The La

I think there was a failed IPO some months back of an acquisition company due to undersubscription. This was around the time he defaulted on $500Million in loans. I'm not sure if this was an earlier incarnation of Hicks Acquisition II or what

Well, one would hope so. My concern is that with months of prior knowledge of this potential scenario Hicks' legal team have been looking for loopholes and may have found one If he can't win then why go down this route? If he's playing for time - fine, but surely this kind of challenge comes at a cost to him. If he's playing for sweeteners (RBS to waive penalty fees perhaps) then fine also, but if his bluff is called he loses more

Unsubstantiated press rumour, I think. A business journalist from The Times has made something of it but there's nothing concrete, so far as I can see

Boohog - what do you make of the fact that the intended reconstitution of the board would give Hicks 3 and Gillett ? It worries me a little that he may have something in place for a full takeover. I know Gillett is essentially paralyzed but surely he (or this Mill financial) wouldn't agree to cede complete authority to Hicks unless there were provisions in place to buy them out

There's still a game of chicken going on, though. He may believe that RBS doesn't have the stomach to force administration and will offer a short term extension while the sales process is ongoing (even at this late stage).

I think your optimism is misplaced - this is like a horror movie where the monster is ostensibly dead but there are still 15 minutes left to run. He was able to drag the Rangers debacle out for ever (though he ended up getting spanked in the end). I won't believe the turd is flushed until it's flushed

No, I don't think so - similarly the PL couldn't put state when and how NESV could change their directors

I'm not sure which is the key entity here - someone on another forum pointed out that nothing has been lodged with Companies House to change the articles of association of the parent company since Broughton arrived, which is worrying, I suppose. The key, for me, is to ask what Hicks' endpoint is here. Does he think he can win, is he trying to frustrate the process long enough to prize out some sweeteners from RBS or NESV, or is he trying to delay the process long enough to find refinancing from elsewhere?

Not a tangent at all. At 9:30 in the Peston interview Broughton states: "The board of Kop Football (Kop Holdings) has the right to sell the club. I am the chairman of that board. I have the casting vote." What assurances Brougton has received are crucial to the High Court case but this is nothing to do with the board of LFC

You are wrong - this was not voted on by the board of LFC but by the parent company. This has been confirmed by Broughton and also probably forms the basis of Hicks' argument - that Broughton's vetoes did not extend to the parent company. Whether Hicks has a case or not, I've no idea

No, you are wrong. It is the board of the parent company who vote on whether to accept the offer for their asset

Yes, but it's the parent company of LFC. Listen to Broughton's interview with Peston - it was agreed that a vote would be cast at the KF level. If they want to mortgage the assets of LFC against a refinance then that is subject to the approval of the LFC board and, presumably, governed by PL rules. If they want to vote on whether the parent company sells LFC then it's subject to the parent company's board (which has the smae makeup as the board of LFC but is not governed by the same rules)

Well, yes - and that's the meat of the issue. If Broughton's got these guarantees sewn up tight he should be fine. It's nothing to do with PL rules, though

It's not the board of LFC that he claims to have reconstituted, it's the board of Kop Football. Presumably this parent company falls outwith PL rules (as would NESV)

Yep. add to that Peston's interview of Broughton. Makes a huge difference when someone is asking intelligent questions.

It really was - turned off when Winter started speaking but until then there had pretty much been some interesting angle from everyone they'd spoken to. Really informative.

that and Smithdown's "two spades in the ground" line. V goood

Some choice quotes from Broughton there. The big red flag from that statement is the mention of investment in the team rather than team and stadium. We'll have to see how this pans out. It's a big worry what their endgame is in this - there has yet to be a strong case made that money can be made out of owning football clubs. I f***ing hate the Redsox but I have to admit there are some very strong similarities between them and Liverpool. They do appear to be well run, though and set up to compete every year. They've had a bad year but that's more to do with Tampa Bay ripping up the AL East than anything else.

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

It's very interesting that this news comes around the refinancing deadline - worried that this could give RBS the cover to extend financing arrangements while the sales process is still alive. The really paranoid side of me worries that this might be a white elephant wrapped in a red herring expressly conceived to mollify the fans as RBS chicken out of calling in the bailiffs

Wasn't there rumours of Rick Parry putting together a US based consortium a year or so back?

Aye, but has the opposition ever been "that" low? Don't want to comment too much on the game as I didn't see it but I remember a lot of the nightmare games from seasons past and Liverpool were seldom dominated, even on the occasions when sides carved us open. We'd usually look a class above and they'd have a pacy or giant striker who terrified whatever centre half pairing we had that night. We'd strut around like a classy boxer with glass chops - a Herol Graham or a Kirkland Laing

I'm holding on to this as well... there's revolution in the air and a fluky point at the Mancs and a shootout win last night might have dissolved some of that.

done

I hope so, but it's obvious that they've been feeding beneficial snippets to select journos (probably, due to the type and specificity of his information, Bascombe) just as Gillett has been feeding that t*** at Sky Sports and Huang planted wherever necessary My fear is this.. if Hicks refinances elsewhere the board can stand up and say 1)"we fought our arses off to stop this but were powerless at the end of the day", 2) if RBS extend the loan they can say "well, this was a better outcome than some and we can really force their hand this time." Everything that may have been leaked from the board to date would be consistent in supporting either of these statements