KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Hope its true

I really hope this is true ... it was passed on to me by a friend.

If it is ... goodbye mr hicks and Gillett

http://i51.tinypic.com/dn0h9l.jpg

is taht a trustworthy link??

i dont know fella ... ive just got hold of it ... it could be bollox for all i know.

Just thought it was worth sharing

but you wont get a virus off it

I've seen this on a site in the US earlier this week. Now I know a bit about how companies are set up cos i work for a bank that manages corporate accounts.

If an owner owns 25% or more of the shares he/she must be appointed a director, therefore they cannot be removed unless there are extreme circumstances (ie bankruptcy, sent to prison, etc). So Hicks & Gillett will remain and the information above can be sought from companies house, but don't bother searching unless you want to pay a fee for the information. If you want to look for the info they are usually under artcicles of association/covenant.

My gut feeling is that the information above will be true, however don't go spreading it around because if it is going to be used in court we should let LFC's lawyers use it instead of the media in case it influences the outcome.

What do you mean 'hicks will remain'? If the club is sold he won't remain? I'm sorry but I don't get it. If LFC wins the case he won't be there much longer except for the appeal which will follow,but an new buyer means new board no? If hicks wins the case, then he will remain for about 5 minutes when RBS puts us in administration and takes it off him.

The article 81 stipulate that any attempts to change the board by 2 or more members (lets say hicks and gillete) need to be signed by the chairman, which in other words means they cant change the board accordign to this agreement and we dont know who signed it and who it was signed with if it was even signed!
And regarding article 80 delegation of powers we dont get a chance to see ' the articles regulating the procedures of directors ' so we don't know if they can or can not do it , would love to see the other pages

LFC don't have to evict him from the board to sell the club they can force him to accept the sale that whas my understanding of the situation i could well be wrong though of couse!

Arm, i was referring to Hicks failed attempt to change the board members on Tuesday & not what will happen next week.

Well then why do you say 'will be true' if you were referring to the failed attempt to change the board members (by hicks and gillete) and why do you say hicks will remain? ? you must be talking about the future no? And the legal action on tuesday centres on the compostion of the board becuase if broughton was proven wrong then then the board is the hicks board with his son (fuckface) and the sale will be rule unlawful. So hicks unsuccessful attempt to change the board is inextricably linked with the case on tuesday. PS i dont know why you say dont 'spread' it around lol its on the liverpool-kop com site in all its glory the whole article ffs so I think the journalists are going to have a chance to look at it im gonna have a quick look after the match tonight

What it seems to be saying to me is that Broughton can hire and fire the other two positions and not Hicks and Gillet. It doesn't say that Hicks and Gillet don't also have this power - I would like to see the articles before and after this one.

Could we really have a silly situation where both Gillett and Hicks on the one side and Broughton on the other each with exactly the same executive powers.

I.E Hicks and Gillet can sack Ayre and Purslow and appoint their own two. Broughton can immediately sack the new two and reinstate Ayers and Purslow and so on ad naseum.

This can't be the case -it's all up in the air as far as I'm concerned - a field day for the lawyers.

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/broughton-vs-hicks-current-lfc-legal.html

From the arguements presented from the guy on there who seems to have experience in the field, we don't know if the accord /agreement allowing broughton to have the final say can over rule the existing agreement, in essence directers can appoint alternate directors, its a pig's ear in fact. I think common sense will come into the judgement at the end of the day, as he says the nightmare scenario is that hicks has got the cash to put up to refinance and it wouldnt suprise me. There seem to be a lot of grey areas as to appointment of new directors and with the broughton accord with RBS its not black and white. If hicks doesnt have money to refinance up his sleeve the judge will favor for lfc , they are not trying to stich hicks up here they are trying to search a pratical solution and his tactics have been purely to obstruct them. If he has no cash up his sleeve I am convinced no judge would favour on his side.

I dont think so redeg, The judge will decide either way so that situation could never arise. If hicks has the authority to do what he did according to the document he has the right to appoint directors after all he is the owner. So either we will have one board of yanks or we will have the LFC board most people think LFC board, the probleme( according to the website article is that broughtons accord may be not accepted as being definitive even if hicks signed it which he seems to think he didn't do. Would be great to be a lawyer you could argue this one for decades