G&H Losing money

[Red Kent]

Can someone please explain exactly how much and how G&H have lost all this money.

 

Is is proper money that they need to find or projected money ?

 

Ta

[Atticus Finch]

Can someone please explain exactly how much and how G&H have lost all this money.

 

Is is proper money that they need to find or projected money ?

 

Ta

 

What they appear to have lost is about £140m - which was the amount in 'cash' that they had to put in at the last refinance. Both undoubtedly borrowed it against other assets - we know G did from Mill.

 

No idea how they get to £1bn damages - presumably loss of profit, sold below market value, punitive damages due to illegal actions of board. That kind of rubbish

[Billy Talbot]

it's not money that they have to find... it's money that they were "owed" by the club and would have been paid if the club was sold for enough money to cover it.

 

As it stands all the cash is going back to the banks rather than their not so fat wallets.

[Swan Red]

Apparently they lent money to the club and were actual creditors in the same way the Glazers are at the mancs. As part of the refinancing agreement RBS convinced them to set aside those loans in return for equity when the club was sold. However there was no equity as part of the deal that the board agreed so the $144m that they lent to the club was effectively wiped out

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

but Mill, rather than Gillett, lost that half of the money didn't they?

[Cobs]

but Mill, rather than Gillett, lost that half of the money didn't they?

 

watch this space on that one i reckon

[Chili Palmer]

but Mill, rather than Gillett, lost that half of the money didn't they?

 

 

there was talk of a handcuff deal between H and G.

[Sion]

but Mill, rather than Gillett, lost that half of the money didn't they?

 

thats what i was thinking. They'll be chasing him for the money won't they?

[Billy Talbot]

thats what i was thinking. They'll be chasing him for the money won't they?

 

Not sure they can do that - Gillett gave them the shares as security. They took them as security. They weren't secure... not Gillett's fault.

[Maldini]

My understanding of it is they bought the club with loans, then transferred those loans (plus another £60m for "player funding" and "stadium development") onto the club a few9 months afterwards. From that point until about 15 months ago they didn't put a single penny into the club, all the while the interest was ramping up and the debt was becoming higher and higher they each then had to pay £60m to RBS to secure an extension to the loan (this was paid by LFC but they put it down as a debt to Kop Holdings, so in effect the club owed then £120m). In recent weeks there have been penalty fees of £2.5m a week so that explains the extra £24m or so.

 

I think that's how it played out, there may be a few other things I can't remember though.

[growler]

what id on't understand is mill. How was george able to secure his stake against a loan from mill, when he was already in hock to rbs?

[Maldini]

Mill done goofed!

[kozma]

Apparently they lent money to the club and were actual creditors in the same way the Glazers are at the mancs. As part of the refinancing agreement RBS convinced them to set aside those loans in return for equity when the club was sold. However there was no equity as part of the deal that the board agreed so the $144m that they lent to the club was effectively wiped out

That's nice to think of. I like to think of them living under seperate bridges, smelling and being hissed at by territorial wildlife.

They probably won't though.

The b******s.

 

Mill done goofed!

Mill seem to have been mugged on this. It's amazing to see people responsible for huge amounts of money being shown up as fannies.

[Maldini]

That's nice to think of. I like to think of them living under seperate bridges, smelling and being hissed at by territorial wildlife.

They probably won't though.

The b******s.

 

 

Mill seem to have been mugged on this. It's amazing to see people responsible for huge amounts of money being shown up as fannies.

 

I suppose from their perspective they had the potential to get a £400m club for £75m, their mistake was trusting Gillett.

[kozma]

I suppose from their perspective they had the potential to get a £400m club for £75m, their mistake was trusting Gillett.

Half of a club for £75m, and they'd only have broken even if the club went for £450m.

[pipnasty]

It's amazing to see people responsible for huge amounts of money being shown up as fannies.

 

They are just misunderstood.

 

Loads of money = absolute geniuses at everything ever

[RBM]

Loads of hamburgers.

[davewigan]

Mill done goofed!

 

A photocopy of Forbes magazine was sent in with the application form for underwriting. Haha

[allawee]

May be these questions have been asked and answered somewhere in the new owners thread, but I could not see it:

 

So how are the new owners different to the old owners? Why was this a better deal than the singapore billionaire's offer? and why should we trust Martin's judgement? after all he was and still is an RBS agent!

[Maldini]

Half of a club for £75m, and they'd only have broken even if the club went for £450m.

I meant half of a £800m club sorry, let's face it NESV have gotten a massive massive bargain. If they build a stadiunm or upgrade Anfield the club will be worth £800m in next to no time.

[Gunga Din]

watch this space on that one i reckon

 

 

indeed. i reckon you might see G&H taking out lawsuits against each other. didnt Gillett supposedly want to sell a while back for $600, only for Hicks to block it? nothing would give me more pleasure than seeing those two c**** drag each other through the courts

[Maldini]

indeed. i reckon you might see G&H taking out lawsuits against each other. didnt Gillett supposedly want to sell a while back for $600, only for Hicks to block it? nothing would give me more pleasure than seeing those two c**** drag each other through the courts

 

I'd buy that on pay-per-view

[RP]

Not sure they can do that - Gillett gave them the shares as security. They took them as security. They weren't secure... not Gillett's fault.

 

 

:lol:

 

 

Not Gillett's fault?

 

It doesn't quite work like that. If the security has disappeared in a puff of smoke, that is Gillett's fault/problem. He still owes the money, he just has no security for any loan.

 

... and why should we trust Martin's judgement? after all he was and still is an RBS agent![/b]

 

 

I thought we had seen the back of such juvenile comments.

[Tosh]

:lol:

 

 

Not Gillett's fault?

 

It doesn't quite work like that. If the security has disappeared in a puff of smoke, that is Gillett's fault/problem. He still owes the money, he just has no security for any loan.

Mill must have known since....April that the club was a) up for sale and b) the sale price would have to be RBS debt+£150m for them to have security....

 

 

Big question in my mind is.... was the amount borrowed from Mill £75m? Or was Gilletts stock so low that he had to put up £75m of collateral to borrow $50m or even less.....

[Frosty Jack]

One thing I don't know if anybody touched upon.

What was the makeup of the board before Hicks Jr was fired after the "blow me f***face" thing.

 

Might be wrong, but didn't the owners have a majority then? and if so, could the guy who kept emailing Hicks Jr actually be responsible for triggering the turn of events that made this takeover possible. Wasn't it 4Pool or someone? Hilarious if this is the case.