Jump to content

Liverpool Football Club


Stilly
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is being sensationalised a bit. How have so many people forgotten that Hicks can't just sell his stake in the club? The board have to vote on a sale, and then a potential buyer would have to pass the Premier League's 'fit and proper' test. People need to chill out. If his 50% makes its way to Mill Financial (or anyone else) then the sale would surely be illegal and all parties would be litigated into oblivion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er... according to various tweets, the reason H&G haven't showed up in the High Court in London is because they're in the court in Texas right now, arguing their case there!

Edit: wait a minute, may have mis-read that. Apparently H&G reps are over there. Whoops.

Edit edit: wait, there's been more saying H&G ARE over there!

scanners.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is being sensationalised a bit. How have so many people forgotten that Hicks can't just sell his stake in the club? The board have to vote on a sale, and then a potential buyer would have to pass the Premier League's 'fit and proper' test. People need to chill out. If his 50% makes its way to Mill Financial (or anyone else) then the sale would surely be illegal and all parties would be litigated into oblivion.

I'm not so blasé. Although it might seem like it courts don't grant injunctions lightly and getting it removed will no doubt be a real bollock-basher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't the PM do something except Privatise the country and phone up the Chillian PM to try and make political headway? Step in and bomb them all! EVERYONE! And Wayne Rooney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Guardian:

3.10pm: Lord Grabiner QC for the board: Describes H&G's actions as "grotesque parody, preposterous, unfair, unjust. They are incorrigible"

He points out that H&G signed up to this jurisdiction by getting into agreement with RBS and by agreeing to proceedings here. "It is preposterous" that they will simply go to another jurisdiction because they are not happy with the verdict.

He says G&H are probably "sitting ang giggling" at their behaviour right now.

3.05pm: Lord Grabiner QC now speaking for Liverpool: "simply incredible" that facts of this case were not revealed in Dallas court. "They want second bite of cherry and if it wasn't so serious, it would be a joke."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tariqpanja Hicks and Gillett's Dallas case calls for those at #LFC board meeting to be 'jailed until they purge themselves of any contempt'

tariqpanja Court learns H+G filed for contempt against those at last night's #LFC board meeting, which they claim was illegal. They participated too!

And no, ramone, the jurisdiction is the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so blasé. Although it might seem like it courts don't grant injunctions lightly and getting it removed will no doubt be a real bollock-basher.

I'm not being blasé; just calm. I have some understanding of how these things work, and I don't see the need to panic just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what's happening. What good can the English court do now? Surely it has to be fought in america?

No. We already have a decision from over here. There is precedent for this kind of thing that stretches back a long way, and the Court in Texas will eventually have to defer to the decision of the High Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tariqpanja Hicks and Gillett's Dallas case calls for those at #LFC board meeting to be 'jailed until they purge themselves of any contempt'

tariqpanja Court learns H+G filed for contempt against those at last night's #LFC board meeting, which they claim was illegal. They participated too!

And no, ramone, the jurisdiction is the UK.

yes but Rbs won't ignore the American ruling so what's going on? You can't overturn an American injunction in an English court? So it would be ignore the American injuction or fight it in America? The English court ruled yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. We already have a decision from over here. There is precedent for this kind of thing that stretches back a long way, and the Court in Texas will eventually have to defer to the decision of the High Court.

eventually - that doesn't sound good. But if you're telling me it's an open and shut case then that's cool. If you're wrong I'll cut your fucking eyes out though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eventually - that doesn't sound good. But if you're telling me it's an open and shut case then that's cool. If you're wrong I'll cut your fucking eyes out though.

I'm not a legal expert or anything. But I've worked and studied in Law for the last 9 years. I ended up concentrating on the criminal law so I'm a little out of my element when it comes to this type of thing. However, as I said, there is a long standing precedent for cases like this, and that is for the initial judgment, made in the correct jurisdiction, to be upheld. Also: the longer the club stays in limbo like this, the more it hurts their case in terms of seeking damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you and that makes perfect sense, but, you know if there's a judgment in the wrong juristiction then, you know? It just doesn't mean anything surely? There's nothing to overturn. I mean, if a Judge on an island off the out mongolia had made the judgment then it would be ignored. This one isn't being ignored. So surely it's a case of convoincing the US judge he erred, which must be done in America surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about covering RBS and NESV, if the High Court judge rules that the injunction doesn't need to be followed, then the judge in America just looks like a prick and gets ignored. If the Texas injunction holds, then they can't just ignore it.

It seems it may not hold as it was sorted out before the High Court judgement and the board meeting, so could be dismissed as frivolous.

This is pretty much what I'm understanding from a mixture of legal and business experts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about covering RBS and NESV, if the High Court judge rules that the injunction doesn't need to be followed, then the judge in America just looks like a prick and gets ignored. If the Texas injunction holds, then they can't just ignore it.

It seems it may not hold as it was sorted out before the High Court judgement and the board meeting, so could be dismissed as frivolous.

This is pretty much what I'm understanding from a mixture of legal and business experts.

But can a british judge rule on an American injunction? This is what I cannot grasp. You know, surely it's in the wrong juristiction. Like the opposite of our argument?

I guess I don't understand what's injuncted, it's the sale is it? You know? Either he can or he can't, it's not a matter for the court, it should be Legal Practise 101.

In court yesterday it was decided that the sale couldn't be blocked. Then an American judge said it could be. Are we back in court today for the british judge to say "No, you really can't block the sale" because I then see the American judge coming back with a "Cha, yeah, I totally CAN block the sale, buddy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you at least this has made us forgot how shit the team have been for a bit. Let's hope this smokescreen will help the manager and players train for a Sunday win.

Maybe H&G knew this and are rooting for the boys on the pitch, and this was all to help them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent!

So what new twist tomorrow? Ramone has got me thinking.... what exactly stops an American court returning the favour again? Will it keep going until the two rival judges have an actual fight, because if so my money's on the Texan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what exactly stops an American court returning the favour again?

The injunction just given. RBS asked for an injunction preventing any action from outside the UK courts, because it's got nothing to do with them. They could return the favour, but I don't see anyone taking any notice. The original request seems to have been on very shakey ground from the start

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant. I assume now we have to go to war with America.

Just Texas. But we owe them one for bringing us George W Bush ;)

This expert opinion from Mark Stephens, sports lawyer and international litigator at Finers Stephens Innocent:

The application for a TRO (injunction) in a Texas City court is one last, desperate, throw of the dice for Gillett & Hicks reveals how bankrupt their legal position is...basic principles of international law are (1) that an injunction issued by a Texas Court has no effect on actions in this (the UK) country; and, (2) that the court first dealing with the case should be the only court dealing with the matter to the end. Therefore, the Texas court will have to relinquish control to the High Court in London...if Hicks and Gilett really wanted to stop this transaction they needed an injunction from the High Court in London and another against New England Sports Ventures in Boston where that company is located.

I confidently predict that RBS and the Directors will be able to shrug off this irksome litigation which seems calculated to delay the takeover which will ultimately be consumated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.