Author Topic: Montreal Canadiens are to be sold... (Read 40210 times)

Dave_the_Red · « **Reply #80 on:** June 21, 2009, 03:23:35 pm »

I'm not expecting fuck all from the turd that is gillette.

sonofkenny · « **Reply #81 on:** June 21, 2009, 03:24:51 pm »

I think that Moores was obligated to look at the higher offer, ITV in particular wanted to maxmise profit from the sale.

not defending them, just saying it is not as easy as saying they lined their own pockets.

The_Last_Don · « **Reply #82 on:** June 21, 2009, 03:29:48 pm »

so whats the deal if Gillett can hold his end of the bargain and put up guarentees on the loans and hicks cant?

vanoord · « **Reply #83 on:** June 21, 2009, 03:38:00 pm »

Ahem.

This deal neads to be approved by the NHL board and that won't be until August - so no money will change hands until August.

The refinancing for LFC is due by July 24th

No666 · « **Reply #84 on:** June 21, 2009, 03:41:04 pm »

If Moores was obligated to look at the higher offer, was he obligated to accept it? Or could he have used a modicum of commonsense and done what any of us would have done in a similar situation: researched the various parties and asked relevant questions of the various parties?
Gillett is now looking much more financially sound than Hicks. Which is an interesting twist to the power balance. The difference is that I think Gillett, if he took control, would sell. He would still demand his forty pieces of silver, but he is minded to sell because he is 70-odd and Foster clearly doesn't fancy running LFC as a business. Can anyone hazard a guess to what the agreement would be between the two, if one could raise collateral and the other couldn't?

ttnbd · « **Reply #85 on:** June 21, 2009, 03:48:14 pm »

Quote from: No666 on June 21, 2009, 03:41:04 pm

If Moores was obligated to look at the higher offer, was he obligated to accept it? Or could he have used a modicum of commonsense and done what any of us would have done in a similar situation: researched the various parties and asked relevant questions of the various parties?
Gillett is now looking much more financially sound than Hicks. Which is an interesting twist to the power balance. The difference is that I think Gillett, if he took control, would sell. He would still demand his forty pieces of silver, but he is minded to sell because he is 70-odd and Foster clearly doesn't fancy running LFC as a business. Can anyone hazard a guess to what the agreement would be between the two, if one could raise collateral and the other couldn't?

The board of directors are obligated to recommend the offer they feel is greatest benefit to the shareholders. If the offer they recommend is lower than another offer on the table they have to explain, and convince, why the lower offer is better. With Granada owning 9.9% of the club they could have been major players in stopping a lower offer being accepted. Remember that the sale of their shares was conditional on no other party offering £5,500 per share within a time frame.

Not saying what may have happened if they'd recommended the lower offer, just what their duty as directors of a company are.

No666 · « **Reply #86 on:** June 21, 2009, 03:55:43 pm »

Thanks, Tim - can you make an educated guess as to what will happen if Gillett can offer RBS increased guarantees (as seems likely this is what RBS are demanding) and Hicks can't? Do you think the agreement between the two will cover such a scenario?

ttnbd · « **Reply #87 on:** June 21, 2009, 04:01:04 pm »

don't know, wouldn't even think about guessing as no one really knows what RBS are wanting.

shelovesyou · « **Reply #88 on:** June 21, 2009, 04:32:26 pm »

Quote from: Gedo on June 21, 2009, 03:09:58 pm

If and it's a big IF the Americans where to invested more funds into the club it would be directed towards a New Stadium!

Which in itself would be a good thing but I dont see that happening , What will happen is they will put up more money for the RBS extension , wait for the markets to improve and then attempt to borrow even more cash to get the stadium started.
Lets not be under any illusions that they will use any of their own cash to build that stadium or fund the club .

Wilbur · « **Reply #89 on:** June 21, 2009, 04:57:20 pm »

It will be interesting to see whether Gillette uses the proceeds from the Montreal sale to alter the ownership percentages in LFC.

Can he increases his shareholdings to become the majority owner?

shelovesyou · « **Reply #90 on:** June 21, 2009, 05:06:11 pm »

Quote from: Wilbur on June 21, 2009, 04:57:20 pm

It will be interesting to see whether Gillette uses the proceeds from the Montreal sale to alter the ownership percentages in LFC.

Can he increases his shareholdings to become the majority owner?

He could I believe but TH wont be having that .

Romford_Red · « **Reply #91 on:** June 21, 2009, 05:47:57 pm »

The big question I have to ask is this...

If GG now has £300m to spare and TH gets similar for the assests he is trying to sell, does it not make more sense for them to simply pay off the debt rather t han re-finance, because the debt is costing over £40m a year.
Surely paying it off is chaper and better, no?

OneKop · « **Reply #92 on:** June 21, 2009, 05:49:41 pm »

Quote from: zen on June 21, 2009, 01:14:56 pm

is exactly right; how many kids in India, Thailand, Japan, China, Malaysia (to name a few) will have Montreal Canadiens shirts on? Then compare how many of the same kids will have Torres, Gerrard, Alonso et al on their backs. Throw in another big name or two, and you are looking at merchandising in the hundreds of millions of pounds every year.

Get a big shiny new stadium with plenty of seats for wealthy day-trippers from the Far East who will pay 5 grand a pop, and suddenly the £300mil he's reinvested from the MC's looks like small change. A clever game from Mr Gillett, I doubt Mr Hicks is as savvy though; he'll want to use it as collateral against another fucking loan or something equally as ridiculous.

Sorry but that is being just a tad to optimistic.

You can bet your ass that 99.9% of the shirts worn by kids in India, Thailand, Japan, China, Malaysia are fakes, so cant see the club making hundreds of millions of £££££'s from them every year. granted we would get some, but not what you are imagining.

Plus by the time the stadium gets built {if it ever does} we will be in more debt than the Mancs, and they already have their marketing at max, and are still losing money. and who the fuck will want to buy us at around £800mill?

Bet your last dime on the pair of snakes keeping their own money as far away from Liverpool F.C. as possible.

Umbarto · « **Reply #93 on:** June 21, 2009, 05:50:34 pm »

Given what has happened in the past, I'm of the opinion that the short one is only doing this to stay in at LFC. Have no illusions or dillusions, he's in it for the money people, he doesn't give a fuck about us or our Club.

Gedo · « **Reply #94 on:** June 21, 2009, 06:06:33 pm »

Quote from: Romford_Red on June 21, 2009, 05:47:57 pm

The big question I have to ask is this...

If GG now has £300m to spare and TH gets similar for the assests he is trying to sell, does it not make more sense for them to simply pay off the debt rather t han re-finance, because the debt is costing over £40m a year.
Surely paying it off is chaper and better, no?

Why would they pay £40m a year when you can get soft Cnut like us to pay it!

vanoord · « **Reply #95 on:** June 21, 2009, 06:17:48 pm »

One thing to bear in mind: the price of $550m includes the Canadiens (80% thereof), the Bell Centre and Gillett Entertainment Group - http://www.geg.ca/en/ - which explains why the price is about twice that of any other similar franchise.

What strikes me as odd is that Gillett is selling a non-sporting outfit as well as the Canadiens, although they may be closely linked. Whether this means he's really keen to plow the money into LFC; whether he really needs the money just to cling on to the club; or whether he's just selling stuff is unclear.

I wonder if Hicks has found some venture capital fund to underwrite him putting money into the club - and Gillett's had to sell up other assets to gather the funds - or face becoming a minority shareholder in the club?

BCCC · « **Reply #96 on:** June 21, 2009, 06:27:13 pm »

Not sure what his plans are for us but it puts him in a strong position.

Cadno · « **Reply #97 on:** June 21, 2009, 06:53:01 pm »

Quote from: BCCC on June 21, 2009, 06:27:13 pm

Not sure what his plans are for us but it puts him in a strong position.

yeah and klinsmann is out of a job at the moment isn't he? $:-\$

shelovesyou · « **Reply #98 on:** June 21, 2009, 07:01:31 pm »

Surley RBS are aware of this latest development and they will insist he puts some of that back into the loan !!

redlen · « **Reply #99 on:** June 21, 2009, 07:05:08 pm »

i don't think this makes much difference with RBS. as far as guarantees go he gets no more money till at least august. and that's only if the deal goes ahead

Billy1561 · « **Reply #100 on:** June 21, 2009, 07:22:49 pm »

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on June 21, 2009, 07:01:31 pm

Surley RBS are aware of this latest development and they will insist he puts some of that back into the loan !!

You really think he will put anything back?? It's a one way deal with these thieves mate.

fudge · « **Reply #101 on:** June 21, 2009, 07:46:53 pm »

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on June 21, 2009, 07:01:31 pm

Surley RBS are aware of this latest development and they will insist he puts some of that back into the loan !!

Its probably because of them that he's had to raise these funds

and don't call me Surley

west_london_red · « **Reply #102 on:** June 21, 2009, 07:52:31 pm »

Quote from: Romford_Red on June 21, 2009, 05:47:57 pm

The big question I have to ask is this...

If GG now has £300m to spare and TH gets similar for the assests he is trying to sell, does it not make more sense for them to simply pay off the debt rather t han re-finance, because the debt is costing over £40m a year.
Surely paying it off is chaper and better, no?

I suggest you read up on what an LBO is. Very briefly the point of it is that you dont put any money in, borrow everything and let the business pay for the loan.

This also applies to the Canadiens, so of the £300 million hes got, a fair chunk of that will be used to pay back the loans he used to buy the Canadiens in the first place

El Campeador · « **Reply #103 on:** June 21, 2009, 08:27:32 pm »

Quote from: mig on June 21, 2009, 06:49:23 am

Is it possible that this money goes into paying for the club's debt?

I wouldn't bet on it, but it certainly is possible.

Mostly, I think it's good for bank bothering that he has more collateral when going up for refinancing.

howes hound · « **Reply #104 on:** June 21, 2009, 08:50:25 pm »

Quote

I suggest you read up on what an LBO is. Very briefly the point of it is that you dont put any money in, borrow everything and let the business pay for the loan.

This also applies to the Canadiens, so of the £300 million hes got, a fair chunk of that will be used to pay back the loans he used to buy the Canadiens in the first place

Exactly. But GG's first priority for the 300 big ones will be to keep his own ass clear of alligators by financing his interest payments. All this has arisen because of the economic crisis and tightening-up of bank credit. He'll be hoping the 300m will tide him over until things ease up, at which point there's no guarantee he won't be spending like a drunken sailor once more, with full cooperation from the banks.

Gnurglan · « **Reply #105 on:** June 21, 2009, 11:04:11 pm »

Quote from: west_london_red on June 21, 2009, 07:52:31 pm

I suggest you read up on what an LBO is. Very briefly the point of it is that you dont put any money in, borrow everything and let the business pay for the loan.

For me, it's unbelievable that you can actually do that in the first place. "Hi, I'd like to buy LFC. No, I haven't got any money, but you know what, give me the loan, I'll buy the club and then the club will own you the cash. Deal?"

howes hound · « **Reply #106 on:** June 22, 2009, 01:09:28 am »

Quote

For me, it's unbelievable that you can actually do that in the first place. "Hi, I'd like to buy LFC. No, I haven't got any money, but you know what, give me the loan, I'll buy the club and then the club will own you the cash. Deal?"

Well, it's not quite that simple. The people who loan you the cash want to see a pretty ironclad business plan that gives them a warm feeling they're not only not kissing their money goodbye, but also they're going to see a decent return on it. You also better have a track record of being able to pull off what you're promising.
Still, it's a shitty prospect for the company you're buying and its employees. One minute, all they've got to worry about is revenue>cost. Next minute they've got that worry plus the burden of having to service a gigantic debt load they never asked for. I worked for one company purchased on an LBO and swore never again. Lots of the current worldwide economic problems stem from people leveraging themselves out of sight, and the banks helping them do so. LBOs are a game of smoke and mirrors.

4pool · « **Reply #107 on:** June 22, 2009, 02:11:16 am »

Gillett had some more good news today.

Kaset Kane won the NASCAR race for Richard Petty Motorsports. Which is the merger name for Gillett/Everham racing.
Richard Petty is known as the King , so his name is more marketable.

Kasey Kane and the #9 Budwieser car was a Gillett car the last few years.

first win of the year for Richard Petty Motorsports.

Manila Kop · « **Reply #108 on:** June 22, 2009, 04:27:05 am »

James Ducker's take on it over at The Times. Seems like the gobshite Texan has some solid bidders for his Rangers franchise as well.

Quote from: The Times

From The Times
June 22, 2009
George Gillett offloads to ease Liverpool finances
James Ducker

George Gillett Jr, the Liverpool co-owner, has moved to ease the club’s financial troubles by agreeing to sell his majority stake in the Montreal Canadiens ice hockey franchise.

However, Rafael Benítez, the manager, will still face a fight to keep his best players at Anfield this summer. Molson, the brewing company, has agreed to buy Gillett’s 80.1 per cent stake in the Canadiens for about £330 million, with the deal expected to be concluded before July 24, the deadline by which Gillett and Tom Hicks, his business partner at Liverpool, must have renegotiated their £350 million credit deals with Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Wachovia.

Gillett put the Canadiens up for sale this year and has been searching for a buyer to raise the funds needed to consolidate his position at Anfield, with RBS and Wachovia expected to demand more than the £185 million in personal guarantees that the Americans have made to satisfy their concerns.

The move by Gillett comes after KPMG, Liverpool’s auditor, cast “significant doubt” on their ability to continue as a “going concern”, with the accounts released this month revealing that Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd had made a pre-tax loss of £42.6 million and that the club paid £36.5 million in interest on their debts in the financial year to July 31, 2008.

Molson, which owns the remaining 19.9 per cent share in the Canadiens, sold Gillett the controlling stake in the franchise eight years ago for about £165 million, but was prepared to buy it back for double that amount.

The sale, under which the Molson family will acquire the Bell Centre, where the Canadiens play, and the Gillett Entertainment Group, as well as the team, must first be approved by the National Hockey League (NHL) board of governors. However, no glitches are expected, given the buyer’s long association with the NHL.

Liverpool could receive another shot in the arm if Hicks manages to offload about half of his 95 per cent stake in the Texas Rangers baseball team to a consortium headed by Nolan Ryan, the president and a former player, or David McDavid, a Texas businessman. The Rangers are valued at $405 million (about £245 million).

Even if that happens, though, Benítez may struggle to keep some of his best players. Javier Mascherano could leave, with Barcelona and Real Madrid prepared to pay more than £30 million to sign him. The Argentina midfield player wants to move to appease his pregnant wife, who is unsettled on Merseyside.

Benítez will hope to conclude an £18.5 million deal for Glen Johnson, the Portsmouth right back, early this week, but a summer that Steven Gerrard, the captain, described as “crucial” to Liverpool’s hopes of winning the Barclays Premier League title next season is already turning into something of a nightmare.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6549562.ece

Lolo · « **Reply #109 on:** June 22, 2009, 05:51:31 am »

Quote from: Billy1561 on June 21, 2009, 07:22:49 pm

You really think he will put anything back?? It's a one way deal with these thieves mate.

Surely if he puts money into the club to pay off loans then Hicks has to match it! Otherwise why would he put money in himself only to see it reduce some of the debt which Hicks is 50% liable for?
We don't know the precise details of their share agreement, but I would guess it is something similar to this.

As others have already said, it will be an interesting meeting when (and if) RBS demand increased securities for any refinancing deal and Gillet has the money but Hicks doesn't......love to be a fly on the wall for that one!

mooks · « **Reply #110 on:** June 22, 2009, 07:46:39 am »

Quote from: ttnbd on June 21, 2009, 03:48:14 pm

The board of directors are obligated to recommend the offer they feel is greatest benefit to the shareholders.

Utter bollox ... and you present yourself as some sort of financial wizard on here?

LiamG · « **Reply #111 on:** June 22, 2009, 07:53:03 am »

I still dont think they will put alot of there money in, they will still use loans

No666 · « **Reply #112 on:** June 22, 2009, 09:07:52 am »

That report in The Times implies KMPG cast doubt on LFC's ability to continue as a 'going concern' because of the pre-tax loss, whereas they were emphasising the need for a re-fi. It is the general ambience created by reports like that which is helping to fuel the transfer fever about LFC atm. & like a dog with a bone, Ducker isn't going to give up on that one, despite the Canadiens' sale.

Is it odd that there has been no announcement on the re-fi, which some said was a 'done deal', given that on Wednesday we are a mere month away from Doomsday?

xerxes1 · « **Reply #113 on:** June 22, 2009, 09:18:36 am »

A few observations here.

There has never been any evidence that G&H would fail to refinance in July - just "hope" and speculation.

Although Gillett will raise about £330m from the sale of the Canadiens, his profit is around £165m. Hicks may raise around £116m from the sale of Texas Rangers, leaving a profit of around £50m. So that is £495m liquid, £166m profit.

A current acceptable LTV commercially is 70%, so for a £330m debt the banks may be looking for a £50m stake each from G&H. In 2006 their combined wealth was estimated at around £1.8bn, the sticking point has never been whether they have the money, it has been whose money they would use.

Even with £50m each from G&H "in" the club - they can still use it as security against other ventures. The speculated guarantees of £185m are just that. No cash changes hands.

My certainty that refinance will be secured remains.It looks as though they may also be tooling up to finance a new stadium too, suggesting that they will be around for some time yet.

No666 · « **Reply #114 on:** June 22, 2009, 09:36:39 am »

Quote

Even with £50m each from G&H "in" the club - they can still use it as security against other ventures

Sorry Xerxes - they can pledge 50m each as guarantees, but also pledge it against other ventures, so if their businesses went tits up the varied banks would all be trying to get their hands on the same guarantee?

xerxes1 · « **Reply #115 on:** June 22, 2009, 09:44:48 am »

It is like borrowing against the value of your house. If it is worth £300,000, and you own a third stake of £100,000 you can raise capital against that.

The banks will have a "first charge", the lender simply takes the risk that the whole empire will not come crashing down at once, which it wont.

JohnBarnesBigToe · « **Reply #116 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:01:27 am »

Quote from: shelovesyouyehyehyeh on June 20, 2009, 10:44:07 pm

Isnt it a coincidence that within the last 48 hours Moores has stepped down from the board and now this !?!!

Don't be live in coincidence

xerxes1 · « **Reply #117 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:09:18 am »

It is difficult to see what contribution P&M, the arch movers in a now discredited regime, were making to the new board.

nm83 · « **Reply #118 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:09:48 am »

Quote from: JohnBarnesBigToe on June 22, 2009, 10:01:27 am

Don't be live in coincidence

it's because they've appointed a new managing director until the CEO is found.

firing squad · « **Reply #119 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:17:11 am »

Quote from: GinuWine on June 20, 2009, 09:32:32 pm

I'm not enthusiastic by any means. I am stating, however, his reputation with Canadiens fans. You can view the ongoing Thank You thread of the fans to Gillette here:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=653022

Just to give both sides of the coin. Gillette isn't alone in our situation (Hicks) so any information is good information.

are we talking about the same George Gillette??