| Soccer: Judge Rules Against Attempt to Bar Liverpool Sale New England Sports Ventures moved one crucial step closer Wednesday to taking over ownership of Liverpool Football Club. feeds.nytimes.com |
Fans have new heroes after court victory Martin Broughton's stock has rocketed in the eyes of the club's supporters after his victory against Tom Hicks and George GillettLiverpool is littered with heroes and this morning, a few minutes after 11 o'clock, their supporters greeted some more. As Martin Broughton, the club's chairman, stepped out of Court 18 of the Royal Courts of Justice, followed by his fellow directors Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre, and the trio's legal team, they were met by roars of approval from waiting men carrying Liverpool scarves and shirts emblazoned with Liverbirds. It was a curious sight but a wholly appropriate one given the momentous victory that had just been achieved.Unrelenting despair has come to characterise this once mighty football establishment but after events at the high court today, Kopites can truly start dreaming of better times to come. That is because after a case spreading over two days and taking in more than six hours of legal arguments, Mr Justice Floyd has ruled that Liverpool's current owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, can no longer continue with their attempts to block a sale of the club, most likely to New England Sport Ventures, owners of the Boston Red Sox, who had a £300m bid for the club accepted last week before Hicks and Gillett tried to derail the process by replacing Purslow and Ayre with two of their own cohorts.The case against Hicks and Gillett was not actually brought by Liverpool, but instead by the Royal Bank of Scotland, who are owed close to £235m by the Americans, the deadline for which expires this Friday. They deemed the actions of the pair as a breach of an agreement signed in April, which gave them the finances to extend their control at Anfield in exchange for an agreement that the Americans would allow Broughton, appointed by RBS, to see through a sale of the club within six months."Breathtaking arrogance" was how Richard Snowden QC, representing RBS, characterised the conduct of Hicks and Gillett in trying to block the sale of Liverpool to NESV. It was "as clear a breach of contract as you will ever see" he went on to say yesterday in a packed Court 16, where the case initially started. During the course of that day, a catalogue of counter evidence was heard which turned this already stupefying sporting saga into one of even greater drama and intrigue. Paul Girolami QC, representing Hicks and Gillett, admitted they had breached their sales agreement with RBS but claimed they only did so because Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, the other members of Liverpool's five-man board, had overlooked two other offers for the club, from the Singapore billionaire Peter Lim and Mill Financial, a US hedge fund which is understood to have assumed control of Gillett's stake in the club. Girolami accused the "English directors" of excluding Hicks and Gillett from the sales process and creating their very own sub-committee, which they were accused of referring to in emails as "the home team."This accusation, among many other put forward by Girolami, was dismissed not only by Snowden but also Lord Grabiner QC, the much-experienced, much-respected and, at times, amusing representative for Liverpool. He claimed the "home team" reference was simply the name of a conference call line the board used to speak to bidders and described Hicks and Gillett as "slippery" for attempting to adjourn a meeting to discuss the NESV offer by a week knowing full-well that the group, headed by John W Henry, wanted an answer to their proposal by last Friday.All this took the case into another day and into the smaller Court 18. "It's as packed as the Kop" remarked one observer pressed up against the wall as Justice Floyd summarised the case and prepared to give his verdict. It duly arrived at about 10.40am when the judge granted RBS a mandatory injunction against Hicks and Gillett, preventing them from again trying to restructure the club's board and meaning Purslow and Ayre were back on it. He also threw out an attempt by the Americans to have an interim injunction placed on the board as well as ruling that they should pay the court costs for both RBS and the Liverpool board. Lord Grabiner estimates those costs will be between £250,000 and £500,000.In a final kick for Hicks and Gillett, who took over at Liverpool in February 2007 with promises of building a new stadium and ploughing millions into the club before reneging on both of those promises, their QC was advised by Floyd that it would be "inappropriate" of them to appeal the ruling. They may, however, still decided to do so.What now? Well, Broughton will reconvene a board meeting for 8pm this meeting for which, he stated clearly afterwards, Hicks and Gillett, are "certainly invited". That meeting is likely to confirm the sale of the club to NESV and it is hoped that the sale, which will clear the club's £200m-plus debts, can go through before Friday's deadline with RBS.All this begins to lift the dark, spreading cloud that has hung over Liverpool for over a year now. It also means they are unlikely to go into administration - the heaviest cost should Hicks an Gillett have won - and, as such, avoid a potentially devastating nine point penalty, which would have seen them go into Sunday's Merseyside derby against Everton bottom of the league on minus three points.There is no great evidence to suggest that NESV will be any better for Liverpool than Hicks and Gillett were but they cannot be any worse. Little wonder then that the supporters who gathered inside and outside the High Court today were so relieved to hear that the owners could no longer block a sale of the club, which it was widely accepted they were only doing in order to minimise their own individual financial losses and not, as they argued in court, for the benefit of the club they have seen to ruin.Fighting their actions throughout have been Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, who up to today have all been treated with great suspicion by Liverpool supporters. No more, however. "We love you Martin, we do" they chanted as the trio departed down Fleet Street. It was that type of day.LiverpoolSachin Nakraniguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
No rush to hire Toronto FC's GM MLSE chief operating officer Tom Anselmi says there is no timetable in place to hire a new general manager for Toronto FC, and MLSE is negotiating with a consultant group to help conduct a search. cbc.ca |
FIFA Should Postpone World Cup Vote, Watchdog Says ZURICH (Reuters) - FIFA should postpone Thursday's vote to choose the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosts and allow an independent investigation into corruption allegations, watchdog body Transparency International (TI) said on Monday. feeds.nytimes.com |
Is hosting the World Cup really worth it? Three days before the 2018 World Cup vote, the English bid is starting to feel like complicity in the supreme authority's slavering pursuit of the game's astronomical wealthThe vision of a prime minister, a future king and England's most recognised footballer prostrating themselves before Fifa's pseudo-papal state was never going to be edifying. days before the 2018 World Cup vote, the English bid is starting to feel like complicity in the supreme authority's slavering pursuit of the game's astronomical wealth, both over and underneath the counter.Guilt by association is not a charge David Cameron, Prince William or David Beckham would answer to. They would say the prize exceeds any compromise they might have to make by playing politics in Zurich. But the reality is that all those on the catwalk in this parade are going along with the world governing body's refusal to reform. To see world leaders confer respectability on such a dubious private club is unendingly worrying.The allegations of influence-peddling outlined by Panorama, which follow a Sunday Times exposé into alleged vote-selling by Fifa executive committee members, have rendered Thursday's vote hollow, except that a verdict will be delivered anyway, and two bidders will fly away from the lakes counting the gains from being awarded the 2018 and 2022 tournaments.Sepp Blatter's dysfunctional "football family" will be left with a choice: become a transparent international parliament for the world's favourite game or continue to provide a means for opportunists to sell power to would-be tournament hosts and private companies.The modern Fifa is what happens when an administrative body mutates into a rampantly commercial animal. No longer mere custodians of the game, they become deal-makers inflating the price of television contracts and fostering a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately culture. Countries hoping to earn the ultimate honour of staging sport's biggest event after the Olympics are encouraged to engage in a beauty contest which is so constructed to allow favours to be swapped, inducements to be laid out and – if the Sunday Times was correct – individual executive committee members to profit at the ballot box.Don't let them vote, it only encourages them. Only a minor tweak of the old anarchist slogan is required to capture the feelings of many as the Zurich cabaret opens. In a more idealistic world the 2018 and 2022 votes would be postponed indefinitely, or all the bidders would assert their displeasure by withdrawing their applications, leaving the lawns of Fifa HQ as the only viable venue until corruption is faced. Temptation exists partly because Fifa is less busy than Uefa, the European equivalent, or the national associations who kneel at Blatter's throne. Fifa has fewer tournaments to organise and so less to bestow. When the chance comes round, World Cup staging is instantly ensnared with inter-confederation politics and the ambitions of less wealthy countries hunting a greater share of the booty.Many times the thought has arisen: are horsetrading and acquiescence a price worth paying for an event England have not won since 1966? Here, international football is an afterthought to the global proselytising of the Premier League. The mother country would have a hard time refuting the charge that the English just don't take the international game seriously, however giddy St George turns every couple of years.The stock defence will be that Panorama's allegations are "old". Much was already known about Fifa's relationship with the now defunct marketing firm International Sports and Leisure (ISL) from past revelations and a Swiss court case. The payouts by ISL at the time were not a criminal offence in Switzerland but the alleged scale ($100m) highlighted by Andrew Jennings and the BBC is undeniably shocking, even if Panorama succumbed to the usual silly cult of the presenter.Among those accused are the heads of African, Brazilian and South American football (Issa Hayatou, Ricardo Teixeira and Nicolás Léoz). Jack Warner, a major powerbroker and intended lunch partner for Cameron, has been wooed nonstop by England's bid leaders. Fabio Capello's team were even shipped out to Trinidad and Tobago for a game partly to please Warner, the Concacaf president, who faces fresh accusations that he "used his position to try to help touts obtain tickets for the 2010 World Cup". These allegations are being pinned not to minor functionaries but senior members of the politburo.The long reach of the Panorama material – 10 years and more – increases rather than diminishes its seriousness. It says long-term survival is possible at Fifa even after malpractice has been exposed. Casual observers will see the same old faces presenting themselves for another chance to play God.The four named by Panorama are in addition to the Exco members accused in the Sunday Times investigation, which means six of the 23 who were scheduled to vote on Thursday – two of whom have been suspended and will not take part – are the subject of suspicion. In its urge to bring a World Cup final to Wembley for the first time in 52 years, the English bid called Panorama's timing "unpatriotic" and talked of "our friends" on the committee. Realpolitik, they would call it. Desperation, others would say.FifaWorld Cup 2018World Cup 2022Football politicsPaul Haywardguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |