Topic: Possible asset stripping

[xerxes1]

You're wrong. They are in no way 'relaxed' about this, and I know for a fact the current arrangement (along with others of this type) are undergoing scrutiny at the moment. £30m-plus in interest was sufficient to keep them turning a blind eye in the past, but it's a drop in the ocean compared with the worst case scenario for the bank, the game has changed now, and there are some massive wake-up calls due. Do you think the bank are not concerned as to exactly what that £237m is secured against? The paper trail fizzles all the way back into an opaque offshore company, and Hicks has already showed a glimpse of how he handles and stands to profit from the administration of the financially-terminal sports club he owns, and how those creditors will be left wondering where the fuck their money is.

I disagree with you.

My understanding is  that RBS’s terms have been scrupulously met, and have been profitable. The specific point of disagreement is this. If G&H, for whatever reason, do find the Club in Administration, I understand that RBS believe that their first charge is sufficient to more or less cover their £237m odd that they are owed.

You seem to think that is not the case. No I don’t think that the RBS is concerned about what they have the £237m secured against. What cause do you have for thinking that RBS’s charge will be insufficient?

[Coady]

Is it not possible that H&G have been locked out and Purslow and Broughton are making the decisions, so any ideas G&H have about asset stripping are worthless anyway. Its the bankers who will decide.

[Free Kuyt]

First off, the insight on this thread is a real eye-opener, so kudos to everyone posting. While it's worrying in the extreme it's also heartening to read knowledgeable and informed stuff.

I have no doubt that, in addition to the stone cold lies and financial skulduggery that is as natural to Hicks (Gillett too but I'm focussing on the primary Tumour here) as breathing, I think what the fans have done has raised the stakes. We've called him out, we've embarrassed him both here and back 'home' in Dallas, we've made it clear he's not welcome inside the stadium and the at the club he owns, we've had his son kicked out tail between his legs, and worst of all we've publicly questioned what he holds most dear, no not his morals but his finances. That alone, that puncture in the massively overinflated facade he's worked so hard to build up, is what rankles most. "Is Tom Hicks Going Broke?" was the headline on that magazine cover. I'm surprised he didn't blow an aneurysm on seeing that.

This made me think about another strand to campaigning. There's a number of threads running: Getting Angry, boycotts of sponsors, letter and email campaigns to Standard Chartered, 4th July...

Another thing that would hurt the coybows though would be to hit them with negative PR on their home turf - not Texas or Montreal but the financial world. I'm guessing that a scathing expose in the FT or Forbes or Investment Monthly would hurt a lot more than half-baked 'Owners are the problem' article in the Mirror. Is there any way to get coverage into the specialist financial press, and is there a solid journalistic angle for a story?

The perils of leveraged buyouts with Hicks and Gillett as a case study? The US press seem to have quite an in-depth handle on the skullduggery at the Rangers. There must be a similarly in-depth article for the specialist UK and European financial and investment press.

It's a niche thing and it would require far more knowledge of accounting, finance and company law than I've got. And I don't know which publications to target. It's just the bare bones of an idea.

[Free Kuyt]

And this, his greed for money no know boundaries.........
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_26/b3990073.htm
One horrible twat that.

These are exactly the kind of publications we need slating the fucker.

[Timbo's Goals]

Reading all this, it seems the only real way we can redirect all this back up Hicks ass is a co-ordinated fan non-renewal of season tickets. I've sweeen this muted before but nevr really thought of it as an option. talking with friends now however there does seem to be a concensus that they'd do it in a heartbeat if large numbers were joining in.

How could this be effected, quickly and expediently for it to make sufficient impact? If it could it could be dynamite in implementing our desires to get them out. I'm not sure if it could but it seems worthy of at least considering..

Perhaps a start could be all the website owners and SOS making contact to see if they can orchestrate such a beast.

Otherwise I just see us all plummeting into outright despair as our club is dismantled before our eyes. 

[Eeyore]

Is it not possible that H&G have been locked out and Purslow and Broughton are making the decisions, so any ideas G&H have about asset stripping are worthless anyway. Its the bankers who will decide.

Very possible, the problem is that Hicks and Gillet have known the route Liverpool were heading down for a long time.

They have had three years to make the assets as hard to trace as possible.

The movement of ownership of assets probably started as soon as the Yanks took control.

[Timbo's Goals]

Is it not possible that H&G have been locked out and Purslow and Broughton are making the decisions, so any ideas G&H have about asset stripping are worthless anyway. Its the bankers who will decide.

Reading through all this JM it seems as if nobody not even some of the really clued up lads like TTitch, MV, JS, TTNBD, Al, Rossi etc etc are  altogether sure of how things can or might unfold. The other problem from what i can deduce out of it all is that Purslow may well be a real snake in the grass and fuck knows what underlying objectives him and the Chelsea fanatic really have.

[i_wun_bite]

any idea if the yanks will be making more from us than from weetabix?

[Eeyore]

First off, the insight on this thread is a real eye-opener, so kudos to everyone posting. While it's worrying in the extreme it's also heartening to read knowledgeable and informed stuff.

This made me think about another strand to campaigning. There's a number of threads running: Getting Angry, boycotts of sponsors, letter and email campaigns to Standard Chartered, 4th July...

Another thing that would hurt the coybows though would be to hit them with negative PR on their home turf - not Texas or Montreal but the financial world. I'm guessing that a scathing expose in the FT or Forbes or Investment Monthly would hurt a lot more than half-baked 'Owners are the problem' article in the Mirror. Is there any way to get coverage into the specialist financial press, and is there a solid journalistic angle for a story?

The perils of leveraged buyouts with Hicks and Gillett as a case study? The US press seem to have quite an in-depth handle on the skullduggery at the Rangers. There must be a similarly in-depth article for the specialist UK and European financial and investment press.

It's a niche thing and it would require far more knowledge of accounting, finance and company law than I've got. And I don't know which publications to target. It's just the bare bones of an idea.

The financial press in the States are well aware of what Hicks is up to

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703523204575130063045241560.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKBNG7449820090414

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704792104575264950799613356.html


The problem is that Hicks has always faced bad publicity it comes with the way he operates. The problem is he is incredibly well connected in the States he is a friend of the Bush family and even helped to run Rudy Giuliani's 2008 Presidential campaign.

Everyone knows he is a c*nt of the highest order they also know he is very rich and very powerful and is considered to be very financially savvy.

Attacks on his character are pointless but Hicks is trying to reinvent himself as a deal maker at the moment so he would be far more concerned about attacks on his alleged Business acumen. 

[John C]

Attacks on his character are pointless but Hicks is trying to reinvent himself as a deal maker at the moment so he would be far more concerned about attacks on his alleged Business acumen. 

We need to get in royhendo's thread and come up with a couple of snappy statements to that affect then.

[Coady]

Reading through all this JM it seems as if nobody not even some of the really clued up lads like TTitch, MV, JS, TTNBD, Al, Rossi etc etc are  altogether sure of how things can or might unfold. The other problem from what i can deduce out of it all is that Purslow may well be a real snake in the grass and fuck knows what underlying objectives him and the Chelsea fanatic really have.

Hum, interesting thread this. Im going to put the kettle on and read through from the start.

[eggo1971]

I know ive mentioned this before - and i know the tournement is 8 years away, but when is the desion to be made as to whether England get the World Cup??

Can you imagine the increase in value of football assets if England get to host it??  They can then say to buyers " and theres a World Cup on the way "

I genuinely believe that they do not have any intention to sell and are confident that RBS do not have the balls to call in the debt.

[Timbo's Goals]

Just like to thank all the financial folks but Jack S especially for all the input on these two threads re asset stripping. It's certainly helped me gain some more undrstanding and I'll try to find time to read back through if I can escape the clutches of the missus legging after me with the carving knife for the time spent on here since Moores letter and rafa went.

I suppose it's a bit hardfaced of me to ask you for some sort of potted summary of how you see it especially after all these separate posts. But it would certainly help us dimmer folks re the financial/company aspects. 

[Eeyore]

Here is a letter sent by the RBS to a concerned supporter less than a year ago


Thank you for your email expressing concern about RBS' banking arrangements with Liverpool FC and its current owners. We are aware of the strength of feeling of a number of fans on this matter and have corresponded with many during the course of the past year or so.

Perhaps I can start by putting RBS' relationship with Liverpool FC in context. RBS is the main banker to the Club including all of its operating accounts, cash management, online banking, automated payments, and credit card processing to facilitate ticket sales and retail merchandising. We also provide a credit facility to support the Club's working capital requirements and a letter of credit facility to facilitate the purchase of players from non-Premiership Clubs, along with a loan facility for design, planning and other preparatory work for the proposed new stadium at Stanley Park. We have set out to establish a long term relationship with the Club, and we look forward to this continuing for many years to come.

We also lent money to the Club's parent, Kop Football Limited, so that it could repay debt which was on the balance sheet of the Club at the time of its acquisition by George Gillett and Tom Hicks. This is the only portion of Kop Football's bank debt for which the Club is legally responsible. We took great care when making our original loan in early 2007 and when refinancing it last January to distinguish between obligations of the Club, primarily those outlined above, and obligations of its parent company, the latter being secured by personal guarantees and collateral from the owners and a pledge of the shares they own in the Club.

As a result the Club does not suffer the burden of debt implied by a lot of the recent press reports and, in our view and that of the executive management of the Club, it is financially healthy and able to service comfortably its debt obligations from cash flow generated by its playing and commercial activities. It is in our commercial interest to support the Club in the manner described above so that it can continue to perform successfully on and off the pitch.

As far as the Government is concerned, they have been very clear that they do not wish to exercise day to day control over RBS or make commercial decisions for us. Indeed they set up an independent body, UKFI, to oversee the Government's shareholding in RBS, so matters such as strategy and governance can be agreed, while they leave commercially related matters to us.

RBS attaches a great deal of value to being associated with Liverpool FC. I hope my comments reassure you as to the strength and depth of our relationship with the Club and that we will endeavour to contribute to its long term health and success.

Kind Regards,

Roger Lowry, Head of Group Public Affairs, Royal Bank of Scotland Group



I can't see anything that has changed in the last year that would change the RBS views to such an extent that they would even consider forcing Liverpool into Administration.

[Timbo's Goals]

I can't see anything that has changed in the last year that would change the RBS views to such an extent that they would even consider forcing Liverpool into Administration.

Al, is there any text or inference in there that would actually prevent the hiving off of transfer income in say the same or similar way to how we now all seem to believe the £50 million has been falsely hived off for stadium design etc.

[Free Kuyt]

We also lent money to the Club's parent, Kop Football Limited, so that it could repay debt which was on the balance sheet of the Club at the time of its acquisition by George Gillett and Tom Hicks. This is the only portion of Kop Football's bank debt for which the Club is legally responsible. We took great care when making our original loan in early 2007 and when refinancing it last January to distinguish between obligations of the Club, primarily those outlined above, and obligations of its parent company, the latter being secured by personal guarantees and collateral from the owners and a pledge of the shares they own in the Club.

As a result the Club does not suffer the burden of debt implied by a lot of the recent press reports and, in our view and that of the executive management of the Club, it is financially healthy and able to service comfortably its debt obligations from cash flow generated by its playing and commercial activities.

I don't understand how they can say this. The accounts do state that of the £297m lending facility, £200m is to Kop Football and £97m is to LFC. But since Kop Football has a turnover of £0 it's clear that the only income available to pay the debt is the income from LFC - and the group accounts show that's exactly what is happening to the tune of £76.6m in the last two years.

So as a layman, that letter looks like bullshit to me Al. It might be technically and legally correct, but I'm far from convinced it represents anything like the reality.

[Passmaster Molby]

I think hte problem is that "asset stripping" is an emotive term.

Liverpool are now, IMHO, no longer a top 4 club - United, Chelsea, Arsenal and City all economically and financially are superior.  Oour stadium, budget, transfer spend etc is not that of a top 4 club.  What has kept us going the last few years is a manager over-performing (until last season when I think we did about what would be expected).

given that, and given our debt, there is a huge business and indeed perhaps footballing case for selling Torres and Gerrard for huge money and reinvesting most of it into the team.

That was is what second-tier premiership clubs generally do - they sell a star player every 2 or 3 years for an inflated fee to the big 4 and reinvest most of it into players better suited for a top 8 club : Tottenham are the classic example of this.

the problem isnt that we will sell Torres and Gerrard - we are going to have get used to losing our best players to the bigger clubs as Tottenham fans have done - but how much of it will get re-invested.

G&H have turned a top 4 club into a top 8 club and we are going to have start cutting our cloth accordingly.  My suspciion is that Liverpool are quite keen for Torres and Gerrard both to leave.

Sadly I find myself agreeing with that, especially the cutting our cloth part. I am sure that the board have decided to move players like Gerrard, Torres and Mascherano on for big money (post world cup probably) and try to get maximum value from them (all under long contracts and at the peak of their powers). Not only could the sale of these 3 bring in over £100mill to pay down debt, but it will also reduce our inflated wage bill by some £12-£15mill a season. The sale of these players (as well as the removal of a world class manager like Benitez) would be a sure sign that as a club we have left the top echelons of european football behind and moved into a "top half" level of expectancy. The appointment of a manager like Hodgson, who has experience of working within a restricted budget, would only serve to rubber stamp this theory.

[Free Kuyt]

There appear to be three options

1. Billionaires play thing
2. Bankruptcy
3. Fan ownership

The last two wouldn't be mutually exclusive.

I've thought of a 4th option - H&G take a £200m hit to the wallet

[gandt]

but i still cant work out why he went, he didnt want to, he didnt have to, he didnt need or want the cash

[Lush is the best medicine...]

but i still cant work out why he went, he didnt want to, he didnt have to, he didnt need or want the cash

because they wanted an obstacle out of the way

and i fear waltonred is spot on (again)

[Vulmea]

I can't see anything that has changed in the last year that would change the RBS views to such an extent that they would even consider forcing Liverpool into Administration.

its an interesting letter - distinguishes between bank debt and the owners debt but things have changed substantially

we no longer have CL income, we no longer have PL income of a top 4 finish, we no longer have a manager of world renown and any transfer budget has disapeared meaning on field performance and revenues are further threatened

hicks has openly stated he was happy to put the Rangers into recievership and shown no signs of any conscience about the impact of his actions

the owners have admitted their plan for investment has failed and are now looking to sell at a ridiculously inflated price

the books show how Kop holdings are syphoning off the assets of the Club

barclays capital have been courted to transfer the debt to

quite a bit has changed which makes their investment look decidedly more shaky

the basic fact is thats its very clear that the longer the americans are around the worse the financial position will be

the other issue is public opinion - currently Liverpool fans are largely leaderless and disunited - but there are signs that this could change - there will be some moves from the owners to keep the confusion but ultimately if the shit hits the fan RBS are going to be hurt - Liverpool has already demonstrated with the Sun boycott that it can cause severe financial harm to an organisation I wouldn't want to be in the position of justifying their stance if it unfolds as most people think it will over the next 24 months.

They have been warned and they are doing nothing - it will not be enough to just say we aren't worried this time

the same should apply to the FA, the premier league and the Government - a shit storm awaits

[gandt]

because they wanted an obstacle out of the way

and i fear waltonred is spot on (again)

yes, i can see why G&H wanted Rafa out, but rafa didnt want out, he was used to fighting G&H, he had a contract which should have kept him his job, why did he give up and leave.

[Vulmea]

I've thought of a 4th option - H&G take a £200m hit to the wallet

only the wallet?

[Lush is the best medicine...]

yes, i can see why G&H wanted Rafa out, but rafa didnt want out, he was used to fighting G&H, he had a contract which should have kept him his job, why did he give up and leave.

they made his position untenable by leaking every little thing to the press on the wed and thursday of last week

[Passmaster Molby]

but i still cant work out why he went, he didnt want to, he didnt have to, he didnt need or want the cash

They ground him down, to the point where it was probably taking its toll on his health and his family. He realised his work was never going to be completed, and was probably about to be ripped apart. I do not blame him for wanting out, he did the right thing for himself and his family. I also think the Inter job being available might have helped, knowing that he could get straight back into football at the highest level.

[gandt]

they made his position untenable by leaking every little thing to the press on the wed and thursday of last week

i know we moving away from the thread topic, but i`m not buying that, rafa woud still have fought them for the good of the club, eventually it would have come out that certain figures within the club were leaking rubbish to the press with the sole aim to get him to walk, once that happened his position woud have been stronger still.

[Alan_X]

Merged - too confusing having two threads.

[Eeyore]

I don't understand how they can say this. The accounts do state that of the £297m lending facility, £200m is to Kop Football and £97m is to LFC. But since Kop Football has a turnover of £0 it's clear that the only income available to pay the debt is the income from LFC - and the group accounts show that's exactly what is happening to the tune of £76.6m in the last two years.

So as a layman, that letter looks like bullshit to me Al. It might be technically and legally correct, but I'm far from convinced it represents anything like the reality.

I don't think Lowry is talking about who pays the bills that is pretty clearly the Club itself. His letter is more about how much of Kop Holdings debt is actually secured against the club and how much is secured against Hicks and Gillet.

[xerxes1]

At the moment we are not in administration.At the moment a sale of the club would (IMHO) generate enough to pay off the bank debt.  (Some people say that it wouldnt be enough, even now.)

Your logic is a bit mistaken, if you dont mind me saying so.You are saying that because we are currently (not being in administration) worth enough to cover the debt, we would still be worth enough to cover the debt, even if we were in administration.I dont think that follows.  If we dont pay our taxes, or whatever, and HMRC do to us what they did to Portsmouth, then we will be worth a lot less than we are worth now.

I dont think it is a realistic danger.  I think we will pay our taxes.  But I dont think I could easily imagine RBS being relaxed about things.  Besides, if they were relaxed, why G&H have such problems getting extensions each time?

I’m not quite with you. I think that we agree that RBS are happy with the security they have against the loan, and that currently that security probably more or less covers the £237m.

I agree it is true that our financial position could deteriorate to such an extent in the future that this may not be so. I simply made the point that currently RBS’s debt exposure would probably be safeguarded in a fire sale. I’m not sure where the flaw is in my logic. Anything could happen in the future, I accept.

Therefore my further point is that with interest and fees being paid, and their debt exposure pretty much covered at present ,  there is not the panic some suggest to close their account with G&H. Hence my comment about their being “relaxed”.

I have no idea how easy, or difficult, it has been for them to secure extensions. I only know that they have been consistently secured.

My final observation is pure hunch. I see no evidence that circumstances are conspiring to facilitate a sale this summer. With the transfer window closed, and a new manager in place, I think that a sale may not occur until next summer. Furthermore, if our playing performance continues to deteriorate I can also see G&H doing a “Mike Ashley”, and hunkering down and trying to ride out the storm. Equally, were a new manager to signally succeed next year, they may be encouraged to stick with it on a wave of optimism. For so long as G&H can get away with RBS banking for them, without RBS being able to/ wanting to call in the loan, I fear they may be with us for some time yet.

[McMahon]

RBS is where all our efforts should be centered upon. RBS sanctioned this deal, we as supporters should presure them to call in the loan and sell the club for real money to a suitable owner. Lets not forget here RBS is mainly owned by the goverment, RBS knew all along from the kick off what they where getting themselves into.
Cancer and Aids don't give a toss and are prepared to sit it out from their arm chairs. RBS are in are back yard, we have to apply urgent pressure upon them!

[xerxes1]

All I'm saying is this.......etc

I'm with you now Jack. Things could go horribly wrong over the next 12 months, and you are right to point out that will be a worry for RBS.

It is also possible that G&H could sell our star players, reduce the debt, save on wages but still reinvest enough for the club to be a Top 10 Club. With RBS then happy at the level of reduced debt G&H could then decide to hang around and sit it out.

You point out that G&H have survived what may have been some fairly fraught debt refinancing/ extension/ rescheduling meetings, and there is no sign that they are being shaken off just yet.

[xerxes1]

RBS is where all our efforts should be centered upon. RBS sanctioned this deal, we as supporters should presure them to call in the loan and sell the club for real money to a suitable owner. Lets not forget here RBS is mainly owned by the goverment, RBS knew all along from the kick off what they where getting themselves into.
Cancer and Aids don't give a toss and are prepared to sit it out from their arm chairs. RBS are in our back yard, we have to apply urgent pressure upon them!

Where should our efforts be directed, and how can we apply urgent pressure on them?

They are a bank who have a contractual obligation to a client who appears to have honoured that contract.

Can a group of people ask a bank to call in a loan simply because they do not like them? If they do end up owning the club they have a legal obligation to get the best price for any creditors. How would they decide who was suitable, even if they could, which they can’t?

Short of calling in the loan, how can they force G&H to sell for “real money”? And what is “real money”? And what if there is no suitable owner? The only confirmed bid for the club since G&H bought the club was the £110m odd that the Rhone group offered for a minority stake in the club.

[mccred]

Slightly off topic but on radio 5 the other day,they were saying that those weird looking fuckers the Glaziers will hold onto yernited because they believe that in a couple years time they'll be able to negotiate separate deals for live streaming of goals and highlights to mobile phones worldwide. Which they believe is the pot of gold at the end of their rainbow.

Could this be why our two cancerous tumors our clinging to us like limpets on a rock.

It was the first time I'd ever heard it mentioned? 

[Kite]

Slightly off topic but on radio 5 the other day,they were saying that those weird looking fuckers the Glaziers will hold onto yernited because they believe that in a couple years time they'll be able to negotiate separate deals for live streaming of goals and highlights to mobile phones worldwide. Which they believe is the pot of gold at the end of their rainbow.

Could this be why our two cancerous tumors our clinging to us like limpets on a rock.

It was the first time I'd ever heard it mentioned? 

I've expected a massive change in live games , video content via both the web and mobile phones for a long time now.  I suggested when the Glazers bought Utd this was their end game.

Virtual season tickets where you get every liverpool game either to your laptop, or mobile can't be far away, but probably only available outside of the UK to start with.

Perhaps it will start though as you've suggested with delayed replays, and other content before the full blown season ticket.

However if this is H&G end game they've completely alienated all the people they would like to sell this to.  I think they realise now they've crossed the line and can't ever take this club forward, they're done.

[Vulmea]

the internet streaming is a big deal - its another reason for Hicks to keep trying to sell 'potential' without having to do or invest anything himself

the issue for us is just like with the stadium - if the stream made money and the stadium made money there is no reason to believe we'd see it - whilst we are in their hands we are a hostage to their objective which is to make money for Hicks and Gillet

the only answer therefore is to get them out - the only course to make Liverpool worth as little as possible to them ( or as painful as possible) and more valuable to somebody else
- the trick is finding a way to do that

too many fans still shelling out, too many too ignorant or apathetic or too plain fuckin stupid - they are the sheep that the owners are fleecing

bad exposure, bad PR - impacting sponsorship, tv viewing, attendances, retail, its the only way to have a genuine impact and there are not enough fans with the guts to do it - the club will fade to mediocrity unless enough stand together and to be honest whatever happens it'll be what we deserve

we are either special and the best there is or we are not and the next few months should tell us either way

[xerxes1]

we are either special and the best there is or we are not and the next few months should tell us either way

Don't be too hard on us. Its modern football. At Leeds and newcastle the fans just watched it happen - it is unlikely to be different here.

[redmark]

My final observation is pure hunch. I see no evidence that circumstances are conspiring to facilitate a sale this summer. With the transfer window closed, and a new manager in place, I think that a sale may not occur until next summer. Furthermore, if our playing performance continues to deteriorate I can also see G&H doing a “Mike Ashley”, and hunkering down and trying to ride out the storm. Equally, were a new manager to signally succeed next year, they may be encouraged to stick with it on a wave of optimism. For so long as G&H can get away with RBS banking for them, without RBS being able to/ wanting to call in the loan, I fear they may be with us for some time yet.

I can't see how and why the owners would even want to stick around - unless there is significantly increased revenue on the horizon. The club is haemorrhaging money - £54m or so in the last financial year, with (if anything) greater losses to be expected - reduced revenue (earlier CL exit, lower league position, some merchandising boycotting) and increased costs (last summer's contract renewals kick in for a full financial year). The interest payments, as of course has been the problem all along, is just wasted money: it's not investing in a new stadium, or better players to increase success and therefore revenue.

We cannot build a new stadium with G&H in control, surely - is there a lender on earth that would loan Hicks any more money - even for a guaranteed stadium? Unless there really is an explosion in internet TV sales around the corner, and there are concrete timescales and estimated revenues, then what benefit is there to hang around? The losses are bringing down the value of the club. Players are ageing and values reducing for many, each year and we probably don't have a potential Ronaldo in the reserves waiting to be sold for huge money.

Barring some huge profit from selling highlights on the internet, surely the value of the club today is higher than it is likely to be in one or two years time, given predictable events such as a failure to qualify for the CL again, etc. If G&H want to sell for a profit, they need to do it quickly. This may increase the possibility of some form of 'asset stripping', if a mechanism allows them to do so - but even that may be a price worth paying if it allows us to start rebuilding the club (not particularly the team) sooner rather than later.

[danwms]

if they sell all out best players and use the cash to pay off the debt, noone is going to want to buy the club.

[the jesus]

if they sell all out best players and use the cash to pay off the debt, noone is going to want to buy the club.

That isn't true though is it, sell all the players and pay off the debt your still left with a worldwide brand of a football club with a 45000 seat stadium that would sell out again given a small encouragement.

Liverpool without the players but no debt would still be worth a tidy sum to someone. Us fans for example.

[xerxes1]

I can't see how and why the owners would even want to stick around - unless there is significantly increased revenue on the horizon. The club is haemorrhaging money - £54m or so in the last financial year, with (if anything) greater losses to be expected - reduced revenue (earlier CL exit, lower league position, some merchandising boycotting) and increased costs (last summer's contract renewals kick in for a full financial year). The interest payments, as of course has been the problem all along, is just wasted money: it's not investing in a new stadium, or better players to increase success and therefore revenue.

We cannot build a new stadium with G&H in control, surely - is there a lender on earth that would loan Hicks any more money - even for a guaranteed stadium? Unless there really is an explosion in internet TV sales around the corner, and there are concrete timescales and estimated revenues, then what benefit is there to hang around? The losses are bringing down the value of the club. Players are ageing and values reducing for many, each year and we probably don't have a potential Ronaldo in the reserves waiting to be sold for huge money.

Barring some huge profit from selling highlights on the internet, surely the value of the club today is higher than it is likely to be in one or two years time, given predictable events such as a failure to qualify for the CL again, etc. If G&H want to sell for a profit, they need to do it quickly. This may increase the possibility of some form of 'asset stripping', if a mechanism allows them to do so - but even that may be a price worth paying if it allows us to start rebuilding the club (not particularly the team) sooner rather than later.

A well argued case.

With G&H it is always difficult to tell whether they are shrewd calculators, or barmy incompetents. IF they really do have their backs to the wall, their consistently wayward valuations of the club make little sense. They actively deter genuine buyers who may feel G&H are not serious. Yet Gillette’s indifference and the Banks pressure seem real enough.

Losing Rafa makes their lives more difficult. Yet it has cost them £6m in severance and a new manager will want some money to spend. IF they are not under pressure surely they would have given Rafa enough to keep him happy, which would not necessarily have been much more than the cost of change and a transfer pot anyway? If they are under pressure, why the unrealistic asking price? Why no public reassurance that they are on their way out and a plea to Rafa to “man the bridge” until new owners arrive? It doesn’t stack.

I agree that the short to medium term prospects for the club are of falling values and revenues. It may be possible to restructure the club by a sale of our best players which achieves playing and financial  consolidation. I agree that wouldn’t be easy, or assured. Yet G&H have successfully bought and sold over 25 years. It is a mistake to say that they do not know when to sell, when to take a modest loss or modest profit, and move on. Because that is what they do, and have done.

Long term, values will rise, a Euro League is likely to emerge ,  PL clubs are likely to be able to negotiate their TV rights individually and multi media income streams will increase. Is that what G&G are hanging on for? I don’t know.

To clarify, I am not saying that G&H are here to stay, nor that they wouldn’t take an acceptable offer tomorrow. I am saying that they have been remarkably resilient to date. Their actions have not been those of people about to bail out. They may be loathsome with no football knowledge, but financially they have shown over a long period that they win more than they lose. Whether they have the calculations right this time only time will tell.