UPDATE: Since posting earlier today The Echo has revealed that he has defaulted on a loan
Here is the full story
Before the news broke out on Tuesday evening that Hicks and him tried to block the sale by sacking Purslow and Ayre there was a rumour going around that Gillett had sold his shares to a third party. This rumour seemed to be dismissed when joint statement issued by Hicks and Gillett later that evening however since then it has been Tom Hicks’ name that keeps being mentioned by everyone.
We know how H&G tried to replace Purslow and Ayre with Hicks’ son Mack and Lori Kay McCutcheon (the VP of Hicks Holdings). So why would Hicks get to pick two members of the board? Shouldn’t Gillett get one of his people in too? They are partners at 50-50 right? Are they really?
Some argued that George Gillett has simply given up and didn’t want to fight anymore and just wanted out. Well that might be true however there is a lot of money involved and I am sure he wants to protect his interests more than anything.
Something seems fishy here and I can’t make it up. I don’t understand why there were two people from the Hicks’ camp and none from Gillett. I hope they didn’t find a loophole somewhere that would enable them to win the court battle next week.
Keep Calm and Carra on.
Y.N.W.A.
-Antoine
On Twitter @empireofthekop
Gillett defaulted and his 50% is now transferred to Mill House.
I believe Gillett defaulted on another loan and his LFC shareholding was the collateral. This is now owned by the third party (forget the name) and I also understand that the legal challenge to the LFC Board decision to sell the club to NESV is a joint one by both Hicks and this third party.
The reason there were two Hicks representatives put forward to replace Ayres and Purslow was because of this developing situation.
Broughton as well as RBS have written documentation of Hicks agreeing that solely Broughton has the right to change the board. He is fucked.
Have seen the AOA today and I am afraid that isnt the case. Unless Broughton has a seperate document that is.
quote
However, nowhere in the AoA is it explicitly stated that this is an exclusive or sole power, or that it supercedes Hicks and Gillett’s power (as majority shareholders) to remove members of the board.
I doubt Broughton would be so stupid as to say he had it in writing if he didn’t.
am hearing snipets that hick’s lawyers are about to pull plug on him no facts yet guys will inform if hear anymore concrete
I have seen the article where it states only the chairman can change the board members so Hicks could not bring his son and servent in the board without chair signing that request.
I understand when all this went on, there were liverpool solicitors present so bearing in mind that Broughton is an expert in this sort business, i doubt it very much he did all that knowing he will lose in court. ofcourse he is a little bit cautious in public as you never can be 100 percent sure.
so even if Gillette sold his share ot third party, i think the case is same.
finally if Hicks won the court case, then he has less than few days to bring 300 million to the table, i see that unlikely and it would means that he would dig himself in deeper hole, something that i cant see happening