# Liverpool FC sale / court battle



## ivuernis (13 Oct 2010)

Even as a United fan I've enjoyed seeing Hicks and Gillett getting their comeuppance.


----------



## Shawady (13 Oct 2010)

United might be not too far behind them.
Didn't the Glazers do something similar with Utd i.e. load the club with massive debt and then use the profits to pay it off?


----------



## csirl (13 Oct 2010)

Shawady said:


> United might be not too far behind them.
> Didn't the Glazers do something similar with Utd i.e. load the club with massive debt and then use the profits to pay it off?


 
Agree. To be honest, Liverpool dodged a bullet - got lucky in finding a new owner with a more sustainable financial model, at the right time.

In the US, the Glazers are spending 40% less than the NFL average on salaries. Consequently, the Buccaneers are struggling and failing to sell out their home games (which is rare in the NFL). They are taking advantage of a strange quirk in the NFLs collective bargaining agreement, that nobody ever thought would ever be used, whereby the salary cap does not get used this year. For other teams, this means they have no spending limits and can throw the cash around, for the Buccaneers, it means a dramatic reduction in salaries (the cap had a minimum spend as well as a ceiling - Bucs are well below last years mandatory minimum).

Doesnt bode well for United, who have already dramatically cut their transfer market activity.


----------



## TarfHead (13 Oct 2010)

csirl said:


> Doesnt bode well for United, who have already dramatically cut their transfer market activity.


 
How has the ManU manager spent the funds received from the sale of Ronaldo to Real Madrid ? Or has the money gone to service the debt incurred by the Glazers ?

How long before Ian McCulloch is accusing John W Henry of an unspeakable crime  ?


----------



## VOR (13 Oct 2010)

TarfHead said:


> How has the ManU manager spent the funds received from the sale of Ronaldo to Real Madrid ? Or has the money gone to service the debt incurred by the Glazers ?



The money has gone to service the debt but United are not in as much trouble with transfers as people think.

The new squad rules and turnover rules to play in Europe are weighed in United's favour. To be succesful in the next 10 years, buying 18 year olds now makes more sense than buying 25 years olds. United have been at that for years now. Having said that I want to see the back of the leprechaun just as much as any other fan. I'd prefer to be spending the money on every Brazilian under the age of 18 showing any kind of promise than giving it to soulless banks.

Liverpool still need at least £500M to play with the big boys. That's the kind of money they need for a new stadium or an Anfield upgrade plus at least £100M for new players. I would be very surprised if Henry can raise that without debt.


----------



## Pique318 (13 Oct 2010)

Agh...they're like the flamin C.Diff bug. You think they're gone and then...


> Liverpool  owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett claim they have won a temporary  restraining order from the Texas State District Court preventing the  sale of the club and are now seeking $1.6bn (€1.2bn)in damages.
> 
> The  American businessmen, whose ownership of the club was thought to be  approaching its end tonight as the Liverpool board met at the offices of  a London legal firm with prospective new owner John Henry in  attendance, have also claimed they are the victims of an “epic swindle”.
> 
> ...



Now I dunno which law presides, UK or 'Texan' but surely if a UK judge can rule on the ownership, then it must be UK law that is in effect ?
Another stalling tactic ?
To what end ? Ensure that sale is prevented thereby triggering RBS into putting LFC into Administration, thereby incurring a 9 point penalty by the FA, making their current predicament worse. RBS would be the de-facto owners of LFC at that point and G&H would be worse off.

My head hurts thinking about the logic these guys use.

Hopefully John Henry had the deal signed before that particular phone call came through....


----------



## Pique318 (14 Oct 2010)

LOL I've just seen on Aertel that G&H are looking for $1.6 billion...yes BILLION in 'damages' for the 'epic swindle' of trying to sell the club below it's market value !!!

Now this might be funny, but knowing the litigation society in the US and the propensity of judges in the States to award damages over the silliest things, it's still troubling....


----------



## burger1979 (14 Oct 2010)

The coourt in Texas has no rights in England, but because RBS and NESV have quite big operations over in the US then to ignore it might cause them further harm in the future. I have to say its becoming quite comical the stuff from Hicks and Gillett.
AS for Man Utd. i think the glazers will be watching with a close eye, remember that the debt that utd has been saddled with is greater than taht of liverpool (almost 3 times i think), i think that utd will stay the course over the next few years but only because of the revenues they generate and this will probably pay off the interest on the loans. i think the bond holders are due to be paid back by 2016 and i think thats about 500 million pounds. 
As a Leeds fan it makes you wonder if clubs that have come after us that got into financial trouble (portsmouth/darlington) do not stop to look at whats happened at other clubs around them and think. a football club, especially one that is in the premiership is always going to be in debt but its the levels of debt that are the worry.


----------



## bren1916 (14 Oct 2010)

*Liverpool FC sale / court battle *

Scousers are always whinging about something...you'd think they'd be used to appearing in court at this stage....


----------



## csirl (14 Oct 2010)

> I'd prefer to be spending the money on every Brazilian under the age of 18 showing any kind of promise than giving it to soulless banks.


 
Problem with this strategy is that you end up spending to develop other clubs players. Underage players cannot sign contracts - there parents can sign on their behalf, but only until they turn 18. In effect, all teenage players become unrestricted free agents on their 18th birthday. This strategy relies too much on 'good will' i.e. that the teenager will have some loyalty to Man U and so will be willing to sign when they turn 18. However, as we all know, 'good will' means nothing when money is involved - if a better offer comes in from another club, the teenager will be tempted to take it.


----------



## Sunny (14 Oct 2010)

csirl said:


> Problem with this strategy is that you end up spending to develop other clubs players. Underage players cannot sign contracts - there parents can sign on their behalf, but only until they turn 18. In effect, all teenage players become unrestricted free agents on their 18th birthday. This strategy relies too much on 'good will' i.e. that the teenager will have some loyalty to Man U and so will be willing to sign when they turn 18. However, as we all know, 'good will' means nothing when money is involved - if a better offer comes in from another club, the teenager will be tempted to take it.


 
That's only in some European Countries. English teams can sign players on when they turn 16 and are enforceable. (They are considered young people and not minors in law) You can't do that in places like Italy and Spain though because they have to be 18. Hence Fabregas, Maceda, Pique and half of Africa end up in England when they turn 16.


----------



## burger1979 (14 Oct 2010)

the plot thickens

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9091246.stm


----------



## VOR (14 Oct 2010)

csirl said:


> Problem with this strategy is that you end up spending to develop other clubs players. Underage players cannot sign contracts



Off topic I know but just a quick response to csirl. United have looked at Brazilians for a number of years now and will get some very good ones from Traffic Football Management. United should continue to pump money in to this and in any other country/continent where it is legal.



> perhaps unknown to many people United have an exclusive player trading    deal with a Brazilian club owned by a company that specialises in such    arrangements.    Last November (2008) United struck a deal with Desportivo Brasil, a youth club owned    by Traffic Football Management, that gives Ferguson first option on more    than 120 teenagers being groomed for European football in a Sao Paulo    academy in run by World Cup winner Carlos Alberto Parreira.
> Traffic also wholly or part-owns the economic rights to another 90 or so    professionals via two multi-million dollar investment funds founded    expressly to profit from the transfer of promising Brazilian players.
> United’s deal, designed to give them a competitive advantage in the global    search for new talent, sheds light on the system of third-party ownership    prevalent in Latin America.
> It also demonstrates the methods being employed to accommodate Fifa rules    forbidding the exercise of third-party influence, introduced in 2008 in the    fallout from Tevez’s spell at West Ham.


As for Liverpool. The rumours about Mill Financial are interesting. If they get Hicks' share then NESV would be backed in to a corner. RBS owe them nothing so I would expect them just to be happy to get their money back and walk away.


----------



## PaddyW (14 Oct 2010)

Mill have not acquired Hicks' shares. So says a spokesperson of his.


----------



## csirl (14 Oct 2010)

> Traffic also wholly or part-owns the economic rights to another 90 or so professionals via two multi-million dollar investment funds founded expressly to profit from the transfer of promising Brazilian players.


 
Isnt this illegal? Only clubs can own rights to players - isnt this how West Ham got into bother over Tevez and Mascherano.

Within the next few years, Human Rights legislation and employment law is going to wipe out the concept of clubs, or anyone else 'owning' players. There will be no buying and selling of players. Salary levels on offer will determine where players play. Getting value for money on a salaries will determine the success and failure of clubs. The academy system will gradually break down as there will be no financial incentive to develop players when you can just sign the finished product - I expect the academy system of the future to be more broad based football association countrywide schemes rather than club specific. The top Premiership clubs are already less reliant on their academies than in previous decades. Its only a matter of time before a major club decides "why bother with academies, reserve teams, youth teams etc........we're just going to buy the best c.25 players we can afford to pay."


----------



## DB74 (14 Oct 2010)

csirl said:


> Within the next few years, Human Rights legislation and employment law is going to wipe out the concept of clubs, or anyone else 'owning' players. There will be no buying and selling of players. Salary levels on offer will determine where players play. Getting value for money on a salaries will determine the success and failure of clubs. The academy system will gradually break down as there will be no financial incentive to develop players when you can just sign the finished product - I expect the academy system of the future to be more broad based football association countrywide schemes rather than club specific. The top Premiership clubs are already less reliant on their academies than in previous decades. Its only a matter of time before a major club decides "why bother with academies, reserve teams, youth teams etc........we're just going to buy the best c.25 players we can afford to pay."


 
Not sure I agree with that

Clubs can still insist that a player signs a contract and can hold that player to that contract, similar to any other employee surely.

Each contract will probably contain a clause which will determine how much it will cost to break that contract at any given time by either player or club

Then if a player wants to leave an employer, it will be up to the new employer/club or even the player himself to pay the "get-out fee"

We could also see "poison clauses" inserted into contracts, similar to what they have in the NFL (as I'm sure you are well aware going from your previous posts on the subject)


----------



## burger1979 (18 Oct 2010)

Well new owners but still the same on the pitch........


----------



## Shawady (18 Oct 2010)

The glazers should make good money from selling Rooney. Don't know how it will affect Utd on the pitch though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/9101905.stm


----------



## Latrade (18 Oct 2010)

VOR said:


> The new squad rules and turnover rules to play in Europe are weighed in United's favour. To be succesful in the next 10 years, buying 18 year olds now makes more sense than buying 25 years olds. United have been at that for years now. Having said that I want to see the back of the leprechaun just as much as any other fan. I'd prefer to be spending the money on every Brazilian under the age of 18 showing any kind of promise than giving it to soulless banks.


 
One of the interesting aspects of last week as a Pool fan was the general lack of gloating at the debacle by most of my UTD mates. The problem is that UTD are ticking over ok, but one bad season and that could spell the start of trouble and most conversations with my friends seemed to be on the basis of "there but for the grace of God".

Even with success, UTD have only managed to stay ok by selling and servicing the debt that way. 

I've taken no pleasure over the years seeing any club get into trouble because of their owners, and there's been a few. It'd be the same if UTD were to struggle. 

I'm actually hoping this mess does spark a change from the premier league and they start to look at some better rules for running a club, maybe even a salary cap based on turnover. The greed from all involved in the game now has ruined the sport and ruined clubs.


----------

