I agree, it's clear that RBS are on Liverpool's side so to speak. However if Hicks were to sell to Mill and RBS refused to accept Mill/Hicks repaying the loans taken out by Kop Holdings (which they would now own), surely there would be a serious threat of legal action against RBS.
Liverpool Takeover Thread
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
I agree, it's clear that RBS are on Liverpool's side so to speak. However if Hicks were to sell to Mill and RBS refused to accept Mill/Hicks repaying the loans taken out by Kop Holdings (which they would now own), surely there would be a serious threat of legal action against RBS.
Associate
11.16am: Does this make the TRO question clearer? I think it does (a little): Associated Press reports:
A lawyer for Liverpool's owners says they will drop their court order in Texas blocking the sale of the club.
The move does not mean current owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have given up their fight to stop the £300 million sale to the owners of the Boston Red Sox.
Lawyer Keith Oliver, who represents Hicks and Gillett, tells The Associated Press they are applying to withdraw the temporary restraining order when the Dallas court convenes at 7 a.m. local time (1200 GMT) Friday.
TRO not dropped yet then ........
A lawyer for Liverpool's owners says they will drop their court order in Texas blocking the sale of the club.
The move does not mean current owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have given up their fight to stop the £300 million sale to the owners of the Boston Red Sox.
Lawyer Keith Oliver, who represents Hicks and Gillett, tells The Associated Press they are applying to withdraw the temporary restraining order when the Dallas court convenes at 7 a.m. local time (1200 GMT) Friday.
TRO not dropped yet then ........
Associate
If Mills own Gillets shares, then why is Gillet still 1/2 owner ????
I don't believe they officially own his shares, but he's defaulted on his loan so like RBS with Kop Holdings, they've got control of his shares.
It's got nothing to do with RBS "accepting" Mill's bid has it? As they're already a shareholder through Gillette's old stake, they have the ability to pay off the loan debt immediately.
Once that debt is gone, RBS have no legal say in anything the owners do, and therefore Broughton's place on the board is back under their control. He and the others get shipped out, Hicks sells up to Mill, job done.
As said, it's pretty much a race against time. There don't appear to be any major hurdles for either of them to clear.
Associate
Hmmm, then they would have to give the PL 10 days notice, and pass the FAPPT wouldnt they before the club could be sold to them?
It's not that simple.
The money is owed by Kop Holdings not the shareholders. RBS has given the board/Broughton the power to make decisions from that level (Kop Holdings) downwards.
Legally speaking, I've got no doubt that Hicks/Mill would need the board approval however would RBS open themselves up to legal action if they refused money from the shareholders?
Not sure. LFC would still be owned by Kop Holdings.
The only PL test I can say for certain that would be needed to be taken is the directors test. However I'm sure Mill/Hicks could leave Gillett on the board until they've passed that obstacle.
Man of Honour
So as soon as the chequered flag goes down (the TRO) it's a race for paperwork to be completed by either Hicks/Mill or NESV and LFC to tie up ownership?
I haven't really managed to get much info on how Huang fits in with Mill Financial?
Also SMTM over at TIIA intimates that NESV have something very tasty about them. Anyone know any more?
I haven't really managed to get much info on how Huang fits in with Mill Financial?
Also SMTM over at TIIA intimates that NESV have something very tasty about them. Anyone know any more?
Last edited:
I think they're trying to bankroll each other?
Nobody really knows who is behind Mill Financial. A couple of things that have come out over the last few days tie in with what was said about the Huang bid from 2 montsh back:
- It was widely reported that the reason why the Huang offer fell through was because the board refused to give him exclusivity. In Tuesday's court case, Liverpool admitted that it refused to consider Mill's bid because they wanted exclusivity, something they were not allowed to give under the terms of the deal with RBS.
- It was also widely reported at the time of the Huang bid that Huang had some sort of control/power over Gillett. It's now clear that Mill effectively owns Gillett's stake in the club.
I have to say, I was all behind supporting Liverpool for the "general good of football clubs" and all that guff, until I finally saw that fan video they made the other day. Now I'm torn.They'd garner a lot more favour from those that aren't Liverpool fans though
Prem declined to put Mill through O&D test without direction from #LFC board. "We will continue to take direction from board"
Denied.
Henry has arrived at Slaught & May HQ again, Tried to sneak in the side but was spotted.
Denied.
Henry has arrived at Slaught & May HQ again, Tried to sneak in the side but was spotted.
Last edited:
does that matter? if they pay rbs then they have 10 days to pass the fit and proper test.
The crux being that once they've paid rbs Hicks can reconstitute the board with no opposition.
Can't be a nice day to be a liverpool fan but hopefully it works out for the best.
The crux being that once they've paid rbs Hicks can reconstitute the board with no opposition.
Can't be a nice day to be a liverpool fan but hopefully it works out for the best.
Associate
So does that mean the PL has effectively removed the final option from Hicks?