Fancy Buying 25% Of Liverpool For £100m?

[kingfunk]

Don't get it. Please explain.

Or that these stories have been in the papers for a good few months now, so why are they regurgitating old news?

Could you find the story dated from january where 25% is up for sale?

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-22761407/

From one Tony Barrett, Jan 23rd 2009

TOM HICKS and George Gillett have appointed rival banks in a bid to root out prospective buyers for Liverpool.

In the latest indication of the ongoing split between the club's owners, Hicks has appointed Merrill Lynch, while Rothschilds are working on behalf of Gillett.
In the past month advisers for Hicks have held a series of meetings with potential investors, on at least one occasion without the knowledge of Gillett, although that situation has since been resolved by the pair.

The family of former Newcastle suitor Nasser al Kharafi has been identified by Merrill Lynch as one possible buyer and Liverpool's chief financial officer, Philip Nash – a close ally of Hicks – travelled to the Middle East earlier this week to hold talks with the 48th richest man in the world.

When the ECHO learned of the latest development we contacted Hicks' London-based PR advisers Financial Dynamics but were issued with an emphatic denial.

But sources close to Hicks insist that ongoing discussions are taking place with al Kharafi, who is interested in a total buyout of the Anfield club.

It has emerged in the talks that al Kharafi – who attended Liverpool College of Commerce before graduating with a Bachelor of the Arts degree in Business Administration – has claimed to be a Reds fan.

Hicks is looking to retain a stake in the club, possibly even as high as 25%, as he views Liverpool as a potentially lucrative investment going forward and does not want to miss out on the expected massive returns should the club finally move to its long planned new stadium.

Gillett, on the other hand, is understood to be ready to sell his stake in its entirety, having become increasingly disillusioned with life as co-owner of Liverpool.

Retain
/rɪˈteɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-teyn] Show IPA

1. to keep possession of.
2. to continue to use, practice, etc.: to retain an old custom.
3. to continue to hold or have: to retain a prisoner in custody; a cloth that retains its color.

Sell
1  /sɛl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sel] Show IPA verb, sold, sell⋅ing, noun

1. to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price: He sold the car to me for $1000.
2. to deal in; keep or offer for sale: He sells insurance. This store sells my favorite brand.
3. to make a sale or offer for sale to: He'll sell me the car for $1000.
4. to persuade or induce (someone) to buy something: The salesman sold me on a more expensive model than I wanted.
5. to persuade or induce someone to buy (something): The clerk really sold the shoes to me by flattery.

I was pointing out that THIS story has not being around since january, In january the story was about H&G selling the Club and retaining 25%.

The story NOW is they want to sell 25%. There is a big differrence.

[cream]

So the SC deal is not as good as G+H make out and the £60m to RBS is still to be payed. I'm not surprised they are looking to sell, we are financially ****ed.

[sambirken]

I was pointing out that THIS story has not being around since january, In january the story was about H&G selling the Club and retaining 25%.

The story NOW is they want to sell 25%. There is a big differrence.

January, right. Makes sense now. Sorry

[Scratch]

I was pointing out that THIS story has not being around since january, In january the story was about H&G selling the Club and retaining 25%.

The story NOW is they want to sell 25%. There is a big differrence.

The Januar story was about Hicks looking to retain 25%...of his 50%...thereby selling 25%.

It also states that Gillett was looking to sell his entire share, but this was nothing to do with ML as he used a different company.

[kingfunk]

The Januar story was about Hicks looking to retain 25%...of his 50%...thereby selling 25%.

It also states that Gillett was looking to sell his entire share, but this was nothing to do with ML as he used a different company.

Correct, therefore not the same story an the one in january.

[Scratch]

Correct, therefore not the same story an the one in january.

Depends on your viewpoint...it's still ML, it's still looking to sell 25%...so it's easy to regurgitate it and twist it to suit a story.

[wildman]

god our finances are in such good shape that they're looking for a 25% investor, fookin lying *******s

[wildman]

So the SC deal is not as good as G+H make out and the £60m to RBS is still to be payed. I'm not surprised they are looking to sell, we are financially ****ed.

they're gonna do they're goddam best to wait till that stadium goes up though coz they know that when they can earn some big money from selling the club, i rekon they'll value us the best part of £1 billion by then a tidy profit for hardly any outlay dont you think

[BobTheCharmer]

they're gonna do they're goddam best to wait till that stadium goes up though coz they know that when they can earn some big money from selling the club, i rekon they'll value us the best part of £1 billion by then a tidy profit for hardly any outlay dont you think

if this happened I'd call that fantastic ****ing business on their part.

[Scratch]

By Chris Bascombe, 19/09/2009
LIVERPOOL are pursuing a £240million naming rights deal to finally kickstart their troubled move to Stanley Park.

Carlsberg's 18-year shirt sponsorship with the Reds ends next year.

But the Danish beer brewers are prepared to match the £100m Arsenal received for a 15-year deal with Emirates.

Yet Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett want to smash existing records, asking far more than the Gunners got in 2004.

Hicks and Gillett see the numerous examples of US stadium sponsorship deals as the blueprint for the new Anfield.

The New York Mets baseball team and New Jersey Nets Basketball side currently claim the most lucrative naming rights deals.

They both secured a 20-year contract with Citi Group and Barclays worth £240m respectively.

Both Dallas Cowboys and the New York Giants are negotiating similar returns for their new arenas. Liverpool are confident they can at least match the £12m-a-year which the top US franchises have secured, and will be looking to top them.

The club wants new partners on board well before completion of the arena, which is on hold due to the recession, but which the owners insist is merely delayed rather than cancelled.

New Reds managing director Christian Purslow sealed a record- breaking £80m shirt deal with Standard Charterd - and Hicks and Gillett know such lucrative deals are key to restoring stability at Liverpool.

The underfire Kop owners have launched a serious charm offensive over the last few days to try to win back the trust of the supporters.

Until the levels of debt at the club are reduced, they will continue to be perceived cynically for the broken promises of the past.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/liverpool/512224/Liverpool-chase-pound240-million-deal.html

[JohnDoe]

If they get a good naming rights deal, it could fund the stadium by itself. They take a loan secured against the naming rights, and build the stadium which will pay for its own interest with the increased revenue we'll get every match day.

They could potentially pocket a massive profit if they pull it off, so I'm not surprised they're desperate to stay here.

[The_weatherman]

If they get a good naming rights deal, it could fund the stadium by itself. They take a loan secured against the naming rights, and build the stadium which will pay for its own interest with the increased revenue we'll get every match day.

They could potentially pocket a massive profit if they pull it off, so I'm not surprised they're desperate to stay here.

IF they get a 240 million deal for the naming rights than fair play, and it's good that they don't settle for second best off the pitch. But I only wished that the same mentality applied for on the pitch as well.

[Lecter]

I was pointing out that THIS story has not being around since january, In january the story was about H&G selling the Club and retaining 25%.

The story NOW is they want to sell 25%. There is a big differrence.

Might be a big difference in the stories but I think the owners stance has not changed one iota

They want minority investment in the club, its what they have always wanted

Problem is no one is interested in getting into bed with them, they werent six months ago when they circulated the document below and I'd say there is no interest now

IMO they wont find an investor to shoulder the burden and they wont find an outright buyer willing to match their valuation (or even meet the current debt level)

[Lecter]

[Lecter]