Had a quick look and I didn't see a thread about this issue.

I believe the club could be taken over in the summer, as I cannot see how G&H are going to come up with the £350m needed to repay the RBS loan, which is due in July.

I just picked this up from a Reuters report indicating that Gillett is looking for buyers.

OTTAWA, March 23 (Reuters) - U.S. businessman George Gillett is considering the sale of his sporting assets including Premier League club Liverpool and the Montreal Canadiens, a senior executive at the NHL team said on Monday.
"The Gillett family has retained the services of financial advisors in order to assess various strategic alternatives to optimize the value of its corporate assets," communications vice-president Donald Beauchamp told Reuters.
He confirmed a story in the French-language daily La Presse which said Gillett had hired a total of four financial firms in Europe, the United States and Canada to look at all Gillett's properties, including Liverpool.
In Canada, financial company BMO Capital Markets will examine the future of the Canadiens, the Montreal Bell Centre where the team plays and the Gillett Entertainment Group.
Canadiens president Pierre Boivin told the newspaper that the decision was linked to the economic crisis and what he said was the unwillingness of banks to finance even very good projects.
"We're talking about a very large range of firms and assets which are good companies. There is Liverpool, NASCAR, the Canadiens and the Bell Centre," Boivin said. Beauchamp confirmed that the quotes were accurate.
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES
Boivin told La Presse there was a range of possible outcomes for Gillett's holdings.
"This could involve refinancing, this could involve the arrival of new investors or -- purely and simply -- the sale of certain assets," he said, stressing that the process of studying what could be done had only just started.
There has been speculation for months that Gillett was looking to sell the Canadiens. He denied that this was the case in December.
Gillett owns 80.1 percent of the Canadiens and 50 percent of five-times European champions Liverpool.
Gillett and co-owner Tom Hicks have endured a stormy relationship since taking control of Liverpool for 218.9 million pounds ($319.2 million) in February 2007.
Neither man wants to sell his stake to the other. Last year Gillett said he was prepared to sell his holding to Dubai International Capital but a proposed deal fell through.
A spokeswoman for BMO Capital Markets confirmed the firm had been retained by Gillett but gave no further details. Both she and Beauchamp said they did not know which European and U.S. firms were also acting for the businessman.
The Canadiens are one of Canada's best-known and successful hockey teams and are celebrating their 100th anniversary this year.
Any move to sell the team and base it somewhere else would undoubtedly trigger huge protests from the Canadiens' passionate fans.
One potential bidder could be Jim Balsillie, the billionaire founder of high-tech firm Research in Motion . Last year he failed in a bid to buy the struggling Nashville Predators and move them to Hamilton in southern Ontario.


I know that nobody knows what will happen, but what do you think and what would you like to see happen ?

I know it's not really relevent to the thread, but it's mad the way that happens in the US. Imagine if we got moved to Bristol or something.

Yeah that is just unthinkable over here, I really dont get how that works - although that is what they did with MK Dons isnt it?

As for the article itself I really dont know. If he is selling other buinesses to make this one more viable then that is good I think, I mean Id rather if they are gonna hold on to the club they take us forward which means BUIDLING THE FUCKING STADIUM

which costs money
which means he needs money
which means he has to sell other businesses. It also suggests he is committed to us. This is of course on the proviso that he is selling up his other interests to fund his interest in us.

Franchising sports teams. I quite like it, if a town wants it's team to stay go and watch em play. If you dont want them, dont and the owners will move them. It's got its negative side in terms of heritage and suchlike but then theres tonnes of famous teams in the US.

Suppose it's similar, but it's very much a one off as far as I'm aware and Wimbledon had gone bust anyway I think.

I am not a finance geek, but as I understand it, RBS require repayment of £350m by July 25th. The original date was 25 Jan, so it was extended by 6 months.

How are they going to settle this, given that they didn't originally use any of their own cash to buy the club to start with ?

Are they going to try and saddle the club with this debt ?
Have they got more chance of doing this now, since by getting rid of Parry there is one less opponent in the boardroom ?

This debt already includes £60m which was to be used to build the stadium. Where has it gone?
So, on top of the £350m already owing, there is more cash needed for the stadium as £60m is only enough to buy a spade and wheelbarrow to break the ground on Stanley Park.

Rafa must have asked them for guarantees as to what they would be doing in the summer. (although either way is a win-win for him)
What did they tell Rafa when he re-signed ? That they were leaving or staying ?
It's all very intriguing and will become a slow-burning issue that will ignite as we get to the end of the season.

This is what really intrigues me - they must have convinced him and he has been among the hardest to please. It actually makes me more positive for the future - if they assured him, they must have something up their sleeves.

Maybe one of them won the Texas State Lotto or something.

Rob, I agree with you on this. Rafa signing means that he can plan for the future, target summer signings and decide who is staying / leaving, etc., and not have to worry about his position being undermined by press / owners / Parry.

Yes, there is a rabbit to be pulled from somewhere by those two - what is it ?
If they stay - they have assured him about transfer money, control, etc
If they leave - they have assured him he will get transfer money, control, etc from the new owners.

It's a good move on their part because a stable club with a good sought-after manager on a long contract is an excellent selling point. The new guys take over and will not have to change any management structure on the playing side, therefore minimising their risks - Glazer did nothing major at Utd when he took over, just let them get on with it

The good thing is that Rafa's objectives are to establish a strong club over the long-term.
The bad thing is, if it goes wrong somewhere and the commitments made to him are not met, either by them or the new guys, Rafa will walk into another top job with a hefty pay-off.

I hope they haven't misled / lied to him.

According to the echol, Gillette is not selling his LFC stake, it will be other stuff.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2009/03/24/george-gillett-i-won-t-sell-my-liverpool-fc-stake-100252-23221250/

Just caught this on The Guardian website

Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/26/tom-hicks-george-gillett-liverpool

Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has moved to strengthen his position at Anfield by putting part of his shares in the Major League Baseball team Texas Rangers up for sale.

The Texan recently reiterated his desire to remain at Liverpool, which he has owned alongside fellow American George Gillett since February 2007, but is struggling to meet the financial requirements of doing so, particularly as Gillett is reluctant to put any more money into the club and would rather sell up.

Hicks would ideally like to buy Gillett's 50% share and his announcement today that he is willing to give up some of his stake in the Rangers is believed to be geared towards seizing full control at Liverpool.

"I've been quietly looking for minority investors to come back into the ownership of the Rangers as a way to be prudent in a bad economy," said Hicks, who also owns NHL side Dallas. "I'm doing the same thing with the Stars. At the end of the day, I'll still have 51-to-60% of the ball club and have new partners. That doesn't change anything. I own 95% of the Rangers. I started out owning 55% and over the past 10 years I've been slowly buying out partners that wanted to sell. There's no reason to own 95%. There aren't many owners who own 95%."

I actually think Hicks likes us, despite all the crap that's gone on, I've said it all along I think either one or both are here for the long haul, I genuinely believe Hicks thinks he can turn us around.

They just don't have the cash to do anything though, which means that every week we move back from ManU, and I'd say they are holding on to us as they see a bigger eventual ROI from us than from their local investments.

I kind of agree with you, I just think it's a bit sad is all, I doubt we'll ever get the real story of what's going on behind the scenes but I just dont agree with some of the criticism that's thrown their way, maybe it's just me being soft. They get criticised for holding on, while potential buyers are not criticised for undervaluing us.

They paid £280M wasn't it?
and now they want twice that?

I doubt that the potential investors are undervaluing us tbh, especially not DIC/Sheikh Mo.

I agree with this.

I don't like em but I don't really see them going. The loan repayments make it more interesting but due to the lack of selling and constantly stating they're commitment I don't reckon we'll see the end of them for a bit.

I agree with Bas on Hicks - I think he has finally cottoned on to the fact that we are a club with an enormous amount of potential (in sporting terms, which will be for our benefit, and in financial ones, for his own) and seems to want to take control.
Gillett seems to want out, but would rather rot than sell to Hicks.

The problem is, Hicks reminds me of William H Macy's character in "Fargo" - he's got a great money-making plan, but just can't quite pull it off because he doesn't have the financial backing and can see that others are going to profit in his place.

Excuse my crude financial examination to follow :

The yanks paid £218.9 million to buy the club outright.
The debt owed to RBS in July is £350m.

So, after taking into account the club's income from

- Premier League TV rights
- Champions League money
- Gate receipts
- Merchandising (OK, that's about £13.57)
- player sales

These two have borrowed a further £130m - where's it gone ?

Can't be on transfers - KL disproved that, didn't he ?
Can't be on the stadium - spade and wheelbarrow for the Stanley Park ground-break costs about £30 from B&Q.

I'm assuming that it's either in an Icelandic bank or it was used to prop up their other businesses.
What I think of that 

They couldn't sell in the summer because they wanted around £500m, so £75m+ profit each on less than 2 years investment, which, in a downturn, was way too much.
They will have to somehow cough up £175m each in July to retain their ownership - I don't know how much their US assets are worth, are they really going to sell up in the US to concentrate on us ?

If I were DIC, I'd be sitting in my large leather swivel chair stroking my white cat, watching these two run around, cap in hand, until they're forced to sell in July.

Are the Yanks brilliant financial gurus, or are they charlatans delaying the inevitable ?

And another thing.
If my sums are correct, why have these men not been held to account for the situation ? (Although I know the answer to this)
If a family man bumped up the mortgage on his family home, and then used the equity to buy his mistress a penthouse flat, and not a new house for his family as he promised he would, then his dangly bits would be in a jar of formaldehyde by now.

Good post. I'd assume there's running costs to offset a lot of that cash and the club are paying the interest on the loans afaik.

Gerald I think the problem with anything like this is we only ever know part of one side of the story (or perhaps parts of two different sides). It does appear however, that a) they have learnt that less is more when it comes to talking and b) we do perhaps represent a decent investment opportunity.

It is also not true that if someone new comes in they will necessarily any better than H&G or H or G (if one bought the other out).

From what we have heard previously, I thought Hicks was the more likely of the two to stay involved but someone at work told me today he read that Hicks was alleged to be thinking of selling up (tbf the guy didnt say where he read it so he may have imagined it/got mixed up).

So we have stories saying both are selling up and that both are trying to strengthen their hold on the club.

Summary:

Great big fucking massive bouncy tits in my face :thumbup:

I don't have any figures to hand, and it'll obviously be a lot less when you take into account net spend figures, but we've bought quite a few players whilst they've been in charge. Off the top of my head:

Torres - £20m, Masch - £17m, Keane - £19m, Dossena - £7m, Skrtel - £7m, Riera - £8m, Babel - £10.5m.

Quite a few big-money signings have come in. Obviously we've sold players to cover those costs to some extent though.


I'd imagine the various plans and whatever will have cost a fair few quid - obviously they've fucked up on the stadium to a certain extent because they're skint or whatever, but there's definately been a hefty sum put into the development of it (for fuck all return mind).

I just spotted this on Guardian website this morning.
Hicks in financial trouble.

Liverpool's co-owner Tom Hicks defaults on US$525m loans.
Matt Scott guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 April 2009 21.39 BST

Tom Hicks's US sports investment-vehicle has defaulted on loans amounting to US$525m (£354m). The news emerges less than four months before he and his Liverpool co-owner, George Gillett, must refinance a £350.5m loan for the Premier League club with two separate banks.

The Hicks Sports Group (HSG) has missed monthly interest payments on three separate loans, one of US$350m, another of US$100m and a third of US$75m. Hicks has sought to reassure the media in Texas that his search for investors in his US baseball and ice hockey franchises, the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars, would succeed to the satisfaction of his lenders, of whom there are 40.

"There is no possibility of banks owning the teams," Hicks wrote in an email to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "I am working closely with both leagues to find quality partners that share my long-term vision of building these two great franchises. I will continue to fund the teams' operations. I am the largest creditor to HSG and need 51% of the banks to agree with my plan."

Hicks's investment in Liverpool is held through a separate entity, Kop Investment LLC, which is the parent of the UK-based Kop Holdings, Liverpool's sole shareholder. However there is likely to be an impact on Hicks's interests at Anfield since he is also engaged in an odyssey to attract investors to the club. So far Hicks's attempts to woo backing from the Middle East has faltered; the news is therefore particularly untimely.

It will also have the damaging effect of shaking the confidence of Kop Holdings' two lenders, Royal Bank of Scotland, around 70% owned by the UK government, and the US finance house Wachovia. The club's £350.5m loan is not only secured against its own assets but also through letters of credit and personal guarantees from Hicks and Gillett, amounting to £185m.

Any sense that either of them is suffering serious money troubles is likely to spook the banks, causing major complications for their upcoming talks.

The Guardian's call last night to Hicks Sports Group was not returned.

There is no need to panic




 

Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/liverpool/5198446/Tom-Hicks-and-George-Gillett-in-Liverpool-unison-for-Arsenal-thriller.html

Hicks and Gillette sitting together and smiling - surely only one thing can make that happen - a fat pile of cash ?
They have either renegotiated the bank loan or agreed a sale.

People have been talking about this on RAWK. Some people saying to expect an announcement by the end of the week 

Doubt it tbf

Amanda Stavely could sit in my directors box (or something)any day of the week 

 
 

who?
Perhaps  is involved, after all we know that 6 bankers rule the world

Amanda Staveley



More info about her here :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2293553/Amanda-Staveley-fronts-DICs-Liverpool-bid.html

I thought everyone new it wasn't Stavely in the box on tuesday? Can't remember her name but she's some big cheese in Hicks's recently defaulted on $500 million of loans american sports holding company.

Cheese.... Stavely.... In her box....           

That was Casey Coffman, COO of Hicks Sports Group.

and she's a pig 

id love to complete a takeover of her assets

i think im addicted to terrible, terrible puns

keep going

I'd investigate her stocks!

This is nothing bud GREAT news imo. So long as they don't bring the club down they'll be forced to sell at a lower price which should draw in the big boys again.

Dirty bastard.

Shilts was at the match, as was an Arab who my contact didnt know. I have other goss but thats for a new thread......

any idea if anythings going on??

Liverpool owners back in business. from The Times 14th May 2009.

Liverpool's embattled owners may have to slash up to 20 per cent from the asking price for the club if they want to sell, even though investors are back in the football market.

Keith Harris, the influential executive chairman of Seymour Pierce, the investment bank, predicted yesterday that the new economy after the banking meltdown meant a radical revaluation of clubs up for sale.

George Gillett Jr and Tom Hicks, Liverpool's American - and frequently warring - owners, put the club on the market last year but failed to achieve a sale, with an asking price of about £500million. But the relaxation among banks anticipating an end to the credit crisis may mean that they could buy themselves some breathing space by successfully renegotiating their £350million debt, which is due for repayment in July to the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia, according to Harris.

He said that the first green shoots of recovery are poking through the mire of the football economy. His phone is ringing with calls from buyers based as far apart as “leafy Buckinghamshire” to the Middle East, as the economy puts behind it what he described as “three shocking months at the end of last year when there was no interest in football or anything else. It was disastrous.”

But the days of the leveraged deals that allowed Malcolm Glazer to buy Manchester United by piling his purchasing debt back on the club, and the high-risk strategy of Hicks and Gillett, are probably over.

“It is not just football that applies to, but just about everything,” Harris said. “Banks are either incapable or unwilling to lend money on a highly leveraged basis. Instead, we are now looking at institutions, corporations or individuals who have disposal cash. There is a cocktail of potential owners - a sheikh, an industrialist, a financier, every kind of buyer.

“There is huge interest in both the Premier League and the Championship. The world is feeling better, which means a more encouraging environment for investing. Football is not there yet, but it is much brighter. There is some renewed interest now.”

Harris also welcomed moves this week by Premier League executives to address the issues of massive debt and financial losses, which are an embarrassing counterbalance to the league's huge success.

“This is a business that takes in a couple of billion and still loses money - overall there is something wrong with that,” he said. “One thing you can avoid is having such a debt burden that it drives you crazy on a day-to-day basis.”

But Harris told the Soccerex London Forum at Wembley Stadium yesterday that he did not believe in government regulation, after criticisms of football's governance by Andy Burnham, the Sport Secretary.


Source - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6283044.ece

Perhaps G&H are likely to hold on for a bit longer, especially if the banks are going to negotiaite with them, something which did not seem likely a few months ago.

  we need a new stadium rapido

Just an alternative view - If the country bums out how are people going to afford the ticket prices?