Dubai International to make bid for Liverpool FC

[MascheredUp]

Out of the two, I can see Gillett selling before Hicks.

Might not be a bad thing, as DIC would have one foot in the door.

[Alpha]

But is his 'right price' one anyone else is willing to pay?

Hicks appears to be a pariah at every level of the club.

He must recognise that his continued presence will eventually damage us to a point where the value of his investment will start to diminish and he ought to factor that into his 'right price'.

This latest Daily Post article doesn't tell us anything new which makes me think there is an agenda just to keep up the takeover momentum, particularly the day before matchday with more protests planned.

[Rashid]

EXCLUSIVE: Dubai's bid to divide Liverpool FC's owners

Feb 2 2008

DUBAI-BASED consortium DIC was last night set to join forces with Liverpool FC co-owner George Gillett in a bid to buy out his partner Tom Hicks.

Events could move forward within a matter of days, with figures close to the club anxious to see a rapid conclusion to what is seen as a damaging distraction at a crucial time in the season.

Relations between Gillett and Hicks are at an all time low, with Gillett remaining silent, but understood to be privately furious with his partner’s unsanctioned public statements over club affairs.

Gillett originally brokered the deal to buy Liverpool, but was forced to bring the significantly wealthier Hicks on board to be able to afford the buy-out.

Now, with the first anniversary of the takeover looming next week, relations have soured between the two men to such a degree that Gillett’s son Foster, who moved to Liverpool to represent the Americans and work alongside club chief executive Rick Parry, returned to the US 3½ weeks ago, and has not been seen at the club since.

The Daily Post understands that Foster Gillett and his wife have no plans to return to the city, despite having recently bought a £1m home in Woolton. The final twist of the knife for George Gillett came when Hicks went public last month with their approach in November to Jurgen Klinsmann as a possible replacement for beleaguered manager Rafael Benitez.

DIC (Dubai International Capital), led by Sameer Al Ansari whose £4,500 a share offer for Liverpool last year was trumped when Hicks helped Gillett to bankroll a successful £5,000 a share offer, are known to be keen to test the resolution of the Americans with a new offer.

Hicks has stated repeatedly that he has no intention of selling in the short term. It is believed he sees the potential to sell the club for well over £1bn in 2012, if the 70,000 seater stadium plan is delivered.

But Gillett is equally determined to hang on to his interest in the club, seeing the whole takeover as his deal, with Hicks merely providing the financial clout to make it happen.

With relations between the pair at such a low ebb, insiders doubt whether both of them can remain as co-owners. The Dubai proposal would allow Gillett to carry forward his plans, while allowing Hicks an exit-strategy with a healthy profit on his 12 months investment.

One source close to the negotiations told the Daily Post last night: “Discussions are still ongoing with DIC. They would be happy to take Hicks out and work with Gillett, or they would be happy to take both of them out.

“But DIC doesn’t want to pay Hicks a huge premium. The key is to get a deal done within days rather than weeks.

“All this has been a huge distraction at the club. Hicks insists on valuing the club at £1bn because he includes the valuation after the stadium is in place, yet it is not even built and doesn’t even have planning permission for the 70,000 seats.”

Hicks has matched Gillett’s £20m personal investment in the club following last week’s £350m refinancing deal, and is likely to be offered double that sum by the Dubai consortium to walk away.

No-one for DIC was available to comment last night while Mr Gillett’s office declined to discuss the matter.

Liverpool FC had no comment to make on the issue.

But a spokesman for Tom Hicks told the Daily Post he remained determined to stay at Liverpool FC.

He said: “As we have said previously and repeatedly, Liverpool Football Club is not for sale.

“Mr Hicks has been very clear in terms of the club not being for sale and that has not changed in any way, shape or form.”

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...4375-20427567/

I have been saying highlighted text for weeks but nothing seems to get sorted due to Hicks determination to sell at a high premium. If DIC walked away we would all be ****ed including Hicks.

[Neil Young]

To paraphrase Coriolanus, "what is the stadium but the fans?"

Signature architecture would be nice (although whether either design qualifies is open to debate) but it's an extra. Seating 70,000 plus supporters is what matters most.

[Skullflower]

To paraphrase Coriolanus, "what is the stadium but the fans?"

Signature architecture would be nice (although whether either design qualifies is open to debate) but it's an extra. Seating 70,000 plus supporters is what matters most.

i can't agree. the afl stadium would be an embarrasment. i'm well aware that the majority of the fans share your philosophy, that's why i'm worried that we'll end up with an inferior stadium. the personality of the stadium will have an effect on the team, we need something that makes us arrogant, not an ikea/mcdonalds pile o' ****.

[Neil Young]

How insecure are we that we care about what other people think of our stadium? Like I said, it would be nice but to be embarrassed...?

What's more 'embarrassing' - having a successful team playing in an average-looking stadium or an average team playing in a great-looking stadium?

(By the way, I don't get embarrassed about football but I used to so I think I know what you mean. Having been through it I reckon it's a totally unnecessary reaction - not that hearing that will make it any less keenly felt.)

[Skullflower]

How insecure are we that we care about what other people think of our stadium? Like I said, it would be nice but to be embarrassed...?

What's more 'embarrassing' - having a successful team playing in an average-looking stadium or an average team playing in a great-looking stadium?

(By the way, I don't get embarrassed about football but I used to so I think I know what you mean. Having been through it I reckon it's a totally unnecessary reaction - not that hearing that will make it any less keenly felt.)

just a figure of speech which seemed like the necessary adjective, i'm not some superfan who would actually be embarrassed. i'm saying that an amazing stadium will attract better players, and give a better mentality to the players who play in it. at some point, the foundations have to be laid to be the number 1 club imo and building a **** emirates is not gonna breed the causalities we all want.

[AFII]

Sheikh to try again
BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE Liverpool v Sunderland, today, Kick-off 5.15pm
By David Maddock 02/02/2008

Sheikh Mohammed is ready to test the partnership between the joint owners of Liverpool by making a formal offer for the club.

The billionaire's investment company DIC has been studying closely the terms of a restructuring deal at Anfield that Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett announced last week.

And now the investment arm of the Dubai government is primed to approach the pair with a fresh offer that will value the club in the region of £300million.

DIC's hopes of buying the club they first bid for a year ago seem to rest on exploitation of the uneasy relationship between the two US tycoons.

Hicks has taken the lead in recent weeks by announcing a refinancing deal with the banks that secures his grip on the club - and he also unveiled £300million plans for a new state-of-the-art stadium.

Gillett, who has the option of selling his 50 per cent stake, has remained conspicuously silent during that fanfare - and his position is the key to success for the increasingly confident Sheikh.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...9520-20306414/

[AFII]

I do not understand business at this level so I have a question I need answering if you could please?

Even though Hicks has first option on Gillett's shares, if GG were to receive an offer for his shares from a third party doesn't this only mean that Hicks has to match the bid, it can't give him veto power to prevent a higher bid going through can it?

That's correct. The problem is that DIC can't buy us for a fantasy price because it would hurt them in future business deals, so Hicks would have no problem to match that price.

[red g]

just a thought, could gillet sell to dic, which would then be a statement of intent from the dics.....i am sure the crowds would be vociferous in there hatred of hicks if we knew they were defo in!! and the dics have a hell of a lot more power than gillett

We could then force hicks out and gillett could have his half

[red g]

That's correct. The problem is that DIC can't buy us for a fantasy price because it would hurt them in future business deals, so Hicks would have no problem to match that price.

thats not quite right, because the quoted price doesnt neccesarily have to be the bought price, there are lots of ways that if they did overpay to hide the fact that they are doing this.

[Oberon]

That's correct. The problem is that DIC can't buy us for a fantasy price because it would hurt them in future business deals, so Hicks would have no problem to match that price.

Right, I get that.

But isn't Hicks not exactly cash rich and might struggle to raise all the money required to complete the buy out? which then leaves the door open for the third party.

[AFII]

Right, I get that.

But isn't Hicks not exactly cash rich and might struggle to raise all the money required to complete the buy out? which then leaves the door open for the third party.

Who knows? I said that I'm rubbish at the economic bit.

[Jayesh87]

So if DIC helped Gillett buy Hicks 50%, how would that work??

[Morten_nogamst_Pedersen]

So if DIC helped Gillett buy Hicks 50%, how would that work??

Gillett would own the club