Naive that mate. They cared about nothing more than the asset value compared to the balance outstanding. If RBS had followed the normal route & forced H&G's holding company & thus the football club, into administration, then the asset value would have dropped through the floor, as a 'fire sale' price would have been attached to it by any prospective buyers. They didn't avoid that path for any other reason than fiscal.
Broughton was appointed because of the legal agreement they had attached to the loan that was in default, RBS had no legal hold over the equity, due to the path they chose to take, therefore imo Broughton's responsibility was jointly to the shareholders & major creditor. He failed to represent the best interests of the former, hence the reason they took him & RBS to the High Court at the time of the sale. So I don't see how it could ever be argued that he was acting for them in any way, given their actions at the time. I've already said that it's nothing to do with FSG even if they win.
Could Broughton argue that he was in fact acting in the best interests of H&G by avoiding the situation? If he hadn't sold the club, RBS could claim that they would have been forced to drop to the fire sale price, damaging both H&G and RBS's interests.
Wasn't the board made up of five people at the time? Hicks, Gillette, Broughton, Purslow and Ayre. Obviously Hicks and Gillette would have said no meaning the other three said yes, therefore if they are able to go after Broughton then they must be able to go after Purslow (who gives a ****) and Ayre too?
RBS cared purely about the asset value, but I think the directors on the board actually wanted to preserve the club with minimum damage. The directors wanted to sell the club and pay the debt off asap to avoid administration, so they effectively accepted a fire sale price - the price paid was the price of the debt. Had they wanted, they could have attracted more bids to try and jack the price up what with interest from the Dubai lot and potentially others if they'd really tried, but that ran the risk of administration. As you say, RBS was unlikely to actually force LFC into administration, so the directors could probably have held out long enough to get a bigger bid had they really wanted to act in the best interests of the shareholders. That's the whole crux of the case - H&G wanted to hold out for more to feather their own nests, whilst the directors wanted to take the first offer that would cover the debt and keep the club out of administration, on the off chance that RBS actually did pull the plug. I think H&G would have happily put the club into administration if they'd thought they could get some money out of it in the end. The directors chose the club over the shareholders, and just did the bare minimum to keep the creditors happy. Not really. Even in administration, H&G would probably have ended up with something once the dust settled. As it is, they've ended up with nothing.
You are still taking too rigid a view regarding Broughton's responsibility to the share holders (H&G). BTW H&G did not take Broughton et al to court on this issue their action rested upon the concept of ultra vires.
Maybe, but that's my opinion based on my knowledge of the case. Broughton & RBS were stood opposite them in the courtroom, so whilst correct, that's merely semantics
That's a solid argument, but given that Broughton was appointed by the major creditor & was therefore in essence working for them by proxy, there's no way they'd have forced administration in the sort of timeframe that were talking about here imo.
Yeh Boots it's about as semantic as the difference between murder and manslaughter - after all there has to be at least one dead person!
Tobes, no disrespect feller, but we had all these arguments in 2010 on old 606 and you were utterly wrong on all accounts, your final assertion being that as H&G were based in Texas the Dallas court held juristriction over the High Court and would back Hicks even if the High Court were to freeze their assets and hold them in contempt. They've not been mistreated at all ; if you have a house worth £450k, but you owe the bank £350k and six months ago you signed an agreement with your bank that you'd sell your house and clear your debts; and to that effect you allowed the appointment of a member of the bank to have a three fifths say in the selling of that house. The bank insisted on this, as in the last two years they know you've turned down offers of £450k and £400k for your house, and now house prices are falling rapidly. You said you'd sell your house by October- you haven't. Now watch as the bank sells your house to the highest bidder, with the legal right - that you signed and agreed to- to accept a sale that covers their costs and expenses. They have a legal obligation to THEIR shareholders only. And btw, RBS made it a condition of sale that whover bought the club (and the directors involved) would have indemnity. Only RBS will pay out if they lose, and they won't. And why do you think they can't raise the funds to go to court? And what law firm worth their salt wouldn't jump at the chance to pay their surity if they thought there was a chance they'd win? And why haven't H&G got insurance for this? Because they were on their arse with debt, and Hicks was still turning down sales of £400-£450m (or at least Hicks was- reportedly Gillett wanted to sell) which would have covered their costs and, at that time, their debts, but Hicks was too greedy. So don't feel too sorry for them Tobes, and don't still be disappointed that they didn't lumber us with a ten-point penalty and a transfer embargo on the way out.
Donga - I don't remember those discussions. I thought back then that H&G would had have some legal recourse over what I viewed as a rather dodgy set of events from a business perspective. I'm sure that I would have mentioned that you should have been in admin back then haha ( as you should have been! ) none of which means I have any pity for that pair of Yankee twats, as yet were never anything other than sharks ( which I said from the day they arrived as I knew they'd only put down £7m to buy your club) So I've never had any pity for that pair of tossers
Donga - btw your analogy is wrong, as RBS never had claim to the equity & therefore never had he right to dispose of the asset to merely cover their costs that's the entire point! If they had forced administration then the administrator could have done that with impunity
er, yes they did. When H&G had their final, final extension in April of 2010 (remember, they were supposed to have paid off the debt by September of 2009), they agreed to conditions of broughton being put on the board as ipso facto the club was the bank's security. That much was stated in the High court in Oct 2010. they only got that extension because Hicks was still - bizarrely - convinced he'd get a £600m buyer based on the Forbes book price (a price he had input in bumping up) and RBS were confident that if all else failed they could sell the club to cover THEIR interest of £300m. It was not in their interests to call in the debt then and put the club in administartion and devalue their potential asset. the whole point of the Oct 2010 High court case was that RBS DID have the right to do that - that was the corner H&g painted themselves into with Hicks' greed. And my fear, so far, is that although Fenway haven't loaded debt onto the club - yet - if they ever do get around to building a stadium or extending anfield we'll be in the same boat three years on.
I'm afraid that TB doesn't have a very secure grasp of commercial law. As for FSG and the re-furb/new ground issue then we must await thier decisions. Up to now Henry is making the right noises about commercial viability and holding out the propspect of the major costs being funded via naming rights etc.
haha, Ok mate whatever you say. I'd have good money on FSG never putting a spade in the ground. They've merely kicked the can down the road with the talk of re-developing Anfield. They may get to the planning approval stage & have a costed solution in place, but I don't think they've got any intention of delivering it.
my gut feeling on this is the idea probably wont even be entertained until we have CL football again,or could be a requirement of the sponsors, so don't see either happening any time soon.
simply put this is and english cout not a yank buddy texan court. they are at nothing and are delaying. they've nothing to lose by doing so. this will be easily dismissed by the courts so nothing to worry about
MITO, there is no worry for us or FSG in any action that H&G may take. As far as LFC's concerned there is no way back.
there is an offical statement on the lfc website right now.... the matter has been settled privately... i e they couldn;t afford it so have gone away.
