Topic: Hicks - Texas Rangers Sold...

[Liverbird 2010]

why?  Im at a loss to understand why you would think this year will be any different to last year.

I agree its clear that unless they pay off existing debt they are unlikely to get access to funds to build the stadium.

But Im assuming your post is saying that unless they can pay off the debt they will be forced to sell.  I dont see that at all.  This summer will the be same as last summer where RBS will eventually agree to extend for another year in return for a lump sum payment - that payment being our transfer kitty.

People have been saying "tick tock" for a few years now and I have no idea why.

Well they havent had to fork out 100 million before have they? They have to by June.

[paranoidmike]

Well they havent had to fork out 100 million before have they? They have to by June.

push them into a corner and you can say goodbye to a few star names. No problem paying the debt then is there.

[Liverbird 2010]

push them into a corner and you can say goodbye to a few star names. No problem paying the debt then is there.

Ive been saying thats what they will do, but others are saying that they wont, that it will devalue the selling price.

[WaltonRed]

But what if the £100 million doesnt turn up? Will RBS have the balls not to refinance and go down the road of reposession?

History says they wont.

Exactly my point.  RBS can bluster all it likes but should G&H not repay £100M and should a buyer not emerge from the shadows, then they will be faced with the same decision they have now faced 3 times in the last 3 years and will come to the same conclusion again.  Refinance for another year and hope something turns up.

I agree our transfer budget isnt £100M but I reckon RBS would be happy with £40M which we will pay out of our transfer kitty / player sales and hope taht we can do the same as least season where we get transfer money in upfront in cash and pay out over very staggered payments.

[No666]

Didn't Purslow say the owners were not prepared to invest any more than the £15 to £20m of 'their own money' that they had put in so far? Which makes it immaterial whether this decision has been made because they are broke or not. Knowing RBS wants £100m repaid they are therefore searching for someone else to do this. The info from Purslow suggests that it is a matter of thrashing out a deal - will someone buy in at the price/percentage they want or will they have to get real? - rather than them simply sailing on. He does not suggest that there will be any latitude from RBS on a refinancing otherwise. That's what we've got to go on from the horse's mouth, as it were.

[WaltonRed]

Well they havent had to fork out 100 million before have they? They have to by June.

They have to or what?  Its a serious question as in the absence of any serious interest there is nothing RBS can do other than agree on a smaller lump sum and hope that in the next 12 months something will turn up in a Micawberish fashion.

Purslow talked a lot of shite in his meeting with S.O.S. but one of the biggest pieces of nonsense was the idea that RBS can threaten G&H with impunity.

[CraigDS]

The thing is RBS obviously have a set debt:value ratio they want to stick to, hence wanting £100m.

If they sold players then yeah it will lower the debt part, but it would also lower the value part too, so the ratio would not be what they require, so they would want more than £100m paying off.

[Something Else]

The thing is RBS obviously have a set debt:value ratio they want to stick to, hence wanting £100m.

If they sold players then yeah it will lower the debt part, but it would also lower the value part too, so the ratio would not be what they require, so they would want more than £100m paying off.

is the right answer

The £100M is dependant on our value at least staying the same, 5th place surely chages that also

[Lush is the best medicine...]

push them into a corner and you can say goodbye to a few star names. No problem paying the debt then is there.

its the debt:value ratio that needs to go down, so sell players and the value of the club goes down, so in turn they'd still need more money

[WaltonRed]

its the debt:value ratio that needs to go down, so sell players and the value of the club goes down, so in turn they'd still need more money

I agree with that but the problem is that banks are always loath to get involved in these calculations as they are so hard to calculate.  And that is with more "traditional" businesses.

There is no way on earth RBS is going to want to start having internally to evaluate whether to give a simple example, to sanction the sale of Gerrard for £40M with the proceeds to go to £20M debt payment and 2 young promising £10M players.   Its a minefield and they will stay clear.  And none of these value arguments are easy.  Even Torres.  Who is to say what the financial argument is to selling Torres for £90M, and repaying £50M of debt and buying 2 world class young strikers for £25M (which is what Torres originally cost). you have to factor in image rights, potential injuries etc.

RBS would be more than happy to avoid this whole debt/value argument and allow the club another 12 months and hope a buyer appears.

[west_london_red]

Exactly my point.  RBS can bluster all it likes but should G&H not repay £100M and should a buyer not emerge from the shadows, then they will be faced with the same decision they have now faced 3 times in the last 3 years and will come to the same conclusion again.  Refinance for another year and hope something turns up.

I agree our transfer budget isnt £100M but I reckon RBS would be happy with £40M which we will pay out of our transfer kitty / player sales and hope taht we can do the same as least season where we get transfer money in upfront in cash and pay out over very staggered payments.

Two points here:

1) £40 million plus interest for the previous 12 months will push that up to the £60 milliom region. Thats not something we can afford in terms of tranfer kitty. Players will have to sold.

2) As Craig points out, by continuously selling players the club will lose value eventually against the debt outstanding.

[CraigDS]

I agree with that but the problem is that banks are always loath to get involved in these calculations as they are so hard to calculate.  And that is with more "traditional" businesses.

There is no way on earth RBS is going to want to start having internally to evaluate whether to give a simple example, to sanction the sale of Gerrard for £40M with the proceeds to go to £20M debt payment and 2 young promising £10M players.   Its a minefield and they will stay clear.  And none of these value arguments are easy.  Even Torres.  Who is to say what the financial argument is to selling Torres for £90M, and repaying £50M of debt and buying 2 world class young strikers for £25M (which is what Torres originally cost). you have to factor in image rights, potential injuries etc.

RBS would be more than happy to avoid this whole debt/value argument and allow the club another 12 months and hope a buyer appears.

Nah, they would be doing this constantly.

Its not some little amount they have riding on us, they have 1/4 billion pounds. And given the shite time they have gone through in the last few years they will be looking at every asset and evaluating its worth constantly.

[WaltonRed]

Nah, they would be doing this constantly.

Its not some little amount they have riding on us, they have 1/4 billion pounds. And given the shite time they have gone through in the last few years they will be looking at every asset and evaluating its worth constantly.

No they wont.  We are pigeon feed.  Their loan to us is tiny in the larger scheme of things financially. 

What does make a difference is that in news terms we are a big story and RBS doesnt want to have to deal with the media consequences of doing bad things to us because they want their money back.  Which is why they will be happy continually to delay the day of reckoning.

Furthermore RBS are clearly not going to start getting involved in day to day decisions of the club.  If the owners decide to sell players and use that money to pay back RBS tehre is absolutely no way in the world that RBS would stop them.  Its ridiculous to assume they would.  I work in banking and in 20 years in the industry I have never come across that level of intrusion on the part of a bank towards a business that is solvent and is trying to pay down its debts. 

What are you saying? That RBS will set up a transfer committee of bankers who will sit down and looka t each proposed deal to decide if its good in economic terms?  What are they going to do? Use FIFA 09? Ask their mates?  its utterly absurd.

[RedGirlSuzie]

I agree with that but the problem is that banks are always loath to get involved in these calculations as they are so hard to calculate.  And that is with more "traditional" businesses.

There is no way on earth RBS is going to want to start having internally to evaluate whether to give a simple example, to sanction the sale of Gerrard for £40M with the proceeds to go to £20M debt payment and 2 young promising £10M players.   Its a minefield and they will stay clear.  And none of these value arguments are easy.  Even Torres.  Who is to say what the financial argument is to selling Torres for £90M, and repaying £50M of debt and buying 2 world class young strikers for £25M (which is what Torres originally cost). you have to factor in image rights, potential injuries etc.

RBS would be more than happy to avoid this whole debt/value argument and allow the club another 12 months and hope a buyer appears.

I honestly don't think they would though. The world and its wife knows that we have people interested in buying us as a whole, but the yanks haven't sold us because they want too much money.

Now I'm pretty sure that RBS will value us lower than the yanks anyway, but take everything into consideration, and do you not think that if RBS were to decline the refinance, that they would have an issue getting the money they're owed back off someone, because that's all they're interested in at the end of the day. Purslow was brought in specifically to find an investment, funnily enough, of exactly £100m, why would info like that be made so public, if it wasn't to show how serious things were, and that Purslow HAD to be brought in (supposedly by RBS, but who knows).

Therefore I agree with Lyndsey that the clock is ticking, yes they've gone through alot of deadlines and nothing has happened, seemingly whether they paid enough money or not, but this is the big one, and twit and tw*t will be in serious trouble if they can't find the investment soon. Again, why would the info of how much and by when the money had to be raised by become public if they didn't want us to know and keep track of it?

[manifest]

I hesitate to disagree walton red cos you've been so right for a long time now, but in this I hope you are wrong. You are missing the core of what Purslow said, which was his evident frustration with H&G that the reason why there have been no investors coming forward is that they put too high a price on it and want to keep an unreal amount of equity in the club. So there have been investors, just not at Hicks' asking price. The club is worth, to buy out, no more than the current debt, 230 million imo, but they still "value" it as twice that much. Purslow broke ranks and spoke about as much truth as we're ( SOS and supporters ) ever going to hear. There are investors, people who might put in 100 million, but they want controlling interest in return, while Hicks thinks that might give them 25%. So the problem is Hicks' valuation, NOTHING else. You may be right, perhaps RBS can do nothing to make them alter their valuation, in which case Hicks will drag us down underwater with him as he sinks. Watching the train wreck he left at the Texas Rangers makes for chilling reading.

Also, I cannot understand why Purslow, who came out to SOS and told us/confirmed the truth of what was going on, and who clearly shared our disdain and disgust for Hicks' etc., would be labelled by pretty much everyone as 'Shit', when all he did was do all supporters a huge favour by lifting the veil for a minute. Who cares if he didn't agree with the minutes. Of course he didn't....he had said what needed to be said to us, then withdrew into plausible deniability in order to be able to continue his seemingly fruitless search to try and rescue the club from these sick men's hands. I think he deserved nothing but our applause for that meeting, but it seems our collective distrust of all things management tarred him as the enemy when what he told us clearly demonstrated that he shared our struggle. But no matter. Water under the bridge. Shame Hicks isn't face down floating by. 

[stfabians]

Clubs pay for players in installments - will it be something like, you can have stevie and nando for 100 mill upfront, no need to apply if you wanna pay in installments??

[CraigDS]

No they wont.  We are pigeon feed.  Their loan to us is tiny in the larger scheme of things financially. 

What does make a difference is that in news terms we are a big story and RBS doesnt want to have to deal with the media consequences of doing bad things to us because they want their money back.  Which is why they will be happy continually to delay the day of reckoning.

Furthermore RBS are clearly not going to start getting involved in day to day decisions of the club.  If the owners decide to sell players and use that money to pay back RBS tehre is absolutely no way in the world that RBS would stop them.  Its ridiculous to assume they would.  I work in banking and in 20 years in the industry I have never come across that level of intrusion on the part of a bank towards a business that is solvent and is trying to pay down its debts. 

What are you saying? That RBS will set up a transfer committee of bankers who will sit down and looka t each proposed deal to decide if its good in economic terms?  What are they going to do? Use FIFA 09? Ask their mates?  its utterly absurd.

The fact Purslow is highly likely to be in his job in large part due to RBS I think the bit in bold is totally wrong.

And I agree, they couldnt and wouldnt stop them, but they would readjust their financials to give themselves a similar debt:value ratio which they are happy with.

[WaltonRed]

I hesitate to disagree walton red cos you've been so right for a long time now, but in this I hope you are wrong. You are missing the core of what Purslow said, which was his evident frustration with H&G that the reason why there have been no investors coming forward is that they put too high a price on it and want to keep an unreal amount of equity in the club. So there have been investors, just not at Hicks' asking price. The club is worth, to buy out, no more than the current debt, 230 million imo, but they still "value" it as twice that much. Purslow broke ranks and spoke about as much truth as we're ( SOS and supporters ) ever going to hear. There are investors, people who might put in 100 million, but they want controlling interest in return, while Hicks thinks that might give them 25%. So the problem is Hicks' valuation, NOTHING else. You may be right, perhaps RBS can do nothing to make them alter their valuation, in which case Hicks will drag us down underwater with him as he sinks. Watching the train wreck he left at the Texas Rangers makes for chilling reading.

Also, I cannot understand why Purslow, who came out to SOS and told us/confirmed the truth of what was going on, and who clearly shared our disdain and disgust for Hicks' etc., would be labelled by pretty much everyone as 'Shit', when all he did was do all supporters a huge favour by lifting the veil for a minute. Who cares if he didn't agree with the minutes. Of course he didn't....he had said what needed to be said to us, then withdrew into plausible deniability in order to be able to continue his seemingly fruitless search to try and rescue the club from these sick men's hands. I think he deserved nothing but our applause for that meeting, but it seems our collective distrust of all things management tarred him as the enemy when what he told us clearly demonstrated that he shared our struggle. But no matter. Water under the bridge. Shame Hicks isn't face down floating by. 

I hope I'm wrong too, trust me. 

I guess the proof of the pudding will, as ever, be in the eating.  Im not at all optimistic that RBS have the balls to "force" a sale; nor am I as convinced as everyone else is that there is firm interest out there that will definitely put up the money if push comes to shove.

Maybe I've got too cynical and I have a bit of "previous" with Purslow in which he nearly scuppered a deal taht all parties wanted by being a bit too clever.

Lets see - I think we all agree that IF RBS do blink first all it does is give us a reprieve; with G&H at the helm we are suffering a death by a thousand cuts so a resolution sooner rather than later might not be the worst option.  But I just have this nagging suspicion that for £50M or so, RBS will brush the problem under the carpet for another year.

lets hope I'm wrong. 

[WaltonRed]

The fact Purslow is highly likely to be in his job in large part due to RBS I think the bit in bold is totally wrong.

And I agree, they couldnt and wouldnt stop them, but they would readjust their financials to give themselves a similar debt:value ratio which they are happy with.

I have never accepted that Purslow is RBS's appointment; it flies in the face of all known business dealings and makes no sense at all.

I do think he was brought on board in order better to manage the relationship with RBS and to do all he can to bring down the debt (which all parties) want.  But if push comes to shove G&H own the club and run the club and so long as they pay back the money they owe RBS, no matter what they sell to do that, there is bugger all RBS can do about it, or in fact would want to do about it.

[Wabaloolah]

As long as we have not missed any payments then surely RBS are happy?

[flying pig]

And there's the rub. RBS want a repayment of £100 million in the summer. Without additional investment, how are "our custodians" going to make it?

[ali]

Rangers Sale To Greenberg Stalled Due To Lenders' Concerns
Latest Delay In Rangers Sale Means Deal Is Unlikely To Close By Opening Day The sale of the Rangers stalled last week "after MLB informed the team's creditors that there would be delays in responding to the lenders' concerns" about the deal,

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&articleID=137566

Liverpool's American co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, have tried for more than a year to sell their stakes. The club is now considering a capital increase of about £100m, although no definite deal is on the table yet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/07/red-knights-manchester-united-glazers

[SquirmyRooter]

They can just refinance either with another bank(s) or via a bond issue like the Glazers. As long as they can show the club has the income to sustain the repayments.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

They can just refinance either with another bank(s) or via a bond issue like the Glazers. As long as they can show the club has the income to sustain the repayments.

no other banks will touch them and any bond they issue will be junk bond territory

[CF999]

All the sheep in the post match thread think all our problems on the pitch. I don't whether to laugh or cry.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the manager or players are, until these c*nts are gone nothing will change. The attention should be on these. So many sheep with their heads in the sand.

Dissilusioned with this fucking club.

[No666]

It now seems likely we will fail to finish in the top 4. Purslow said our results had an effect on the negotiations surrounding price. Does that make us more saleable or less saleable? There was a suggestion that a bad season weakened the yanks' hands on us - true or unlikely?

[Regi]

It now seems likely we will fail to finish in the top 4. Purslow said our results had an effect on the negotiations surrounding price. Does that make us more saleable or less saleable? There was a suggestion that a bad season weakened the yanks' hands on us - true or unlikely?

I'm hoping that's true.
I'm not very clued in on this stuff, but I can't see how failure on the pitch could do anything but weaken their hand...as we drop in value, so they are forced to consider a sale.

Probably too simplistic, but I live in hope.
Finishing outside the CL places and getting new owners would be the equivalent of winning the lotto

[Liverbird 2010]

It now seems likely we will fail to finish in the top 4. Purslow said our results had an effect on the negotiations surrounding price. Does that make us more saleable or less saleable? There was a suggestion that a bad season weakened the yanks' hands on us - true or unlikely?

Well if what Walton red said is true it wont make a blind but of difference if we are in the top 4 or not, and the bastards will still be here this time next year.

[chanti]

I know the rules , but the fact that Man Utd can have a potential takeover before us, just makes me feel sick to my stomach. ( Even if it a rumour also at the moment ).

[Liverbird 2010]

Its about time our fans stopped caring what Man United are going to do or not, fuck em !!!

We have worst things to worry about than them.

[chanti]

Its about time our fans stopped caring what Man United are going to do or not, fuck em !!!

We have worst things to worry about than them.

You must know what your arch enemy is doing , no!


But you right F&@* them.

[Ste08]

These two are still by the far the biggest problem.  Walton Red has been right on so many occasions so what's he's posted over the last few pages has me even more concerned.  It seems whatever happens we are fucked.   I too really can't see this mythical  £100m investment coming to fruition especially if we aren't in the CL which seems more likely by the weeks. We'll either suffer a slow painful death or it'll be a quick one if RBS do grow a pair and decide to pull the plug in the summer.   

[xerxes1]

I have never accepted that Purslow is RBS's appointment; it flies in the face of all known business dealings and makes no sense at all.I do think he was brought on board in order better to manage the relationship with RBS and to do all he can to bring down the debt (which all parties) want.  But if push comes to shove G&H own the club and run the club and so long as they pay back the money they owe RBS, no matter what they sell to do that, there is bugger all RBS can do about it, or in fact would want to do about it.

Agreed.

Ironically if we don't qualify for the CL things could work in G&H's favour short-term.Masch and Torres have good world cups, demand CL football, and deliver a £100m transfer windfall for the club. If you're strapped for £100m the future can take care of itself.

This obsession with 4th place can also be misleading. Our dumping in the group stages was no fluke, as  results against Pompey, Reading, Sunderland and Wigan have shown. Do we really believe that there will be sufficient summer investment in the team to change that?

Some tough and wise footballing decisions need to be taken at Board level this summer, and there is NO-ONE with any football experience to take them. That is shameful and a dereliction of duty for the Directors of a football club.

[No666]

The future, according to Purslow, will be clearer by Easter. That's in less than three weeks time. Without CL football next season, the only factor which will influence really good players to a] stick with us or b] come to us from elsewhere is if we secure major investment and regain a sense of momentum. If the current ownership continues to control the club beyond this season, god knows how it will pan out.

[Dave_the_Red]

Felt for a while our top players will start asking for moves at the next transfer window. Don't give anycredit to supporters who say "selling players will effect the clubs sale price" The bluster twins will still have a unrealitic value of the club nomatter what.

[Liver Bird]

The Yanks will do what they always do and blame the manager, they'll sell players come summer, players will wnat out through lack of ambition and  they will have a ready made fall back excuse, some of the fans I imagine would swallow it as well.

[Something Else]

Felt for a while our top players will start asking for moves at the next transfer window. Don't give anycredit to supporters who say "selling players will effect the clubs sale price" The bluster twins will still have a unrealitic value of the club nomatter what.

But we are not talking about the clubs value in relation to the owners, we are talking about the clubs value in relation to the banks

At the end of the day its like a house sale, the current owners can put their asking price on the house but it means jack shit. The real value of the house is what someone is actually willing to pay for that house and secondly the value the bank put on it will determine the terms of finance on that house. The current owners price is worthless

[WaltonRed]

But we are not talking about the clubs value in relation to the owners, we are talking about the clubs value in relation to the banks

At the end of the day its like a house sale, the current owners can put their asking price on the house but it means jack shit. The real value of the house is what someone is actually willing to pay for that house and secondly the value the bank put on it will determine the terms of finance on that house. The current owners price is worthless

Fully agree that ultimately the only real price that matters is not what you initially ask for but what you ultimately accept.

However the inconvenient truth remains that we have a large debt to service and taht will, obviously, be factored in to any price.

So failure to reach the Champions League is an unambiguous "bad thing" because much as it might bring down any asking place it wont magically make the debt disappear, and in fact will make it harder to clear the debt thus making a potential sale less, not more, likely.

[Something Else]

Fully agree that ultimately the only real price that matters is not what you initially ask for but what you ultimately accept.

However the inconvenient truth remains that we have a large debt to service and taht will, obviously, be factored in to any price.

So failure to reach the Champions League is an unambiguous "bad thing" because much as it might bring down any asking place it wont magically make the debt disappear, and in fact will make it harder to clear the debt thus making a potential sale less, not more, likely.

I had a very interesting conversation with a good manc mate of mine, usually when talking about football he is a clueless blurt but he made a very good point about the ownership issues and offered his thoughts on the only way out.

he suggested that for the long term future of both clubs it would be better to see failure now, mass player exodus and mid table mediocrity, with the banks driving down the debt with money from player sales, and the club becoming an alsoran with a smaller but still significant debt problem, then he felt it would be more likely someone could come in, with the owners current plans stagnated and rebuild.

For me the point to take out of what he said is that while the current owners can still own our club for free, with the future allowing a possible improvement in fortunes, they will hold on.

To keep the club, slowly pay off the debt then sell the club in 10 years time, even if its only for £200M, there is still a £200M profit, were the debt to have been paid off. So to them that is far more appealing than exiting now for £50M profit each

[will2003]

I had a very interesting conversation with a good manc mate of mine, usually when talking about football he is a clueless blurt but he made a very good point about the ownership issues and offered his thoughts on the only way out.

he suggested that for the long term future of both clubs it would be better to see failure now, mass player exodus and mid table mediocrity, with the banks driving down the debt with money from player sales, and the club becoming an alsoran with a smaller but still significant debt problem, then he felt it would be more likely someone could come in, with the owners current plans stagnated and rebuild.

For me the point to take out of what he said is that while the current owners can still own our club for free, with the future allowing a possible improvement in fortunes, they will hold on.

To keep the club, slowly pay off the debt then sell the club in 10 years time, even if its only for £200M, there is still a £200M profit, were the debt to have been paid off. So to them that is far more appealing than exiting now for £50M profit each

Yay sounds fun!