|
The Doctor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneycroatia58 wrote:Tom Hicks has won the right to sue the RBS for damages over the sale of Liverpool. Apparently Pool aren't the direct target of this but Martin Broughton is.
Edited by sydneycroatia58: 17/2/2011 10:01:45 PM by the Texas Court or the High Court.... i really don't want this to start up again#-o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Justice Floyd at least dismissed his claim in the Crown courts.
|
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
seems to be open to sue Broughton in the US... like WTF
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
I think any significant chunk of the damages would be earned back by a LFC counter claim by loss of earnings anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote: Tom Hicks, the former Liverpool owner, has been given the chance to launch damages claims over the sale of the Premier League club after orders barring action in the United Stated were partially lifted by a high court judge in London. Hicks wanted Mr Justice Floyd to lift anti-suit orders which prevented him taking action in the Texas courts to halt the deal in which he claims he lost £140m. The judge dismissed that application but varied the anti-suit injunction to allow Hicks to make applications in the US in support of any proceedings in this country if he gives seven days notice to the parties he is suing, with Royal Bank of Scotland foremost among that group. Hicks believes he was the victim of an "epic swindle" when the club was sold against his wishes to New England Sports Ventures for £300m. Mr Justice Floyd also dismissed an application to 'strike out or stay claims' by Sir Martin Broughton, the former chairman of the club, seeking damages against Hicks for his actions while owner. NESV's application to be allowed to join the Broughton action was granted by the judge. NESV bought the club after repaying a £237m loan Mr Hicks and his former partner, George Gillett, took out with RBS and Wells Fargo and Co. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/17/tom-hicks-liverpool I'm confused to what this exactly means?
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
The previous order stated that US courts have no jurisdiction in england. If I understand correctly, the order has been changed so that they can petition the US court to have a hearing in England.
|
|
|
|
|
imnofreak
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 35K,
Visits: 0
|
It means they have been given the chance to bring their case to court about RBS and Broughton, CP and IA being at fault for their loss of money, and trying to sue them.
It's laughable. They'll lose, no worries.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
The judge SHOULD find that G&H were architects of their own demise...but in america you never know...
|
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
imnofreak wrote:It means they have been given the chance to bring their case to court about RBS and Broughton, CP and IA being at fault for their loss of money, and trying to sue them.
It's laughable. They'll lose, no worries. i don't like the thought of those dudes being in potential shit
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
At the end of the day, the buck will stop with the RBS for agreeing to the sale, it's not going to be a problem for LFC themselves, but I'd hate to see RBS go down, effectively taking Broughton with them, after all they did to ensure the right thing was done for the club.
|
|
|
|
|
dizzy_red
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:At the end of the day, the buck will stop with the RBS for agreeing to the sale, it's not going to be a problem for LFC themselves, but I'd hate to see RBS go down, effectively taking Broughton with them, after all they did to ensure the right thing was done for the club. RBS were going to put the club into administration the next day. There's no doubt they did the right thing. Statler and Waldorf are going off that email that said NESV was a poor choice out of many; it was, but it was the best choice after Kenny Huang pulled out, who may not have met the Premier League's test and whose real backers may not have been able to meet them anyway. But the US based suit is immaterial, because the Texas court has said that they have to sue in the EU. And it's not likely they'll be able to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:RBS were going to put the club into administration the next day. There's no doubt they did the right thing. That's what I don't understand is, if Gillet and Hicks had the capacity to clear the debts, why hadn't they? Such a cock and bull story. Quote:it was the best choice after Kenny Huang pulled out It was the best choice BEFORE Kenny Huang pulled out. Let's be honest, a manchester United supporter will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever...own Liverpool.
|
|
|
|
|
dizzy_red
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Quote:it was the best choice after Kenny Huang pulled out It was the best choice BEFORE Kenny Huang pulled out. Let's be honest, a manchester United supporter will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever...own Liverpool. Huang had more money, but it started to look like funny money when other competitive bids emerged. Note, there's a difference between a best choice in terms of the club and a best choice in terms of loans to be paid off and avoiding negative equity. Also, was Huang a Manc? I don't think so. I thought his bid was helped on by Peter Kenyon - vastly experienced, knows the business - but Huang isn't a Manc.
|
|
|
|
|
imnofreak
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 35K,
Visits: 0
|
Realised I didn't make a comment about this mornings game!
Good to get the win but it wasn't a fantastic performance... of course the injuries to Dagger and Kelly didn't help. Kelly was superb in the first half, our best by a distance, so it was a shame to see him go off. Dagger's apparently was only knock so shouldn't be out too long.. but you never know with him.
Poulsen was absolutely pants... turned it over left right and centre. Spearing shat all over him when he came on.
Meireles was tidy, Cole had his best game in yonks, Kuyt was solid... but N'Gog was terrible. So many missed chances, and when he stole that one off Joe Cole, it was a serious facepalm moment.
Should be able to get past Braga and into the quarters.
Hopefully at least two of Kelly, Johnson, Dagger, and Gerrard are fit to start on the w/e... maybe we'll see Carroll on the bench too.
|
|
|
|
|
dizzy_red
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Utterly manky performance. Made a meal out of that, we did. And not even a good meal. One of those ones you eat after you get back from the pub really late because the kitchen had closed when you wanted to eat before you started drinking.
You know, when you decide that deep fried spaghetti sounds like a really good idea, or that hey, if the Jocks fry Mars bars, why can't you do the same to M&Ms?
|
|
|
|
|
imnofreak
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 35K,
Visits: 0
|
:lol: I had a lol at Repka when he turned around and started raging at the Kop when we called the handball against him :P
That said, the handball in the 2nd minute was a stonewall penalty, I have no idea how it wasn't given. N'Gog could've scored 4, Raul missed a good chance too.. Thank god for Dirk Kuyt \:d/
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:Huang had more money, but it started to look like funny money when other competitive bids emerged. Note, there's a difference between a best choice in terms of the club and a best choice in terms of loans to be paid off and avoiding negative equity.
Also, was Huang a Manc? I don't think so. I thought his bid was helped on by Peter Kenyon - vastly experienced, knows the business - but Huang isn't a Manc. I don't think it's in the club's best interests to be owned by a businessman who's in consort with the chinese government (one of his leading investors). I mean, the chinese economy is very strong, but at the end of the day the moral implications are very questionable. I can't find a direct source for Huang's allegiances, but IIRC it was reported at the time that he was a united fan. As for this morning's game, I can't say I was particularly impressed, but given the inexperience of some of the lads on the pitch like Wilson, N'gog and Spearing, I can't say I'm disappointed or surprised. Dirk Kuyt is a fucking star, love his work ethic and the number of goals he scores late for us. And I'm still fapping over how much of a revelation Kelly has been this season. Another solid performance from the kid. No reason why we can't get past Braga as long as we take them seriously and Suarez and Gerrard get some game time in the R16. Hopefully the injuries to Agger and Kelly aren't too serious and both are fit to face United. I think we'll see that 3-2-3-1-1 kind of formation again.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Isn't Suarez cup-tied?
Edited by sydneycroatia58: 25/2/2011 08:49:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneycroatia58 wrote:Isn't Suarez cup-tied?
Edited by sydneycroatia58: 25/2/2011 08:49:48 PM I don't see why he would be, They played ECL group stage and he joined us before he could play a Europa League game for Ajax. :?
|
|
|
|
|
imnofreak
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 35K,
Visits: 0
|
Yeah, he is. Salright, Carroll will be back for R16, Gerrard, etc. In Europa I'm pretty sure it will be
-----------Carroll-----------
Cole------Meireles------Kuyt
-------Gerrard--Lucas-----
In EPL, he'll drop Cole, play Suarez and Kuyt off of Carroll. Back 4 of GJ-Dagger-Skrtel-Kelly... Sorry Carra... It's either that or play the 5-3-2:
------Carroll---Suarez-------
---Gerrard------Meireles-----
Johnson-----Lucas-----Kelly
---Dagger--Carra--Skrtel---
Just means that Kuyt misses out... good to have selection headaches!!
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:Yeah, he is. Salright, Carroll will be back for R16, Gerrard, etc. In Europa I'm pretty sure it will be Why is he cup tied? He hasn't been named in a Europa League squad this season. Quote:Just means that Kuyt misses out... good to have selection headaches!! Kuyt makes a quality impact sub anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
imnofreak
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 35K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Quote:Yeah, he is. Salright, Carroll will be back for R16, Gerrard, etc. In Europa I'm pretty sure it will be Why is he cup tied? He hasn't been named in a Europa League squad this season. Quote:Just means that Kuyt misses out... good to have selection headaches!! Kuyt makes a quality impact sub anyway. :lol: How many times must we go through this? I've argued this with so many people :lol: Because Ajax dropped down into the Europa from the UCL, he is ineligible. Same thing happened for Maxi when he came from Atleti. Even though he hasn't played in Europa, because the team he played for is now competing in it, they consider him as cup tied. Silly rule but, it exists. Edited by imnofreak: 25/2/2011 09:51:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:Same thing happened for Maxi when he came from Atleti. Maxi was cup-tied because Atletico played in the Champions League, just like Liverpool did. Quote:Even though he hasn't played in Europa, because the team he played for is now competing in it, they consider him as cup tied. Silly rule but, it exists. I do not understand this at all. The rule states that "If a player is registered in the corresponding european competition squad, he is cup tied and prevented from turning out with another team." Since he hasn't been registered in a Europea League squad, why should he be cup tied?
|
|
|
|
|
imnofreak
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 35K,
Visits: 0
|
Because he has played for a team that is playing in the same competition. They count it as playing for two different teams in the same competition, even though he never actually played for Ajax. Quote:Maxi was cup-tied because Atletico played in the Champions League, just like Liverpool did. Maxi was cup-tied for all our Europa league games that season, because Atleti also dropped down into the Europa. If they didn't, he would not have been cup-tied, even if he played UCL for Atleti. From Europa rules: Quote:Excluding the UEFA Super Cup, and subject to paragraph 18.18 below, a player may not play UEFA club competition matches for more than one competing club in the course of the same season. Key words there are competing club. Even though he isn't playing for them, Ajax are still a competing club in the competition. Another rule: Quote:For all matches from the start of the round of 32, a club may register a maximum of three new eligible players for the remaining matches in the current competition. Such registration must be completed by 1 February 2010 at the latest. This deadline cannot be extended.
One player from the above quota of three who has played UEFA club competition matches for another competing club in the current season may exceptionally be registered provided that the player has not been fielded:
- in the same competition for another club,
- for another club that is currently in the same competition. Again, the 2nd one there is the problem for Suarez.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
That's some seriously shoddy double-talk.
|
|
|
|
|
dizzy_red
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't think he's cup tied. He played in the CL for Ajax and not Europa, and the competitions are split, otherwise the same would apply to Torres, Chelski and the CL. So regardless of whether or not he was in the squad at the time he should be able to play in Europa for us.
And if he can't then I think it's a double standard to allow Torres to play.
|
|
|
|
|
imnofreak
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 35K,
Visits: 0
|
dizzy_red wrote:I don't think he's cup tied. He played in the CL for Ajax and not Europa, and the competitions are split, otherwise the same would apply to Torres, Chelski and the CL. So regardless of whether or not he was in the squad at the time he should be able to play in Europa for us.
And if he can't then I think it's a double standard to allow Torres to play. :roll: I just showed you irrefutable evidence that he is and you are saying you don't think he is?! I agree that it is a bit of a double standard, but it is the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
dizzy_red
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Well, it's hard to take you seriously when you cut off the bottom of the rules: Quote:18.07
Excluding the UEFA Super Cup, and subject to paragraph 18.18 below, a
player may not play UEFA club competition matches for more than one
competing club in the course of the same season. A substitute player who is
not fielded is entitled to play for another club competing in the same season’s
UEFA club competitions, provided that he is registered with the UEFA
administration in accordance with the present regulations. Quote:18.17
For all matches from the start of the round of 16, a club may register a
maximum of three new eligible players for the remaining matches in the
current competition. Such registration must be completed by
1 February 2010 at the latest. This deadline cannot be extended. Quote:18.18
One player from the above quota of three who has played UEFA club
competition matches for another competing club in the current season may
exceptionally be registered, provided that the player has not been fielded:
- in the same competition for another club; or
- for another club that is currently in the same competition.
Furthermore, if the player’s new club is playing in the UEFA Europa League,
his former club must not have played in the UEFA Europa League at any
point in the current season. Which gives the past tense - 'must not have played', not 'must not be playing'. And he hasn't been fielded in the same competition. It's not as cut and dry as the truncated versions of the rules make out; certainly, advancing beyond this point puts us in a position to argue for the inclusion of Suarez, just like when we had to play TNS to get into the Champion's League in 05-06 because the rules didn't allow for the winners to qualify.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't understand why you would allow a player to go from the Europa League to ECL but not vica versa. That's just not kocher. I see no reason why Suarez shouldn't be allowed to play in the Europa League, since Ajax weren't IN the Europa League when we signed him.
|
|
|
|
|
dizzy_red
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Fucking bagged that game, eh.
Atrocious lack of depth in that squad. Midfield was bare and uninventive, the back was very threadbare - I can't wait for Summer transfers so we can fill some of those gaps and get some dedication back.
Of course, it'll be a rejig for the next one... ;)
|
|
|
|