Right...
If you've been keeping tabs on this, you can see we're getting somewhere now. That's not just me geeing up the troops. The proof's all over the place. And I don't want to go on here, so straight to the point.....
I'm relaunching the letter. This is what has been drawing the replies out of them. So, I think it's still more than useful and relevant. And I think it should still be copied and sent. Letters carry so much more weight than emails.
But, I'm also going to post the form reply they've been sending. It's really important that we refuse to be placated by them. But anyway, here's the original letter for now, and the relevant people to mail it to. Make sure John Hourican and Vince Cable are amongst your targets....
To:
John Hourican
Chief Executive, Global Banking and Markets
RBS
36 St Andrew Square
Edinburgh
EH2 2YB
Distribution list:
cc. Suneel Kamlani, GBM
cc. Marco Mazzucchelli, GBM
cc. Alan Dickinson, UK Corporate
cc. Mark Catton, UK Corporate
cc. Roger Lowry, Head of Public Affairs
cc. Dr Vince Cable, Secretary of State BIS (1 Victoria Street London
SW1H 0ET)
cc. Jeremy C*nt, Secretary of State, Sport (2-4 Cockspur Street London
SW1Y 5DH)
Dear Mr Hourican
I wish to convey my ongoing and extreme dissatisfaction over the
management of the RBS loan facility provided to Tom Hicks and George
Gillett, that continues to prop up their catastrophic ownership of
Liverpool Football Club.
I am not a member, but the supporters union, Spirit of Shankly, one of
the most vociferous opponents of the current regime, recently ran an
billboard advertising campaign targeting the ownership of the club
that used the appropriate tag line "Debt, Lies, Cowboys". I am going
to unashamedly borrow that line as a structure to this letter.
Debt
As you know, the club's debts as of last July stood at £351m, of which
£237m constitutes the loan facility provided by RBS, the remainder
being in high-interest intra-company loan from Hicks and Gillett's
offshore holding company, Kop Cayman. These figures may have changed
slightly over the past 11 months since the accounts entered into the
public domain, but no additional investment has been secured by the
owners, and there remains no doubt that the overall debt is escalating
to a point whereby negative equity will very soon come into effect, if
not already a reality.
In addition to this, the club's ongoing ability to service such a debt
has become highly unsustainable. Improving sponsorship income is
relatively insignificant, and the only measure which could have
significantly supported this level of borrowing - the building of a
new stadium - has not in over 3 years, proceeded beyond architectural
renders, the apparent cost of which, an obscene £50m, has also been
put on the club's balance sheet. Against this backdrop of
unserviceable loans and gross financial misconduct, it is therefore no
surprise that the club's auditors, KPMG, have for the second year
running raised red flags, expressing "material uncertainty about
(the club's) ability to continue operating as a going concern". A
damning indictment that instigated the Premier League to demand that
the club's newly-installed Chairman, Martin Broughton (more on him
later), appear before their Chief Executive and Board of Directors in
person to provide verbal assurances that the club would in fact be
able to meet its fixture list for the forthcoming 2010-11 season.
Leaving aside the embarrassment, it is not difficult to see the
Premier League's perspective. The phrase "living hand to mouth"
springs to mind.
Forgive my stating the obvious to a senior professional banker at this
point, but it is purely to set up and illustrate a point. Like any
borrowings, the conditions for obtaining a credit facility of this
type is based on the financial background of the individuals in
question, their existing commitments, the value of the purchased
asset, and in the case of refinancing, I would imagine their recent
history and behaviour when it comes to servicing the existing loan,
and any others held by them. Which brings us to Tom Hicks.
Lies
Liverpool fans and credible media (both UK and global) are clear in
that Tom Hicks tells lies. The list is a long one but here is the
latest relevant example, provoked by the condemnation by the club's
former Chairman who deeply regrets selling to Hicks and Gillett. You
can view it online at the following URL, together with valid
deconstruction, here:http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/Tom-Hicks-_-You-Couldn-sss-t-Make-It-Up-(Well-Actually,-Tom-Can).html
So, in addition to his established propensity for lies, l wish to
address the basis for the latest extension of the RBS facility, which
was conditional on the agreement that the club be officially put up
for sale, with Hicks conceding to step back from the process in order
to realise a quick transfer of ownership. This agreement was ratified
by the appointment of the aforementioned Martin Broughton, who has
confirmed that his is a short-term part-time role, the sole remit of
which is to find and approve an appropriate buyer for the club at a
fair market price. It is not difficult to assume therefore that his
appointment was at RBS' express request, via an intermediary third
party. "Within months" was Mr Brougton's statement on the timescale
for sale, upon taking up the position in April.
However, since then, there have been numerous interview quotes from
Hicks, arrogant and belligerent as ever, claiming that irrespective of
the 'For Sale' announcement, he will continue demand up to a totally
unrealistic £800m for the club and that he is willing to prolong the
situation and take up to two years to sell. He is even boasting in the
US media about how profitable Liverpool FC will be for him, all
bluster designed to divert attention from the harsh reality that he is
in financial dire straits and has been for some time. These comments
are clearly a stark contradiction of those reassurances he provided
the RBS with, and thus render them meaningless. Like us, the fans, you
are being lied to. It is not difficult to surmise that Hicks'
agreement to sell was simply a ploy to obtain 'breathing space' -
which you duly obliged with, at least verbally - in which to further
his agenda of financial pillage, possibly even petty revenge (on the
fans who have rightly not allowed him to act without accountability,
the "terrible personal price" he often complains about) but ultimately
a desire to seek personal profit whatever the cost to the club, or its
creditors.
Cowboys
Talking of creditors, what surely must be of even greater concern to
the RBS, is the eerily similar situation Hicks finds himself in with
his US sporting assets, the Dallas Stars and the Texas Rangers. In
April 2009, Hicks willingly allowed both clubs (operated by Hicks
Sports Group) to default on $525m loan, a premeditated decision that
Hicks himself insisted was a "negotiating tactic" designed to force
the banks to renegotiate the terms of the loan. I must try that line
myself next time I wake up one morning and take a sudden dislike to my
existing RBS mortgage rate, the one I happily agreed to on signing. In
fact, I would be, quite literally, betting my mortgage on the outcome
of that particular conversation.
Not content with just that small matter of defaulting on a half-
billion dollar loan, Hicks has now, as of a few weeks ago, forced the
Texas Rangers to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, following a
protracted and now stalemated sale process. Sound familiar? It gets
even worse, as although the Rangers owe $540m to their creditors, (the
majority secured against the club, the remainder against, yet again,
Hicks Sports Group, another part of Hicks Holdings LLC, the onus being
on the 'limited liability' aspect) under the terms of the sale
(preferred one of the two deals offered) that Hicks is trying to force
through, it seems the creditors only stand to receive $230m of the
$540m the club is being sold for. This has been extensively covered in
the US media and the facts verified. In which case, if I was sitting
in the RBS' shoes, I would have extreme concerns about Hicks
attempting the same financial sleight of hand, and asking myself
exactly what tangible assets the £237m loan I've provided is actually
secured against, given the paper trails of Hicks' myriad of limited
companies all end up offshore and with zero personal liability. Yes,
there is 'the club', but the owners are continuing to asset-strip
(sales of high value players required for ongoing success and
Champions League income, and the recent sacking of a highly-respected
manager who was outspoken in his condemnation of Hicks and Gillett's
ownership), siphon off funds and are unwilling to provide or accept
additional investment, all the while the value of the club is
depreciating along with the chances of realising the repayment on your
loan capital.
It should also be worth noting that latest reports this week state
that Hicks has yet again blocked any sale to two separate potential
buyers, simply on the basis of his wholly unrealistic asking price.
This adds considerable weight to the already strong opinion that,
unlike his co-owner George Gillett, Hicks has no intention of wanting
to sell the club. His asking price is said to include added valuation
for the future revenues generated by a stadium that he failed to
build, and that a new buyer will have to pay to build instead, a
stance that is as bizarre as it is illogical and which therefore
represents an insurmountable block to any sale, now or in the future.
Essentially, these actions speak, in fact, shout of a man whose
shameful conduct and objectionable character raises deeply concerning
questions about RBS' continuing exposure on this £237m loan and
subsequently, a very real threat to the continued existence of
Liverpool FC in its current status as one of Europe's leading football
clubs. This latest agreement for refinancing for up to 12 months,
ostensibly to allow a sales process to go through unimpaired and
without pressure, serves no-one's benefits except Tom Hicks. What will
be the excuse when he, as his history and substantial current evidence
suggests he will, sells off the prize assets, and files for bankruptcy
as per the Rangers, leaving the club in terminal financial decline or
worse, and with the RBS, the club's major creditor out of pocket? Not
to mention, the wider political consequences at allowing this to
happen unchallenged. Do not underestimate this last point, as this
matter is not an isolated one (the Glazer family's ownership - £1.2bn
of debt's worth - of Manchester United for example) but as with the
banking crisis that forced RBS to seek government bailout, you will
unfortunately be viewed as culpable through negligent inaction and
held to account.
Summary
And so to the crux of my expression of disgust and request for action.
Aside from the financial hand grenade that is currently being juggled,
the RBS and its majority shareholder HM Government have both a
collective financial and moral responsibility to ensure that such a
prestigious UK global export is not driven into unmanaged
administration and ruin by the stubborn and irresponsible actions of
two US nationals, one of whom in particular has a clear agenda and is
leveraged up to their neck in debt. By providing yet another loan
extension and/or refinance in order not to influence a sales process
(one that Hicks is clearly not committed to), the RBS and HM
Government are therefore willingly complicit in this unfolding
disaster, a fact which will not go unnoticed or unchallenged. I am
aware the Bank has provided the club with day-to-day banking services
for many years long predating the arrival of Hicks and Gillett, and I
only hope that this long-term relationship engenders a mutual desire
to see financial stability and success.
Fortunately, there is still an opportunity to halt this seemingly
inexorable decline. This can be achieved by withdrawing any existing
agreement to extend the loan effective immediately, essentially
foreclosing on the loan to Hicks and Gillett (as Kop Football Ltd)
secured against the club. Informal short-term administration by any
other name, would I assure you be welcomed by all Liverpool fans, if
it ensured the removal of the current owners. This action would then
allow Martin Broughton to facilitate the sale of the club quickly
(there remains many interested buyers out there at a realistic market
price, as Barclays Capital will attest) under your mandate without
veto or negative interference from Hicks.
By doing so, you will be sending out a strong and positive message
about supporting UK interests, corporate prudence and cleaning up
financial mismanagement, a message that all addressed recipients of
this letter, both at the RBS and the new Coalition Government, would
surely benefit from given their own past events and the current
financial climate. I'll sign off with an unfortunate but apt analogy
using another Liverpool-related world famous entity. This is a last
chance to steer a footballing Titanic hard to starboard to avoid a
looming and malevolent iceberg and towards a bright and prosperous
future. Actively ensuring the ship keeps to its current course,
however, is not an appropriate action and history will judge the RBS
accordingly.
I implore you on behalf of fellow Liverpool stakeholders, please act
now in the best interests of the club and indeed yourselves.
Yours faithfully,
(name withheld)
Former shareholder of Liverpool FC=
