Topic: Full text: Times Exclusive: India's richest man wants to buy Liverpool

[rocco]

If its true about this 51% it time for RBS to make it happen .... When is this £100m due and if not paid on time can RBS then do something ?

[Lyndsey_LFC]

When is this £100m due and if not paid on time can RBS then do something ?

July, but god knows what these pair of fuckers are up to they are hanging on like grim death.

[rocco]

July, but god knows what these pair of fuckers are up to they are hanging on like grim death.

Cheers Lyndsey .....  can't see anything happening until may-June them imo ...

[Crackerjack Sam]

July, but god knows what these pair of fuckers are up to they are hanging on like grim death.

Cheers Lyndsey .....  can't see anything happening until may-June them imo ...

In others words. We really need the two old codgers to leave.

[rocco]

In others words. We really need the two old codgers to leave.

fucked out more like ...

[Twelfth Man]

The Ambani brothers are also currently involved in a High Court feud both suing each other over the businesses they created then split up. They are Indian, its in the national psyche to be frugal can't see them doing an Abramovich or Man City. If they are interested its purely business rather than a 'play thing'. The Indian steel magnate, Mittal, owns a stake of QPR, there has been hardly any significant investment, though the club has been made stable financially, I guess with our current predicament that's the least we can ask for.

[Crackerjack Sam]

fucked out more like ...

even better

[stfabians]

The Ambani brothers are also currently involved in a High Court feud both suing each other over the businesses they created then split up. They are Indian, its in the national psyche to be frugal can't see them doing an Abramovich or Man City. If they are interested its purely business rather than a 'play thing'. The Indian steel magnate, Mittal, owns a stake of QPR, there has been hardly any significant investment, though the club has been made stable financially, I guess with our current predicament that's the least we can ask for.

I thought he owned Coventry??

[stfabians]

There's a difference with being cash rich and asset rich.  The offers that the turds have had for LFC have been good, however they get more kudos, and are considered wealthier men by owning LFC.  They will not sell until they get an offer that makes them as cash rich as asset rich, unless they get desperate, bit like good old George did when he wanted out.  With millions of other complications, its kinda as simple as that.

Bit like an overdraft you can't get out of, one months wages should see you right, however you feel like your loosing out because its money your entitled to spend, money you've just earned, even tho its not really yours, especially if you've just been paid.  An even better example, house just bought with a 100% mortgage (ok not possible now, but it was last year), you move in on day one and own virtually nothing of the house, you could sell it and pay off your debt, but you would feel poorer for doing this, because in essence you'd be left with nothing, and with the decrease in house prices, maybe even still debt to pay, even if you sell the house at a profit due to interest you agreed to pay.  However keep the house, and on paper, your a house owner!!! 

[carling]

Businessmen are businessmen. We simply don't know what kind of owner the indian chaps will be like if indeed they do take over the club...and thats really what indianscouser is trying to say. They have a reputation for spending lavishly but thats beside the point me thinks....at the end of the day, no matter how much we want a passionate, dedicated owner to come in as a new investor or owner, we simply have to realize those days where owners/investors bought into clubs because they loved the club or the sport are over.

It simply boils down to who has what money and what sort of returns he can expect on his investment and what his outlay would be to purchase an asset and how long before he gets a return on the investment.

Its all business.

Yes, it is all business.

But no matter what Ambani wants to do with the club I can't really think of a likely scenario how he can be just as bad.

As a person he may well be just as bad as Hicks or Gillette, but with that much money I fail to see how he can run the club any worse than them as a business.

[rossipersempre]

As a person he may well be just as bad as Hicks or Gillette, but with that much money I fail to see how he can run the club any worse than them as a business.

I know times are desperate and the turds still won't flush, but are our expectations really that low as to just want new owners who (pardon my paraphrasing) "aren't worse" than the current pair?

Have we all become fixated on the financials? I see a lot of people just crying out for owners who have serious money, the thought being "who gives a fuck how they made it or what they're like". Well I do. Not talking about that bollocks FA fit and proper persons vetting (the one that let Thaksin buy Citeh), but I do want new owners who UNDERSTAND what the club (and game itself) is all about,  otherwise what's the point? That goes hand in hand with investment surely.

Whatever happens, IMO, once again we're in for a bumpy ride over the next 6 months, and I suspect (and hope) there's many other more appropriate investors waiting in the wings, just biding their time. Let's not, out of desperation, be wishing for some corrupt autocrat like Subatra Roy who thinks nothing of ripping off his own people, the masses to enrich his own empire. That's one thing you could never accuse Sheikh Mo of, quite the opposite.

[todda]

Don't know if it's a smokescreen but, the guy has denied any talks with a view to buying a stake in Liverpool F.C.

I really hope it is a smokescreen and he does come in and rid us of debt and hopefully the septiks

[S7ARZ]

Just goes to show if the offers are real that G&H are clearly only in this for profit. Actually real proof rather than speculation

[Zimagic]

The Indian steel magnate, Mittal, owns a stake of QPR, there has been hardly any significant investment, though the club has been made stable financially, I guess with our current predicament that's the least we can ask for.

That's all we want really. We don't want to be splashing the cash, we're not into buying trophies in the Chelsea mold. What we want is a financial partner who clears the debt and then leaves well enough alone. The club can actually support most of it's own transfer investment if it doesn't have to service a huge debt.

I'll admit that any new owner has to address the investment in a stadium but that aside, we're not looking for someone who will hand out blank cheques.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

That's one thing you could never accuse Sheikh Mo of, quite the opposite.

He's far worse. And he exploits the same people Roy does and in far more extreme ways:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html

To be honest, having some sort of moral beauty contest for prospective new owners is pointless.  After all "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

[Twelfth Man]

I thought he owned Coventry??

I think Mittal and Bernie Ecclestone have a controlling share in QPR.

[Una cerveza, por favor]

I think Mittal and Bernie Ecclestone have a controlling share in QPR.

And Briatore.

He's far worse. And he exploits the same people Roy does and in far more extreme ways:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html

To be honest, having some sort of moral beauty contest for prospective new owners is pointless.  After all "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

Roy is someone who wouldn't hesitate to sell Torres and Gerrard if he really needs the money. Like if things aren't going well, he will bail and try to leach out as much as he can from the club. He really is not someone I would personally like.

[nm83]

hard to not read about all this, but I fear it's getting our hopes up for nothing.  anything involving relinquishing control will not sit well with hicks.

[carling]

I know times are desperate and the turds still won't flush, but are our expectations really that low as to just want new owners who (pardon my paraphrasing) "aren't worse" than the current pair?

Have we all become fixated on the financials? I see a lot of people just crying out for owners who have serious money, the thought being "who gives a fuck how they made it or what they're like". Well I do. Not talking about that bollocks FA fit and proper persons vetting (the one that let Thaksin buy Citeh), but I do want new owners who UNDERSTAND what the club (and game itself) is all about,  otherwise what's the point? That goes hand in hand with investment surely.

Whatever happens, IMO, once again we're in for a bumpy ride over the next 6 months, and I suspect (and hope) there's many other more appropriate investors waiting in the wings, just biding their time. Let's not, out of desperation, be wishing for some corrupt autocrat like Subatra Roy who thinks nothing of ripping off his own people, the masses to enrich his own empire. That's one thing you could never accuse Sheikh Mo of, quite the opposite.

Think you missed the posts leading up to it I wasn't saying I would be thrilled with some twats in charge - far from it.  Just the person I was replying to seemed pretty sure things would be no more stable under Ambani, which I can't really get my head around.

Unfortunately though as every season passes our expectations do get lower and lower.  Gets me down every time I think of the current regime, and what could have been achieved (certainly in the last few seasons), if we had competent owners with maybe a touch of ambition for the club.

[montysmum]

The thing is, I don't want to state something as fact which I can't prove in a court of Law. A lot of what happens in the Indian political and business circles is known to a limited circle of people but hard to prove legally. That being said, have a read here about Sahara.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4079454.stm

http://www.businessworld.in/index.php/Corporate/Saving-Sahara.html

He is corrupt and has cheated people of their savings is the basic gist in the second link. Some more stuff that I can't find anywhere on the internet now so I'll wait to see if something materializes before commenting on the issue.

We all want the Yanks out but should be careful what we wish for.

Maybe I am being overly cynical but I have doubts that any of the worlds mega billionaire's would come out squeeky clean when put under scrutiny.  You dont make that sort of money by being kind and helping old ladies cross the road - they get it by being ruthless and interested only in what makes a profiit.

Abramovich and DIC, the two most obvious examples are not shinning examples of philanthropy and yet many on here and other forums were praying for DIC to become our owners not so long ago.

Unfortunately, the state of football at the moment means that for clubs of our size and importance only people with ridiculous amounts of money in the bank are in the running as investors or owners - the days of the wealthy fan as owner has gone.

We now have to hope that whoever does buy us at least stays round long enough to invest and build a stadium even if they are only doing it to make money on us when they sell the club on.

[rossipersempre]

He's far worse. And he exploits the same people Roy does and in far more extreme ways:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html

To be honest, having some sort of moral beauty contest for prospective new owners is pointless.  After all "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

Not his 'own' people though, which was my point. I didn't say he was a latter-day saint.

Never had you for a bible-thumper Mayo, but it's a apt quote even if he didn't actually say it

[Raul.]

The Ambani brothers are also currently involved in a High Court feud both suing each other over the businesses they created then split up. They are Indian, its in the national psyche to be frugal can't see them doing an Abramovich or Man City. If they are interested its purely business rather than a 'play thing'. The Indian steel magnate, Mittal, owns a stake of QPR, there has been hardly any significant investment, though the club has been made stable financially, I guess with our current predicament that's the least we can ask for.

Those stereotypes may not work for Mukesh Ambani.  He's spent oodles on Mumbai Indians and will get into it properly to make it successful.  He wont do it to say he owns a Premier League team, he will do it because he wants to enhance the Reliance brand.  The brand will only grow if the team is successful and the team, in this day and age, will only be successfuls with reasonable levels of investment.

Again, Ambani, yes, Roy, a thousand times no.

[wesley]

A sugar-daddy? No I don't fancy that.

[rossipersempre]

anything involving relinquishing control will not sit well with hicks.

Fortunately, unlike 18 months ago, he is now in a position where he's being told what to do and no longer has the financial stability or indeed right to tell the likes of the RBS and his financial advisers where to go. Very much an air of inevitability now.

[buchigo!]

The Ambani brothers are also currently involved in a High Court feud both suing each other over the businesses they created then split up. They are Indian, its in the national psyche to be frugal can't see them doing an Abramovich or Man City. If they are interested its purely business rather than a 'play thing'. The Indian steel magnate, Mittal, owns a stake of QPR, there has been hardly any significant investment, though the club has been made stable financially, I guess with our current predicament that's the least we can ask for.

not taking any sides in all of this (well except against h+g) 12th but:

1.it's papa ambani who created their empire (who brilliantly manipulated as some others pointed out the state system of india).
2. their mum already told them to split  and what they're now arguing about is that natural gas thingie.
3. while being frugal might be the national psyche, can't really say that about everyone. ie, mittal and mallya (and while he's malaysian, he has indian roots, add tony fernandes in there too).

[rossipersempre]

Think you missed the posts leading up to it I wasn't saying I would be thrilled with some twats in charge - far from it.  Just the person I was replying to seemed pretty sure things would be no more stable under Ambani, which I can't really get my head around.

Unfortunately though as every season passes our expectations do get lower and lower.  Gets me down every time I think of the current regime, and what could have been achieved (certainly in the last few seasons), if we had competent owners with maybe a touch of ambition for the club.

Sorry wasn't focussing on your post alone. Yeah expectations do get lower as we get dragged further into the mire, but even so that's exactly why we should be extra cautious, not that 'we' have any say in who buys the club of course. As with family silver, you only get one chance at redemption, but it's very worrying that there's no pretence this time and Tumour & Met have absolutely zero interest in who they sell to, only the price they get.

[Laughter is the best medicine...]

Could it be a possibility that this bloke would be using the club to launder money?

not like we'd be the first club used to launder money

[xerxes1]

Two notes of caution.

Firstly, like others, I believe that there is a realistic prospect that G&H can restructure the debt such that they can carry on, with or without the help of RBS.

Secondly there has been popular feeling that anything is better than G&H, l Briatore at QPR and Gaydamek at Portsmouth are evidence that this is not so.

Backing SOS has never been more important than it is now.

[fudge]

A sugar-daddy? No I don't fancy that.

And with a clap of his hands Wesley was definitely 'Out'

[Carlito Roberto]

A sugar-daddy? No I don't fancy that.

Love it when people come out with this classic superfan line!

'I'd like to get rid of the new owners and clear the debt but so long as it's not someone who's really rich".

But in reality if Bill Gates took us over tomorrow you'd soon change your tune...

[ShanksLad]

Has there actually been any more on this in the press today? Or is it just another of those speculations that fucks off after a couple of days?

[Skrtels Head]

I don't think RBS would like us to have a sugar daddy because if we did we probably wouldn't need to borrow anything off them and they (RBS) obviously make loads of money on the interest of any loans. So if RBS have any say in who comes in I think they would prefer someone to reduce the loan and not completely pay it off.
I guess what I am asking is how much of a say do RBS have on any new ownership? And if they have a huge say would they go for a 'sugar-daddy' type??

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Not his 'own' people though, which was my point. I didn't say he was a latter-day saint.

Never had you for a bible-thumper Mayo, but it's a apt quote even if he didn't actually say it

Given that we're quite clearly not his own people either, then limiting your analysis of his actions to that seems to be rather missing the point.  Not religious, but as you say, it is a good, and relevant, aphorism which I thought was a little more elegant than expressing it in my owns words eg.  "all multi-billionnaires are c*nts". 

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I don't think RBS would like us to have a sugar daddy because if we did we probably wouldn't need to borrow anything off them and they (RBS) obviously make loads of money on the interest of any loans. So if RBS have any say in who comes in I think they would prefer someone to reduce the loan and not completely pay it off.
I guess what I am asking is how much of a say do RBS have on any new ownership? And if they have a huge say would they go for a 'sugar-daddy' type??

All speculation that mate.  Even if we did get a rich owner who paid off the debt in full then they would still be looking for finance for the stadium build.  Which I am sure RBS would be hoping to use their existing contacts to win.

[Trada]

Indian billionaire Subrata Roy in talks with Liverpool



Despite official denials it is claimed that the businessman is keen to invest
By Jonathan Harwood
LAST UPDATED 10:29 AM, FEBRUARY 10, 2010

Liverpool's future remains hotly debated despite official denials that the club are in talks with Indian billionaires Mukesh Ambani and Subrata Roy.

The Times, which broke the story on Tuesday, maintains that there is still a deal to be done with at least one of the magnates and claims that Roy's interest at least has been confirmed by "sources in India". It insists that discussions are taking place, although they are at an "early stage".

The paper also refuses to be put off by an official denial from Reliance Industries, owned by Ambani, which stated: "There is no truth to the report. We deny it completely." But the Times is adamant that India's richest man is still a "potential investor".

Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez has done his best to keep out of it, but he admitted that the club needed an injection of funds.

"We see a lot of rumours in the press, but we have to concentrate on football. Everybody knows that we need a new stadium and new investors if we want to go forwards," he said.

Liverpool's managing director Christian Purslow has been trying to lure investors to the club, but has had little success so far. Perhaps because few people want to get invovled with the dysfunctional regime of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who are refusing to cede control of the club despite asking for a cash injection of £100m.

The offer that allegedly emanted from India would have seen Ambani or Roy pay off the club's debts of £237m in return for 51 per cent of the club. But such an arrangement does not suit the American owners.

It is not the first time Roy, who runs Indian conglomorate Sahara, has been linked with the Premier League. Sahara had been rumoured to be a replacement for AIG as Manchester United's shirt sponsor.

In India Roy's company backs the national cricket and hockey teams and in the run-up to this year's Commonwealth Games in Delhi he has pledged an "emotional commitment towards betterment of sports in India". 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59551,sport,football,indian-billionaire-subrata-roy-in-talks-with-liverpool

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Two notes of caution.

Firstly, like others, I believe that there is a realistic prospect that G&H can restructure the debt such that they can carry on, with or without the help of RBS.

Secondly there has been popular feeling that anything is better than G&H, l Briatore at QPR and Gaydamek at Portsmouth are evidence that this is not so.

Backing SOS has never been more important than it is now.

Agreed.  When they look at the offers on the table we need to offer the Americans every encouragement to just walk away rather than attempt to cling on.

[The Flying Pig]

Sorry wasn't focussing on your post alone. Yeah expectations do get lower as we get dragged further into the mire, but even so that's exactly why we should be extra cautious, not that 'we' have any say in who buys the club of course. As with family silver, you only get one chance at redemption, but it's very worrying that there's no pretence this time and Tumour & Met have absolutely zero interest in who they sell to, only the price they get.

Sadly,this is very true.

Moores,although an idiot and badly advised,thought he was selling the club to suitable custodians.

H+G don't give a bollocks who they sell it to as long as they get their price.

It's certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that we could end up with even worse owners than we have now,hard as that may be to imagine.

For a prime example,see Portsmouth where each succeeding owner has been worse than the last one.

[wednesday25052005]

Indian billionaire Subrata Roy in talks with Liverpool



Despite official denials it is claimed that the businessman is keen to invest
By Jonathan Harwood
LAST UPDATED 10:29 AM, FEBRUARY 10, 2010

Liverpool's future remains hotly debated despite official denials that the club are in talks with Indian billionaires Mukesh Ambani and Subrata Roy.

The Times, which broke the story on Tuesday, maintains that there is still a deal to be done with at least one of the magnates and claims that Roy's interest at least has been confirmed by "sources in India". It insists that discussions are taking place, although they are at an "early stage".

The paper also refuses to be put off by an official denial from Reliance Industries, owned by Ambani, which stated: "There is no truth to the report. We deny it completely." But the Times is adamant that India's richest man is still a "potential investor".

Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez has done his best to keep out of it, but he admitted that the club needed an injection of funds.

"We see a lot of rumours in the press, but we have to concentrate on football. Everybody knows that we need a new stadium and new investors if we want to go forwards," he said.

Liverpool's managing director Christian Purslow has been trying to lure investors to the club, but has had little success so far. Perhaps because few people want to get invovled with the dysfunctional regime of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who are refusing to cede control of the club despite asking for a cash injection of £100m.

The offer that allegedly emanted from India would have seen Ambani or Roy pay off the club's debts of £237m in return for 51 per cent of the club. But such an arrangement does not suit the American owners.

It is not the first time Roy, who runs Indian conglomorate Sahara, has been linked with the Premier League. Sahara had been rumoured to be a replacement for AIG as Manchester United's shirt sponsor.

In India Roy's company backs the national cricket and hockey teams and in the run-up to this year's Commonwealth Games in Delhi he has pledged an "emotional commitment towards betterment of sports in India". 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59551,sport,football,indian-billionaire-subrata-roy-in-talks-with-liverpool

Is it me or don't that Roy lad look a bit to Saddam Hussienish??!!

[Trada]

Is it me or don't that Roy lad look a bit to Saddam Hussienish??!!

That was the main reason I posted it I nearly swapped his photo for a picture of Saddam.

[HarryLabrador]

Doubts over Sahara buying debt-ridden Liverpool
IANS, 10 February 2010, 06:14pm IST

NEW DELHI: The British media is abuzz that Indian business tycoon Subrata Roy is interested in buying English Premier League club Liverpool, but no-one is prepared to believe that he will invest in a debt-ridden football club.

Lord Triesman, the Football Association chairman, has already warned that debts in the English football are up to $4.4 billion and are "at high risk levels" in a global economic crisis.

But despite these warnings, Roy is ready to increase the pace of his bid for Liverpool, The Times, London, reported on Wednesday.

Sahara spokesman Avijit Sarkar, however, declined to comment on the issue.

"We are presently not in a position to comment on the issue," he said.

India's wealthiest man, Reliance Industries' Mukesh Ambani, was also linked with the proposed deal, but he has refuted the reports.

According to sources, Sahara has offered to take on Liverpool's 237 million pounds debt in exchange for 51 per cent of the club's stakes, the terms that the club's American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr are unlikely to accept. Pressure is, however, mounting on the co-owners from Royal Bank of Scotland to pay off 100 million pounds of the debt by July.

The bank has become increasingly frustrated by the failure of the Americans to bring new investment to Anfield.

But a source in Anfield said that infighting in the club over debts will make it difficult for the Americans to get a prospective investor.

"There is lot of internal conflict among the owners. The owners are desperately looking for investors but are not ready to lose their stakes," the source said.

Sources inside the club have claimed that up to 125 million pounds is about to be pumped into Anfield, but few potential investors have found the prospect of taking a minority share to prop up the dysfunctional reign of Gillett and Hicks palatable.

Merrill Lynch and Rothschild have been charged with finding an injection of fresh cash, but the Americans have approached other merchant banks over the past month as they cast their net ever wider in search of investment.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/football/english-premier-league/top-stories/top-stories/Doubts-over-Sahara-buying-debt-ridden-Liverpool/articleshow/5556940.cms

-------------

Mukesh Ambani’s Liverpool Bid? Reliance Says NO

Mukesh Ambani, CMD, Reliance Industries denied on Tuesday a British newspaper report that he was in a race to take over Liverpool football club. But another Indian businessman reportedly in the running for the Merseyside club appeared more circumspect.

The Times of London reported that Ambani, the world's seventh-richest man, was one of the two tycoons from the subcontinent competing to purchase a stake in Liverpool.

The paper said Ambani's Reliance Industries and Sahara Group chairman Subrata Roy had each tendered similar bids to pay off Liverpool's 237 million pound (Rs 1,721 crore) debts in return for a 51 percent stake in the club.
“There is no truth to the report. We deny it completely,” Reliance spokesperson said.

Liverpool is presently owned by American duo George Gillett and Tom Hicks, who acquired the club in February 2007.

However, deported disagreements between Gillett and Hicks, and the lack of the fans' support, have led to rumours that international buyers such as the Dubai International Capital would bid for the club.

Liverpool chief executive, Christian Purslow, however denied any knowledge of bids by Ambani and Roy, but The Times reported that approaches began as early as November and that some preliminary talks had taken place.

Each deal requires that the present owners make a commitment to take no dividends or expenses out of the club for three years to allow the club to resume a secure financial basis.

http://www.mynews.in/News/Mukesh_Ambani%E2%80%99s_Liverpool_Bid_Reliance_Says_NO_N37746.html#