Author Topic: Liverpool owner Hicks selling Texas Rangers shares (Read 302853 times)

fry · « **Reply #120 on:** April 3, 2009, 02:29:36 pm »

Quote from: 4pool on April 3, 2009, 02:27:42 pm

There's a lot of optimism in the club right now at the business end of the season. No one can guarantee we'll win the League or CL but we'll see what happens. I like our chances.

so do I, fingers crossed anyway

shelovesyou · « **Reply #121 on:** April 3, 2009, 02:40:26 pm »

Not sure if its been posted on here but a poster TLW who said contracts ould be sorted for Gerrard , Kuyt ,Aurelio ,Agger and Torres this week has also said this :

Agger's contract delay was due to a payment to his father who acts as his agent, so assumptions are that the issue has been resolved.

Not only is Torres signing (and apparently its a new 5 year deal, not a 3 year extension as previously stated), so are Gerrard, Kuyt and Aurelio.

Now the interesting news is with regards to the ownership.

The news is that Hicks is 100% staying. Gillett is almost definately leaving and the rumours are that the Kuwaitis will be coming in as 70% owners. What is being discussed is how the board will be put together.

Hicks wants to remain in control (despite only retaining a 30% share), and I hear that the Kuwaitis are willing to accept that, which seems strange to me.

Hicks is apparently willing to put in 25m for the transfer budget and wants Gillett to do the same. Gillett is skint, and Hicks is trying to use this to force his hand.

On the transfer front, Ribery, Robben, Eto'o and Villa are all on the radar, although a lot depends on the budget.

Up for sale: Babel, Dossena, Benayoun, Degen, Voronin and ALONSO!

Barry coming for 8m, but no other confirmations, although the centre back position is one he's still looking to strengthen. My guess would be at Hyypia's expense, if Agger does sign, as expected

electricghost · « **Reply #122 on:** April 3, 2009, 02:47:02 pm »

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on April 3, 2009, 02:40:26 pm

Hicks wants to remain in control (despite only retaining a 30% share), and I hear that the Kuwaitis are willing to accept that, which seems strange to me.

It is more than strange. Why would they possibly agree to that?

Lush is the best medicine... · « **Reply #123 on:** April 3, 2009, 02:52:37 pm »

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on April 3, 2009, 02:40:26 pm

Hicks wants to remain in control (despite only retaining a 30% share), and I hear that the Kuwaitis are willing to accept that, which seems strange to me.

by in control do they mean like being the club chairman or summat, or in control of how the new stadium/rafa's transfer funds are dealt with

4pool · « **Reply #124 on:** April 3, 2009, 02:53:42 pm »

Quote from: electricghost on April 3, 2009, 02:47:02 pm

It is more than strange. Why would they possibly agree to that?

There's in control and then there's in control.

From what that is saying....Hicks want to run things day to day and probably oversee the new stadium construction. The Kuwaiti's would be happy to let him do that. But the purse strings are theirs and they have the ultimate say.

Imho of course reading the tea leaves.

Edit. And of course everyone knows how much Hicks is loved

so if anything goes wrong the Kuwaiti's have a perfect scapegooat. Win/win for them.

LukeD · « **Reply #125 on:** April 3, 2009, 02:54:54 pm »

Cheers for posting this...

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on April 3, 2009, 02:40:26 pm

Now the interesting news is with regards to the ownership.

The news is that Hicks is 100% staying. Gillett is almost definately leaving and the rumours are that the Kuwaitis will be coming in as 70% owners. What is being discussed is how the board will be put together.

Hicks wants to remain in control (despite only retaining a 30% share), and I hear that the Kuwaitis are willing to accept that, which seems strange to me.

That seems incredibly bizarre to me but then this is Gillett and Hicks so nothing is impossible. If something does happen on the ownership front it's going to be a very interesting, and no doubt bumpy, ride.

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on April 3, 2009, 02:40:26 pm

Hicks is apparently willing to put in 25m for the transfer budget and wants Gillett to do the same. Gillett is skint, and Hicks is trying to use this to force his hand.

That seems to fit in with everything regarding Gillett's activities recently and the fact he's so sensitive about his financial dealings being so closely monitored.

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on April 3, 2009, 02:40:26 pm

On the transfer front, Ribery, Robben, Eto'o and Villa are all on the radar, although a lot depends on the budget.

Up for sale: Babel, Dossena, Benayoun, Degen, Voronin and ALONSO!

Barry coming for 8m, but no other confirmations, although the centre back position is one he's still looking to strengthen. My guess would be at Hyypia's expense, if Agger does sign, as expected

Rafa clearly wanted Barry and it would appear still does, I'm a little surprised if it is at the expense of Alonso though. My only thought would be that it has to do with maximising his transfer budget as Alonso is probably worth more now to Liverpool than ever given his season so far and the fact he seems to have secured a place in the national team (who are European Champions after all and no doubt will be one of the favourites next summer).

I trust Rafa, I really do, but I would be gutted if Alonso left (and trust me, there's a lot of gut to remove in my case!).

shelovesyou · « **Reply #126 on:** April 3, 2009, 02:58:44 pm »

Quote from: electricghost on April 3, 2009, 02:47:02 pm

It is more than strange. Why would they possibly agree to that?

Beats me mate , just what this poster has said , of course he could be wrong , im just passing it over here for you all to read.

They have talked about setting up a board with good people on it to run the club on a day to day basis , Hicks isnt a candidate for that Id guess as 1. He's not good people and 2. He's always in the USA

Dr. Beaker · « **Reply #127 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:12:03 pm »

Doesn't sound too sustainable really, maybe it's seen by Hicks as phase one of an honourable way out. At least the spectre of administration may be removed.
Likewise gutted if Alonso is out.

fry · « **Reply #128 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:16:21 pm »

Quote from: 4pool on April 3, 2009, 02:53:42 pm

There's in control and then there's in control.

From what that is saying....Hicks want to run things day to day and probably oversee the new stadium construction. The Kuwaiti's would be happy to let him do that. But the purse strings are theirs and they have the ultimate say.

Imho of course reading the tea leaves.

Edit. And of course everyone knows how much Hicks is loved so if anything goes wrong the Kuwaiti's have a perfect scapegooat. Win/win for them.

I think you might be correct 4pool. Another theory would be hicks having 30% and the other 70 split between the other Kuwait's (i think they are a consortium of some sort) With no one Kuwait allowed more than 29% each

No666 · « **Reply #129 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:17:00 pm »

Alonso rocks - trading him in for Barry would be down-grading the team . I can only hope that the poster has got details wrong here, because it seems very unlikely that a majority investor would let a minority partner have control, especially given that Hicks knows absolutely nothing about football and has to consult a rag-tag army of mates and mates of mates to find out best practice. Given that Hicks is loathed, detested and reviled by the supporters, a fact which cannot have passed the Kuwaitis by, it would also be an incredibly foolish move.
Other things on that post don't add up: why would Hicks be trying to force Gillett to put in £25m if he's definitely going, for example?

fry · « **Reply #130 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:18:42 pm »

Quote from: No666 on April 3, 2009, 03:17:00 pm

Alonso rocks - trading him in for Barry would be downgrading the team . I can only hope that the poster has got details wrong here, because it seems very unlikely that a majority investor would let a minority partner have control, especially given that Hicks knows absolutely nothing about football and has to consult a rag-tag army of mates and mates of mates to find out best practice. Given that Hicks is loathed, detested and reviled by the supporters, a fact which cannot have passed the Kuwaitis by, it would also be an incredibly foolish move.
Other things on that post don't add up: why would Hicks be trying to force Gillette to put in £25m if he's definitely going, for example?

Cause when Gillette does not put up the other 25 hicks will be straight onto sky sports saying George is fucking up his transfer plan of 50 mil, this would also be a cheap attempt to win over fans and push more blame on the silent one.

fry · « **Reply #131 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:20:26 pm »

Cheers for the info slyyyy

HarryLabrador · « **Reply #132 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:23:48 pm »

Well, the news about Alonso throws everything this ITK has said into immense doubt for me. It's telling us that Rafa has either had his head in the sand all season, or he carries a grudge to the nth degree (a cutting his nose to spite his face scenario) - no, I don't believe any of it. Furthermore, an Arab bankrolls the club, gains 70% of the shares and lets Hicks in total control? Come one, wake up, how soft are the Kuwaitis?

4pool · « **Reply #133 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:28:54 pm »

Don't disagree HL.

We've had rumour after rumour. Month after month.

I think most of us are numbed by it all.

When something finally happens then we can speculate on what that means for the future.

In the meantime I am fully focussed on supporting the team.

shelovesyou · « **Reply #134 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:30:59 pm »

Quote from: HarryLabrador on April 3, 2009, 03:23:48 pm

Well, the news about Alonso throws everything this ITK has said into immense doubt for me. It's telling us that Rafa has either had his head in the sand all season, or he carries a grudge to the nth degree (a cutting his nose to spite his face scenario) - no, I don't believe any of it. Furthermore, an Arab bankrolls the club, gains 70% of the shares and lets Hicks in total control? Come one, wake up, how soft are the Kuwaitis?

You do have a point , Im just passing it over , Its not my info , but the guy has stated a few things over there that have turned out to be true , such as the new contracts this week , anyway id hate Alonso being sold it would be a bad move on Rafa's part if you ask me but what do I know about being a manager ? ?
Sweet FA . . . . .

Dr. Beaker · « **Reply #135 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:31:47 pm »

Quote from: 4pool on April 3, 2009, 03:28:54 pm

Don't disagree HL.

We've had rumour after rumour. Month after month.

I think most of us are numbed by it all.

When something finally happens then we can speculate on what that means for the future.

In the meantime I am fully focussed on supporting the team.

You even agreed with COFFEEHEAD earlier on - fatigue is truly setting in.

kopite 1 · « **Reply #136 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:35:14 pm »

i was saying this on another thread the other day but i was just guessing i thought hicks would stay on with 20 - 30 % he knows with his % that he can make alot of money if the kuwatis build the ground. as for selling alonso wtf is that about

fry · « **Reply #137 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:38:21 pm »

What about sheikh mo

Liverbird 2010 · « **Reply #138 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:43:23 pm »

I'll go fuckin ballistic if Alonso leaves

No666 · « **Reply #139 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:53:24 pm »

A lot of us would Lyndsey. I saw Barry play on Wednesday (long story, won't bore you with it, though have bored Harry and Redjam as to how I happened to be at an England match) and he was anonymous. It was an odd sense of deja vu watching Crouch and Voronin not cut it at the top level, and a sense of relief (so I thought) watching Barry prove he can't either.

Lecter · « **Reply #140 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:57:40 pm »

Tom Hicks’ Sports Group Defaults On $525 Million In Loans
April 3, 2009
Tom HicksPrivate equity legend Tom Hicks’ sports team holding company has defaulted on more than $500 million in loans, a source has told FINalternatives.

Hicks Sports Group, which owns baseball’s Texas Rangers and hockey’s Dallas Stars, failed to make its interest payment on $525 million in syndicated bank loans on Monday. The group is now in talks with its lenders about a forbearance.

Hicks made his billions on leveraged buyouts, founding private equity firm Hicks Muse Tate & Furst, now HM Capital, in 1989. He retired from the firm in 2006.

According to the source, who has seen documents relating to the loans, Hicks defaulted on a $350 million bank term loan, $100 million second-lien loan and a $75 million revolving credit facility. A spokesman for Hicks Sports declined to comment.

Hicks also owns a 50% stake in the English Premier League’s Liverpool Football Club, but through a separate entity. According to the source, the loans are partially secured by the Rangers and Stars, but not by Hicks’ stake in Liverpool or his personal assets.

Last week, Major League Baseball’s Web site reported that Hicks had hired Merrill Lynch to explore the sale of a minority stake—of up to 49%—in the Rangers, which Hicks bought in 1998 from an ownership group that included former President George W. Bush. Bush, a longtime friend of Hicks, is scheduled to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at his former team’s home opener in Arlington, Texas, on Monday.

According to MLB.com, Hicks is also trying to sell a minority stake in the Stars. It is unclear whether the proposed stake sales, which reportedly can be either in whole or in part, are related to the default. Hicks’ Liverpool co-owner, George Gillett, is trying to sell his Montreal Canadiens hockey team and his Liverpool stake. Hicks and Gillett have reportedly had a falling out over the soccer club, with the former blocking the latter’s attempt to sell most of his stake last year.

The Hicks default is the most dramatic manifestation of the current economic crisis on the sports world. In February, the National Basketball Association borrowed $175 million—on top of its existing $1.7 billion credit facility—making it available to 15 teams having trouble making ends meet.

http://www.finalternatives.com/node/7478

shelovesyou · « **Reply #141 on:** April 3, 2009, 03:59:25 pm »

Quote from: No666 on April 3, 2009, 03:53:24 pm

A lot of us would Lyndsey. I saw Barry play on Wednesday (long story, won't bore you with it, though have bored Harry and Redjam as to how I happened to be at an England match) and he was anonymous. It was an odd sense of deja vu watching Crouch and Voronin not cut it at the top level, and a sense of relief (so I thought) watching Barry prove he can't either.

I agree with that , he was nowhere to be seen but that happens I suppose.
Ive never bought into this signing Barry bollocks , he's nothing compared to Alonso . . ..
We simply just dont need him .

HarryLabrador · « **Reply #142 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:08:26 pm »

Quote from: Lecter on April 3, 2009, 03:57:40 pm

Tom Hicks’ Sports Group Defaults On $525 Million In Loans
April 3, 2009
Tom HicksPrivate equity legend Tom Hicks’ sports team holding company has defaulted on more than $500 million in loans, a source has told FINalternatives.

Hicks Sports Group, which owns baseball’s Texas Rangers and hockey’s Dallas Stars, failed to make its interest payment on $525 million in syndicated bank loans on Monday. The group is now in talks with its lenders about a forbearance.

Hicks made his billions on leveraged buyouts, founding private equity firm Hicks Muse Tate & Furst, now HM Capital, in 1989. He retired from the firm in 2006.

According to the source, who has seen documents relating to the loans, Hicks defaulted on a $350 million bank term loan, $100 million second-lien loan and a $75 million revolving credit facility. A spokesman for Hicks Sports declined to comment.

Hicks also owns a 50% stake in the English Premier League’s Liverpool Football Club, but through a separate entity. According to the source, the loans are partially secured by the Rangers and Stars, but not by Hicks’ stake in Liverpool or his personal assets.

Last week, Major League Baseball’s Web site reported that Hicks had hired Merrill Lynch to explore the sale of a minority stake—of up to 49%—in the Rangers, which Hicks bought in 1998 from an ownership group that included former President George W. Bush. Bush, a longtime friend of Hicks, is scheduled to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at his former team’s home opener in Arlington, Texas, on Monday.

According to MLB.com, Hicks is also trying to sell a minority stake in the Stars. It is unclear whether the proposed stake sales, which reportedly can be either in whole or in part, are related to the default. Hicks’ Liverpool co-owner, George Gillett, is trying to sell his Montreal Canadiens hockey team and his Liverpool stake. Hicks and Gillett have reportedly had a falling out over the soccer club, with the former blocking the latter’s attempt to sell most of his stake last year.

The Hicks default is the most dramatic manifestation of the current economic crisis on the sports world. In February, the National Basketball Association borrowed $175 million—on top of its existing $1.7 billion credit facility—making it available to 15 teams having trouble making ends meet.

http://www.finalternatives.com/node/7478

Very interesting. Thanks Lecter.

No666 · « **Reply #143 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:09:14 pm »

Is finaalternatives a reliable source, Lecter?

That is massive news, if true, and surely they must be sure or be facing a libel suit?

west_london_red · « **Reply #144 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:13:47 pm »

You gotta laugh. A few posts up someone (not knocking SLYYYY) is saying hes putting in £25 million up for transfers, now hes defaulting on loans!

HarryLabrador · « **Reply #145 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:14:04 pm »

Quote from: No666 on April 3, 2009, 04:09:14 pm

Is finaalternatives a reliable source, Lecter?

That is massive news, if true, and surely they must be sure or be facing a libel suit?

Well, they provide news on hedge funds and private equity, as it states. I have come across them before but I cannot say how reliable they are; but if they are making it up, Hicks will sue, hence there probably is a good modicum of truth in what they have printed. This is indeed very interesting and does explain his intention to sell some of his shares.

electricghost · « **Reply #146 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:15:19 pm »

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on April 3, 2009, 02:58:44 pm

Beats me mate , just what this poster has said , of course he could be wrong , im just passing it over here for you all to read.

Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound as if I was questioning you, thanks for posting it.

shelovesyou · « **Reply #147 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:18:59 pm »

Quote from: west_london_red on April 3, 2009, 04:13:47 pm

You gotta laugh. A few posts up someone (not knocking SLYYYY) is saying hes putting in £25 million up for transfers, now hes defaulting on loans!

Its fucked up isnt it

HarryLabrador · « **Reply #148 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:19:04 pm »

For what it's worth, Dallas Observer is now blogging it, though still unconfirmed.

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

Report: Hicks Sports Group Defaulted on $525 Mil in Rangers- and Stars-Related Loans

By Robert Wilonsky in Business News for People Who Don't Read Business News, Sports
Friday, Apr. 3 2009 @ 9:54AM

Only days before the beginning of baseball season, Tom Hicks is, apparently, already down a strike: Something called FINAlternatives, which serves up hedge fund and private equity news, reports this morning that Hicks Sports Group -- the holding company for all of Hicks's sports-related ventures, including the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars -- defaulted on $525 million in loans on Monday. Caveat: The story comes from a single unnamed source, and HSG reps have yet to comment. As in:

According to the source, who has seen documents relating to the loans, Hicks defaulted on a $350 million bank term loan, $100 million second-lien loan and a $75 million revolving credit facility. A spokesman for Hicks Sports declined to comment.

Hicks also owns a 50% stake in the English Premier League's Liverpool Football Club, but through a separate entity. According to the source, the loans are partially secured by the Rangers and Stars, but not by Hicks' stake in Liverpool or his personal assets.

Unfair Park this morning left a message on HSG Chief Operating Officer Casey Coffman's voicemail. Representatives at The LeMaster Group, which handles Hicks's PR, said they are aware of the report and said they will provide Unfair Park with an official statement shortly; we will update accordingly.

In addition to the Rangers and Stars, HSG is also the holding company for Liverpool FC, the American Airlines Center, Hicks Sports Marketing Group and the Mesquite Rodeo. Only days ago, Hicks acknowledged that he was indeed looking to sell off pieces of the Rangers and Stars -- anywhere from 40 to 49 percent of his ownership stake. Said Hicks last week, "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."

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/04/report_hicks_sports_group_defa.php

shelovesyou · « **Reply #149 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:19:52 pm »

Quote from: electricghost on April 3, 2009, 04:15:19 pm

Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound as if I was questioning you, thanks for posting it.

Na thats cool mate , no panic like , I just want all Rawkites in the loop IF anything is knocking about info wise .

electricghost · « **Reply #150 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:21:59 pm »

Quote from: Lecter on April 3, 2009, 03:57:40 pm

A spokesman for Hicks Sports declined to comment.

That is fairly significant as to the accuracy of the report. Surely a swift denial would have come if it is not true.

Dr. Beaker · « **Reply #151 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:25:03 pm »

Hopefully there'll soon be security camera footage of him stalking around his mansion with a shotgun while pumping fuel oil into the place.

HarryLabrador · « **Reply #152 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:29:58 pm »

The story has grown some legs........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's Next? Apple Pie?
Posted by Equity Private, Apr 03, 2009, 10:27am

It seems to us that the time has come to discuss the "reverse stadium curse." True, naming a stadium for its corporate sponsors has tended to have deleterious effects on those same sponsors, but soon we may have to consider the reverse effect.

The taint of Blagojevich, carried by the Illinois Sports Authority into the alleged extortion of the Tribune Company over the State's support for the Cubs / Wrigley Field deal is an easy example, and now the fate of the Texas Rangers might be another. It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings, but we can hear her warming up now.

Hicks Sports Group, which owns baseball's Texas Rangers and hockey's Dallas Stars, failed to make its interest payment on $525 million in syndicated bank loans on Monday. The group, which also owns a 50% stake in the English Premier League's Liverpool Football Club, is now in talks with its lenders about a forbearance.

Hicks made his billions on leveraged buyouts, founding private equity firm Hicks Muse Tate & Furst, now HM Capital, in 1989. He retired from the firm in 2006.

According to the source, who has seen documents relating to the loans, Hicks defaulted on a $350 million bank term loan, $100 million second-lien loan and a $75 million revolving credit facility. Efforts to contact Hicks Sports, the Rangers and Stars were not successful.

According to the source, the loans are secured by the Rangers and Stars, but not by Hicks' stake in Liverpool.

http://dealbreaker.com/2009/04/whats-next-apple-pie.php

That's why he so luvs us at the moment. Could be his only saving grace.

RedJam70 · « **Reply #153 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:32:23 pm »

It says that Hicks Sports Group is the holding company for all his sports assets (and I thought he 'd sold the rodeo) but then says he holds LFC through separate entity. How does that work?

No666 · « **Reply #154 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:32:44 pm »

He's in deep shit. Will this spook RBS/Wachovia and make them even less willing to renew the loan?

Dr. Beaker · « **Reply #155 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:36:43 pm »

This is all moving so fast we're not getting a chance to speculate properly.

Bogman · « **Reply #156 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:38:03 pm »

Roast pig anyone?

HarryLabrador · « **Reply #157 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:40:29 pm »

Quote from: RedJam70 on April 3, 2009, 04:32:23 pm

It says that Hicks Sports Group is the holding company for all his sports assets (and I thought he 'd sold the rodeo) but then says he holds LFC through separate entity. How does that work?

I'm confused about that as well.

No666 · « **Reply #158 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:43:07 pm »

So Kop Holdings isn't a subsidiary of Hicks Sports Group? We hope.

RedJam70 · « **Reply #159 on:** April 3, 2009, 04:44:41 pm »

If it is true and he's looking for investors in the Stars and the Rangers then any money raised from that would go to paying off these loans, no? That would leave him with even less collateral to put up against RBS/Wachovia refinancing of the loan. The loan is due this july whatever happens, he either defaults or pays it off. If he can't pay it off then the general feeling was that RBS would refinance under protest with stricter, more onerous terms. If he's defaulted on this loan I can't see how they can justify refinancing really especially if they want more collateral etc.