Topic: Possible asset stripping

[Eeyore]

Everyone is working on the presumption that the RBS could refuse to re-finance or could call in the £237m they are owed they simply can't for two reasons

1. Banks rely on people borrowing money off them. Who is going to borrow money of a bank that has just made a business insolvent when that business has kept up with every single payment, has issued the bank with letters of credit, has given personal guarantees and has even dramatically reduced the amount borrowed when asked to.

In short Hicks and Gillet have acted like perfect customers. They have paid up bang on time every time. If RBS failed to refinance then who in their right mind would take out a short term fixed mortgage with RBS. Any business that could arrange alternative finance would arrange alternative finance.

2. Probably even more significant the RBS is 87% State owned the precarious Coalition Government simply wouldn't allow the bank to force Liverpool under. They couldn't allow queue's of Irate Liverpool supporters to form outside branches of the RBS all closing their accounts and withdrawing their savings. You only have to look at the financial meltdown that occurred when people rushed to empty their Northern Rock accounts.

You only have to look at the way the RBS caved in when a few thousand Crystal Palace fans protested the other day.

The RBS would love to get LFC's loans off their books but now one else will touch Hicks and Gillet and until they default on a payment then there is nothing they can realistically do.

That is why Hicks and Gillet will sell the likes of Masch, Torres and Gerrard and pay the RBS their £40m interest payment as well as the remaining £6m payment to Roma for Aquilani and the £6m to Rafa.

They simply don't need to take the cash it would be far too obvious given their past track record and Hicks in particular's modus operandi they are far more likely to target the real estate.

You only have to look across Stanley Park at Everton who have sold the freehold of Woodison and Finch Farm or have a look at West Ham where the Icelandic consortium sold the Ground, The Training Ground, future season ticket sales and even future revenue from player sales.

My bet would be that Kop Holdings will sell off their real estate assets and anything else that isn't nailed down to Kop Holdings Cayman or another of their holding companies in return for the £144.1m that is owed to the Cayman Islands company.

Hicks and Gillet are far too smart for there not to be a reason why the Club owes Kop Holdings Cayman £144.1m in PIK loans that are rolling up at 10% per annum.

LFC spent almost a decade buying up property around the ground I wonder who will end up owning that when the planning permission ceases on Stanley Park.

[DonkeyWan]

It should be remembered as well that if the owners did start selling assets it would quickly devalue their price, so a  mass exodus is unlikely. Probably 2 or 3 key players would be sold at most (Mascherano, Torres and Gerrard being the most likely candidates). The real fear isn't massive asset stripping, rather the owners dragging on the sale and a slow hemorrhaging of  players over time. That's whats happened to date, its whether this will pick up pace and what state the club will be in by the time the sale goes through.

[Vulmea]

How to break the cycle?

There appear to be three options

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

The last two wouldn't be mutually exclusive.

[xerxes1]

I am not so confident on this as some are. Firstly, none of us know what the terms of the existing finance are. But I do not believe that we are in a situation where every penny the club earns is to be used to pay down the debt.

IF, G&h decided to sell Torrs and Masch for £110m ( chance would be a fine thing)I see no reason why G&H are not free to clear their personal loan account with that money.

[Timbo's Goals]

Makes your eyes bleed all this.

Clever twats these Yanks - as we know.

How could you explain any of this stuff in laymans terms to the lads in the pub who are excitedly discussing who the next manager will be?

[careca]

Excellent breakdown of the downstream financial ramifications of the Yanks involvement.  Vulmea's option 3. Fan ownership is this a pipe dream or could it be a viable way of escape forward? Interested to read your thoughts.

[rossipersempre]

The RBS would love to get LFC's loans off their books but now one else will touch Hicks and Gillet and until they default on a payment then there is nothing they can realistically do.

That is not strictly true mate, not what I've heard at least from Edinburgh. Can't say what exactly as there may be a line of communication going up there shortly (also to VC in Whitehall) but it's very much along the lines of loophole searching and heavy scrutiny.

As for 'nothing they can do until default', that's also not true - Hicks' defaulting on other loans and the bankruptcy filing is a clear pattern of behaviour that the bank can cite as unfit for continued lending. It's obvious the road he's heading down, you think they'll wait until he hits rock bottom?

Applying that personal mortgage analogy is also flawed, but if you want a corresponding one, how about that issue last year when certain credit card companies were cancelling people's cards regardless of perfect credit and payment history - they simply took the view they didn't want that level of exposure and sought to make cuts. The same applies here. Which is why the more we do to help nudge them along, the better.

[Eeyore]

Makes your eyes bleed all this.

Clever twats these Yanks - as we know.

How could you explain any of this stuff in laymans terms to the lads in the pub who are excitedly discussing who the next manager will be?

If you want to really make your eyes bleed check this out Hicks 50% of the club

Thomas Ollis Hicks, Sr

Owns

Hicks Holdings,
Dallas Texas

Owns

Hicks Sports Group
Dallas Texas

Owns 50% of

Kop Investment LLC - headquartered in Dallas, but registered in Delaware for tax reasons, this is the ultimate holding company and is jointly owned by George Gillett and Tom Hicks

owns

Kop Football (Cayman) Ltd - about which little is known, other than that it has loaned money its subsidiaries: this may be equity from G&H

owns

Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd (6032200)(KFHL) - is the UK parent company and has filed consolidated accounts derived from its two subsidiaries

owns

Kop Football Ltd (6032198)(KFL) - would appear to be the company that was used for the actual purchase of LFC and is effectively a only a holding company which does not otherwise trade.

owns

Liverpool Football Club & Athletic Grounds Ltd (35668)(LFC) - is what we would think of as "Liverpool FC": this is the original company sold by David Moores to G&H and which is now owned by them through a series of holding companies as above.



The problem is which company owns which of Liverpool's assets and how much have each of the holding companies borrowed against the assets they hold. If Hicks wasn't destroying the club I love he would be my fucking Hero.

He must be the only man in history who has outbanked the bankers.

[ttnbd]

I'm only saying two things on this as I want to stay away from LFC and all the shit that's going on for the summer.  Got other things to sort out that are more important than LFC this summer.

1.  Don't just look at the balance sheet and take it at face value.  This is because it's nearly a year out of date and is based on the net book value, not market value, of the assets.  So although technically insolvent from the balance sheet point of view it doesn't mean it is.

2.  Asset stripping the club will generate huge tax liabilities, especially if funds not re-invested in assets that depreciate.

[El Campeador]

no hurry to get a new manager in

12 players at the world cup boosting their values

we will be selling players after the WC

You know what, that's not a bad shout. One of Torres, Mascherano, or Gerrard is probably a good shout to have a good game in the semi-finals at least.

My money's on Mascherano. First big money exit after having a monster tournament for Argentina. Good luck, Javi, you're playing for your Missus.

[El Campeador]

I'm only saying two things on this as I want to stay away from LFC and all the shit that's going on for the summer.  Got other things to sort out that are more important than LFC this summer.

1.  Don't just look at the balance sheet and take it at face value.  This is because it's nearly a year out of date and is based on the net book value, not market value, of the assets.  So although technically insolvent from the balance sheet point of view it doesn't mean it is.

2.  Asset stripping the club will generate huge tax liabilities, especially if funds not re-invested in assets that depreciate.

Are you implying that the assets of the club are worth more than they were a year ago?

Also, what are the tax implications of using player sales to pay down debt?

[rossipersempre]

If Hicks wasn't destroying the club I love he would be my fucking Hero.

He must be the only man in history who has outbanked the bankers.

I think you give him far too much credit. The fact you're able to trace this transparent chain of companies all the way through so easily is proof he's nothing but a fucking chancer thinking he's still some big player in the 90s. His billionaire status (not true anymore given he's just missed the cut from Forbes' list) is based on paper wealth not cash wealth.

He's got to be the biggest broke billionaire I'll give him that, he's so far up to his neck I'm surprised the fat fucker is still breathing unassisted. As for outbanking the bankers, that's probably what he arrogantly thinks himself. A very thin line to tread though, and I hope he comes down crashing on the wrong side.

[Vulmea]

Makes your eyes bleed all this.

Clever twats these Yanks - as we know.

How could you explain any of this stuff in laymans terms to the lads in the pub who are excitedly discussing who the next manager will be?

you could try
the next manager will be operating with both arms tied behind his back as the two leeches wont spend a penny
their robbing us blind -
they haven't spent any of their own - Hicks has bankrupted two clubs and is working on his third
they've borrowed money at one rate and our charging us a higher one
they've taken 200 million out of the club inside 3 years
they've covered their arses by setting up all sorts of companies
their trying everything they can to leech more money out of the club
they are laughing their arses off
down that pint, dont buy another, save the money, join the union and get the bastards out

[rossipersempre]

2.  Asset stripping the club will generate huge tax liabilities, especially if funds not re-invested in assets that depreciate.

But given they have a front holding company based in the Caymans, does that still apply? And can't they just reinvest player sales money into irrelevant loss-making shite (e.g. bankrolling films for instance) to avoid the corporate CGT? How do corporate raiders manage to make such a profit in that case?

[Eeyore]

That is not strictly true mate, not what I've heard at least from Edinburgh. Can't say what exactly as there may be a line of communication going up there shortly (also to VC in Whitehall) but it's very much along the lines of loophole searching and heavy scrutiny.

As for 'nothing they can do until default', that's also not true - Hicks' defaulting on other loans and the bankruptcy filing is a clear pattern of behaviour that the bank can cite as unfit for continued lending. It's obvious the road he's heading down, you think they'll wait until he hits rock bottom?

Applying that personal mortgage analogy is also flawed, but if you want a corresponding one, how about that issue last year when certain credit card companies were cancelling people's cards regardless of perfect credit and payment history - they simply took the view they didn't want that level of exposure and sought to make cuts. The same applies here. Which is why the more we do to help nudge them along, the better.

You are spot on there are overwhelming reasons why the RBS should call in the Yanks loans, Hicks in particular is a terrible risk at the moment. The problem is could the RBS risk being able to explain the reasoning behind their decision to Joe public.

They would see a national institution that hasn't missed a payment being basically put out of business.

Look at Northern Rock the government guaranteed peoples savings but Joe Public still queued night and day to withdraw their savings.

If you look at my last post and the obstacles that have been put in the way of anyone trying to follow the paper trail why bother with that when you have guarantee's worth £110m and you are receiving LIBOR +5% interest plus arrangement fees every time you re-finance.

You are spot on about the need to give the RBS a nudge because they are turning a blind eye to what is going on because it is in their interest.

[horne]

Everyone is working on the presumption that the RBS could refuse to re-finance or could call in the £237m they are owed they simply can't for two reasons

1. Banks rely on people borrowing money off them. Who is going to borrow money of a bank that has just made a business insolvent when that business has kept up with every single payment, has issued the bank with letters of credit, has given personal guarantees and has even dramatically reduced the amount borrowed when asked to.

In short Hicks and Gillet have acted like perfect customers. They have paid up bang on time every time. If RBS failed to refinance then who in their right mind would take out a short term fixed mortgage with RBS. Any business that could arrange alternative finance would arrange alternative finance.

2. Probably even more significant the RBS is 87% State owned the precarious Coalition Government simply wouldn't allow the bank to force Liverpool under. They couldn't allow queue's of Irate Liverpool supporters to form outside branches of the RBS all closing their accounts and withdrawing their savings. You only have to look at the financial meltdown that occurred when people rushed to empty their Northern Rock accounts.



You only have to look at the way the RBS caved in when a few thousand Crystal Palace fans protested the other day.

The RBS would love to get LFC's loans off their books but now one else will touch Hicks and Gillet and until they default on a payment then there is nothing they can realistically do.

That is why Hicks and Gillet will sell the likes of Masch, Torres and Gerrard and pay the RBS their £40m interest payment as well as the remaining £6m payment to Roma for Aquilani and the £6m to Rafa.

They simply don't need to take the cash it would be far too obvious given their past track record and Hicks in particular's modus operandi they are far more likely to target the real estate.

You only have to look across Stanley Park at Everton who have sold the freehold of Woodison and Finch Farm or have a look at West Ham where the Icelandic consortium sold the Ground, The Training Ground, future season ticket sales and even future revenue from player sales.

My bet would be that Kop Holdings will sell off their real estate assets and anything else that isn't nailed down to Kop Holdings Cayman or another of their holding companies in return for the £144.1m that is owed to the Cayman Islands company.

Hicks and Gillet are far too smart for there not to be a reason why the Club owes Kop Holdings Cayman £144.1m in PIK loans that are rolling up at 10% per annum.

LFC spent almost a decade buying up property around the ground I wonder who will end up owning that when the planning permission ceases on Stanley Park.

so how would you suggest we combat the yanks...any ideas?

where would a total boycot take us or them for that matter?

also can the rbs force them to sell immediately if the bank thought there was going to be a mass closure of accounts by Liverpool fans ?

[Timbo's Goals]

you could try
the next manager will be operating with both arms tied behind his back as the two leeches wont spend a penny
their robbing us blind -
they haven't spent any of their own - Hicks has bankrupted two clubs and is working on his third
they've borrowed money at one rate and our charging us a higher one
they've taken 200 million out of the club inside 3 years
they've covered their arses by setting up all sorts of companies
their trying everything they can to leech more money out of the club
they are laughing their arses off
down that pint, dont buy another, save the money, join the union and get the bastards out

Still not simplistic enough.
They still want to know why we're too negative. Why Lucas plays.
Why Rafa spent £800mil on players like Ngog.

Sadly, as SOS know - most "supporters" are only interested in what happens on the pitch or what they're Skyfed.
Even the potential removal of Zonal Marking won't make any odds.

[Vulmea]

Still not simplistic enough.
They still want to know why we're too negative. Why Lucas plays.
Why Rafa spent £800mil on players like Ngog.

Sadly, as SOS know - most "supporters" are only interested in what happens on the pitch or what they're Skyfed.

true unfortunately as the last few days have shown

maybe there's a pill

[filopastry]

I'd imagine they have a shitload of tax losses brought forward to play with though, due to the interest as I'm sure that's been setup in a nice tax efficient structure.

I'd agree that the book values of the assets are meaningless, but I'm not sure the club plus holding company would be solvent even assuming a breakup scenario at market value or alterntively just using a simple DCF of the club, without the larger stadium we so desperately need I'd struggle to justify a £350m+ valuation on the club unless its a just a vanity purchase by someone who has cash to throw around.

I'm at the stage now of viewing administration as more liely than not in some form or another and I'd just like it to be over with asap, could be wrong of course, I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any means.

[horne]

we need to pay a russian pro a few bob to seduce him on the sly ,and threaten to post the photos to his mrs

[Eeyore]

so how would you suggest we combat the yanks...any ideas?

where would a total boycot take us or them for that matter?

also can the rbs force them to sell immediately if the bank thought there was going to be a mass closure of accounts by Liverpool fans ?

Hicks is Teflon he has put up far too many obstacles and he actually thrives on people hating him.

Gillet isn't as well versed in the holding company strategy and is far more exposed then Hicks he is also far more thin skinned and actually wants to be liked.

For reasons I can't go into here he also has very good reason to distrust Hicks and has already tried to sell out once.

He is the weak link our way out of this mess.

[rossipersempre]

You are spot on there are overwhelming reasons why the RBS should call in the Yanks loans, Hicks in particular is a terrible risk at the moment. The problem is could the RBS risk being able to explain the reasoning behind their decision to Joe public.

They would see a national institution that hasn't missed a payment being basically put out of business.

Look at Northern Rock the government guaranteed peoples savings but Joe Public still queued night and day to withdraw their savings.

If you look at my last post and the obstacles that have been put in the way of anyone trying to follow the paper trail why bother with that when you have guarantee's worth £110m and you are receiving LIBOR +5% interest plus arrangement fees every time you re-finance.

You are spot on about the need to give the RBS a nudge because they are turning a blind eye to what is going on because it is in their interest.

Do they need to explain to Joe Public though? Why exactly? In as much as we're an "institution" (an unfortunate phrase given the lunatics running the show), we're still effectively a private company 'owned' by two US nationals. Joe Public couldn't give a fuck, we aren't Northern Rock with our mortgages and life savings tied up within the club.

All they need to do is effectively foreclose on the loan (refuse to extend the facility) and defer administration telling Broughton to ramp up the timetable on the sale of the club, without the blocking interference of Hicks in partcular. They've only ceded verbally to extend the finance because they were given assurances they were committed to the sale, and since then Hicks' "£600-800m" and "upto 18 months to sell" comments just prove those assurances to be worthless lies.

The RBS top brass will breathe a sigh of relief that they aren't left holding their pricks when Hicks has Kop Football file for bankruptcy, not to mention the gratitude of us fans for finally growing a pair (better late than never) and forcing the Tumours out.

Their majority shareholder, the UK Government will also push for a swift resolution, and after all they have more to gain from the positive PR it will generate than anyone ('taking a firm stance on financial mismanagement' unlike Gordon and the previous lot). Vince Cabel, the new Biz Sec, has been tasked with cleaning house at the RBS, and such a high profile clusterfuck as this would surely warrant a bit of a precedent and special attention.

Everyone knows the problem isn't Liverpool FC itself, but the two cowboys who are still being allowed to call the shots. Sitting back and doing nothing is a disaster waiting to happen for both the newly-sanitised RBS and the new brooms in Whitehall, a fact I'm sure they are more than aware of.

[Vulmea]

Hicks is Teflon he has put up far too many obstacles and he actually thrives on people hating him.

Gillet isn't as well versed in the holding company strategy and is far more exposed then Hicks he is also far more thin skinned and actually wants to be liked.

For reasons I can't go into here he also has very good reason to distrust Hicks and has already tried to sell out once.

He is the weak link our way out of this mess.

Not sure why you believe Hicks to be teflon unless he's pulling a Guiness style sicky he looked like shit the last photo I saw - he clearly has no conscience but that should not take him out of the firing line - his son's departure is evidence that the bloke is not invulnerable - he remains a gobby, bully and as with most bullies the only route is to stand up to them

Thats not to say Gillet shouldn't be targetted just because he keeps his mouth shut.

[horne]

Not sure why you believe Hicks to be teflon unless he's pulling a Guiness style sicky he looked like shit the last photo I saw - he clearly has no conscience but that should not take him out of the firing line - his son's departure is evidence that the bloke is not invulnerable - he remains a gobby, bully and as with most bullies the only route is to stand up to them

Thats not to say Gillet shouldn't be targetted just because he keeps his mouth shut.

its interesting you bring that up about his son.
Why did he make him resign.
morally yes,he had to.professional reasons even.
or was it because he thought maybe the son was more vulnerable to physical attack when over here?
its great having loads of money and being legally and from a business point of view,being several steps ahead and such,but at the end of the day,you and your families welfare comes first surely,no matter how much money is at stake.
the money is nothing if you arent around to spend it so to speak.
or is there another reason?

[Timbo's Goals]

Really grateful for all the insights. But it does come across as quite a confusing picture. It does appear to range from them not being able to profit from selling our top players to there being no restriction as long as they still meet the annual interest payments. Then there's Rossi's take re what seems almost fraudulent evasion via land deals.

Any chance of your insight on this manila vanilla?

Also TTBND - is it possible Hicks could avoid/minimise the tax situation by some of his dubious manouvres which would mean the asset sales would retain their attraction to him? Again I'm thinking of this preposterous extraction to date of £50 million or whatever in respect of stadium feasibility which simply cannot be anything of the sort and yet nobody from the "authorities" appears to have taken them to task over it.

[cowtownred]

Al, I can't recall seeing you post much on this before.

But you've got me shit scvared here.

Not sure what I'm asking really, but how sure are you of your stuff, and if you are, what's the bottomline of what your saying?

[horne]

standard chartered look to have been taken for a ride too dont they?......i wonder if they have any connections with RBS at a top level?

[L12]

Hope the bean counters aren't looking at the academy

[Cid]

Only time will tell, and whichever way it ends up, there isn't a thing any of us can do about it.

Thanks Moores, for all of this.

[81a]

We'll be sold for  £1 to satisfy the tax man once the vultures are finished.

It's imperative at that point that that SOS have enough backing both financially and politically to be in a position to take over the club.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

IF, G&h decided to sell Torrs and Masch for £110m ( chance would be a fine thing)I see no reason why G&H are not free to clear their personal loan account with that money.

the rbs debt is the primary debt and must be paid off first, part of the loan covenants i believe and not to hard to find this out

[redmark]

Hicks is Teflon he has put up far too many obstacles and he actually thrives on people hating him.

Gillet isn't as well versed in the holding company strategy and is far more exposed then Hicks he is also far more thin skinned and actually wants to be liked.

For reasons I can't go into here he also has very good reason to distrust Hicks and has already tried to sell out once.

He is the weak link our way out of this mess.

I've wondered over recent days (probably since the Moores letter, as a reminder that it was Gillett who was originally interested, well thought of by the Canadiens fans, better vetted and initially it seemed, more trustworthy) about Gillett and whether there's any mileage in a different 'tactic' with him: a 'divide and rule' of our own. The full on offensive - and Hicks - seems to have cowed Gillett into silence and I think he probably wants nothing more than to just get this over with and get out of the club. Hicks, on the other hand, seems to almost enjoy the confrontation and seems to be the one with the leveraged buyout background, current severe credit issues and determined to sell high for a profit.

Like you say, Gillett seems to want to be liked - and perhaps, there's a bit of guilty feeling there based on the original good personal relationship with Moores. Is there any scope for a 'softer' psychological approach on Gillett, perhaps with the aim of encouraging a public, realistic valuation of the club or even independent sale negotiation? Can we prick his conscience, give him the prospect of a better 'legacy' - appeal to his better nature, basically (and sow doubts in his mind too, on Hicks' financial situation)?

[redmark]

But given they have a front holding company based in the Caymans, does that still apply?

Exactly - the CGT must be payable by the UK company, i.e. the club. In that event, if the owners extract enough cash against the inter-company loan to meet RBS's 'personal guarantees' (say, £150m in player sales vs £110m guarantees), they could walk away with £20m profit each and let the club be put into administration by RBS and the government without giving a toss, surely?

[redmark]

It should be remembered as well that if the owners did start selling assets it would quickly devalue their price, so a  mass exodus is unlikely. Probably 2 or 3 key players would be sold at most (Mascherano, Torres and Gerrard being the most likely candidates). The real fear isn't massive asset stripping, rather the owners dragging on the sale and a slow hemorrhaging of  players over time. That's whats happened to date, its whether this will pick up pace and what state the club will be in by the time the sale goes through.

If the owners are selling players at market rates, not under, and get to pocket that cash (or offset it against any personal guarantees), they're up on the deal. The club (as a brand, stadium, etc) has intrinsic value above simply the transfer value of it's players, so the value of the club will not come down further than the cash generated by selling players. I can't see that a slow sale benefits the owners, any longer. The club is losing money hand over fist, and revenue streams with no CL football (and possibly after the sale of key players) are lower. Key players are ageing and value will only decline. The owners exposure gets worse with every passing month.

That scenario could (should?) unfold quite quickly: asset stripping, club insolvency, administration. I can't see what benefit Hicks, in particular, gets now by hanging around. Gillett too, plus he just seems to want this over with.

[redmark]

the rbs debt is the primary debt and must be paid off first, part of the loan covenants i believe and not to hard to find this out

But what is the actual mechanism for that? I can understand in case of insolvency/administration, RBS loan takes priority. But what about available cash, from player sales, if RBS is getting it's repayments regularly? Does RBS have the ability and power to freeze bank accounts if they suspect asset stripping? I can't see it.

[Marko B]

Just a question, at the present is the club trading in insolvency? Although we are meeting all of our debt obligations at this stage, it seems as though the continued meeting of these is more dependant on hopeful revenues and what ifs as opposed to what could be reasonably expected. Given this, insolvency generally raises its head when there is a reasonable expectancy that future debts may not be met through continued trading. If this can be shown then the appointment of an external administrator would be the next step surely?

At least if an external administrator were appointed then they would effectively oust some control of Hicks and be able to access firm information on where assets, liabilities, debts etc are located within the myriad of holding companies. This at least could form some limitation on the amounts that Hicks can embezzle from the club through his set up. 

How likely is this scenario? And who is there with standing, if anyone, to make an application to whatever body controls UK corporations to examine this?

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

We are already in (informal) administration ... What the hell do you think Broughton and Purslow are ?

[Niru Red4ever]

If RBS is getting it's money (which we can assume it is, as they're not screaming about loan defaults), then I think - in theory - they can be much more blatant if they want. The club has loans payable to the holding company, which are accruing interest, none of which has yet been paid. If we have cash (from player sales), I think there is nothing 'legal' - other than some unease at RBS - to stop part-payments being made against those loans. If done quickly, that money could theoretically be gone before RBS can raise a complaint.

Which means they can, say sell Torres, Gerrard , Masch and others and raise 150 mp(say); they can take it and run? Thats a real worry 

[Niru Red4ever]

The interest on the Cayman loan was rolled up last yr (hence 144 from 130mp). I assume its going to be the same this year?

Also, we made a 50 mp loss last year (after paying of the RBS debt). How exactly do you cover that loss? Take other loan? Hold payments? Since we are expecting a bigger loss this year, how is the club going to cover that?

[Marko B]

We are already in (informal) administration ... What the hell do you think Broughton and Purslow are ?

Precisely, informal. I'm speaking of where a wholly independent administrator is appointed by the court under formal powers (forgive me as I'm unfamiliar with the operation of UK corporations law).

Broughton and Purslow are obviously there with the intentions of bringing the company back to a sustainable position however given what has been deduced one would expect court applications for injunctions and the exposure of financial statements showing where certain assets and liabilities are held within the corporate veil of the various entities connected.

Obviously the less the boat is rocked the better for Broughton in terms of the saleability of the company but where does the onus lie in terms of what he reasonably must do in order to return the company to a solvent position as being the chair that is where his first and only priority must lie?