Advertisement
JON SUPER/AP

What the hell is going on at Liverpool FC?

Our somewhat condensed guide to who’s who, what’s what, and why the American courts are involved.

LIVERPOOL FC is owned by Kop Football Ltd. That much, at least, is clear.

Kop Football Ltd is owned by Kop Holdings Ltd, which is owned by Kop Cayman Ltd, which is owned by Kop Investment LLC. That’s according to the petition lodged in the District Court at Dallas County, Texas, by Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

Hicks and Gillett, who bought the club in 2008, say they each own (either directly, or through companies they own themselves) 50% of Kop Investment. Whether or not this is true is somewhat unclear: it is reported that Mill Financial, an investment group that lent Gillett the money to buy his share of the club, may have assumed his half of the club because he was unable to repay his half.

(It is also reported that Mill Financial may have bought Hicks’ share in the last few hours, though this remains unconfirmed and unclear.)

Up for sale

Hicks and Gillett, disappointed with the club’s financial performance and having fallen out with each other, decided to sell the club. They appointed Martin Broughton, the chairman of British Airways, as the chairman of the board and gave him the responsibility of selling the club, and the right to control who else gets to sit on the club’s Board of Directors, of which there are five members.

Several parties have lodged bids to buy the club. One is New England Sports Ventures (NESV), a body which owns the Boston Red Sox and which has bid £300m. Another is Peter Lim, whose body Meriton says it will bid £320m and also offer another £40m in a transfer kitty.

A club in debt

The club, Liverpool FC, owes Royal Bank of Scotland an undetermined sum, anywhere between £230m and £280m. This debt, according to RBS, has already expired, and falls due on October 15. Hicks and Gillett say it’s not due until November 1.

If the debt is due on October 15 (tomorrow) and has not been repaid, then RBS are entitled to assume control of the club – a move that will see the club placed into administration and result in it being docked nine points in the Premier League.

NESV had earlier said it would withdraw its offer if the club was docked the nine points, but has since indicated it is prepared to withstand such an eventuality.

The board of directors – Hicks, Gillett, Broughton, and two other men – voted by a martin of 3-2 (Hicks and Gillett against, the rest in favour) to approve the takeover bid of NESV. Hicks and Gillett did not want to approve the bid because the price of the deal would see them lose £72m each. Hicks, in response, tried to sack the other two men on the board and replace them with his own appointments – people who would vote on his side, and thus swing the vote of the board against the deal.

RBS, contesting this action and seeking to make sure it gets its money back, brought Hicks and Gillett to the High Court and won an injunction to stop them changing the membership of the board. The original board, legally restored, met last night at 8pm in an attempt to finalise the sale to NESV.

How America became involved

Hicks and Gillett, were were denied the right of appeal in the UK, decided to seek an injunction from a court in Texas which blocked the sale until at least October 25, when it said it would hold a full hearing. Hicks and Gillett said the case could be heard in Texas because…

all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Dallas County, or, in the alternative, because Plaintiff Kop Investments resides in Dallas County and no Defendant resides in any other county in Texas.

They had also argued – an opinion with which the court agreed for the time being – that the rest of the board, RBS and NESV all have business in the state.

This put the skids on the board’s 8pm meeting, because if it had ignored the order and proceeded with the sale, it could have been held in contempt of court in its own country.

Rejecting the right of a Texan court to deal with a matter taking place in Britain, RBS and Broughton went back to the High Court, which said the Texan court had not been given a full picture of events, and granted an anti-suit injunction.

The Texas injunction remains valid, however, and attempts to proceed with the sale could well be considered in contempt of that court.