DIC have pulled out

[Pacman]

****ed them over? Why would they do that?

Moores accepted DIC's bid when they 1st came in and rejected the Yank. Now the Yank has offered more money and Moores is playing them against each other.

He's not selling a 2nd hand car for ****s sake. 80mil is more money than anyone can spend why haggle over 8mil the future of a club that means so much to millons of people is at stake.

The DIC deal was described as the deal of the decade and Moores ****ed it up by being an amateur business man.

[Red Chilli]

That's not the first time in recent history that that has been said. Will they ever learn?

The DIC rep doesn't do himself or the company he represents any favours by acting like a petulent child making statements like this.

If I was on the board I would sue those ****ers for slander.

[Dhav]

It's not Dhavlos, Moores has a duty in law to act in the best interests of the shareholders. It would be dishonourable and potentially illegal to not consider Gillett's bid.
He may have preferred DIC which is why he agreed in principle to deal with them for his shares, but he had a duty to act in the best interests of the rest of the shareholders.

Unfortunately this is the problem you have when you are a public company, you have these stringent rules in place to protect public shareholders. We laughed at the Mancs when they got bitten because of it, now it's happened to us it's not so nice.

At the end of the day, the board has to consider all options, but it is up to them to recommend to the shareholders which they consider to be the preferable offer.

It seems the board has not been clear to DIC at any stage since Gillette came in with the increased bid and this seems to be the bone of contention.

[Pedenj]

Been told my a mate that this 6 month rule doesn't apply in this case, due to the fact that DIC were only ever classified as a 'potential offeror', and no official bid was ever placed on the table.

So there may be a way back in, I doubt it very much. But never rule out the U-turn.

[AFII]

The DIC rep doesn't do himself or the company he represents any favours by acting like a petulent child making statements like this.

If I was on the board I would sue those ****ers for slander.

DIC is a very big business company. Their reputation is worth a lot of money. We probably tried to do a Simao with DIC and they did what we did, walked away.

[Red Chilli]

Moores accepted DIC's bid when they 1st came in and rejected the Yank. Now the Yank has offered more money and Moores is playing them against each other.

He's not selling a 2nd hand car for ****s sake. 80mil is more money than anyone can spend why haggle over 8mil the future of a club that means so much to millons of people is at stake.

The DIC deal was described as the deal of the decade and Moores ****ed it up by being an amateur business man.

I don't know where you are getting the information from in your inital paragraph.
Moores agreed to deal with them "in principle" says to me he waned to sell his shares to them. But in practice he has a duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders and to ignore a rival bid which is better is 1)Amateurish 2)Illegal and 3)Potentially jeopardises a deal with DIC.

What you have to remember is we are a PLC and we are subject to certain laws in the way we conduct takeovers.

[AFII]

Been told my a mate that this 6 month rule doesn't apply in this case, due to the fact that DIC were only ever classified as a 'potential offeror', and no official bid was ever placed on the table.

So there may be a way back in, I doubt it very much. But never rule out the U-turn.

I will never rule out a u-turn after the Stevie G u-turn.

[Dhav]

The DIC rep doesn't do himself or the company he represents any favours by acting like a petulent child making statements like this.

If I was on the board I would sue those ****ers for slander.

Who are you more likely to believe has acted amateurish though? Our board over this fiasco or the DIC rep for making this statement.

If the board sued for slander, I'd be willing to bet DIC would have a very good defence - namely that their statement was true.

[Red Chilli]

DIC is a very big business company. Their reputation is worth a lot of money. We probably tried to do a Simao with DIC and they did what we did, walked away.

Oh come on. That's total rumour and specuation with no foundation whatsoever.
You sound like a tabloid journalist with an agenda against our board.

[tomasjj]

[QUOTE=exmouth red;268686]The Daily Post understands the investment arm of the Dubai government abandoned its £450m bid over a squabble sparked by LFC's demands for just an extra £8m.
It is believed DIC, owned by Sheikh Mohammed, felt club chair- man David Moores was playing the two competing sides off against each other and behaved "dishonourably".QUOTE]

Now if this is true THEN I will be mad.

[redlancer]

Moores and Parry look amateur because they had basically accepted the DIC deal and Gillet came along at the last minute with a revised offer.

I think they've acted professionally by considering the offer, but insisting it should be done quickly.

It would have amateur, if not totally unprofessional, NOT to consider Gillets bid.

well said

it happens in all walk off life, until the documents are sealed you look at all options.

these are top buisness men and it will be even more so for them

this isn't selling your house to the highest bidder, there's a bigger package and a legacy to leave.

If DIC had the best bid for the club and everything was 100% about it, 8M more isn't going to overturn it and they could just say that's our bid take it or leave and point out the benifts of them taking us over, not publically do a runner.

they seem to be scoring points here, along with thier dying love for the club

Of course Moores and Parry are going to big them up, but say 7 years down the line they sell us they could go well didn't expect that.

IMO somethings happened or come to light and its not 8M

Gillett if he had a worse long term offer would have had to offer more then 8M more IMO

[Red Chilli]

Who are you more likely to believe has acted amateurish though? Our board over this fiasco or the DIC rep for making this statement.

If the board sued for slander, I'd be willing to bet DIC would have a very good defence - namely that their statement was true.

Whether it's true or not the burden of proof is with DIC. THey have to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt to a court of law that the board acted amateurishly.
Very difficult to do and they'd probably settle out of court.

[tomasjj]

Been told my a mate that this 6 month rule doesn't apply in this case, due to the fact that DIC were only ever classified as a 'potential offeror', and no official bid was ever placed on the table.

So there may be a way back in, I doubt it very much. But never rule out the U-turn.

Well, that is nice.
The door is not closed for 6 months, giving a sole Gillett the upper hand.

[desertscouser]

[QUOTE=tomasjj;268721]

The Daily Post understands the investment arm of the Dubai government abandoned its £450m bid over a squabble sparked by LFC's demands for just an extra £8m.
It is believed DIC, owned by Sheikh Mohammed, felt club chair- man David Moores was playing the two competing sides off against each other and behaved "dishonourably".QUOTE]

Now if this is true THEN I will be mad.

It could potentially push me over the edge. Actually, I went off the dge at about 1 am last night

[Pacman]

I don't know where you are getting the information from in your inital paragraph.
Moores agreed to deal with them "in principle" says to me he waned to sell his shares to them. But in practice he has a duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders and to ignore a rival bid which is better is 1)Amateurish 2)Illegal and 3)Potentially jeopardises a deal with DIC.

What you have to remember is we are a PLC and we are subject to certain laws in the way we conduct takeovers.

If what your telling me is true then why not say this to DIC? Why not tell them we have to look at the deal it's a legal requiement? What all the cloak and dagger stuff? Why not be straight with them from the start?

It's bollocks we were days away from being owned by the 5th richest man in the world and now we are going to be owned by someone who has got about as much financial clout as Morgan. I don't want LFC to be a rich mans playing thing but at the same time I want us to be able to compete. It seems that Gillet doesn't have the financial muscle we need.