SOS avslører Barcap-dokument

Det originale dokumentet var ikke innen unionens rekkevidde, men en nøyaktig kopi har blitt laget. Spirit of Shankly har fokusert på følgende punkter.

* Up until at least the beginning of August, if Barcap were indeed serious about seeking a buyer they had also been seeking to re-finance the debt. So much so that they refer to approaching around 25 potential investors.

* The Executive Directors (Broughton, Purslow and Ayre) sought advice from Slaughter and May (a large international legal practice) concerning whether re-financing by RBS should be approved in light of their fiduciary responsibilities. Their duties as Directors are to act in the interests of the club. The club in this instance is Hicks and Gillett. Their appears to be legal argument about how they can act in the best interests of the club and therefore the shareholders, considering the circumstances.

* On the basis of Slaughter and May's advice, BarCap subsequently made an amended re-financing proposal. It is not clear from this document whether that amendment was sufficient for Slaughter and May to have since indicated that the changes were sufficient to allay the Executive Directors' reservations. 

* The firms identified as being willing to be involved in re-financing the Club’s debt are identified as FBR, Beach Point, Halcyon, Blackrock, DK Partners, Stonetower, Trimaran, DE Shaw, Avenue, Centrebridge and GSO.

* In the period July to August the Club’s debt was increased in the following sums:
15/07/2010 Ticking Fee: £5.0m
15/08/2010 Ticking Fee: £7.5m
31/08/2010 Ticking Fee: £7.5m
PIK Increase (Aug): £0.8m
Total: £20.8m 

* The sum currently required to re-finance the Club is £300m. However, this can be reduced to £187.5m through using the proceeds of a £75m loan to the holding company in Delaware and by rolling £37.5m into the proposed loan for the new stadium. This plan for securing debt against the as yet unbuilt stadium, means should the stadium finally come to fruition, revenue it generates would contribute towards the ownership debt as opposed to its construction.

* FBR propose to lend £75m to Kop Delaware. Delaware is a "deregulated" haven in the USA, along the same lines as Cayman. As such, it would not be unreasonable to think that a similar mechanism to the Kop Cayman loan could take place in due course, i.e. Kop Delaware could "lend" this money to LFC. (FBR is a top ten rated US investment bank)

Spørsmålene som da dukker opp er blant annet:

* Why did Martin Broughton say the club would be sold "before the end of the transfer season" when BarCap were proposing re-financing "solutions" until at least the end of July?

* Did the changes proposed by BarCap , in line with Slaughter & May's advice, sufficiently address the Executive Directors' questions regarding their fiduciary responsibilities, and as a result prevent them from using this argument to continue to stop re-financing?

* In light of the apparent position that the Executive Directors appear to have powers vested in them by means of conditions attached to the RBS debt, what would the position of the Executive Directors be if either or both of the owners could raise sufficient to debt to repay RBS?

* Could they refuse to allow RBS to be repaid? Would RBS accept payment with the result of removing the current powers apparently held by the Executive Directors?

* So, the major question to be answered is are Barcap currently engaged with any prospective buyers or is it pursuing a re-financing or both?

Kilde: spiritofshankly.com