Hicks and Gillette still seeking Damages.

Only time will tell if they made the right decision

 As of yet no E-mail of stories have come out saying Lims was a bad choice, In fact they said both bids were excellent, So I don't believe they chose FSG over Lim because they through he would ruin the club.

 You may very well be right, I don't know what Broughton was thinking, it is much nicer to believe he chose FSG because he through they were going to be the best custodian but I am not that sure 
 

I suppose other than being a huge fan and owning a bunch of ManU bars across Malaysia he would a great fit for LFC  Once a manc always a manc

One on One there is very little difference net worth wise between Lim and Henry/Werner so hard to make an argument based only on money.

Lim 1.6B USD
Henry + Werner 1.5B USD

Now if we were to say compare JWH/TW with Roman and his 13.5B then that is a whole different story.

I suppose other than being a huge fan and owning a bunch of ManU bars across Malaysia he would a great fit for LFC  Once a manc always a manc

One on One there is very little difference net worth wise between Lim and Henry/Werner so hard to make an argument based only on money.

Lim 1.6B USD
Henry + Werner 1.5B USD

Now if we were to say compare JWH/TW with Roman and his 13.5B then that is a whole different story.

Not sure if comparing how much money people have is much point really mate. It is how much money they are willing to invest in the club that's the important part.

I am still open minded about our present owners. They have got some decisions right and some wrong imo. I also hoped when they bought the club for such a bargain price (imho) that they might have given us a bumper transfer window to kick start the team and their ownership. A £50million "present" would I am sure have had an almost immediate impact on our fortunes in the league.

Even some real movement on the stadium would have helped ease any worries we have. They have been our owners for over 12 months now, and as Diana Ross sang...... "I'M STILL WAITING".   

It hasn't been all frustration and disappointment, the appointment of Kenny was a masterstroke, they haven't taken money out of the club (as far as we know!) and haven't embarrassed the club, certainly not with the frequency our last owners did.

I think after what we went through with H&G they have managed to settle the ship, but whether they are steering us to the promised land or onto the rocks only time will tell. 

s@int whatever your opinion is of our present owners it is better that L.F.C. is owned by them rather than Twit and tw*t.I think it is safe to say that under the present owners we will not end up bankrupt and they have brought stability to the club for this I am thankfull.

It hasn't been all frustration and disappointment, the appointment of Kenny was a masterstroke, they haven't taken money out of the club (as far as we know!) and haven't embarrassed the club, certainly not with the frequency our last owners did.I think after what we went through with H&G they have managed to settle the ship, but whether they are steering us to the promised land or onto the rocks only time will tell.

After the turbulence of recent years, I cant see what more we can ask from them to be honest. I think they are just being thorough with stadium issue and as far as transfer funds go we will find out in a few months time. Im optimistic, even more so after they sampled success with the Cup win. Im sure funds will be available in the summer and they along with Kenny and the staff will take us to the promised land but maybe its just a slower more methodical ship they are steering.

The only thing undebateable is FSG got the deal of the century when buying Liverpool

The thing is at the time in the real depths of recession there weren't that many legitimate potential buyers going around.

What would we rather?

That NESV/FSG  had paid those bast*rds  a much higher price and lined the pockets of those thieves Hicks and Gillett?

(Wasnt it Hicks who summoned the lovely Amanda Staveley to a shooting party just after buying the club and offered to sell it on for one billion ....LMAO Wasnt it Hick's greed when he rejected a 49% Dubai holding for 500 million. LMAO 2)

Or

What actually happened.

The buyer that WAS prepared to step in and save us from serious and possible extinction got it at an attractive price which left Hicks and Gillett with sweet F.A. LMAO 3

I know which one I would have chosen ..... the one that worked out.

I dont think there can be any grounds of criticism to date against FSG they have been dream owners after H an G.

They put their money where their mouth was and did the deal.

Fortune favours the brave.

The only flak they may get is .......if in the interests of the club (no one is bigger than) ......they dont renew Kenny's contract when it expires.
Even then I am sure Kenny would say and do the right thing by us.



Hicks and Gillett got what they deserved.

In the words Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life.

Nothing from Nothing.






http://youtu.be/WlBiLNN1NhQ

I suppose other than being a huge fan and owning a bunch of ManU bars across Malaysia he would a great fit for LFC  Once a manc always a manc

One on One there is very little difference net worth wise between Lim and Henry/Werner so hard to make an argument based only on money.

Lim 1.6B USD
Henry + Werner 1.5B USD

Now if we were to say compare JWH/TW with Roman and his 13.5B then that is a whole different story.

You know AZ it is what FSG is worth that counts, the worth of the people who have shares in FSG does not matter.

 Eurored, Liverpool FC were never going to go out of business, there was not even the slightest chance of that happening

Only time will tell if they made the right decision

You are, of course right Eddie; only time will tell. Strangely enough time is the one thing as a Liverpool fan you, me and every other Red has. We'll follow the Reds whether its Hicks & Gillett, Lim, The Sultan of Brunei or F.S.G. we have as owners.   

We'll follow them 'til we die; irrespective if they are Champions or relegated; minted or piss-poor. Well, I will anyhow. Not worrying about sh*t which I've no control over and may never happen anyhow is something I learned to do a long, long time ago.

You never said but at least now, hopefully, you understand why Broughton didn't need to go running to Lim...

You know AZ it is what FSG is worth that counts

... but maybe not. 



I'm outta here...

Of course they got a great deal eurored. I think its forbes that have said we have already doubled in value and think that is with out any real investment from Fsg. Imagine what we would be worth if there was a stadium is ever built. I'll be honest the stadium issue really needs to be resolved soon.

My apologies S@int. I'd come to this cold and hadn't read the previous posts and reports. I was assuming there was only reference to an old e-mail.

I've now read The Echo's article and it does make for interesting reading indeed.

EDIT: What I do know tho' is that; Broughton kept talking about his fiduciary responsibility (duty of care) to the Club not the owners. In the U.K. he, like the other directors, has to make decisions for the benefit of the company first and not the owners. In the states owners may be better protected and able to stop something which may benefit the Company to their detriment but that won't, necessarily run here. It's been a long while since I studied things of this nature but I'm almost certain of the following:

* When reference is made to 'superior' or 'better' offers, in the e-mail, it's referring to a better deal for the owners NOT the club.

* Broughton will be able to show/ have to show that the 'superior' or 'better' offers weren't to the benefit of the Company. I believe he will, as the case continues. We are only hearing H & G's interpretation of events at the mo.

That state of affairs ie decision making for the benefit of the owners not the company, is peverse and little wonder H&G were able to make a fortune out of a financial system that did not prioritise the real money maker - the company, apparently the case in the US.
Proof of it's unfeasibility is the fact that when their scam was exposed in an English court of law and people wised up in the States, the arse fell out of their business. They are now restricted to producing hollow threats from some American backwater - sh*t creek and paddles spring to mind.

At the High Court in London last week Mr Justice Peter Smith said LFC's former owner had "at the very least instructed his lawyer to tell lies" during a US hearing to halt the sale of the club.
Mr Justice Smith went on to say that Mr Hicks should explain the claims he made while under oath in a courtroom in Dallas, Texas, he questioned why Mr Hicks had made serious accusations of impropriety against RBS and the English directors in Texas - but did not or could not repeat them in English legal proceedings.
Addressing Mr Hick's solicitor Ali Malek QC he said "I get silence from him (Hicks) and have no explanation why he doesn't produce witness statements saying 'I am the victim of a massive fraud perpetrated by the English directors' - why doesn't he do that?  What is striking is that your client is prepared to make these allegations in America yet in this jurisdiction he is unwilling to do it".

Mr Malek promised to speak to Mr Hicks within the next 24 hours to provide a reason for his conduct which led to an injuction and temporarily halted the sale of Liverpool FC to NESV.
The lawyer said "I owe your Lordship an explanation for that" and went on to say "What happened in Texas was undoubtedly wrong and I can't begin to defend it however the essence of his complaint in Texas is the same here - the bank should have accepted the offer from Mill Financial and the club was sold at an undervalue".
It has also emerged RBS is still owed £29m by H&G which they are still persuing but the former owners said no formal claim for that amount has been made to them.
H&G were voted off a reconstituded board headed by Sir Martin Brouton after repeated failings to find a new owner or fresh investment to pay back their £237m loan to RBS.

Liverpool Echo
 

If Iv'e read that right with this hangover, that's looks good to me! Nice one Stuey, thank's for posting.

If Iv'e read that right with this hangover, that's looks good to me! Nice one Stuey, thank's for posting.

You're very welcome Gareth, it does look as thought the fraudsters are getting what they deserve and hopefully end up with £1m legal bill. Update below mate:

Liverpool Echo         Friday March 9th

                              Texan Given Final Chance In Claim He Was 'Swindled'
 
              Tom Hicks was yesterday handed a final opportunity to persue his multi-million pound legal case after losing
               control of LFC - but was warned "this is your last chance".
               A deal was thrashed out in the High Court in London which will see a huge amount of documentation disclosed
               to the Texan and his colleage George Gillette as they seek to prove "an epic swindle" during the Reds sale
               to NESV.
               The American was told he faces a ban on any further legal proceedings in this country if the files he is to
               receive fail to give any substance to his claim for massive damages.
               Lord Justice Peter Smith told his barrister Ali Marek QC "this is his last chance if no allegations are
               forthcoming the defendant will be debarred from making allegations against the claimants [the Royal
               Bank Of Scotland, the English directors formerly on LFC's board and current managing director Ian Ayre] in the
               future. This is the open door but it is to be clanged shut,he can shout as loud as he likes in Texas but here
                he will be debarred".     

               Mr Justice Smith told Mr Malek that Mr Hicks would have to come to the UK to inspect the filesto prevent any
                confidentialty rules being broken, disclosure will take place over the next 35 days with a hearing in May.
                A separate hearing in which Sir Martin Broughton the former Reds chairman, is seeking a ruling to the effect
                he did not conspire to force Mr Hicks out of Anfield remains.
                Richard Snowden QC for RBS successfully argued that documents relating to banks Watchovia and
                Wells Fargo should not form part of the disclosure. He said "we say it goes too far. They are RBS' joint lenders
                and finaciers of Mr Gillett so the likelyhood of there being a smoking gun in the bank used by Mr Gillett is
                sufficiently remote.
                H&G hope the new material will establish their case that they were conspired against to prevent them from
                refinancing LFC in 2010 in the run up to the October 15th deadline when they again failed to repay the bank
                it's £237m debt.

                           

Above their heads is an understatement.
Lord Justice Smith abandoning the  customary reserve in the High Court issued a stern rebuke involving Texas and shouting at Hicks and has in effect summoned him to attend the proceedings and show his hand.
       

Cheers Stuey 

Cheers Stuey 

No worries mate, good news all round.

Stuey

Have you seen any time limit set for H&G to substantiate their allegations?  Otherwise this could drag on and on.

Stuey

Have you seen any time limit set for H&G to substantiate their allegations?  Otherwise this could drag on and on.

In the article mate it says disclosure will take place over 35 days with an eventual hearing in May, to all intents and purposes that is the American's last stab - after that they will be debarred from any further litigation in the matter. From the tone of Lord Justice Smith's observations he is also at the end of his tether with the liars.

Cheers my Learned One.

I'm in line and taking my turn .......  not for you the thumb.

I for one can't wait for the case to come to court. Particularly Hicks will be giving evidence under oath. Given that his own barrister in a recent hearing conceded that certain statements given to the Texas court required clarification? That legally veiled niceties for a pack of lies! We could yet see Hicks getting some "garage" for lies in a UK court.
One can wish!

Ah f*$k em...who cares

Judge says he does not trust former Liverpool owners Hicks and Gillett

High court judge criticises Tom Hicks and George Gillett

Mr Justice Smith overseeing latest phase of litigation over sale

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 April 2012 16.43 BST

A high court judge has said he does not trust the two American businessmen who used to own Liverpool.

Mr Justice Peter Smith said Tom Hicks and George Gillett had demonstrated that they would "abuse" the court process if it suited them.

The Texas-based businessmen lost control of Liverpool when the club was sold to New England Sports Ventures – headed by another American, John W Henry – in a £300m deal in October 2010.

Hicks and Gillett tried and failed to block the sale before launching damages claims in which they alleged that the club was sold at a "substantial undervalue". They claimed the Royal Bank of Scotland and some then Liverpool directors had deliberately blocked their attempts to refinance. RBS disputes the allegations.

In March, RBS asked Mr Justice Peter Smith to declare them not guilty of "any dishonesty or corruption". Lawyers representing RBS said Hicks and Gillett had alleged a "grand conspiracy" but failed to produce any evidence.

The bank asked for declarations of innocence at a high court hearing in London. Mr Justice Peter Smith then adjourned that hearing to allow lawyers representing Hicks and Gillett to study documentation produced by RBS.

However RBS was opposed to a request from the pair's legal team to give their clients "unrestricted access" to the documentation, arguing that, as an American lawyer representing the pair had misled an American court in October 2010, they could not be trusted with the documents. Mr Justice Peter Smith sided with RBS.

"In my view that was and remains a legitimate concern," he said. "They are entitled to be fearful about potential misconduct." He said RBS was entitled to have the privacy of its documents maintained.

He said that while Hicks and Gillett could not have unrestricted access, their British lawyers could study the documents and take instructions from their clients.

He added that Hicks and Gillett had given "no credible explanation" for their lawyer's behaviour in 2010 and, referencing Fawlty Towers, suggested they had taken a "Manuelesque, 'I know nothing'" stance.

He said: "I do not trust [Hicks and Gillett]. They have demonstrated … that if it suits them they will abuse the process."

Mr Justice Peter Smith said Hicks and Gillett had sought a "restraining order" in Texas – after failing to block the Liverpool sale at the high court in England. He said an American lawyer representing the businessmen had "misled" a Texan court twice in October 2010, "untruthfully" saying an application could not be made in London because it was "late" and courts were closed and saying a similar application had not been made in the UK when it had.

"No credible explanation has been given, ever, as to how it was a lawyer retained by the defendants was able to mislead the court in that way," said the judge. "Despite numerous opportunities, the defendants have not availed themselves of the opportunity to explain how it came about."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/25/judge-liverpool-owners-hicks-gillett

So Justice Smith is now a member of Scal Qaeda then?

Welcome to the group Smithy mate.

These two jokers are so amateurish its laughable

I hereby declare that is has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you pair are cu*ts.