David Moores letter to The Times

[Tatterdemalion]

So that still comes under the repossession thing though, which would mean administration wouldnt it?

Well, by administration what you're talking about is literally a new set of executives running the show in favour of the creditors (like Purslow and Broughton for instance....).

The administrators would do as you suggest and sell off players in order to raise the money - unless they can sell the whole business, which is a much better idea all round. I reckon they could as in theory there's more value in the brand name than on the pitch, so why ruin the brand?

Not suggesting it is or will happen, but the more I think about it the more likely I think that is.

[Tatterdemalion]

Yep, its in our ****ing DNA, why do you think we are on sites like these, in a way its akin to shareholders of listed companies, you crave information to give you peace of mind or allow yourself to be optimistic. For a lot of people supporting LFC is a large slice of there happiness cake, what these two guys have done and Moores in his inability to cross the t's and dot the i's is bloody criminal. Leverage buy outs should be made illegal the same way the German Chancellor just made Naked Short Selling illegal

Nothing wrong with borrowing money to buy an asset if you think you can sell it for more afterwards. It's just usually there's an inbetween bit called "improving the business" which is really what leveraged buy out is all about, but which H&G didn't seem to remember. Having said all that some of the buy-outs in the last cycle were obviously speculative, such as this one.

[Tatterdemalion]

In the end on all of this, I don't really understand why he's come out and said all this. What's the point? Unless he knows something we don't (bankruptcy) and he just wants to wash his hands of it, then it's pointless.

I mean you can just imagine Hicks waking up and getting on the phone to his broker can't you "John, it's Tom. Dave is real pissed. Take $300m off the price would ya?"

[Nicey]

Nothing wrong with borrowing money to buy an asset if you think you can sell it for more afterwards. It's just usually there's an inbetween bit called "improving the business" which is really what leveraged buy out is all about, but which H&G didn't seem to remember. Having said all that some of the buy-outs in the last cycle were obviously speculative, such as this one.

Well I disagree with you there, i think there should be a law against companies buy companies with borrowed money and then putting that borrowed money on the new assets books, that is not good for business or the economy at large, its great for greedy douchebag speculators who produce nothing but wealth for themselves

[Bobby Crush]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Zkpc3ik4I"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Zkpc3ik4I[/ame]

Unite & Stake a Claim @ www.spiritofshankly.com

[Tatterdemalion]

Well I disagree with you there, i think there should be a law against companies buy companies with borrowed money and then putting that borrowed money on the new assets books, that is not good for business or the economy at large, its great for greedy douchebag speculators who produce nothing but wealth for themselves

You're missing the point - suppose you have a football club that is run clueless chap called Dave. Dave's company makes a million pounds per year. You reckon you could do much better, so you borrow some money, and buy Dave's club. Within a year, you have the business ticking and it is making £10m per year. So you pay off your debt so you can keep the future (higher) profits or you let someone else do that and sell the club for a profit.

It's called adding value and is why leverage buy outs exist. There's a place for it within reason. The deals of 2007 were getting beyond reason and clearly H&G did not really know how to improve the business. It's not unusual however, just more emotive with a football club.

To ban it just because some one messed up with LFC is like banning Brazilians because Lucas is ****e.

[peekay]

Dunno why but I am more depressed reading that article. If the interview has to be summarized, it reads "Please dont blame me guys, I was tricked into it".

Maybe he is trying to get in his defense early in case we go even deeper into the **** and there is a backlash against him.

[Nicey]

You're missing the point - suppose you have a football club that is run clueless chap called Dave. Dave's company makes a million pounds per year. You reckon you could do much better, so you borrow some money, and buy Dave's club. Within a year, you have the business ticking and it is making £10m per year. So you pay off your debt so you can keep the future (higher) profits or you let someone else do that and sell the club for a profit.

It's called adding value and is why leverage buy outs exist. There's a place for it within reason. The deals of 2007 were getting beyond reason and clearly H&G did not really know how to improve the business. It's not unusual however, just more emotive with a football club.

To ban it just because some one messed up with LFC is like banning Brazilians because Lucas is ****e.

Its been going on for years, another scenario greedy bankster speculator buys Daves club, on drip, puts said drip on books, then proceeds to strip club of assets to pay off debt because club/company parts are worth more than the entity as a whole, so club/ company is destroyed because there is better margin in destruction

[peekay]

Its been going on for years, another scenario greedy bankster speculator buys Daves club, on drip, puts said drip on books, then proceeds to strip club of assets to pay off debt because club/company parts are worth more than the entity as a whole, so club/ company is destroyed because there is better margin in destruction

What we need is accountability for ones actions. Tom Hicks now has put 2 out of 4 franchises in bankruptcy. And he lives in one of the richest pads in Dallas. In the end when all four clubs are sold, he will have money in excess of 500 million and go about on his new conquests.

In the US, when I default on one credit card payment, immediately my APR goes up. People have trouble getting decent interest rates on their car loan when their credit score goes bad. And we have Tom Hicks who has left a trail of destruction and he has had no issues in expanding his sports empire.

[Lecter]

I do know what you mean about RBS, but if they've agreed to extend the deal on the basis that the Yanks will sell - and the yanks then prove that this was never their intention, via ridiculously unrealistic demands over a sale price, on what basis would RBS 'believe' them the next time they come back making the same request?

Craig look back at whats already gone on with RBS

6 months ago we were talking (or Purslow was) about how they were insistent on getting £100 million debt reduction by July

Now if you believe the reports they have extended the loan (without this down-payment) on the basis that the owners have decided to sell

Excuse my scepticism regarding RBS but I have no faith in them pulling the plug before it becomes absolutely critical and I fear we are some way away from becoming that

I never believed the £100 million would be paid, I never believed RBS would act to cut their losses on the basis of that payment. I always believed the owners would get some further breathing space

Essentially I have been proved correct no matter how they dress it up the owners have been given more time to carry on as is (at least 12 months if you believe some of the press reports)

I honestly believe there is a genuine reluctance from RBS to being the company to pull the plug and put us into administration - because thats the only thing that can force the owners to get real (see Hicks' current Chapter 11 sale in the USA)

[RichC]

Personally I think that viewpoint is wrong, I dont hold any grudges against Moores for selling to the yanks, he did what he thought was best for the club, of that I am sure. I guess what I and all of us should be pissed off with the man for is his inability to progress us during one of the richest phases of modern football, he could have done more for sure however its plain to see he is not the best example of a successful businessman.

Personally I hold no ill will against Moores and hope at some stage he is welcomed back to Anfield to see us lift no.19.

Simple fact of the matter is DM is a bad judge of character and a poor businessman - a monkey could have made better decisions over the years with the huge branding potential LFC offers - it is almost criminal how far over his tenure we fell behind the likes of Manure and Arsenal in terms of growth as a club/business and therefore on the pitch.

I do however believe his sincerity here, he clearly sold the club to a couple of smiling sharks and was in way, way over his head so for the years of letting the club stagnate I do hold him responsible for where we sit - with regards the leeches I think he was doing what he thought was best for the club but as I said clearly well over his head

[Lecter]

Mabye they know there is a genuine deal in the pipeline from owners that would run us properly but G&H are dicking them about with an over inflated price. It could all be to try & put pressure on them (don't you need a conscience to feel guilt?) to lower the price & do the deal?

I am certain there are a number of buyers interested

BUT sadly its at levels equal to / below our current debt level

Herein lies our problem

Until RBS force the owners into administration they will hang on and hang on

IMO RBS will not be putting us into administration anytime soon

[RichC]

Craig look back at whats already gone on with RBS

6 months ago we were talking (or Purslow was) about how they were insistent on getting £100 million debt reduction by July

Now if you believe the reports they have extended the loan (without this down-payment) on the basis that the owners have decided to sell

Excuse my scepticism regarding RBS but I have no faith in them pulling the plug before it becomes absolutely critical and I fear we are some way away from becoming that

I never believed the £100 million would be paid, I never believed RBS would act to cut their losses on the basis of that payment. I always believed the owners would get some further breathing space

Essentially I have been proved correct no matter how they dress it up the owners have been given more time to carry on as is (at least 12 months if you believe some of the press reports)

I honestly believe there is a genuine reluctance from RBS to being the company to pull the plug and put us into administration - because thats the only thing that can force the owners to get real (see Hicks' current Chapter 11 sale in the USA)

There is no need for RBS to call in the debt at present, LFC is a cash-cow and they will continue draining the huge interest payments every month, as long as these are met things will continue as they are.

[Lecter]

But can't RBS not dictate a sale at this point? If a bid comes in at a resonable price then can they not force the owners to accept?

No

A reserve price may have been set but imo it will be set artificially high (by the owners) so any reasonable* / realistic* bid can be dismissed instantly





* in our minds

[Lecter]

There is no need for RBS to call in the debt at present, LFC is a cash-cow and they will continue draining the huge interest payments every month, as long as these are met things will continue as they are.

Each renewal / extension is giving RBS better terms for lending the same money / the same risk

This is why I can see things running and running

There will come a breaking point somewhere down the line I just think it will be a while off and it will be RBS that have to force things

They will have to be the "Big Bad Wolf" in all this and I do wonder about their desire to be this to one of Britains largest / most famous sporting institutions