fyds

Exactly - it's just a declaratory resolution. Did the directors act within their remit in passing the sale.

Indeed - I think all the press and media hype has confused a fair few people.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

If Rafa had his funding he could have had Barry without losing Xabi - we don't know.

'Do you expect me to talk, Mr Henwy?' 'No Mr Hodgson - I wish for once you'd shut the f*ck up you depressing tw*t - now take this concession cheque for a Fenway park match day Chili-dog brunch and get otta here - you're done.'

He's (according to bascombe was it?) helping inform the Red Sox guys. I think you can be sure if there is an opportunity to torpedo Hicks Parry would be happy to shout 'Fire!'.

At the very least, that is surely the basic, honest bottom line.

What grates is that was the point of 'just how close we came' to developing for years 'that team' the Rafa/spanish/euro hybrid monster that could rip open Madrid and roll united over at home, waltz past Barcelona.... Not Rafa, not Xabi, not any of that. If the owners had run this club even close to properly and fully backed the manager and the team with the reosurces needed to add, strengthen - in depth - and carry on improving, would it have been so easy to go home? Hicks and Gillett carry this can - everything flows from them.

Had a look at that last week - someone posted a while back about the relative size as a percentage of business they and Blackstone could legally loan according to US law which made it look a non-starter. That's my understanding too. It is a footy free Sunday though and the press where out in force to get us all whipped up...worked, pretty much

They've made some poor decisions (not taking DIC's £500m) and hung on with ever increasing penalties - but they've never squirmed out of any 'end games'. Hicks lost the Rangers for a final total profit of $0m and still owes as much as $350m in the US - Gillet sold The Canadiens for a substatial price - and didn't even cover his loans - he's defaulted twice on his NASCAR set up and now has no actual control over it. They're not supermen - just the modern equivalent of junkbond carpetbaggers who's business model was described by a noted hedgefund as 'Bad economics' when they turned Hicks down. With RBS' penalties they need around £500m for an asset no-one wants to pay upward of £300 million for, total, just to break even. Who would finance that kind of 'bad economics?' What collateral could you offer for £500m - especially when just about everything he owns including his pants are geared as far as they'll go already? So why is he doing it? He hopes RBS will cave in and refinance - or that some real middle-eastern or chinese head case with money to burn and no business sense will give him £600m. Not realistic? Probably not - but then he's going to lose the lot and be indebted in whole or part to the tune of £144m sans the asset...what else is he going to do?

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

If anyone spunked £72m on that lot they'd want shooting.

Grounds for appeal? Normal usually, but we need someone to tell us exactly how this kind of hearing works. All of the legal opinion of m'learned friends I've read about in the last week say we will win - if that 's there consensus, maybe those grounds for appeal if it works that way would be refused? Hey ho - another week as a Liverpool fan...hopefully nearly there.

Okay - which means I suppose enter RBS.

If he loses tomorrow I'm not so sure there's much he can do - it's not a 'trial' just a declaratory hearing...not sure what right of appeal (if any) there is.

So at what point in the last 30 odd years did you stop panicking?

Roy Hodgson reminds Christian Pouslen how they play the Aarhus 'Breathalyser' Game.

...except of course they ARE paying off what the present owner owes to get it in terms of their RBS debt which is why we're where we are. And a football club is not like another 'product or services' style company - it's assets are largely intangible, based on things like tradition, history, the love of the fans - most of the assets apart from the structures are human and temporary. ...of course you can have your semi-annual house analogy

Show just one example where somebody has said, clearly implied or even hinted that.

0442 442 000

Well NESV are not vultures, so we're OK thus far - we're all a bit more wary and clued up as whole this time around - and rightly so. On top of this of course, Broughton isn't Freddy Boswell MkII

He has a trick?

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

Checkmate!

If we didn't have £280m of leveraged debt against us the price would be low - but we do, so it isn't. Nah - whole different game since April - been winding up to it since at least last summer when the new look RBS people started getting a bit hardline and (I think) looking for a way to get shot of them. Over the year the last of the chair legs were kicked away from under Hicks as bit by bit and then almost at a gallop his empire of debt fell in on him - this just made a final resolution more pressing.