Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mihr Bose's view

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Mihr Bose's view

    Makes very interesting reading. Would love to get my hands on the project oslo documents!



    The Liverpool takeover by American tycoons George Gillett and Tom Hicks is an extraordinary story of a bride who changed her mind almost at the altar.

    The club seemingly pledged to the Arabs but suddenly, almost at the steps of the church she decided that, no, it was the Americans she wanted.

    Curiously, it was something the Arabs had said, or rather a document that they had produced, that made the bride change her mind.


    Liverpool are the third English side to come under American control

    The story is of course entirely in keeping with the Liverpool takeover which has been going on for three-and-a-half years - even on the day the wedding vows were to be exchanged there were problems and delays.

    This time the problem was IT.

    PDF files on e-mail just would not go from Liverpool to London which meant that a marriage meant to be announced at 0730 GMT finally emerged at just gone 1200, the clock ticking past before I could go on BBC News 24 and confirm the deal was done.

    The midday hour had struck and Liverpool had finally found its suitors.

    The story had always been complicated by the rich cast of foreigners who, during the last three years, have wanted to buy Liverpool.

    This was a list including the Thai Prime Minister who has since lost his job, a company ultimately owned by Sheikh Mohammed, the ruler of Dubai, and now two rich Americans - one of whom is a Texan who did business with George Bush.

    There were three failed takeover attempts in 2004 alone.

    So why was this takeover so complicated?

    One of the main reasons was David Moores, chairman of Liverpool. As owner of 51% of the club he effectively decided who the buyer would be.

    But I am told that during the three-and-a-half years he would sometimes want to sell the club and sometimes not.

    His mood swings varied according to how his team was doing on the field. If they had won he wanted to hold on to the club, hoping they would win the league title they have not claimed since 1990.


    However, by the end of November he seemed to have decided that Dubai International Capital was his ideal partner.

    Moores knew Liverpool needed more money, not least to fund the new stadium the club is committed to. He could not provide the money. He also felt that DIC - ultimately owned by the fabulously wealthy Maktoum family - had the sort of deep pockets that Chelsea's Roman Abramovich has.

    But George Gillett, the rich American who owns the Montreal ice hockey team, was not to be denied.

    He knew he could only do the deal if he could persuade Moores to change his mind.

    And as luck would have it DIC provided him the weapon. They had produced a document entitled Project Oslo, a seven-page document which dealt with their reasons for buying Liverpool.

    This clearly indicated that they saw Liverpool as an investment and explicitly stated that they wanted to develop the commercial business of the club. They expected to make a return on capital of around 25% a year.

    They wanted to sell the club after seven or eight years.

    I was given a copy of the document just around Christmas and the moment my story appeared it led to problems.

    The Liverpool board were not aware of the document and not pleased when they heard it had been circulated around the City.

    DIC were forced to provide an explanation. DIC said that this was an internal document that had ben produced just to look at the investment they were making. They were committed to Liverpool and had no plans to sell the club after a few years.

    The Liverpool board, too, tried to brush it aside. Chief executive Rick Parry told Radio Five Live that the sale to DIC was on course and Liverpool also engaged Mike Lee, a very successful press operator, to handle the news.


    But for all their denials behind the scenes, the story had a big impact on the Liverpool board and some of the directors who began to have doubts.

    Just before the story broke, on 18 December, Gillett had formed Kop, the company that has been set up to buy Liverpool.

    I ran my story, with the leaked documents, on 27 December. A few days after my story appeared, Gillett struck. He had gone back to America, rebuffed by Moores, but had not sulked.

    Instead he decided to look for a partner and found one in Tom Hicks, a sports owner even richer than himself. This meant he could come back to Liverpool with real means. It was now not one rich American, but two in tandem.

    In his new improved offer, Gillett offered more money. DIC was offering £4,500 a share, valuing the equity of Liverpool at £156.7m. Gillett and Hicks offered £500 a share more, valuing it at £174 million.

    They also promised no groundshare with Everton - vitally important for fans of both Merseyside clubs.

    Initially, Moores was inclined to ignore the offer but I am told there were other shareholders who wanted the offer to be looked at.

    By this time the exclusive negotiation period with DIC had ended and Gillett was allowed to start due diligence, examining the books of Liverpool, but even then it seemed Liverpool and Moores would wed the Arabs.

    Gillett wanted assurances that while he was doing due diligence Moores would not sign up with DIC, though the Liverpool chairman refused to give this assurance.

    Gillett started the due diligence not knowing whether it was worthwhile and all the briefings from Liverpool were that it was still the Arabs who would win the bride.

    But Gillett completed his due diligence in remarkably quick time, less than a week. He and Hicks flew over to England and started a series of meetings with Moores.

    The turning point came one night last week when Liverpool played West Ham at Upton Park. While they won on the field, in the boardroom the Arabs were losing to the Americans.

    Liverpool held a board meeting and when a DIC representative turned up and began to seek assurances he got none, or at least that is what DIC afterwards claimed.

    Liverpool said a gun had been held to them with Moores being asked to agree within 12 hours. But whatever the truth, relations had broken down. The bride, in sight of the church steps, had decided to turn around.

    By the end of the match the two Americans were almost ready to slip the wedding ring on.

    It took a few more days for the new wedding to be arranged and, as today's events showed, e-mails and PDF files caused problems, but in the end the Americans won.
    They've won the league, bigger stars than Dallas, they've got more silver than Buckhingham Palace, no one knows quite what to expect, when the Red Machine's in full effect!

    #2
    Originally posted by Hass View Post
    Would love to get my hands on the project oslo documents!
    You and me both mate. According to the above article it appears to have been the deciding factor in swinging it the way of Gillett and Hicks
    White liquid in a bottle = Milk

    Purslow = C*nt

    Comment


      #3
      If the intention of DIC was indeed true, we rather not have them. Very good article indeed

      Comment


        #4
        It's a good article and one that seems to answer a few questions. It would seem that DIC weren't the ones for us and I truely believe that we have the right owners in place now.
        Babel fanclub member # 4!!!

        **** OFF MOURINHO!!!!!!:whatever:

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by lfc_1892 View Post
          If the intention of DIC was indeed true, we rather not have them.
          Possibly. On the other hand you could argue that the fact that they had a business model in place and a clearly mapped out plan and objectives is a good thing and mean the club is more likely to achieve under their ownership.

          You'd really like to see the documents to judge. You dont know how the papers have taken the contents therein and spun them.
          White liquid in a bottle = Milk

          Purslow = C*nt

          Comment


            #6
            I really disliked that article, its like he's trying to make out that it was because of him the deal with DIC didn't go through. He keeps dropping it in as if to say 'look at me aren't i brilliant'

            It also irks me how he does the 'like a wedding' metaphore to death. It ends up like a very poor running gag.

            rubbish article
            https://www.needlesandgrooves.com/

            https://twitter.com/NeedlesNGrooves

            Comment


              #7
              interesting but seems the articles main purpose is to install the journalist as a big part of what happened over the past month or so
              !

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by captainfog View Post
                I really disliked that article, its like he's trying to make out that it was because of him the deal with DIC didn't go through. He keeps dropping it in as if to say 'look at me aren't i brilliant'

                It also irks me how he does the 'like a wedding' metaphore to death. It ends up like a very poor running gag.

                rubbish article
                Originally posted by sambirken View Post
                interesting but seems the articles main purpose is to install the journalist as a big part of what happened over the past month or so
                I agree. In fact, come to think of it, I pretty much said something along these lines when he first published the story about DIC. Of course much of it could be true but Bose always comes across as a self-serving spinner of his own myth.
                .
                Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



                May the Lord bless this post.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                  I agree. In fact, come to think of it, I pretty much said something along these lines when he first published the story about DIC. Of course much of it could be true but Bose always comes across as a self-serving spinner of his own myth.

                  It had always seemed to me that we were caught between the devil & the deep blue sea with time running out on us.
                  You can make your own opinion on who was the devil but imagine marketing Liverpool in the USA who could have been owned ultimately by Muslims & vice versa in Asia as we will now experience seeing that we are own by Americans.

                  The marketing in the far east wont be a problem or is there reason to doubt as I do not know of any cause to doubt it.
                  The americans will have to get on board a lucrative sponsor such as coca cola or Microsoft for marketing in Asia as laws in Asia prohibit alcohol advertising which had always restricted us due to our association with Carlsberg.
                  I just hope someone reminds the yanks to stay away from McDs & tell them about what had happened to the outlet they had at Anfield.

                  Looking forward to our association with the yanks over the next few years, particularily in the summer to see what they will bankroll for Rafa in the transfer market & to see what sponsorship deals they negotiate. Carlsberg will be dismissed as not that popular, "probably the the best lager in the world"?, Pah!
                  Nope, don't need anger management, you just need to stop pissing me off!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Angryred View Post
                    It had always seemed to me that we were caught between the devil & the deep blue sea with time running out on us.
                    You can make your own opinion on who was the devil but imagine marketing Liverpool in the USA who could have been owned ultimately by Muslims & vice versa in Asia as we will now experience seeing that we are own by Americans.

                    The marketing in the far east wont be a problem or is there reason to doubt as I do not know of any cause to doubt it.
                    The americans will have to get on board a lucrative sponsor such as coca cola or Microsoft for marketing in Asia as laws in Asia prohibit alcohol advertising which had always restricted us due to our association with Carlsberg.
                    I just hope someone reminds the yanks to stay away from McDs & tell them about what had happened to the outlet they had at Anfield.

                    Looking forward to our association with the yanks over the next few years, particularily in the summer to see what they will bankroll for Rafa in the transfer market & to see what sponsorship deals they negotiate. Carlsberg will be dismissed as not that popular, "probably the the best lager in the world"?, Pah!
                    I always loathed it being there but what did happen to the McDonalds outlet at Anfield?
                    .
                    Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



                    May the Lord bless this post.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                      I always loathed it being there but what did happen to the McDonalds outlet at Anfield?
                      I think it was boycotted quite few times & letters sent to Mr Parry telling him to get rid!
                      Also with it being boycotted, it wasn't making money so I think they got the message & pulled out which saved Parry from dirtying his hands.
                      Please correct me if I'm wrong!
                      Nope, don't need anger management, you just need to stop pissing me off!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                        I agree. In fact, come to think of it, I pretty much said something along these lines when he first published the story about DIC. Of course much of it could be true but Bose always comes across as a self-serving spinner of his own myth.
                        You don't like Bose do you Neil.

                        I'm not sure why he keeps banging on about pdfs and emails. I can't see what impact they had on procedings, if anything at all. Am I being thick?
                        Oh I don't know.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Angryred View Post
                          I think it was boycotted quite few times & letters sent to Mr Parry telling him to get rid!
                          Also with it being boycotted, it wasn't making money so I think they got the message & pulled out which saved Parry from dirtying his hands.
                          Please correct me if I'm wrong!
                          Cheers mate. I didn't know why it went. I thought maybe Parry and co got them in to set up the operation and then when 'we' had seen how it was run we kicked out McDonalds and opened up our own version.

                          I was very glad to see it had gone.
                          .
                          Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



                          May the Lord bless this post.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by dom9 View Post
                            You don't like Bose do you Neil.

                            I'm not sure why he keeps banging on about pdfs and emails. I can't see what impact they had on procedings, if anything at all. Am I being thick?
                            No, I don't like him. He seems an example of a journalist who thinks he is important. There are far too many like him IMO.

                            The pdfs and emails just make it seem like he's 'in the know'. Maybe he predicted the deal would be completed by a certain time and is covering his arse about why he was wrong.
                            .
                            Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



                            May the Lord bless this post.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Here's a copy of Bose's original article. I agree, he is somewhat self-satisfied smug and arrogant and horribly aware of his own importance. I've had a few minor dealings with him.

                              PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:04 am
                              Buyers plan to sell Liverpool in seven years
                              By Mihir Bose
                              Last Updated: 1:53am GMT 27/12/2006


                              Liverpool, who are being bought by an investment company effectively owned by the Dubai government, could be sold again in seven years' time, according to a confidential document seen by The Daily Telegraph.


                              The document also reveals that Dubai International Capital are planning to borrow up to £300 million to finance their £450m purchase of the club.

                              DIC see their investment in Liverpool as purely a business deal built round the new stadium Liverpool are planning at Stanley Park. When they sell in seven years' time they are hoping to make a huge profit, providing a return of around 25 per cent on their investment for every year of ownership. There appear to be no plans to invest in new players.

                              Furthermore, DIC will not be the sole owners of Liverpool, unlike Roman Abramovich at Chelsea, the Glazers at Manchester United and Randy Lerner at Aston Villa. Although their deal to buy Liverpool is not yet signed and sealed, they are already looking for other investors to join them in a partnership. I understand that 30 per cent of the 90 per cent stake DIC are bidding for is being offered to City investors.

                              The seven-page document, which outlines the investment rationale, has been circulated to major City investors to attract them to join the consortium.

                              DIC have said little about why they want to buy Liverpool, but with the company ultimately owned by the fabulously wealthy Al Maktoum family, who are the ruling family of Dubai, the purchase has been seen as Liverpool's equivalent of Abramovich arriving at Chelsea, the investor with deep pockets that all football clubs crave.

                              Indeed, that is the reason David Moores, the chairman of Liverpool, gave for choosing DIC over George Gillett, the American who owns the Montreal Canadiens ice hockey team and is very keen to buy Liverpool.

                              However, anyone reading the document can have no doubt that this is purely an investment decision. And with DIC seeking partners, there is also no knowing who else will be in the Liverpool boardroom.

                              The great investment opportunities that Liverpool provide, as DIC see it, are set out in a section entitled "The Opportunity". The document says: "Opportunities exist to boost returns by unlocking 'hidden' value. We believe there is potential for multiple arbitrage if real estate/leisure is developed on the current Anfield site. Such an investment would allow the Middle East region to leverage on a strong brand with an equally strong international fan base."

                              The document tells potential investors that over the next five years a return starting at 19.3 per cent could rise to 29 per cent in year five.

                              One of the most revealing insights is when the document talks of how the financing will be done. A whole page is devoted to it and shows that three banks – Bank of Ireland, RBS and Bank of America – have been approached, with Bank of America the favourite.

                              It is clear that the new stadium is at the heart of this deal. The budget for the stadium is £240m; Liverpool want a fixed-price contract like Wembley and want penalties of £950,000 per week if the contractor is late.

                              The DIC document notes that the stadium, which will seat 61,000, will cost less per seat than Arsenal's Emirates Stadium. The document also provides a wonderful insight into DIC's thinking but is very different from the fans' expectations about this purchase – and would have been very different from the purchase of the club by Gillett.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X