Topic: The Private James Fraser Investment Thread (*)

[decky]

As an aside...

1. Does anyone know exactly (well not too exact) what our repayments are at the moment.
2. If 100 mill was written off the debt, what would our repayments be (if at the same rates)
3. I presume the idea would be after the 100 mill is paid back then to renegotiate the remaining debt over a longer period and better rates. Would this be true? If so what would the likelihood of this happening and at what sort of reduction/time to repay would we get?
4. With our current increase in commercial profits, presuming any investors took a minimum return (yeah I know) what sort of profit would we be making roughly?

We're paying around £30m a year in interest. This deal would halve that

[Hank Scorpio]

Reckon they'll be using their own money?!?!?! if they saved 50yrs profits maybe

No businessman will use his own money.  They don't get to where they are with using their own money.

They will always try to buy on debt.  As long as the debt is not taking money out of their pockets i.e. interest payments > income then there is no problem.

We don't need businessmen running our club.  We need football men running our club.  People who understand what is important to a football club.

Once a stadium has been built and there is success then there will be profit.  But to get there somebody needs to pump in hundreds of millions without any real immediate return.

These boys aren't going to do that.

[BobbyDavro]

It's a cheeky offer, and the only thing it's useful for is flushing out other bids and realigning Hicks and Gillett's expectations to something more reasonable.  If we are valued at around £280m then there's hope for us yet, talk of £500m instantly makes us not worth the investment.

From the little I can see on the Rhone Group (and the lack of info itself is a reason to be concerned) is that they're a services group - so they don't buy out themselves, they help others buy out and take a cut.
So I'd expect these are operating on behalf of someone else anyway.

[rocco]

Just for those who aren't sure the investment would be in the form of equity ie: hard cash. This would meet RBS's requirement for refinancing the remaining £130m for the next year/x number of years?

G+H are being slowly backed into a corner, they have to agree a deal with someone before July and RBS will insist that it's in the form of cash to wipe out £100m of debt.

.



RBS want hard cash ..... but where will this cash come from .. does the new investors have to prove its hard cash for their own pockets or could it not just be another high interest loan from some where ? = more debt ?

[incredibleL4ever]

If we accept TB's figures of £110m for 40%, then the club is being valued at £275m.  It'd be interesting to know if that is the offer regardless of what happens in the remainder of the season, or whether there are different offers depending on whether we come 4th, or else in an EL spot, or else out of Europe completely. 

Valuing the club at £275m implies that the value has increased by approx 25% in the 3 years since G&H acquired it.  It seems like an extremely good offer (price wise).  I'd have thought that £100m for 40% was a decent price.  But G&H will, almost certainly, say they want more.   (ie they'll say that they will only sell, say 25 to 30% for £110m).

Not exactly true.
This is a buy-in rather than a buy-out....i.e. the money goes into the club rather than in the greasy palms of the owners.
If 100m is worth 40% then the remaining 60% (i.e. H&G's current stake) is worth 150m. Add to this the remaining debt- 130m and you get a total valuation of 380m.

[incredibleL4ever]

No businessman will use his own money.  They don't get to where they are with using their own money.

They will always try to buy on debt.  As long as the debt is not taking money out of their pockets i.e. interest payments > income then there is no problem.

We don't need businessmen running our club.  We need football men running our club.  People who understand what is important to a football club.

Once a stadium has been built and there is success then there will be profit.  But to get there somebody needs to pump in hundreds of millions without any real immediate return.

These boys aren't going to do that.

The key question is not whether it is debt or equity. They key questions is how much the investors expect the club to fork out each year in servicing capital dividends, interest, fees or whatever you want to call it.

[redmen77]

It's a cheeky offer, and the only thing it's useful for is flushing out other bids and realigning Hicks and Gillett's expectations to something more reasonable.  If we are valued at around £280m then there's hope for us yet, talk of £500m instantly makes us not worth the investment.

From the little I can see on the Rhone Group (and the lack of info itself is a reason to be concerned) is that they're a services group - so they don't buy out themselves, they help others buy out and take a cut.
So I'd expect these are operating on behalf of someone else anyway.

Seems a bit "Notts County" for my liking!

[BobbyDavro]

Ha ha - I just spent 2 minutes racking my brains trying to remember the plot from Knotts Landing, then read it properly.

[blert596]

We're paying around £30m a year in interest. This deal would halve that

Thanks mate. I knew that was the rough figure but have heard betwen 30 - 40 mill.

So if this investment goes ahead (by anyone) then our commercial profits are up, and our loan repayments are down by 15 million. Which obviously leaves us in a much healthier position.


I was just really after some rough figures of what we take in now compared to outlay, and comparing it to how the figures will look with 100 mill wiped off the debt.

[toholmen]

Are these people coming here with a long term plan, or is it just a case of investors coming in to solve the short term problems in order to sell on a later stage?
It seems odd to me if the yanks agree to sell 40% of the club for £ 110 mill now, if it was true that DIC offered them £400 mill last year or whenever it was. Or was that just bollocks, and no such offer where made?

[beardsley4ever]

who have indicated that the bid involved equity, not debt.


Whats the difference exactly ..   

Equity does not become an obligation on the club to pay it back.  Debt does.  That's it, really. 

[rocco]

Equity does not become an obligation on the club to pay it back.  Debt does.  That's it, really. 

cheers ...

[beardsley4ever]

Are these people coming here with a long term plan, or is it just a case of investors coming in to solve the short term problems in order to sell on a later stage?
It seems odd to me if the yanks agree to sell 40% of the club for £ 110 mill now, if it was true that DIC offered them £400 mill last year or whenever it was. Or was that just bollocks, and no such offer where made?

It's classic Private Equity, though.  You get offered some money now that allows you to propel the asset to the next level.  You (as the original owner) own less of the equity, but you're hoping that the overall asset grows so much that your reduced equity position nets you more money.

In our case, the PE would come in to relieve the business of some of its debt obligations, and would then probably loan the business money directly to invest in a stadium/players, at terms LESS favourable to the business than a bank might.  The goal then is that the investment in the stadium/players increases the value of the club significantly, and Tom, George and the PE firm all sell up together at some point in the future.

That's the classic PE model, and it looks like it might get applied directly to us.  And to be honest, short of finding a benevolent investor, I've always expected that this is the kind of thing that would happen. 

[west_london_red]

Are these people coming here with a long term plan, or is it just a case of investors coming in to solve the short term problems in order to sell on a later stage?
It seems odd to me if the yanks agree to sell 40% of the club for £ 110 mill now, if it was true that DIC offered them £400 mill last year or whenever it was. Or was that just bollocks, and no such offer where made?

I reckon its the same plan as G&H's aim was initially, build the stadium and sell up.

Thats all any of these 'types' will be interested in. After that, I fear we will be so expensive to buy that it will just be another LBO a la the Mancs and Glazers who bought a club that is quite limited in its ability to expand so an LBO will be the only way to make any money out of it.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

It's classic PE as they are looking to make an investment in a business that is in trouble and cannot get finance from banks etc as a result.  The idea being that you turn it round and then sell a going concern at a nice profit.

The offer that they have supposedly made would seem to value the club at approximately half what the owners allegedly turned down a year ago.  Which is probably why the guys behind it see it as a good idea.

The fear is that PE owners turn businesses around by slashing cost bases and selling assets to reduce the debt burden before selling on the "leaner" business.  Thankfully I'm not really sure that model works in these circumstances due to the strange nature of footy and the fact that these guys, though the largest shareholder will still have a minority stake in the club.  So I think that the scenario outlined by Beardo above is probably the most likely.

In the short-term it is better than where we are now.  In the long-term if they do turn the club around and sell at a profit then the new owners will probably saddle the club with huge debts all over again.  We can only hope that the much reduced quoted price is enough to tempt somebody out of the woodwork who is interested in owning the club in the longer term and that they take the chance to secure a large stake now while the price is attractive.

[Trada]

Sports editor John Thompson answers your questions on Rhone's Liverpool FC £110m investment bid.

THE Rhone group's bid to buy a big stake in Liverpool Football Club was formally delivered over the weekend.

The £100m plus offer marks a significant point in the ongoing ownership saga which has surrounded Anfield over the last few years.

But what might it mean if accepted? And what will happen to Liverpool if it is not.

They're just two of the many questions Reds supporters will be wondering today as their team prepares to take on Portsmouth at Anfield tonight.

Echo Sports Editor John Thompson is here and if you have a question about any aspect of the Rhone bid - or about others that may now come in to Anfield - he'll do his best to help answer it.

Just leave your question in the comment box below ...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/03/15/sports-editor-john-thompson-answers-your-questions-on-rhone-s-liverpool-fc-110m-investment-bid-100252-26035326/

[i_wun_bite]

I reckon its the same plan as G&H's aim was initially, build the stadium and sell up.

Thats all any of these 'types' will be interested in. After that, I fear we will be so expensive to buy that it will just be another LBO a la the Mancs and Glazers who bought a club that is quite limited in its ability to expand so an LBO will be the only way to make any money out of it.

that's reality. unless the investors are also supporters of the club, they will be in just to milk the club dry.

[Gnurglan]

 

OK, I guess this is a slight improvement. Some money in, another owner so decisions can't be blocked as soon as they're not in complete agreement. But why can't we get a European or even English owner? Someone, anyone who has grown up with football. In a way, this Rhone group is worse than G&H, because at least those two had experience from sports.

An owner can always learn, but I'd prefer if there was a real, genuine interest in the sport somewhere in the background. And even if it's not, I'd prefer a locally placed owner, not a group of businessmen who sit in an office in a different city, country or worst, a different continent. A faceless, absent owner with no knowledge or real interest in the sport/business is among the worst we can wish for.

[Something Else]

Are these people coming here with a long term plan, or is it just a case of investors coming in to solve the short term problems in order to sell on a later stage?

They will come in, and then look to move the club on for profit.

The best money option will be the option they choose

[beardsley4ever]

The fear is that PE owners turn businesses around by slashing cost bases and selling assets to reduce the debt burden before selling on the "leaner" business.  Thankfully I'm not really sure that model works in these circumstances due to the strange nature of footy and the fact that these guys, though the largest shareholder will still have a minority stake in the club.  So I think that the scenario outlined by Beardo above is probably the most likely.

That's the fear, as you say, but it isn't always the case.  A lot of PE is about forcing a new drive and ambition into the asset that drives a big multiple return on the asset.  Let's hope that's what happens here.

[In the Name of Klopp]

Funny how this comes up before our match against the manc.

[Something Else]

Funny how this comes up before our match against the manc.

Yes its all a conspiracy theory.

Its actually fronted by the Glaziers to get on our fragile players nerves

[DonkeyWan]

We're paying around £30m a year in interest. This deal would halve that

See, this is what i don't get. Sure, we are paying £30 million a year (which is our transfer budget, basically) but I was under the impression that commercial operations and revenue increases over the last number of years had added a further £20 million or so to our turnover, which would suggest we were only losing approx £10 million a year on debt servicing from where the Americans started... not good, but why have RBS got their knickers in such a twist, that level of debt should be more than manageable for the club (though obviously not ideal)?

[Bogman]

Rafa reveals Reds concern
Boss fears for future if cash injection cannot be secured

Rafa Benitez fears for the long-term future of Liverpool if new, responsible owners cannot be found.

American duo George Gillett and Tom Hicks currently oversee events at Anfield, but the pair are not popular on the red half of Merseyside after plunging the club into massive debt.

Trying to operate on an unstable financial footing has meant manager Benitez has seen his hands tied in the transfer market.

That could have far-reaching consequences for the club, with UEFA Champions League qualification far from certain this term.

A cash injection is required to help establish stability both on and off the field, and Benitez admits failure to secure such funding could be disastrous for the Reds.

"My concern is about the future of the club, not one bad season," the Spaniard told the Liverpool Echo.

"The people who come in have to be the right people for the club.

"We have to take things forward for the good of the club and every day we are working hard."
Priority

Benitez has also sought to curb speculation surrounding his own future at Liverpool, with reports suggesting he is being lined up by Real Madrid as a replacement for the under-fire Manuel Pellegrini.

He insists he gives little attention to rumours and claims his sole focus at present is on helping his current employers get back to winning ways - starting with Monday's clash with Portsmouth,

"The club is the most important thing, more than anyone," he said.

"The most important thing is for everyone to try and do better and to improve performances.

"I don't want people talking about me. It doesn't matter.

"The priority has to be to improve things on and off the pitch."



From Sky.

[Lord Roger Hunt]

We don't need businessmen running our club.  We need football men running our club.  People who understand what is important to a football club.

Once a stadium has been built and there is success then there will be profit.  But to get there somebody needs to pump in hundreds of millions without any real immediate return.

I wouldn't hold your breath......

[BobbyDavro]

Just noticed this on the echo page:

Profits
                                  2008                                         2007
Operating Profit         £1,810,297 -41.9%                  £3,117,970

Assuming that's not got a k at the end of it, they made £1.8m last year, so they're not about to pump in £100m of their own cash into LFC.

There's a corner waiting for an elephant somewhere.

[richiedouglas]

Just noticed this on the echo page:

Profits
                                  2008                                         2007
Operating Profit         £1,810,297 -41.9%                  £3,117,970

Assuming that's not got a k at the end of it, they made £1.8m last year, so they're not about to pump in £100m of their own cash into LFC.

There's a corner waiting for an elephant somewhere.

They nicked my figures from page 1

[RossoBianchi]

http://andersred.blogspot.com/2010/03/we-are-ownership-neutral-is-this.html

Might find this interesting...

[exiledinyorkshire]

this is all just utter bollucks isnt it? I mean the only way that Liverpool FC is going to see the profits from its commercial endeavours fully and wholey ploughed back into the playing staff and or a stadium, without loading more deffered debt onto us is if.

1. we can arrange a buyout by a mutual non profit fans society.
2. we can secure a rich Billionair sugar daddy, who loves LFC and is prepared to spunk 250 million at least.
3. We default on payments the banks forclose, assets are stripped debts are settled and the club can be bought for a quid. And we can start agian from scratch.

Anything else, ANYTHING ELSE, is just shifting the problem on further down the line. These LBO's just pass the package on down the line, taking profit when they sell(and considerable expenses in the mean time, cause lets not forget a couple of mill here and there although chicken feed in terms of the money talked about, is still fucking good splosh for no fucking hassel and straight in your pocket) until some one is left holding 1 billion in debt for an asset thats worth 100 mill. It then blows up, but these LBO's couldnt give a shit because its not their money.

I am not scouse, but i would be happy with any of the 3 scenarios i have illustrated at the top of this post. Honestly, even if it meant not

[west_london_red]

See, this is what i don't get. Sure, we are paying £30 million a year (which is our transfer budget, basically) but I was under the impression that commercial operations and revenue increases over the last number of years had added a further £20 million or so to our turnover, which would suggest we were only losing approx £10 million a year on debt servicing from where the Americans started... not good, but why have RBS got their knickers in such a twist, that level of debt should be more than manageable for the club (though obviously not ideal)?

That £30 million (or whatever the figure is) only covers the interest. The issue that the club is facing is that RBS want the loan reduced also, hence last summers non existant transfer spending to reduce it by £60 million.

Why RBS want the debt reduced is probably down to a number of factors, maybe they felt our debt to value ratio was too high, concern over our long term ability to carry on paying £30 million without effecting on pitch success (which could make it harder to carry on paying the interest), Hicks's tendency to stop paying his loans or maybe some other reasons.

[xerxes1]

Whoever buys the club, there will be a "cost" associated with that purchase. When the £220m that G&h used to buy the club was then transferred into debt for the club, the opportunity for that money to have "worked" for the club by building a stadium was lost forever.

The various figures that are being bandied around, £110m for 40%, £100m for 34% etc at least seem in the right area commercially.

Because no-one wants to buy the club outright at the figures G&H are quoting, there are two significant "break points". The first is 34% as it ensures that so long as the investor has one of either G or H on board, a decision can be taken. The second is 51%, a controlling stake.

Just maybe we are  moving into new territory.Before, when no-one wanted to buy the club, we could fantasise about "ideal" new owners. Now the brutal truth that we as a club, and G&H, will need to make a further pact with the devil unfolds. And if any of you feel uncomfortable, as I do, at the sharks circling the raft at the moment while we are still afloat, imagine what it would be like if the raft sank , ie Administration.

[Bogman]

Rhone Group bid for Liverpool FC could lead to more offers

Mar 15 2010 by Dominic King, Liverpool Echo


Anfield

Anfield 300

A FIRM bid to buy a major stake in Liverpool FC could lead to other offers from around the world arriving within weeks.

American co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett are now deciding whether to dilute their controversial ownership of the Reds after the club received a formal offer of more than £100m in fresh investment.

The offer – a strategic long-term plan put forward by the Rhone Group – is being seen as a £110m plus vote of confidence in Liverpool Football Club and its future.

If Hicks and Gillett do accept it would mean Liverpool’s annual interest payments on the loan the pair placed on the club would reduce from more than £30m to around £15m per year.

The Rhone Group is a global private equity firm with bases in London, Paris and New York.

Fund executives have been in talks with the Reds for a number of weeks and have now put together an offer that would see them take a 40% stake in the club.

That offer was formally delivered in the very early hours of Saturday morning.

A period of due diligence is now underway. It is not expected to take long to complete – and if their offer is accepted it would dramatically improve Liverpool’s financial position.

But the ECHO understands hopes are now high at Anfield that this new bid - for what could actually turn out to be a controlling interest in Liverpool – may see other potential investors also coming forward and putting their cards on the table.

Rhone’s move marks a significant turn of events in the saga. It is the first firm offer Liverpool have received to end the impasse between Hicks and Gillett.

It is also a sign the ongoing efforts of managing director Christian Purslow to bring in new investors may be coming to fruition.

Purslow took over from outgoing chief executive officer Rick Parry last year.

The Harvard and Cambridge graduate, who has a history in the banking and finance industry, has been surveying potential bidders and weighing up their credentials since then.

Should they be successful the Rhone Group would pay off almost half the club’s current £237m debt with its own capital.

It is stressed they would not be borrowing to do the deal – nor would any of the money go to Hicks or Gillett.

It would simply go straight to the club and the halving of the debt would in turn mean the interest payments they are having to pay annually would be dramatically cut – which would create a better working transfer budget for manager Rafa Benitez in the summer.

Liverpool’s board – which includes Purslow, commercial director Ian Ayre and finance director Philip Nash – will now meet to discuss the proposal.

But Hicks and Gillett, as the major shareholders, will have the ultimate say on whether the proposal is accepted.

The early indications from sources close to the Hicks family is that it will be rejected as the Rhone Group’s offer is below what they are looking for. But, should they pursue that, it could prove to be very risky.

The Royal Bank of Scotland wants a solution and resolution to Liverpool’s debt before July when the terms of the current re-financing deal expire. And pressure is now mounting on them.

As there are only four months left before the RBS call time Hicks and Gillett must decide whether to plough their own furrow for fresh investment – a tactic that has so far been unsuccessful – or wait to see if Purslow can deliver an alternative to the Rhone Group.

Purslow said in an interview with the ECHO in January he was “confident and optimistic that in the next couple of months one of them will be brought to fruition”. And the Rhone Group are prepared to wait for an answer.

Some supporters will be understandably sceptical about the Rhone Group’s motives. It was claimed yesterday Roberto Agostinelli – who founded the company with Steven Langman in 1997 – numbers George Bush among his friends.

Given Hicks’ links to Bush it could, a first glance, appear to be a “carve up” between friends.

But the perception that Agostinelli moves in the same circles as Hicks – and is a billionaire – are both wrong. He spends the majority of his time in Europe.

Agostinelli is a friend of French leader Nicolas Sarkozy and in August 2007 he and wife, Marthe, who is in charge of communications for Prada-France, invited the French prime minister and his wife Carla Bruni to share a holiday villa in the United States.

The Rhone Group are described as being “conservative investors” and they do not load prospective projects up with debt. Nor, for that matter, do they make short-term investments. The intention is to help get the club back on a stable footing.

It would be their first investment in sport but the chance to become involved with “an iconic football club” is something that appeals; their intentions are serious to help Liverpool and representatives are understood to have met with Benitez already.

Liverpool have been linked with a number of would-be investors in recent months, most recently the Indian billionaire Subrata Roy, who was said to be pursuing a majority 51% stake in the club.

It must be stressed, though, that there is no guarantee the Rhone Group’s bid to invest in Liverpool will be successful and everything remains in the hands of Hicks and Gillett.

Liverpool officials remained tight-lipped today on the developments but are understood to be encouraged that this is the first serious proposal they have received.

The club have set a Easter deadline for would-be investors to show their hands – but it could be that this triggers a few more to step forward.

[RedAndyM]

Just noticed this on the echo page:

Profits
                                  2008                                         2007
Operating Profit         £1,810,297 -41.9%                  £3,117,970

Assuming that's not got a k at the end of it, they made £1.8m last year, so they're not about to pump in £100m of their own cash into LFC.

There's a corner waiting for an elephant somewhere.

Although profit does give an indication of size we cant really be sure how much 'cash' the Rhone Group have just from profit figures.

I am a bit undecided on this investment at the minute on one hand it coudl be a good thing reducing the debt and would get rid of the 50:50 ownership issue we currently have.

But then I have a nervous feeling about this mainly due to it involving a PE firm and with what has been said earlier about the only thing a PE Firm will want is a return for its investment at some point, better said earlier by Beardsley4Ever and VdM than me.

[BobbyDavro]

They nicked my figures from page 1

Oh yeah, sorry Richie.

I can't believe everyone isn't looking at those figures before they do anything else.  It's laughable to think these people have the money to buy us, I'd have more chance if my euro lottery numbers came in on Friday.

Although profit does give an indication of size we cant really be sure how much 'cash' the Rhone Group have just from profit figures.

True...but it's not like they're manufacturers with a huge turn-over but small profit...they're a services company.

[HarryLabrador]

According to this article, and what Purslow had previously stated, their are possibly 6 others ready to invest or indeed buy the club. This Rhone group may have been brought to us by Hicks, as many have deduced because of their previous connection with Corinthians. As I recall, Hicks, Muse etc, went to South America, perhaps not primarily to own a football club, but to conquer the radio and communications business. As we all know, it was a disasterous venture. I wonder if this is another attempt at it, and perhaps one of the reasons why Hicks has held on to us like grim death; build a new stadium with someone else's money, and eventually see off Sky's domination over match broadcasts. I know I went on a tangent there, but returning to Rhone, if this is Hicks' initiative, hopefully Gillett may not be so happy with it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rhone Group head list of 'six or seven' potential Liverpool investors
Liverpool have moved a step closer to resolving their financial future with "six or seven" potential investors vying to take a majority stake in the club.
 
By Rory Smith
Published: 7:30AM GMT 15 Mar 2010

The first to declare its hand is the Rhone Group, a US fund management firm, run by billionaires Robert Agostinelli and Steven Langman, which has expressed an interest in buying a stake of at least 34 per cent for around £100 million.

That would substantially dilute the holdings of owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett and break the boardroom stalemate which has hamstrung the club for more than two years.
 
Sport on television However, Liverpool remain hopeful of receiving a number of competing offers before the Easter deadline set by the club's managing director, Christian Purslow.

Six other interested parties are believed to be considering proposals entailing either partial investment or a wholesale buyout of Hicks and Gillett. Those offers would be put to the club's board by Purslow, with sources at Liverpool hopeful of securing new investment "in good time" for the start of next season.

Regardless of which offer is accepted, any cash infusion raised by a share issue would be used to pay down the £237 million debt laden on to the club by Hicks and Gillett, a condition laid down by the Royal Bank of Scotland if the two Americans are to refinance loans held by the Government-controlled bank in July.

But an end to the search for investment started last year by Purslow would free up the working capital to enable work to start on the club's long-awaited new stadium on Stanley Park this year, as well as, crucially, allowing Liverpool to strengthen their playing staff.

The club's manager, Rafael Benítez, has been forced to spend only what he raises in the transfer market for the past two years and the prospect of the funds being available to provide the "four or five" front-line signings Fernando Torres suggested on Saturday are key to his and Liverpool's future without fresh investment are distant.

The Spain international is known to harbour concerns over Liverpool's ability to compete for the major honours he so craves, and made the first public expression of his doubts when he called on the club to "make an effort" this summer to bring in the players needed to compete not for fourth place, but for the league title.

"His main motivation is winning trophies," said Benítez. "He wants to be playing in the Champions League, but it is not just him. We all want that."

But while the arrival of Rhone's offer may signal the beginning of the end for Hicks and Gillett, doubts remain as to whether any investor would be willing to inject so much cash without taking at least a 51 per cent stake, thereby guaranteeing overall control.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/liverpool/7443066/Rhone-Group-head-list-of-six-or-seven-potential-Liverpool-investors.html

[Regi]

Funny how this comes up before our match against the manc.

What are you taking about?
These conspiracy theories are laughable...no matter what happens, it's because we have a big game coming up...

It's coming about because of the Easter deadline.
Nothing to do with the United game or any other game

[Liverbird 2010]

These so called "New Investors" need to piss off, a new owner is the only way we will get out of this mess !!!

[xerxes1]

One key element of this remains a mystery. Purslow, according to SOS, insisted that RBS required the debt to be reduced from his current stated level of £220m, by £100m, down to £120m. He also claimed that G&H had put £130m into the club. The significance of a debt level of £120m has never been explained.

Our turnover last year, and estimates for this, are at around £167m. Commercial lending is typically at a maximum of 30/70 at present, so if  £120m represents the debt (70%), that would value the club at £171m, which seems low.

Of course if we were not in the CL, our income could easily fall to around £100m. Just maybe, the books are being put in order for that eventuality?

[incredibleL4ever]

Given the Easter dedline and the location of this Rhone Group, I somehow smell a smoke screen....probably designed to flush out other investors.  This effectively sets the top (the 25% for 100m) that was originally spoken of and the bottom (40% for 100m) of the market and they hope that others will now bid in between these two extremes.  If nobody emerges it would be easy for the club to say they could not agree to the terms offered by Rhone or more likely that Rhone will find a reason to pull out.  Or maybe i am reading too much into it.

[Alan_X]

Another leverage buyout on top of the current leverage buyout. Oh boy.

If it's an equity investment it isn't a leveraged buyout by definition. They'll be looking for a return on their investment but that's true of any investor. Too early to judge this yet.