Tim

He's clearing his diary in anticipation. He's looking for 11am on sky sports news, noon on radio city then a quick interview for football focus. Next week he'll be in the echo/daily post monday with a starring appearance on the Jeremy Kyle show under the banner of "Funniest things ever said". Rumour is he'll also be joined by Kenwright and Moyes for this special edition.

So it's all off now then since Hicks Jnr was at the game yesterday? God some of these insider info's people give is just a f***ing laugh and half.

If it was Hicks saying those things maybe, but do you think Rafa would allow himself to be a puppet for Hicks' PR machine?

If it's a 1:30pm kick-off then I'd be surprised if it's on the saturday.

unless you are a resident of the ward of anfield/breckfield there ain't diddly squat you can do to stop the new stadium getting planning permission.

companies house website is the last place to get updated. Takes them a bloody age to put most things on.

The stadium itself was fixed price at around £220m to £250m so around £3,700 to £4,200 a seat cost. Extrapolating that out would put our stadium at a rough £263m to £300m. But probably a bit more due to materials etc.

The article has a fundamental mistake in. That suggest that the clubs assets are secured against the purchase loan, however the assets are secured against the clubs debts. It is not possible to have assets secured against loans of higher value. The debts of the club will be the only debts secured against the clubs assets. It's a basic covenant on loan agreements for business'.

the club charter states that there are 65,000 names on the waiting list, and that will have been at the start of the season.

This really pisses me off. If you are going to use an arguement then don't make bulls*** up to try and support it. They did NOT say at the press conference that no debt would be put on the club. And anyone who thinks it is the case needs their hearing checked. The debt they were referring to was the purchase debt. The stadium debt was always going on the clubs books, it's a club asset to be paid for by the club so the debt is the clubs. Plain and simple. Next, the club is in £350m of debt? Rubbish. The debt put on the club was £105m which relates to initial stadium work and to refinance the clubs existing debt to free up short term cashflow. The remainder of the magic £350m is debt owed by Kop Football (Holdings) Limited. It has personal guarantees from Gillett and Hicks. Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited is NOT liable for any of that debt. Gillett and Hicks would not have been able to put that much debt on the club (except for stadium financing) as the club does not have enough assets to secure against the debt.

They can't if the club isn't making profits. You can't distribute distributable reserves if there aren't any.

If there is a short deadline to refinance there's next to no chance for a proper refinancing deal. Best they'd be able to hope for is a short term briding loan until either refinancing is sorted or a buyer is found. RBS would probably be better at this as then they'd only need to find around £250m to £260m (enterprise value) instead of the £350m Gillett and Hicks are after.

Nope as the debt is not that of Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited. The loans currently have personal guarantees from Gillett and Hicks so they would be the ones liable. All that would likely happen is a short term extension to the bridging loan or RBS take ownership of the club at which point they'll look for a buyer.

yeah, but only because there is still a huge shortage of liquidity in the market.

RBS, and most other banks, made much of the loss back today as the FTSE-100 rebounded although still down compared to friday. Also the share price in a company doesn't necessarily affect the day to day running of the company.

Not if they are borrowing in sterling. That will be based either on the BoE base rate or the Libor rates. And if they managed to get a fixed rate (unlikely but you never know) then the market swap rates will be used (which are fairly low at the moment).

Wrong, the law dictated that the board consider the offer presented by Gillett and Hicks. They would then have to make the arguement to the shareholders that DIC's bid was better for the shareholders and the club. Remember that directors are only agents acting as intermediary between a company and the shareholders. They have a duty to do what is in the best interest of the shareholders. That includes considering offers for the club that are materially higher than previous ones considered.

They were right to give a deadline for acceptance, they were wrong to have that deadline set as 12 hours.

Not covered by stock exchange rules as now a private company.

might just be a simple mistake, but he said that Foster is Hicks son.

depends on what the articles of association state.

That would have been his perogative. He could sell to who he wanted, just as all other shareholders could have refused to sell to Gillett and Hicks.

The board were legally obliged to consider any improved offer. No ifs ands or buts about it. The board of a company cannot let it's own interests get in the way of what is the best deal for shareholders.

Might be to do with funding. Judging by one report today they are only a couple of weeks away from refinancing, so they may want to leave it till all that's in place. But chances are it'll be bull.

Gonzales cost us £4m while Aurelio cost us £2m as he'd already signed a pre-contract with another team. We also only got £2.7m for Garcia.