Liverpool’s American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, have tonight claimed that a Texas court has granted a temporary restraining order stopping the proposed sale of the club to the owners of the Boston Red Sox, calling the attempt to sell the club an “epic swindle”.

Hicks and Gillett claim they will sue the three Liverpool board members, the bank controlling the club’s debt and prospective buyer New England Sports Ventures for a total of $1.6bn (£1bn) in damages. The pair said that NESV’s offer to buy Liverpool was “hundreds of millions of dollars below true market value”.

The statement came while NESV’s John W Henry was meeting the three English board members in central London to ratify the sale.

Earlier today a high court judge definitively ruled against Hicks and Gillett in a move that was expected to precipitate the sale of the club as early as tomorrow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/13/liverpool-hicks-gillett-block-sale

Unbelievable

Can a American court rule on a English business transaction? I am presuming that Kop Holdings (or whatever its called) is an English registered business?
I read in last weekends paper that Hicks went through months of court action when the Texas Rangers baseball team was to be sold (also due to similar financial issues as LFC).

*edited to add this, deja vu ?

the deal does clearly under value liverpool. Imagine you owe 70% from your mortgage and someone offers to pay off the 70% debt in exchange for your house. How happy would you feel?. Yes they are [insert swear word of choice but they do have a point.Guess just the rough side of capitalism taking advantage of the fact they have no choice/finances/options, perhaps they deserve this justice.

Can a American court rule on a English business transaction?

The ultimate holding company that owns LFC is registered in Delaware

Thats it, but just as if you didn’t pay up your mortgage the bank take your house. Whats the difference, if Hicks and Gillette don’t pay up, RBS is taking it anyway. Then theres the real possibility of Liverpool being registered bankrupt and 9 point deduction. Then the club will be sold anyway.
Might also be worth noting that whilst he’s squabbling about the club being undervalued (was doing fine till these two come along, thanks very much), Forbes had him valued at $1.4 billion last year. I think he’ll cope.

Never mind the sale, apparently the next task for the rescuers of the Chilean miners is to visit Anfield and advise Roy Hodgson on how to get out of a fncking big hole before Christmas. 😉

Can a American court rule on a English business transaction?

Doubt it, but the injunction is more aimed at the American group trying to buy Liverpool I think.

The Liverpool corporate structure
Put in place by Hicks and Gillett is a bit convoluted, to say the least:

Firstly there’s the actual football club – Liverpool (LAFC), which owes RBS £97m.

Above that there’s Kop Holdings Ltd which owes RBS £200m.

Above that there’s Kop Football Holdings Ltd, which owns the assets of all of the above.

Above that there’s Kop Football Cayman Ltd, presumably registered in the Cayman Islands.

Above that there’s Kop Football LLP, a US (Delaware) company owned by Hicks and Gillett.

Kinell.

Read more: http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?p=8611661#ixzz12HZdSf7q
Christ, no wonder its in the sh1t. This is going to rumble on and on isn’t it?

Who gives a shxt? It’s only football!

Can’t believe people are stupid enough to pay through the nose to these companies, just to watch a game of footy!

I reckon a gate price to watch a game should be less than a tenner.

I just don’t get it. Can someone explain?

I reckon a gate price to watch a game should be less than a tenner.

I just don’t get it. Can someone explain?

supply and demand

the deal does clearly under value liverpool. Imagine you owe 70% from your mortgage and someone offers to pay off the 70% debt in exchange for your house. How happy would you feel?

You seem to be making exactly the same mistake H&G do and misunderstanding the meaning of the word “value”. What you paid for something has nothing to do with it – it’s all about what somebody else is willing to pay for it. Given how long they’ve spent trying to find somebody to pay more, and that the current buyer has made the best offer they’ve had, I’d suggest that valuation is pretty accurate. H&G’s valuation puts me in mind of Psychle not getting what his shifters “were worth” when selling them on ebay. I mean do you not get the irony of your house valuation example in a falling housing market? A better example might be that somebody is only offering to pay off your 70% mortgage when the house isn’t anywhere near as nice as it was when you bought it.

I just don’t get it. Can someone explain?

some people like to go and have a good shout, in a big bunch. I can’t see the point myself.

I said this about their valuation at the time:

They paid 400 million for a club that very nearly won the premiership and did well in the Champions league

They then go on to sell half the decent players, renege on a promise of a new stadium, and load the club with their debt .

The club then fails to qualify for Europe, sits in the relegation zone and they value it at 800 million!!!!! How on earth does that work?

Thats like me buying a car on finance, putting 100,000 miles on the clock, crashing it into a wall, then expecting to sell it for twice what I paid for it, while expecting the buyer to pay off the rest of the finance

it feels like gillette and hicks are now doing the classic childish thing “if we can’t have it, no-one can” I reckon they’re going to do there upmost to sink the club.

Exactly binners.

And MartynS – yup – it’s just pure vindictiveness.

I heard on the radio this morning that the Texas court has no jurisdiction, but they are unlikely to go against it in case it messes up future relations…..!?!

That corporate structure is by no means convoluted. It all looks quite straightforward. It has the air of a buyout structure, with the allocation of debt as it is.

English courts are highly averse to overseas courts, even American ones, trying to tell them what to do.

Binners is pretty much on the money. even if he is a manc 😉

The injunction accuses the independent directors and RBS of trying to “prevent any transaction that would permit Messrs Hicks and Gillett to recover any of their initial investment in the club, much less share in the substantial appreciation in the value of Liverpool FC that their investments have created”.

I think that’s enough to get the whole thing thrown out of court!

Financiers in entitlement shocker!