LIVERPOOL FC are likely to avoid a Premier League points deductions even if the Royal Bank of Scotland takes over the club.

The Reds face the very real possibility the bank could grab control by the middle of this month if American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett fail to pay the £237m debt.

Some football legal experts have predicted that Kop Holdings, which owns LFC, would automatically be placed into administration.

But the ECHO understands the Premier League would not view that move as Liverpool being declared insolvent.

Regular discussions have been taking place between Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton and league chief executive Richard Scudamore.

The Reds have been seeking clarification on the potential scenario if RBS took temporary charge at Anfield.

Sources have indicated a nine point deduction, threatened to football clubs when they go bust like Portsmouth last season, would not materialise.

League chiefs crucially consider the debt to rest squarely on the shoulders of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, co-chairmen of the club and owners of Kop Football Holdings.

And as Liverpool has proved they have steady revenues - TV rights money, ticket sales, sponsorship - the club would avoid incurring any penalty.

The Reds reported a £200m turnover for the first time during the last 12 months, a significant rise compared to previous financial years and Anfield bosses insist the club remains highly profitable.

i got a question to ask...

this 6 Oct date... does it mean 00:01 6 Oct (UK time), RBS can call in the loan or we still gotta wait till 23:59???

i keep reading this 6 Oct somehow this never come to mind.  That is 24 hrs diff.  The useless yank can still do a lot of damage in that 24 hrs.

not an american owner again...hmmm..... 

Personally, that's the thing I've been waiting for - a leveraged buyout or not. A leveraged buyout again means another bucket of shite waiting to hit the fan, again. So, yeah. Seems like a good news for you guys.

i do watch MLB & im a fan of the new york yankees for some time now..
the only reason i said "not an american owner again...hmmm.....    " was
because of the so called " american-ownership-phobia" among some quarter of the liverpool fans... i noe im not as die hard fans as many of you are.. but i've been supporting liverpool since i was a kid, since i began to watch the weekly English Premier League highlights in RTM@ TV3.., and i still stand proudly among my collagemates that im still a liverpool fan eventhough they they have not performed weell recently but i do strongly feel that the team  which i've been supporting for the last 17 years is doing not that good is because of the damage done by the current owners.

do you think this company/organisation good enough for Liverpool? I hardly follow the economic and baseball thing, just want an opinion from LFC fans rather than reading all good news bout this company/organisation..We dont need a mega rich bilionaire owner but an owner that understand the club tradition and love football and Liverpool Football Club.

For the first time, we are actually notified of some of the owners' foul-doings on LFC.TV.
**** off Hicks and Gillett!

Could this finally be the beginning of the end of the storm?

Trust SoS to fight their way to meet the new owners if that's the case. Agree with you that we still have to be cautious and not celebrate early.

Though I don't think it's too much to ask for the new stadium to go ahead. it's a crucial step to rebuild our club financially and every year that goes by without the new stadium is a large opportunity cost incurred. Surely the new owners would see this as the best opportunity to increase LFC's profitability.

One can only hope.

new owners yanks again... EF IT MAN!

we're gonna get screwed again.

sorry if my statements are not up to your Godly standards. But i, as everyone else, am entitled to my own opinion and i do not owe you any explanation.
but for your face's sake, i will reply.

for one, i suffer from americanaphobia... i believe these americans do not inherit the same passion of football as the brits do.
look at the previous 2 owners, no passion. these businessmen, understandably so... ONLY look for profit, regardless what state the club is in. as long as they can cash out on the club, they'll do anything... like how Hicks and Gillett dragged the sale of the club to such an extent only to let go when they had NO OTHER CHOICE.

again, i will, and always have, stress on the point of PASSION. G&H in my view never cared for the club. they came an increased our debts, which no significant positive impact on our club (i could be wrong, but this is only my view personally).

so, before you accuse someone else of lacking the intellect to come up with a valid statement in your opinion, i suggest you realized what the previous yanks have done to our beloved club and stop asking people to point out the obvious.

i dont think i am the only one who suffers from mild americanaphobia.

but of course i wont crucify the new man just yet... like every newcomer... time is given for him to prove himself...

-may this be a turning point for the better in our rapid decline...YNWA~~~!

---

Added on October 6, 2010, 8:20 pmPS: certainly (and very hopefully) Henry cant be any worse than H&G.

Greetings all. I just jumped on reading this thread and thought i would try and see if i help out with you questions about the NESV group. I can't guarentee anything but i can give you my opinions as they fit.

Let me first off let all of you know, i am a born and bred lifelong Boston Red Sox fan. I grew up in Boston following the Sox with my entire family much the way i am guessing that many of you grew up following Liverpool FC.  Even now that i have moved away from Boston i pay my cable company more money than I care to for the ability to watch all the Sox games, obsessively read the forums and generally drive my girlfriend up the wall. I have seen the heartbreaking defeat (1986 World Series loss to the NY Mets, in the stands for the 2003 game 7 loss to the Yankees in the American League Championship Series) and the thrilling triumphs (in the stands for the Game 4 win in the 2004 World Series).  I do have some knowledge of European football as i try to follow it as best i can, i many not know the nuances of game as many of you do, but i am probably not completely illiterate on the subject either.

I would say that for Liverpool getting the NESV group as ownership should be a tremendous step forward for the organization as a whole. This is a VERY smart group of people who understand what a symbol like Liverpool FC means to the fans, the community and the city.  They understand that history is important and that while people may like a player, those same people will LOVE a team.

In Boston the Red Sox are revered and in minds of many people the only comparable institutions in the city are the Church and the State government, and the majority of those people would choose the Red Sox over either of those. This ownership came into the Red Sox with numerous questions, John Henry had previously been and owner of the Florida Marlins a team that had in its short history achieved success and then very quickly dismantled the team for profit.  They took over a team in a notoriously difficulty media town where the fans always have high expectations for success. Expectations that for years were seldom met, and more often than not resulted in heart wrenching defeat.

These are owners that sought out to embrace the history of the team within the city and forge their own mark without disregarding the memories of the fans. They were coming into an organization that was playing in a 90 year old stadium that was 1/2 the size of most modern stadiums and that many of the fans revered as the church of their own religion.  In short order they alleviated the fans fears of the stadium being torn down and that they were interested in anything other than having the team succeed and win. They quickly moved to modernize and renovate Fenway Park rather than tear it down, they made shrewd intelligent baseball decisions not stupid irrational high risk moves meant to garner headlines (We may have gone out and signed a big name/big money player in Curt Schilling, but we also went out and picked up numerous role players at smaller sums) as they seem to understand that while having a single superstar is a tremendous perk, you need an entire team to contend for and eventually capture championships.

These owners are not Roman Abramovich, they will not throw money at the newest shiniest toy on the market just because they have that ability. Make no mistake they have been willing to spend big money for big players, but they also have backed out and been outbid on numerous others when the money became too large for the potential return they may see. They were early adopters of the so called “Moneyball” revolution, which in short is simply looking for undervalued players and bringing them in to fit a team together. In baseball this may mean that defensive players at a given time are undervalued in the market, and power-hitters are overvalued. The result is you sign quality defensive players who are undervalued and lay off over paying for the power hitters. In super easy terms, think of it closer to a buy low/enjoy the ride/sell high mentality.

I would suspect that this is an ownership group that wouldn’t be foolish enough to assume that they know everything there is to know about football and as a result would quickly start pulling in people that are respected and knowledgeable about football. Front office personnel who quietly help teams do well (Scouts, General Manager, personnel staff), people who are not flashy but can help advise on smart football moves. People who can tell you that in the long term the flashy and expensive midfielder may not be as great a transfer as the quiet workman like defender when it comes to helping the team succeed. I would almost be surprised if you didn’t see them take an approach to putting a team together that is more along the lines of Aresnal than Chelsea (young talented players mixed with talented mid-aged vets as opposed to the biggest most expensive names money can buy).

Make no mistake, these men are all from business backgrounds and in the end they hope to make a profit. The easiest and most efficient way to increase the value of their investment and produce profits is to win and win regularly. To this group the most important piece of this whole purchase is likely the Liverpool FC brand, it already has a established base of fans but it is something that can draw profits around the world, all you need to do is win. If Liverpool can win and win big, and win often suddenly Liverpool FC shirts, hats, scarf’s, bobble head dolls and key chains can be sold in larger numbers to a worldwide fan base, much like Barca, ManU and Chelsea.

All in all I think the fanbase of Liverpool stands to truly benefit from this. Hicks is and always has been a dolt. He ran the Texas Rangers into the ground with horrible personnel decisions and has seemed hell bent on doing the same to Liverpool. Henry and Co. will look to build a stable successful franchise that can reap profits for them for a significant amount of time.

At least that is what my take of the situation would be.

ubah time off season la

about the new stadium.i see plenty.the big stadium shared with everton la(like san siro),kembar siam stadium la(satu utk liverpool satu utk everton)...

so far no action

Put it this way. If they sell now, they lost $144 million pounds. If they go to court, they still have a chance at proving that the proposed sale was done in an unlawful manner. Having said that Hicks is having problems finding a finance of his RBS loan. He has already defaulted on his $75 million pound loan from Mill Financial who now basically own his 50% share in the club, at least until RBS calls for them to pay up in the next few days. I think it delays the ineviteable for Hicks and I do think NESV will be our new owners by the end of the week.

"Mr Lim is also prepared to buy Liverpool, should it ultimately collapse into administration under UK insolvency procedures.

According to sources close to him, he feels that he may have been shut out because New England made an offer to Royal Bank of Scotland to pay some of the £40m penalty fees the banks have demanded."
Whatever the situation is, at least we already have a back-up buyer. I do think the Singaporean billionaire is a better choice though.

Liverpool takeover explained: David Maddock makes sense of the mess at Anfield
By David Maddock in Mirror Football Blog

Published 11:11 12/10/10

This will obviously come as a shock to many people, but the categorical fact of the matter is, Liverpool Football Club has been sold.

When you read this morning that Peter Lim, or Mill Financial or Kenny Huang, or Uncle Tom Cobley is contemplating/considering/ready to/prepared to/has made a bid for control at Anfield, then ignore it.

They can not enter a bidding process that has closed. They can not now offer more money, or better terms, or the promise of a brighter future, because the process has been completed and the club has been sold.

They all had their chance over the past three years, but now a 100 per cent binding agreement has been signed between the board of Kop Holdings, which effectively runs LFC, and New England Sports Ventures (NESV), to complete a sale at a price of £300million.

There is only one condition of that sale, which is that the board confirm, with a High Court judgement, that they were acting lawfully in agreeing that sale. That is what the cases to be heard from today are about, and that is what they will ultimately ascertain.

To explain this in simple terms for you, let us rewind a week. Last Monday, a board meeting was called at Anfield to consider two offers for the football club. After months of searching, Chairman Martin Broughton and Barclays Capital had finally brought two competing bids to the table.

They were full and final offers from NESV and a Singapore businessman Peter Lim, and the board had to decide whether to accept an offer, and if so, which one. The board – made up of five people – would operate on a simple voting majority, so if three members agreed, a sale could proceed.

Just before that meeting got underway, Tom Hicks, via a conference call, came on the line, and in rather comical circumstances called an emergency motion to remove two members of that board, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre.

He asked for all those in favour to say “aye”. One voice did – his business partner and co-owner of Liverpool, George Gillett. The other three members of the board didn’t say aye; they were Purslow, Ayre and chairman Martin Broughton.

Hicks then moved to replace Purslow and Ayre with his son Mack, and Mack’s assistant, Lori Kay McCutcheon. He then put the phone down. Broughton, as chairman, immediately responded by telling Hicks he didn’t have the authority to change the board, and explained to him that the board meeting would go ahead as planned.

In that meeting, Purslow and Ayre moved to accept an offer from NESV, and Broughton lent his casting vote in favour of the motion, thus offering a simple majority in the absence of any votes cast by Hicks or Gillett.

Agreements were struck and contracts signed with NESV, and they are full and binding. The majority on the board believed they had a right to make that agreement, and made it on condition of their right being upheld.

In the meantime, Hicks went ahead and reconstituted the board as he voted, and then he, Gillett, his son and his son’s assistant voted to reject the two offers on the table because they ‘undervalued’ the club. You may be thinking by now this wasn’t a board meeting but a child’s tantrum, but this is the way it happened.

Without going too deep into the legal argument, Broughton, the chairman, believed he had a contractually binding agreement – signed by Hicks and Gillett when they brought him in as chairman - to not only have sole responsibility to hire and fire board members, but to also sell the club as he saw fit.

Hicks and Gillett, for their part, believe that – as owners and therefore shareholders of Liverpool – company law gives them the right to remove directors. The simple question then is; which has precedent, contract or company law?

The case in the High Court today against Hicks is being brought by RBS – the club’s bankers - and not Broughton, because the contracts were signed with RBS and not Broughton.

If they establish the right of the contract to stand, then Liverpool’s board will follow in the court by asking for a declamatory judgment in a separate parallel process, that confirms the right to sell the club.

Boiled down even more, the whole process will decide which board was legal – the one with Purslow and Ayre that wants to sell at £300m, or the one without, that doesn’t want to sell at £300m.

Got that? Good. Because you’re going to be hearing a lot more of it. The RBS v Hicks case is due to be heard today by Mr Justice Floyd, in Court 16. But he has reserved the right to pass the case on to another judge on the Chancery Division, which is lawyer-speak for explaining it could takes days or even weeks.

The obvious question you will ask is, who will win? It basically depends on the mindset of the judge, but here is an opinion from an expert, for what it is worth.

Richard Curtin, special counsel at Faegre & Benson LLP, explained yesterday that the case will essentially come down to the wording of the contract – the ‘paperwork’ - signed by Hicks and Gillett and RBS, and he argued:

"I will be surprised if RBS got their paperwork wrong. I would also comment that they are likely to have explored every possibility in preparation for the dispute at court and whatever ramifications could follow.”

So what he is saying is the RBS should win. If they win, Broughton gets his declamatory judgement confirming the right to sell the club. And by now you know what happens after that. Yep…because the club is already sold, it stays sold, and NESV will start to implement their plans of reviving Liverpool Football Club.

This does raise several other questions though, the most obvious being why the hell would Hicks and Gillett have signed the contract with RBS in the first place, when it meant they could be outvoted by Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, and have the club sold from under them at a huge loss (£150million to be precise)?

Quite simply because they thought it would never come to that. Broughton, as chairman would have a casting vote, and Hicks was introduced to him by a mutual close friend, Alan Klein. So he assumed, because of the old boys’ network, the chairman was in his pocket and would always vote with him and Gillett, always offering a majority against Purslow and Ayre.

What he didn’t bank on was the other two directors – Purslow and Ayre – being so determined to sell the club to remove his malign ownership. Both worked on Broughton to convince him that the best solution for Liverpool Football Club was for it to be sold.

As chairman, Broughton has a duty to consider the best interests of the business, even ahead of its owners. So it was Purslow and Ayre’s greatest triumph to persuade him that the best interests of the club and its fans – who are emotional if not financial stakeholders – was to sell at the best available offer.

Which brings us to one final point, those apparent bids that have emerged in the last week which would value Liverpool at higher than the £300million NESV have paid to buy the club.

Peter Lim, through associates apparently, claims to have made a ‘better offer’. Mill Financial – who now control Gillett’s stake in Liverpool because he defaulted on loans to them, are also rumoured to be ready to make a ‘bid’, as is the mysterious Mr Huang.

And yet, after Broughton and Barclays Capital – one of the most respected financial companies in the world – had scoured the globe looking for bids and repeatedly asking people if they were interested, they came up with two credible offers, but at a similar level.

One was NESV, the other Lim. They chose New England because of their track record with the Boston Red Sox, and no doubt because Lim has a rather tricky connection with Manchester United. Lim apparently has a ‘love affair with United’, and he also crucially has a large business partnership with the Old Trafford club back in Singapore.

So, the last question you will ask, is why have they come out of the woodwork now, when it is too late? Again, simple answer. Because they are not hoping to profit.

Some will be put up to it by Hicks, who will try and argue in court that the £300million is not the best offer. If, miraculously, people are saying they will offer more, it will support his argument. And Mill Financial, for example, may have more chance of getting their money back from Gillett, which explains entirely their presence in the process.

Others will simply be doing it because they can see a business opportunity. They are aware the club is sold, but they know too that should RBS and Broughton fail to win their case the sale to NESV is blocked.