Dubai International to make bid for Liverpool FC

[Pacman]

A lad on another site has just said it's been on Radio 5 Live that it's all a load of bollocks and the yanks aren't going anywhere.

[Pacman]

Radio Merseyside now reporting that H&G are categorically denying that they are planning/interested in selling all or part of LFC to DIC or any other other party.

The lady doth protest too much?

****ers, ****ers, ****ers, ****ers.

Why can't they just **** off.

[Neil Young]

The lady doth protest too much?

Could be, could be.








But, let's face it, it isn't.

[Chris]

Radio Merseyside now reporting that H&G are categorically denying that they are planning/interested in selling all or part of LFC to DIC or any other other party.

The lady doth protest too much?

And they're going to build the best stadium ever, and they wont be putting debt on the club, and the finance deal will be complete about 3 months ago.

I dont trust a word either say, good or bad.

[copper]

I have no inside knowledge, but I wouldn't get too concerned about the contradictory reports right now. I think that a lot of positioning is being conducted through the press right now. If there is a division in the club, and it seems pretty clear that there is one, I think that explains the contradictory nature of the articles. Journalists base their articles on the most recent briefing they received, whatever camp it may be from.

And I'm not at all surprised to read the Reuters article especially. Hicks had to respond to the article in the Echo somehow. Divisions in the club mean that no response will come from the club. So instead here is a vague assurance about the financing will be completed sometime in February. That is Hicks' response.

I have no doubt that there is plenty of politics happening behind the scenes. And that only a portion of it is being conducted in the press.

[Manofthebog]

don't knock it, it sells papers - tomorrow will be an exclusive saying DIC ain't coming.

[jayjay]

A snippet from Threadneedle street..

As I have said on here before a few times, before the takeover was completed DM was relentless on his insistence any takeover came with a guarantee that no debt taken on for the purpose of the takeover would be loaded onto the club. Well the same source has now confirmed that an "insurance policy" against this happening was indeed included in the terms of the initial financing of the deal... He doesn’t have the exact details but word has it (on the street) that as part of the terms agreed with RBS on the original loan Moore’s and Parry or at least one of them would ?? have to sign off on any refinancing deal in the future, as long as they remained on the board... (I would love to be able to elaborate on this because I’m sure it would have been very difficult to get the yanks and RBS to agree, but I just don’t know the specifics)

He also said DIC would only go public on a bid if they were going to fully back the bid ensuring they didn’t get shafted twice (I’m surprised they have even come back to be honest). Apparently all the recent rumblings kicked off over the news Hicks wanted to package a number of his sports investments for an initial public offering on the open market. I did ask my business contact to elaborate on this but to date he hasn’t. This contact is quite important to me and my business so unfortunately I’m not in a position to pester him, so it’s a matter of me taking what I can get, in terms of info.

I also know that DIC have very strong business dealings with RBS (possibly public knowledge) and I can only assume if they had to pick sides, which they may end up having to, I would bet they side with DIC. (This part is purely speculation on my behalf)

I can’t say any of this is surprising as I wasn’t the only one posting about the insistence on Moore’s part about not having the debt from any takeover costs loaded onto the club but like I said I just can’t fathom how this “insurance policy” was brokered and agreed upon. Maybe DM & RP are more competent than they get credit for on here, which is what my business contact is implying. Anyway that’s all I’m likely to find out for a while and apologies if any of this has already been discussed on here but I don’t the time to read all of the postings on the subject.

PS can anyone tell me what Tom has said that ties in with today’s DIC news?

[Tom]

I have no inside knowledge, but I wouldn't get too concerned about the contradictory reports right now. I think that a lot of positioning is being conducted through the press right now. If there is a division in the club, and it seems pretty clear that there is one, I think that explains the contradictory nature of the articles. Journalists base their articles on the most recent briefing they received, whatever camp it may be from.

And I'm not at all surprised to read the Reuters article especially. Hicks had to respond to the article in the Echo somehow. Divisions in the club mean that no response will come from the club. So instead here is a vague assurance about the financing will be completed sometime in February. That is Hicks' response.

I have no doubt that there is plenty of politics happening behind the scenes. And that only a portion of it is being conducted in the press.

Spot on.

[JohnDoe]

It seems like every day there's some drama going on and new things are reported.

What's going to be reported tomorrow?

Hicks: "I admit I went out with a tranny once. I couldn't tell the difference"

[RedWolverine]

A snippet from Threadneedle street..

As I have said on here before a few times, before the takeover was completed DM was relentless on his insistence any takeover came with a guarantee that no debt taken on for the purpose of the takeover would be loaded onto the club. Well the same source has now confirmed that an "insurance policy" against this happening was indeed included in the terms of the initial financing of the deal... He doesn’t have the exact details but word has it (on the street) that as part of the terms agreed with RBS on the original loan Moore’s and Parry or at least one of them would ?? have to sign off on any refinancing deal in the future, as long as they remained on the board... (I would love to be able to elaborate on this because I’m sure it would have been very difficult to get the yanks and RBS to agree, but I just don’t know the specifics)

He also said DIC would only go public on a bid if they were going to fully back the bid ensuring they didn’t get shafted twice (I’m surprised they have even come back to be honest). Apparently all the recent rumblings kicked off over the news Hicks wanted to package a number of his sports investments for an initial public offering on the open market. I did ask my business contact to elaborate on this but to date he hasn’t. This contact is quite important to me and my business so unfortunately I’m not in a position to pester him, so it’s a matter of me taking what I can get, in terms of info.

I also know that DIC have very strong business dealings with RBS (possibly public knowledge) and I can only assume if they had to pick sides, which they may end up having to, I would bet they side with DIC. (This part is purely speculation on my behalf)

I can’t say any of this is surprising as I wasn’t the only one posting about the insistence on Moore’s part about not having the debt from any takeover costs loaded onto the club but like I said I just can’t fathom how this “insurance policy” was brokered and agreed upon. Maybe DM & RP are more competent than they get credit for on here, which is what my business contact is implying. Anyway that’s all I’m likely to find out for a while and apologies if any of this has already been discussed on here but I don’t the time to read all of the postings on the subject.

PS can anyone tell me what Tom has said that ties in with today’s DIC news?

Thanks for the info

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

Radio Merseyside now reporting that H&G are categorically denying that they are planning/interested in selling all or part of LFC to DIC or any other other party.

The lady doth protest too much?

Speculating here - yes I know **** off Dhavlos - but maybe they're trying to get the best possible price?

What makes more sense, if they said: "Our refinancing deal is on the ropes (****ed), come on DICkie make us an offer".

By the way are we going to have a thread on this everyday? It's a bit tedious really.

[Tom]

A snippet from Threadneedle street..

As I have said on here before a few times, before the takeover was completed DM was relentless on his insistence any takeover came with a guarantee that no debt taken on for the purpose of the takeover would be loaded onto the club. Well the same source has now confirmed that an "insurance policy" against this happening was indeed included in the terms of the initial financing of the deal... He doesn’t have the exact details but word has it (on the street) that as part of the terms agreed with RBS on the original loan Moore’s and Parry or at least one of them would ?? have to sign off on any refinancing deal in the future, as long as they remained on the board... (I would love to be able to elaborate on this because I’m sure it would have been very difficult to get the yanks and RBS to agree, but I just don’t know the specifics)

He also said DIC would only go public on a bid if they were going to fully back the bid ensuring they didn’t get shafted twice (I’m surprised they have even come back to be honest). Apparently all the recent rumblings kicked off over the news Hicks wanted to package a number of his sports investments for an initial public offering on the open market. I did ask my business contact to elaborate on this but to date he hasn’t. This contact is quite important to me and my business so unfortunately I’m not in a position to pester him, so it’s a matter of me taking what I can get, in terms of info.

I also know that DIC have very strong business dealings with RBS (possibly public knowledge) and I can only assume if they had to pick sides, which they may end up having to, I would bet they side with DIC. (This part is purely speculation on my behalf)

I can’t say any of this is surprising as I wasn’t the only one posting about the insistence on Moore’s part about not having the debt from any takeover costs loaded onto the club but like I said I just can’t fathom how this “insurance policy” was brokered and agreed upon. Maybe DM & RP are more competent than they get credit for on here, which is what my business contact is implying. Anyway that’s all I’m likely to find out for a while and apologies if any of this has already been discussed on here but I don’t the time to read all of the postings on the subject.

PS can anyone tell me what Tom has said that ties in with today’s DIC news?

When the stories about DIC wanting to buy a % of the club and then pulling out due to quoted price broke last week, I said this was in fact not true and that negotiations were continuing and parties on both sides were serious. My source on this was an ex-liverpool fc finance officer.

[Morten_nogamst_Pedersen]

When the stories about DIC wanting to buy a % of the club and then pulling out due to quoted price broke last week, I said this was in fact not true and that negotiations were continuing and parties on both sides were serious. My source on this was an ex-liverpool fc finance officer.

Where's all the doom and gloom gone Tom?
Youre giving alot of ppl on here alot of hope now

[Tom]

In my opinion, for what it's worth, since the cock-up of selling to the wank's Moore's and Parry have played a blinder recently.

[Tom]

Where's all the doom and gloom gone Tom?
Youre giving alot of ppl on here alot of hope now

I am merely a channel for information.