Because that's what they agreed to do! hence why they lost the court case after renaging on the agreement.

Its simple really Broughton was given the job to sell the club.

There seemed to be a few whoppers outside the high court today.

Some massive one's outside yesterday. You must have been cringing.

How can you force the owners to sell though??

I'm going to offer the morgage company a fiver for the blokes house across the road because he's fallen behind on his repayments. Hopefully the courts will agree with me

£1.6 billion in damages

I've said it once, I'll say it again, but this time slowly and loudly.

BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY AGREED WHEN THEY GOT REFINANCE IN APRIL WITH RBS.

They wouldn't have got the refinance in April without that agreement.

It only needed a majority vote of the 5 board members to sell the club, they voted 3 - 2 to sell the club to NESV. Well, it would have been 3 - 2 if the yanks hadn't thrown their dummy out and sacked two of the board members, which the agreement and the courts said they couldn't, so the three board members at Liverpool, voted presumably 3 - 0.

What is so hard to understand about that.

These two really are cowboys along with another one called Jim Jordan.

accused RBS of a "grand conspiracy"

Think RBS might want to see you back in court to sue you twits over that claim.

I think name calling is the least of Liverpools problems

www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog ... rdict-live Long may this continue

www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog ... rdict-live Long may this continue

Its isn't our problem it will be theirs after RBS sue them.

The whole thing is a joke US judge can do naff all over here unlucky Jim.

[urlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39284612/Liverpool-TRO[/url

After reading through the whole thing its a massive stall tactic.

Even trying to say RBS cannot call in the debt on the 15th - a US judge in Texas trying to tell a major bank what to do.

Nice to have you back keith.

Sounds like this is gunna go on, and on, and on.

And to think this could be United in 2017.

They need to work out the TRO and where it stands, they were getting ready to announce the sale when the TRO was sent the whole thing is unreal can't wait for the day they are 6 feet under.

Hicks is like a turd that you can't flush.

This is just another delaying tactic, nothing more.

It is but its a delaying and threatening tactic to make sure the offer they get for the club is the highest bid, thats all they want its turned into a very very messing situation.

Convenient that the court date in the US is set for the 25th, ten days after the RBS deadline.

It's an absolute shambles.

Fit and proper? You're having a laugh.

G&H QC, Paul Girolami, dismisses Friday's deadline and says that instead the owners and RBS are "locked into an agreement" until 1 November.

The response was

QC for RBS says bank has been willing to wave "tens of millions of pounds in fees" to see a sale go through. Also dismisses G&H claim that there is no actual 15 October deadline with the Bank as part of their "game".

My heads gone

Can only hope the TRO gets removed asap

Will Gillet and Hicks ever stop? They seem intent on making life difficult. I'm guessing there is zero chance their attempt at suing is succesful.

The way its being reported today is that the US court has no jurisdiction in the UK but that neither RBS or Henry would just ignore the threat of being found in contempt of a US court.

The judge has amended the TRO so it reads, based "solely" on allegations, therefore on everything that Hicks has said. Hicks's lawyer would have prepared this lawsuit, the judge has read it and added solely (to cover his back I would imagine)

Secondly, the judge has crossed out "Taking any action in any other court to effect or impede this lawsuit".

I get the impression, a favour has been called, the judge has signed it but added his own caveats to protect himself, but as soon as the big wigs from RBS, Liverpool et al get to work, it will be soon overturned. I doubt the judge would have been aware of the court case yesterday, it wouldn't surprise me if Hicks or his lawyer forgot to mention it.

I don't think this will end up anymore than a slight annoyance to Liverpool in the grand scheme of things. For a start we don't even know what Hicks had told the court about the current court case, it's all a bit desperate really.

The owners gave up their rights to RBS when they re-financed and Martin Broughton had the deciding vote hence the court siding with Liverpool. I don't think this delaying tactic will last too long before it's thrown out.

A kopites status:

"Get in there! F-O Hicks & Gillett, watch out Bluenoses Sunday, we're back!!"



okayyyyyyyy!!!