Jump to content

2 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Posted

On paper, it looks like a match made in football heaven: take Red China, with huge cash resources to invest overseas, add a dash of passion for English Premier League football in the world's most populated country, and form a union with Liverpool FC, aka the Reds, one of England's most successful football clubs but urgently in need of a financial bailout.

For those among the club's supporters who awoke yesterday to headlines that China was about to buy Liverpool – or, to be more specific, that China's largest sovereign wealth fund, the China Investment Corporation (CIC), was about to finance a takeover of the club – it seemed the marriage was on. And then it got complicated.

The CIC has assets of $332bn (£209bn) invested in projects around the world, from $5bn (£3.15bn) invested in Morgan Stanley to $3bn (£1.9bn) in the global asset-management group Blackstone to $100m (£63m) in the payments firm Visa.

Liverpool have been owned since February 2007 by two Americans, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who have recently found themselves in financial dire straits. The club, which owes the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) £237m and owes Hicks and Gillett £144m, desperately needs to find new owners.

Repayment to RBS is now a matter of urgency or the bank could foreclose. Hicks and Gillett have agreed to sell, and Liverpool's board is sifting through applicant bidders.

Which is where the CIC may enter the picture. One of Liverpool's potential owners is a Chinese entrepreneur called Jian-hua "Kenny" Huang, a 46-year-old former Wall Street trader who now dabbles in sports investment. He confirmed on Wednesday that he was interested in Liverpool but had yet to table a formal bid. And then word leaked out that his wealthy backer was actually the CIC, or so it was claimed.

It is easy to see why Liverpool could be a prize catch for a rich owner. The Premier League is the world's most popular domestic sports competition, screened live in more than 200 countries – and Liverpool is one of its most prized assets.

Liverpool have won 18 English leagues titles in its history, a tally that only Manchester United can match. They have been European Cup winners five times, and have a global following of millions.

They have recently signed a four-year £20m-per-season shirt sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered, a firm that does a lot of business in Asia. And if only they could find an owner to bankroll a new £400m, 60,000-seat stadium, they would stand a realistic chance of reviving their glorious domination of the 1970s and 1980s, on and off the pitch.

Now for the hitch. Mr Huang was rumoured yesterday to be preparing to deny any link to the CIC. In fact, he even drafted a statement to that effect, which he sent to media contacts within China.

The Independent obtained a copy and it contains the line: "Mr Huang would like to deny that there is any involvement of Mainland China state-owned enterprises in his business dealings."

But the statement has yet to be officially released, and Mr Huang's nominated spokespeople – the Hong Kong branch of the international PR firm Hill & Knowlton – are maintaining a consistent "No comment".

A spokesman for the CIC then went further, telling The Financial Times that the CIC "had never heard of a plan to buy Liverpool, or of Kenneth Huang".

It remains theoretically possible that Mr Huang and the CIC are engaged in some convoluted exercise in belated secrecy, although sources in Beijing insisted to The Independent yesterday that the CIC would "never dare contemplate such a risky investment" as Liverpool. The CIC is driven by profit and football is notoriously unprofitable.

So who else might be backing Mr Huang, and what are his credentials? Claims that he owns a share in a prominent American NBA basketball franchise are untrue. He does own a Chinese basketball team, however, and a small Hong Kong-based company, QSL, which has promotional rights to fledgling baseball and basketball competitions in China.

Huang also has some verifiably good connections within sport, having acted as a sponsorship broker for US sports teams and Chinese companies.

But whether he has the Community Party Politburo behind him, or some lesser funder instead, remains for now largely Chinese whispers.

LInk

What on earth do you make of this?

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted
What on earth do you make of this?
It makes me wonder: If a native of Liverpool relocated to Manchester, would it be known as a Liverpudlian transplant, si man?

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...