Author Topic: How do the owners have their business interests structured worldwide? (Read 12201 times)

royhendo · « **on:** July 14, 2010, 01:04:33 pm »

This is cheating, I know, but I'm planning a kind of idiot's guide on this - can we work something up here?

fatherjack · « **Reply #1 on:** July 14, 2010, 01:32:14 pm »

Do they actually do anything in a constructive manner never mind structured.

Oh and can anyone explain to me how the two cowboys benefit financially by hanging onto the club when they are obviously not prepared to invest in it.

If i am taking this off topic already just tell me to go away and i will be happy to oblige.

SP · « **Reply #2 on:** July 14, 2010, 01:34:31 pm »

Zeb · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2010, 02:11:19 pm »

Roy - there's so many holding companies Hicks puts in between, that it might be impossible to be totally accurate...

eg Texas Rangers Baseball Partners is owned by Rangers Equity Holdings LP (99%) and Rangers Equity Holdings GP LLC (1%). At some point both of those holding companies are owned by Hicks Sports Group LLC, but we don't know exactly how. Hicks Sports Group LLC goes back to Hicks Holdings LLC, but whether that's via holding companies is equally murky. eg where does Hicks Sports Group Holdings LLC fit into things? And how about Hicks Sports Group Partnership Holdings LLC?

Think you'd need an expert in this kind of structure to figure it out. Ken Bates springs to mind. :whistle:

edit: heh HSG = Hicks Sport Group Holdings LLC's full name. Allegedly.

royhendo · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2010, 02:54:23 pm »

I'd like to do a diagram that shows all that - how it's impossible and artfully difficult to understand and unravel...

SP · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2010, 03:13:29 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on July 14, 2010, 02:54:23 pm

I'd like to do a diagram that shows all that - how it's impossible and artfully difficult to understand and unravel...

All roads lead to the Caymans, and the shelter of strict privacy laws. Do you need the tangled structure? Are you looking to illustrate the tangled web of companies leading to the stone wall of silence in the Caymans, or to illustrate the interest being sucked out of the club into the Caymans? Or a bit of both? The details would probably obscure the effect of any image.

royhendo · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2010, 04:45:23 pm »

Quote from: Southern Pansy on July 14, 2010, 03:13:29 pm

All roads lead to the Caymans, and the shelter of strict privacy laws. Do you need the tangled structure? Are you looking to illustrate the tangled web of companies leading to the stone wall of silence in the Caymans, or to illustrate the interest being sucked out of the club into the Caymans? Or a bit of both? The details would probably obscure the effect of any image.

Interesting that - an early doodle has exactly that road to the Caymans.

Whatever - it'd be worth drawing to see where it leads eh?

fatherjack · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2010, 05:32:01 pm »

I read somewhere on here today that the club made 10 million pounds profit last year, but obviously with over 110,000 going out everyday on interests payments that does'nt really matter. So once again can someone explain to me just how the two shysters might benefit from dragging out a sale?

Dr. Beaker · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2010, 05:44:56 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on July 14, 2010, 02:54:23 pm

I'd like to do a diagram that shows all that - how it's impossible and artfully difficult to understand and unravel...

Zeb · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2010, 06:13:07 pm »

Quote from: fatherjack on July 14, 2010, 05:32:01 pm

I read somewhere on here today that the club made 10 million pounds profit last year, but obviously with over 110,000 going out everyday on interests payments that does'nt really matter. So once again can someone explain to me just how the two shysters might benefit from dragging out a sale?

Probably the wrong thread, but the only ways in which they can benefit are: economy picks up and Liverpool gains value meaning an increased margin in the difference between bank debt and what the club brings in (their original plan) and the 10% rolling interest on the intercompany loans which will be about $50m by the end of July 2011 on top of the money actually lent. edit: £ not $ heh

-----

Roy - one of the biggest problems seems to be just how Kop Delaware is linked into the rest of H&G's business 'empires'. eg Hicks Holdings used to claim that they owned 50% of Liverpool via HSG on their website. That was updated some time ago and the claim is no longer there in some places, but is still there in others. Don't think there is any way to check via Delaware as that's another blackhole for tracking ownership.

Tes · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2010, 09:02:18 pm »

How did Hicks Sports Marketing Group fit into all this as far as their involvement in our 'new stadium' and who or what has supposedly taken over that aspect now HSMG is no longer?

conman · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2010, 11:54:59 pm »

would it be worth contacting supporters groups of Corinthians, Dallas Stars, Texas Rangers etc?
As they have possibly gone down this route and have plenty of amo against them (ok Hicks in this case) already. Even a shared voice of all 4 supporters groups would get a massive worldwide voice.. Im possibly being a little far fetched here, but If all 4 groups as one entity released a press statement asking for people to let it be known to them what way Hicks has his interests structured worldwide, then you might get plenty of disgruntled fans with their own gripes willing to spill the beans so to speak. [just provide a contact method and open the floodgates]

conman · « **Reply #12 on:** July 15, 2010, 12:32:36 am »

Quote from: Jack Slater on July 15, 2010, 12:09:04 am

I dont think youre being far-fetched. SOS's current campaign of photos around the world seems to have captured the imagination of a few Texas journalists. If he sticks around, then it would definitely worth building bridges.

But he's already out of Corinthians. 90% likely to be out of Rangers by mid August. (Altho "President-For-Life"). And hopefully we will be a few weeks behind that. Sorry, Stars fans. You might be last to be liberated. But we'll still be happy to elp stick the boot into him.

my point wasnt whether they are still owners or not, but im sure the fans there are mighty peeved still and have a lot of info and clout that could help

RedJam70 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2010, 12:55:07 am »

There's just so many companies involved and so little information on most of them, I'm not sure it's possible, to be honest. Unless, of course, there are people who's job it is to do this sort of thing and have the know-how. Hicks Holdings which as I understand it is the ultimate parent company is registered at this address:

100 Crescent Court
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75201

Corporation wiki (which you've probably already looked at) has this page with all these companies registered at the same address. Most have nothing to do with LFC or HSG but it's a place to start, obviously won't have details of any companies registered at different addresses either.

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/Dallas/100-Crescent-Ct-Ste-1200-Dallas-TX-75201-a165407.aspx

Tes · « **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2010, 01:01:23 am »

Each entity that he owns seems to have more layers (in terms of holding and parent companies) than your average onion.

redbyrdz · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2010, 01:06:56 am »

Quote from: Dr. Beaker on July 14, 2010, 05:44:56 pm

was gonna post nearly the same pic when reading that!

Tes · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2010, 01:18:01 am »

Quote from: redbyrdz on July 15, 2010, 01:06:56 am

was gonna post nearly the same pic when reading that!

I bet Hicks invented the chocolate biscuit factory the mice used to run on Bagpuss (for those of us old enough to remember Bagpuss).

TSC · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2010, 07:13:37 am »

What love to see what Roy's proposed, as it would be more than interesting to look at. However it would be a hell of a job, and no doubt one which various experts in tax departments from a number of countries are employed to do. On Hicks side he obviously pays top dollar to his guys to make it as complicated and un-transparent as possible.

You wouldn't manage to capture the detail on an A4 page I'd imagine.

A web of intrigue.

jonnygeeart · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2010, 08:32:37 am »

Lets hope as his empire crumbles a whistleblower jumps ship and a team of forensic accountants from the serious fraud squad do the job for us

royhendo · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2010, 10:59:57 am »

Quote from: Jack Slater on July 15, 2010, 12:11:39 am

Royhendo, are you just meaning trace the ultimate humans, and all the intermediate companies, owning LFC.

Or do you mean "everything" that G&H are involved in?

Nothing that ambitious mate - just to do the research to a level where it becomes clear where hte grey areas are (and there are many many grey areas and black holes and dead ends I'd imagine). It'd highlight how artfully complex and obscure the structure is. People often ask quesitons about who owes what to whom and can xyz take the club down, so it'd be useful to state as clearly and simply as possible for the unenlightened (including myself) how that all works. I'd plan to do that in a Guardian data blog style poster really.

royhendo · « **Reply #20 on:** July 15, 2010, 11:03:12 am »

Quote from: TSC on July 15, 2010, 07:13:37 am

You wouldn't manage to capture the detail on an A4 page I'd imagine.

That's the goal in a nutshell TSC mate. Let's say A3, but that's the goal. But making it clear there are gaps where nobody knows what's there - like a map with dragons and bermuda triangles (where people dis-ap-pear).

horne · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2010, 02:31:45 pm »

would love to see the tax man in the respective countries look into his dealings ?...it wouldnt suprise me if he could find a few things out that hicks doesnt want them to know.
there is something about these big money people.
Greed always gets the better of them.
they just cant help themselves .
Im sure you can add to the list over the years who have done this but the one that springs to mind is Robert Maxwell.
Things are great,they take more risks to make more money,then the economy changes.It could be a war or a disaster of nature,a quake , a sunami,and then good turns to bad,a hole starts to open up in their business dealings and they start to take bigger risks to try and keep everything ticking over untill things pick up again.
Thats probably where we are now ,and we should have took advantage of the down turn.
We should have'threatened ' to make things worse for him financiall....effected his cash flow further or at least threatened to,but our problem is too many of us have bottled it and didnt put the right pressure on in the right places....it should have been an all out boycott,and by that ,i dont mean just not turning up at the game,i mean not buying the tickets.the damage it would have potentially done to him and his business model would have been massive.
Think about it,his he sells texas rangers at a massive loss ,but he refers to us as his financial saviour ?....we didnt have the balls to call his bluff did we...im fuming me!! lost opportunity !!

Zeb · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2010, 09:28:28 pm »

Some idea of the complexity of the whole thing can be gained by considering the failed Glorypark project.

This was land given to Hicks to develop between the new Dallas Cowboys stadium and the Texas Rangers stadium. Apparantly it was celebrated as the "Best Announced Deal of 2006". Which is a wonderful thing, no matter what that means, I'm sure you'll agree.

Hicks was doing the deal with a chap called Steiner. Hicks was the senior partner with 75% and Steiner the junior with 25%. Perhaps that would explain why Steiner had only one company he controlled involved in the deal, whereas Hicks has had ten. Ten companies, all of which are directly or ultimately answerable to Hicks himself.

Here's the list:

1) Texas Rangers Baseball Partners GP - the lowest rung on the ladder of how Hicks owns the Texas Rangers

2) Hicks Sports Group LLC - one of the intermediary levels of how Hicks owns the Texas Rangers as far as can be made out. Used to be called Southwest Sports Group prior it to having financial troubles last time round (eg see here. Top of its own little tree of sports assets.

3) Hicks Holdings LLC - this is, as far as can be made out, the top rung of the ladder for how Hicks owns stuff.

4) Hicks Glorypark LLC

5) Ballpark Real Estate LP

6) SSR GP (LP) - the GP in its name should indicate a General Partnership but court filings indicate it's actually a Limited Partnership.

7) SWS Realty LLC - Southwest Sports? But after last time everything got rebranded as Hicks Sports Group XXXXX? Or maybe not. Ghosts of Christmas Past kind of feeling.

8.) Arlington Interests LP (formerly Glorypark Town Center LP)

9) Arlington Devco LLC (formerly Glorypark Town Center GP (LLC))

10.) Southwest LP

Obviously the relationship between those companies is somewhat complex to figure out. That's why they're all being sued and the plaintiffs are asking for a very high level of discovery in order to try and figure out if there has been anything dubious going on.

But just on that one deal, 10 companies all ghosting in and out of the shadows. I wasn't joking about needing Ken Bates to track it all down.

If anyone fancies having a go at trying to fit them together, court filing sueing them is found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26213898/RTKL-Original-Petition-for-Glorypark

edit: according to Hicks own PR there's an eleventh company involved, but I can't find the link to justify why Hicks Real Estate Partners are involved in spite of their insistence that they are, and logic would say that they should be.

royhendo · « **Reply #23 on:** July 16, 2010, 05:43:32 am »

Very interesting indeed that.

Meanwhile, this from Thush...

Quote from: Thush on July 16, 2010, 12:24:32 am

Pic showing the ownership layers for us (with loan and debt info). Any errors please let me know and I can revise the figures.

TSC · « **Reply #24 on:** July 16, 2010, 08:05:24 am »

Quote from: royhendo on July 16, 2010, 05:43:32 am

Very interesting indeed that.

Meanwhile, this from Thush...

That looks like something akin to our milky way. Good pictorial summary of the complexities re Liverpool. However to do the same with Hicks interests as a whole you'd need a representation of multi milky way's - or a Hicks 'universe' if you like.

TSC · « **Reply #25 on:** July 16, 2010, 08:07:25 am »

Someone should pop that that pic off to Ollie Kay or Reade - may get commented on in the mirror or something.

Zeb · « **Reply #26 on:** August 4, 2010, 09:35:50 pm »

Moving the discussion onto Gillett a little as how we are linked into Hicks' little monopoly set is opaque (to HSG via Delaware or not to HSG via Delaware etc).

Gillett's holdings are equally confusing and very segregated. Seems to be the lesson he took from bankruptcy - split stuff up so that one part going under doesn't create a domino effect, and at all costs trying to avoid being personally on the line for anything. So just on how it relates to us.

Gillett has a Delaware company called Gillett Football LLC. (formed 29th May 2007). On 25th January, 2008, it pledged all its "right, title and interest in Football Investments LLC" in order to obtain a five year, $75 million loan at an interest rate reported at 19% (Hicks was also reported to have taken a loan out at this time with JP Morgan Chase, one of the banks currently involved in the Rangers bankruptcy - details of that unknown). Football Investments LLC is also registered in Delaware and has the same formation/incorporation date as its parent. (All of this was widely covered for a few weeks before silence fell upon the story and we never did find out whether the creditor, Mill Financial - a part of Spring Field Financial Companies, ever did sell on the debt and, if so, who to).

Gillett's 50% share in Liverpool was reported to be controlled via Football Investments LLC. So, providing there's not further holding companies below, that would make them above Kop Delaware.

How it then slots in to Booth Creek Management (if it does), I haven't been able to find out as I can't afford to take a punt on paying for UCC searches in Delaware or on paying to get their accounts at the moment.

No666 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 5, 2010, 11:43:00 am »

Zeb - I remember this gobsmacking piece of info at the time, but I think it was rumour then and we could not be sure it had actually occurred. Anyway, does this stack up that: a] he pledged LFC as collateral to another lender (we believe in order to offer some collateral to RBS!) and b] would this be in breach of his agreement with RBS? In short, if we've got the proof available should we not be making more of this? At least adding a question to Hester about it...

HarryLabrador · « **Reply #28 on:** August 5, 2010, 11:50:09 am »

Quote from: No666 on August 5, 2010, 11:43:00 am

Zeb - I remember this gobsmacking piece of info at the time, but I think it was rumour then and we could not be sure it had actually occurred. Anyway, does this stack up that: a] he pledged LFC as collateral to another lender (we believe in order to offer some collateral to RBS!) and b] would this be in breach of his agreement with RBS? In short, if we've got the proof available should we not be making more of this? At least adding a question to Hester about it...

I remember this well. As Zeb said, Springfield was the company. In fact they were going to sell on the debt, weren't they? I believe his entering into selling the Canadiens may have helped to halt that process.

Zeb · « **Reply #29 on:** August 5, 2010, 12:30:29 pm »

Links to some of the original stories:

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/60725
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/liverpool/3629236/George-Gillett-could-face-battle-to-keep-Liverpool-stake-Football.html

It's a bit confused though and I'm not really sure which company is above the other, or how it works.

Can't verify it beyond the level of reported in decent sources - although one would hope that the credit check which revealed it did/does exist and so the story had some substance at the time. Would be interesting to know what happened afterwards, because in May 2009 he took out a $50m (Canadian presumably) loan secured on his stake in the Canadiens, and before that is believed to have taken out a $200m (again presuming Canadian dollars) loan secured on the Bell Centre. (source: (in French sorry) http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/economie/quebec/200905/02/01-852572-une-hypotheque-de-50-millions-sur-le-canadien.php ). Canadiens were finally sold in December 2009, but the process started relatively shortly after that 50m loan.

The two companies mentioned are still in existance in Delaware and one would presume from the weight of evidence and widespread coverage at the time that they are missing links in the chain after Kop Delaware for how Gillett has things structured.

eggo1971 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 5, 2010, 12:33:12 pm »

Just been on Sky Sports News that the judge in the Texas Rangers Admin case has ruled that the Creditors can go after Hick's other companies. Bet RBS want us sold quicker now

Zeb · « **Reply #31 on:** August 6, 2010, 11:53:23 am »

Just seen your post on main forum No666. Ponzi is coming to mind.

royhendo · « **Reply #32 on:** August 6, 2010, 08:11:42 pm »

Who's Ponzi? Brian Badonde's version of Henry Winkler?

McrRed · « **Reply #33 on:** August 6, 2010, 08:44:39 pm »

Is Hicks' 11th company (above) the Rangers' car park?

Booth Creek
Mid-Ocean
Wells Fargo/Wachovia...

McrRed · « **Reply #34 on:** August 6, 2010, 08:45:08 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on August 6, 2010, 08:11:42 pm

Who's Ponzi? Brian Badonde's version of Henry Winkler?

Bes...

Zeb · « **Reply #35 on:** August 6, 2010, 08:53:17 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on August 6, 2010, 08:11:42 pm

Who's Ponzi? Brian Badonde's version of Henry Winkler?

Dick Ponzi? He was at the vanguard of the Oregon wine industry. Decent pinot noir, well worth a try.

------

@McrRed - not sure what you mean mate. It is the land around the Rangers stadium which is used for parking etc, if that's what you were asking. It was dropped as part of the sale of the Rangers one hour before the auction started.

Quote

Tom Hicks, the majority owner of BRE, said his investment group purchased the property in 1998 because we saw it as a strong long-term investment.

"That's the reason we wanted to keep it, but when serious bidders last December insisted on a sale, we agreed because we wanted to do everything in our power to make this transaction possible," said Hicks. "Now, this contract seems to have become a point of contention in this proceeding, so the right thing to do is formally cancel the agreement. Hopefully, in the future, we will be able to develop a retail and entertainment area close to the Ballpark."

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/08/hours_before_texas_rangers_auc.php

Zeb · « **Reply #36 on:** August 13, 2010, 12:44:03 am »

Shelovesyouyehyehyeh posted this in another thread. Matt Scott is the second journalist to say that HSG and Kop Investment LLC are separate based upon seeing a listing of holdings. Still odd stuff though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/aug/13/tom-hicks-liverpool?

Quote

Tom Hicks has kept his shareholding in Liverpool separate from his other sports assets in apparent fear of a collapse of the highly leveraged Premier League club. Digger has obtained a corporate flowchart detailing all of the sporting interests Hicks has held through his holding company, HSG Hicks Sports Group.

The chart was filed with a US court in bankruptcy proceedings against Texas Rangers, the Major League Baseball franchise that has now been sold by Hicks, in which the courts had invited Rangers' creditors to pursue other HSG assets.

That order could put at risk his stake in the Dallas Stars ice hockey team, as well as stakes in those organisations' associated real estate operations, which sat alongside the Texas Rangers in HSG. Yet, curiously, Liverpool's ultimate parent company, Kop Investment LLC, is not listed among them.

It is not known precisely how his Kop shareholding is structured since that company has never met its statutory requirement to file an annual return. But Liverpool's ring-fencing out of HSG cannot have been for tax or legal reasons: Kop is registered in Delaware, the tax-friendly location where other Hicks investments are held. A spokesman for Hicks did not return calls yesterday after Digger put it to him that the purpose of the separation was to prevent Liverpool's debts causing problems for other HSG assets. Despite their separation the dominoes have begun to fall.

No666 · « **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2010, 10:51:30 am »

Are there penalties for this? Who should be enforcing the filing? IE Can we stir some more shit for them by bringing this to the attention of the authorities? I'm up for that one if there's an opening here and you guys can steer me in the right direction.

ali · « **Reply #38 on:** August 13, 2010, 12:33:43 pm »

Hicks Holdings website appears to be empty -

http://www.hicksholdings.com/

Hicks Sports Marketing now seems to be online gaming

http://www.hickssportsmarketing.com/

Hicks Sports Group website appears to have disappeared

www.hicksequitypartners.com is empty

www.hicksrealestatepartners.com is empty

Hicks Trans American Partners nothing

dwesty · « **Reply #39 on:** August 13, 2010, 12:49:19 pm »

So the intercompany loan is definitely borrowed money then, at least in Gillette's case? This was a while back - wonder who bought the note, and if it was paid back? It would be highly amusing if Huang's 'rocket' was related to this sort of external loan...