Another Premier League club took over ?

Loki · 22 Jun 2009 at 08:53

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/21/united-arab-emirates-premier-league

As well as the Guardian quite a few of the broadsheets are reporting that the ruling family in the UAE have acquired 60% of a yet to be named Premier League Club.

I doubt it is Liverpool given the announcement that their owners have sold their stake in the Montreal Canadians.

Could it be Newcastle, Oh Hang on, the article said Premiership :confused:

cheets64 · 22 Jun 2009 at 09:29

Getting a little silly now, how long before they get bored after not seeing a rise in profits, only one team can win the CL and only one can win the EPL.

I can see teams imploding.

Loki · 22 Jun 2009 at 09:33

I really agree with what your saying their Cheets. If everyone gets bought out or has a huge injection of cash, all it does is raises the price at the bottom level. As we are seeing now, clubs are paying upwards of £5m and sometimes £10m for very very mediocre players who would be lucky to attract anything other than a couple of million a few years before.

Weebull · 22 Jun 2009 at 11:18

Yet if you don't allow takeovers like these to happen, and force clubs to live solely from the means they generate themselves, you further consolidate the power of teams that exist within the lucrative Champions League, money-spinning bracket of football.

Where would Wigan be without Dave Whelan cheets?

xxalxx · 22 Jun 2009 at 11:25

Hoping its Liverpool, maybe one of the Americans has decided to call time. Hopefully !!!

Loki · 22 Jun 2009 at 11:27

xxalxx said:
Hoping its Liverpool, maybe one of the Americans has decided to call time. Hopefully !!!

I was reading on another forum this morning that it is Everton who are the club in question. A deal was struck just before the cup final and should be announced by Weds at the latest. How reliable this is, god only knows but it's not beyond the realms of possibility

xxalxx · 22 Jun 2009 at 12:43

They do need the funding, the have overstretched to get where they are now, and only with a huge investment would they be able to make it into the top 4, seeing as they now also have Man City to deal with (unless they self destruct - quite possible

).

FishFluff · 22 Jun 2009 at 12:59

Loki said:
I was reading on another forum this morning that it is Everton who are the club in question. A deal was struck just before the cup final and should be announced by Weds at the latest. How reliable this is, god only knows but it's not beyond the realms of possibility

Much as I'd love Everton to have a cash injection I can't see Bill Kenwright selling up (despite his claims that he's looking for investment 24/7 :rolleyes:

)

My money is on Blackburn

xxalxx · 22 Jun 2009 at 14:04

Still holding out on Liverpool

From an investment point of view it would be madness to buy any club in the PL as you would have to spend so much money to get success it wouldn't be worth it.

Liverpool / Everton are a safe bet, but saying that probably means its Bolton

cheets64 · 22 Jun 2009 at 21:43

Weebull said:
Yet if you don't allow takeovers like these to happen, and force clubs to live solely from the means they generate themselves, you further consolidate the power of teams that exist within the lucrative Champions League, money-spinning bracket of football.

Where would Wigan be without Dave Whelan cheets?

Not sure, but Whelan didn't pump massive money into Wigan, decent buys and a good manager got us into the prem.

Wigan are in £60m of debt.

dannyjo22 · 22 Jun 2009 at 22:13

Although I know everton need a backer, a piece of me will die if its us. Its taken hard work to get where we are and players that give their all or don't play. Instead money will just get thrown at it.

I don't want some arab in charge. Moyes would get the sack within 18 months for not getting results.

toon_mad · 22 Jun 2009 at 23:38

whats this i hear about liverpool have a deadline to pay their debts, how come man utd dont have a deadline to pay there massive debts??!

Chong Warrior · 22 Jun 2009 at 23:59

I just hope it isn't Spurs.

m0r94n · 23 Jun 2009 at 00:18

FishFluff said:
My money is on Blackburn

Although I don't think it will be us, it is a very good shout. We conduct a lot of our business in private so it would make sense for the papers to be a bit out of the loop. We have history as Premier League champions and have also had cup success in 2001, we've also managed to attract quality players to the club for minimal fees. The way we do our business may be looked upon favourably by a consortium of investors.
Given the clubs reluctance to do any deals before the sale of Santa Cruz however makes me think its not us. Although I personally saw him as expandable, the investors may not have and the deal may have included him staying at the club. I also think that Williams and the Walker family would only sell to the right buyer, as was the case just over a year or two ago with Dan Williams. Although he was a Rovers fan they weren't convinced he could put enough money in to the club to guarantee its future. Having some foreigners in charge who may leave at a moments notice would doom us to League 2.

toon_mad said:
whats this i hear about liverpool have a deadline to pay their debts, how come man utd dont have a deadline to pay there massive debts??!

Isn't that because a lot of Uniteds debts are covered by assets?

muon · 23 Jun 2009 at 01:30

toon_mad said:
whats this i hear about liverpool have a deadline to pay their debts, how come man utd dont have a deadline to pay there massive debts??!

Deadline to refinance debt in a terrible lending environment ($578m credit facility expires this July). Man Utd are lucky/smart enough not to be tied into such short loans. Same goes for Arsenal for example who directly issued bonds in order to build the emirates stadium.

As for the above comments about being covered by assets. All debt must always be covered by assets. Otherwise you are bankrupt.

Also should note that the debt isn't actually directly Liverpool's but the holding company's which is owned by Gillet and Hicks. But the asset counterparty to this debt is Liverpool FC itself. So if I'm correctly analysing the situation, if the debt isn't repaid or refinanced, then Liverpool FC will be taken by RBS and Wachovia (the issuers of the debt). If this were to happen I presume they'd either liquidate the club but much more likely resell the club.

cheets64 · 23 Jun 2009 at 01:37

toon_mad said:
whats this i hear about liverpool have a deadline to pay their debts, how come man utd dont have a deadline to pay there massive debts??!

Glazers have enough assets to trade, the Liverpool brothers don't. Plus they keep up their repayments, its just the same as if you take out a loan on a car and as life goesm, something needs money like a broken roof or a shortfall in income, you shore it up with your money/assest, Man United have prize money and the Chinese/southern people to secure extra income.

muon · 23 Jun 2009 at 01:41

cheets64 said:
Man United have prize money and the Chinese/southern people to secure extra income.

But this money stays within the club strengthening Man Utd's financial position rather than the Glazers. Unless of course the money gets paid out as dividends which helps the Glazers. But as you said, the Glazers are rich enough to not having to rely on dividend payments form Man Utd.

Malcom Glazer net worth $2.2bn

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_Malcolm-Glazer-family_48ZS.html

edit: It seems Gillet and Hicks are worth quite a bit. Why don't they just refinance the debt at an attractive(for banks) interest rate?

BaZ87 · 23 Jun 2009 at 02:09

ghost101 said:
Also should note that the debt isn't actually directly Liverpool's but the holding company's which is owned by Gillet and Hicks. But the asset counterparty to this debt is Liverpool FC itself.

This is not true.

The majority of the debt is personally secured by Hicks and Gillett. Only ~£60m is secured against the club (£100m if they withdraw the further £40m they have available to them).

Regardless of how much of the debt is secured (directly or indirectly) against the club, if it's not refinanced then the banks could takeover. However there is 0% chance of that happening. The Americans stand to lose too much personally. If there was any possibility of them not getting the refinance, they'd sell.

Regarding toon's post; the reason why we have short-term deals is because our owners plan to sell.

muon · 23 Jun 2009 at 05:33

Oh okay then. So if they fail to refinance, the banks will be going after several assets rather than solely Liverpool FC.

But yeh, as you said theres no chance Hicks and Gillet would default on their debts since they have positive net value. Also do you know if they have actually injected any capital into the club or taken any cash out? I'm guessing the latter is very unlikely.

Chelsea are in a similar situation where the holding company is in a lot of debt. But this debt(at 0%) is to Abramovich and therefore doesn't matter since he owns the holding company. So effectively he is injecting money into the club. I imagine Manchester City are in a similar situation. For them there is no danger of banks chasing up debts. However I do wonder what would happen when it comes to selling Chelsea for example. Abramovich would have to probably write off a portion of the debts to get any takers.

BaZ87 · 23 Jun 2009 at 14:52

Surprisingly they have injected money into the club in the form of an inter-company loan (from the holding company) which cannot be recalled if the club can't afford to pay it.