks and Gillett and all legal proceedings between the parties concluded. The parties will not be making any further statement to the press".

This is good news, but it's probable that the club just handed Hicks and Gillett a huge wad of cash to drop the case, and that money will have to come from somewhere. I'm sure we'll see the payout appear in the club's accounts next year, and it will probably contribute to another annual financial loss.

Let's just hope the money is not taken from the transfer budget (!)

Jaimie Kanwar


41 comments:

  1. Well lets hope its the last we hear of them!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am sure you will get the dirt out sometime Jamie. Keep us posted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hm, interesting. Just the other day I read that H&G failed to pay the sum required by a British court for the case to carry on.

    Yes, I'd be very keen to know who has received money from whom now. If H&G's claims were unfounded, surely they would have to pay Broughton et al. some money.

    This one sentence from Hicks just makes me cringe: "They were people I thought were our friends". Oh my, hasn't he been doing business all his life to know that you hardly make any friends, especially when specialising on leverage buy-outs, just like he did. He is a complete (please add any word you'd like that wouldn't pass the word-filter).

    ReplyDelete
  4. No need for Liverpool to give them any money so I seriously doubt they did, bet they haven't even spoken after the claims they made..

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great!
    We were Chelsea financial wise and we now are PSG:)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmm. I think the only way them two would have dropped the case was if they got a good amount of dough! Jamie can you just clear something for me...since they took legal action against Broughton and Purslow, why would the club be liable to pay money for them to drop the case? Or was the legal action taken against the club also?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The case was Ialso against Ian Ayre, and he's still an LFC employee, so Liverpool were probably vicariously liable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. just a conspiract theory here but an interesting one jaimie. a few days ago it was written somewhere that fsg wanted to sell us, this would have been difficult given the court case hanging over the club. do you think it is possible that todays announcement is connected. the club has cleared out a lot of dead wood. obstacles have been almost removed regarding stadium development. commercialy we are doing much better..surely this leaves the club as a much more valuable proposition, particularly as there is no debt. could a sale be on the cards?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's a good theory :-) If they did want to sell then, as you say, a major obstacle is now gone. However, I doubt they'll be selling any time soon. The club has improved financially, but it is still operating at a loss (as of the last published accounts), and that may not be attractive to potential buyers at this stage.

    ReplyDelete
  10. as you say operating at a loss from the last published accounts. but take from that a lot of big wage earners such as kuyt et at and it is hard to imagine that the club is currently losing money what with the record shirt deal and record sponsorship deal. if im not mistaken these equal 40 million a year alone. if as many suggest they are only here for the money then i could see them making a tidy 50 to 100 million profit which is nothing to be sniffed at in the current economic climate. what value would you put on the club at the moment when the scum are thought to be worth in the region of 1.4 billion according to forbes?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Jaimie,
    Completely unrelated, but the notifications for replys on my comments in playing up. It keeps telling me I have 1 notification and its always to the same comment?
    Do you know of any issues?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Will. Disqus' notification system is always playing up. I'll look into it and see if there's a know issue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ah I see. Fair point. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  14. The shirt deal was included in the last accounts, and there was still a big loss. Also, there's the pay-off for Dalglish and his staff to consider; Cole's pay-off; Nuri Sahin loan fee; 2nd highest Agent fees in the Premier League, and a whole host of other stuff.

    The club was sold for £300m in 2010, and I doubt the value is much higher now. Still have the same stadium, and whoever buys the club is going to have a huge financial burden of either building a new stadium, or redeveloping Anfield (which is the current plan)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rodgers just mentioned that he has added value to the club now with SD, JH and JE all playing well. I am just reading between the lines and adding to your conspiracy theory.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ayre, Purslow and Broughton are heroes imo! They did rid us of the worst owners since eummm Moores.

    ReplyDelete
  17. thanks rubrym the theory has credence as maybe fsg realise that maybe they arent in a position to put us back among the games elite. also im sure there are quite a lot of business men wanting to be thrust into the limelight a la abramovich. just look at PSG now with millions upon millions being thrown around, and yet this is a club with nowhere near the commercial revenues of liverpool and also playing in a league without such lucrative tv money. the chances of PSG ever showing profit is a non starter unless they continuously win the champions league oor join a european super league, both of which i very much doubt

    ReplyDelete
  18. look at PSG they are hardly in a position to turn a profit having to play regularly in the french league yet still billionnaires bought in

    ReplyDelete
  19. For instance :-)

    We could also insert the German word for "barking". It would hit the nail on it's head: http://www.dict.cc/?s=barking

    ReplyDelete
  20. In case H&G were unable to prove any of their allegations, Broughton, Purslow and Ayre may well have offered to sue them for libel damages. In that case H&G may well have dropped the case, too, and paid for the cost up until then. Those two wouldn't drop the case if they saw any chance to get hundreds of million. Hicks valued the club at 800m at one time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Wouldn't the club/Ayre be insured against such a situation?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Interesting. Totally missed that story. Can you provide me/us with a link to it, please?

    ReplyDelete
  23. it's possible. You never know.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If I remember correctly, the shirt sponsorship deal was up to 20m a year, performance related. Guess being out of the CL will have lowered that amount significantly, as some global TV coverage was missed out on.

    ReplyDelete
  25. sorry anteater cannot find the source but i deffo read about it about 4 or 5 days ago. i will keep looking but maybe jaimie can help. as i said i deffo read it recently.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And, with the right funding, almost guaranteed to qualify for the Champions League every season. In England the next billionaire owners would have to compete with the riches of ManC, ManU and Chelsea, not to forget teams who do pretty well without billionaire owners/massive turnover.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I seriously doubt the two yank conmen have done this without being paid off, it just wouldnt fit with their previous M.O. Had a tear in my eye when i read the bit about these poor guys being let down by friends, wah,wah,wah.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If you ask me, they're nearly broke the two of them. They lost a lot of money at Liverpool and before they sold us, sold every other sporting franchise they owned in the US. You don't do that if you're swinning in liquid assets. The fact that they would have to pay another one million just to keep the case going is what ended it if you ask me. They're probably still a lot better off than most of us but I don't think they're in any position anymore to throw a million quid out the window, let alone the lawyers fees that keep piling up the longer this drags on. The deal is probably that they will drop the case and Ayre, Broughton and Purslow agreed not to countersue.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you ask me, they're nearly broke the two of them. They lost a lot of money at Liverpool and before they sold us, sold every other sporting franchise they owned in the US. You don't do that if you're swinning in liquid assets. The fact that they would have to pay another one million just to keep the case going is what ended it if you ask me. They're probably still a lot better off than most of us but I don't think they're in any position anymore to throw a million quid out the window, let alone the lawyers fees that keep piling up the longer this drags on. The deal is probably that they will drop the case and Ayre, Broughton and Purslow agreed not to countersue

    ReplyDelete
  30. While may never know whether H&G got or paid any money for the case to be dropped, the Liverpool Echo offers some interesting reading about the matter:

    "The terms of the settlement are confidential but the ECHO believes
    that Hicks and Gillett were left utterly on the back foot and have not
    walked away with any kind of pay-off.

    In fact they have had their fingers burned once again with a hefty bill for court costs dating back more than two years. Under the terms of the agreement, they have also withdrawn all their previous allegations against Broughton, Purslow and Ayre.

    It emerged earlier this week that Hicks and Gillett had been ordered to pay around £1million as security if they wanted to continue the long-running legal battle over the sale of the club.

    Their plea for the 10-week High Court trial – scheduled for April – to be
    delayed until later in the year to give them more time to raise the money was thrown out by the Court of Appeal."


    I, too, think that H&G didn't get anything out of the case and they clearly couldn't afford to carry it on either.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Absolutely. Think Hicks also lost a lot of money when they took one of his Dallas teams away from him. As far as I can remember it correctly, the respective league had to pay the players wages at the time, too.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Surely as a former confidente of Hicks you can get some insider information.


    Or perhaps he won't be very keen to speak to you now given the fact you revealed he had leaked confidential LFC information to you in the past... which is one of the factors a High Court judge took into account when effectively putting the kybosh on Hicks winning his £100m case!


    You kissed his a** and now have stabbed him in the back.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Care to provide any actual *proof* that 'a huge wad of cash' has probably been handed over?

    Or evidence to support the fact you are "sure" there will be a payout in the next financial accounts.

    Do you have anything at all that would contradict the view of the High Court judges who have highlighted on record that Hicks and Gillett cannot be trusted, have been struggling to raise enough money to continue their case and used every legal trick in the book to delay proceedings.

    None of that sounds like they were on strong ground... so absolutely zero indication that LFC have paid them off rather than take the case to court (where they were more than likely to win)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Do you understand what the word 'probably' means in the context of my sentence? It means it is an opinion; an inference. I didn't say it was a fact.

    Also, use of the word 'sure' in that particular sentence is again an indication that I am stating an opinion. You are making a mountain out of a molehill over nothing.

    Your points about the High Court and H+G are irrelevant as a Judge's personal view of them has nothing to do with the settlement.

    Unlike you, I have read every single available court document relating to the case, and again, unlike you, I have closely examined every set of LFC annual accounts from 1980 to the present day.

    Since I was just (obviously) stating an opinion, I don't need to provide evidence of anything. When the club's accounts are released for this financial year, then we will know the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I seem to remember countless times when people have stated an opinion on here and you have *insisted* they have to provide some proof or facts to back it up.


    I'm very interested what your opinion about this mythical 'huge wade of cash' is based on - or are you just taking a complete and utter guess?

    Rather than attacking the poster by trying to belittle them (how the hell can you know whether or not anybody has read the documents regarding the court case), why not simply refute the argument?



    It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to highlight the fact that Hicks & Gillett have been pilloried by the judges at every stage of this process if we are trying to ascertain what the settlement may or may not include.


    All those legal comments provide us with evidence to suggest they were in a weak position (& getting weaker as the case progressed) and therefore it is massively unlikely they have indeed been given a "huge wad of cash" as you suggested.

    ReplyDelete
  36. No. I ask for evidence when someone's states an opinion about something that is factual. For example, someone might say 'Rafa Benitez didn't want Robbie Keane. It was Rick Parry's signing'. That is an opinion stated as fact, so I would then ask the person to prove it.

    In this situation, I didn't say: 'H+G will get a huge payout, which will show up in the accounts net year' (a statement of fact); I said:

    "it's probable that the club just handed Hicks and Gillett a huge wad of cash to drop the case, and that money will have to come from somewhere. I'm sure we'll see the payout appear in the club's accounts next year.

    This is clearly an opinion, and it's based on the very real probability that a settlement could include some kind of financial pay off, especially since Ian Ayre - an LFC employee - is involved. Perhaps the club just wanted to draw a line under the situation? You may not think it's possible, but it's definitely not *impossible*.

    H+G have been fighting this tooth and nail for over two years now; I don't believe they would just suddenly give up now without a fight.

    I believe the club paid them off in some way. You might not like that view, and may have a different view, but that's what opinions are all about.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'm sure they are giving up because they can't afford the huge amounts of money they need to keep pursuing the case.

    I'm sure they knew full well they could easily ultimately lose in court (especially given the comments already from the High Court judges) and would face even bigger financial ruin.

    I'm sure they have come out of this whole process more than £100m out of pocket.


    I'm sure they have not been paid 'huge wads of cash' by LFC.



    I'm sure Hicks would not have signed a confidentiality agreement and would instead be crowing from the rooftops if he felt he had adequately struck a financial blow against those who he accused of the 'epic swindle'



    I'm sure you have not read every single available document regarding the court case (you know... the one the judge complained involved a Michelin Man instead of skeleton arguments from H&G).



    You might not like that view, but those are my opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Everyone is entitled to their view. Whether you believe I've read the available documents makes no difference to me. I know I have, and that's all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The real tragedy is that we still haven't got Snoogy Doogy.


    ...or a stadium.

    ReplyDelete
  40. What do you think of Justice Peter Smith saying that Hicks & Gillett were clearly "Public Enemy No.1" amongst a group of LFC supporters who seemed "intent on doing them as much financial and public damage as possible"

    ReplyDelete