Dubai International to make bid for Liverpool FC

[CAD]

Can't see how Kraft would be any different to Hicks - he is not cash rich and no more flush than Hicks, so it would have to be a leveraged buyout again. Frying pan/fire?

I don't think it's about liquidity. Whomever ends up with their hands on LFC will put the club in heavy debt. Simply because it's good business.

[MattB]

I don't think it's about liquidity. Whomever ends up with their hands on LFC will put the club in heavy debt. Simply because it's good business.

True, but there is a difference between debt to buy the club and build a stadium, and just debt to build the stadium.

Which is why I am no more convinced by DIC/Kraft than any other investor. Share Liverpool FC could be the ideal solution for me, because it is the only one based on a cash purchase.

Remains to be seen if it is a realistic option of course, but it's a nice dream

[red g]

I can't say that I know it's a fact. But it's standard procedure. I would be very surprised if they didn't have options on each other. They are 50/50 partners. I am 99,7635% sure they have an option to buy if one of them wants to sell. Still, they would have to meet any bids per share and it could get pricey.

its not standard procedure, its up to the partners involved and i imagine at a bigger company i would have thought the board would have a say in where the shares went. I have 2 companies with different share rights on both one company has 3 partners and a board of non-execs ....if any of us sell it HAS to be sanctioned by the non-execs.

[j333nky]

Sorry if there is an obvious answer to this question, or if has been answered elsewhere in the thread, but does Hicks have first option on Gillett's shares?

[MattB]

Sorry if there is an obvious answer to this question, or if has been answered elsewhere in the thread, but does Hicks have first option on Gillett's shares?

If rumours are to be believed, yes

[CAD]

its not standard procedure, its up to the partners involved and i imagine at a bigger company i would have thought the board would have a say in where the shares went. I have 2 companies with different share rights on both one company has 3 partners and a board of non-execs ....if any of us sell it HAS to be sanctioned by the non-execs.

I think in a 50/50 scenario in a privately held company like LFC you would almost always have that option included. I seriously doubt that they would want Moores and Parry to have any influence over when and where and to whom they sell their shares. I think that both of them would like to have the option to buy the respective shares if they can meet the requested value.

[red g]

I think in a 50/50 scenario in a privately held company like LFC you would almost always have that option included. I seriously doubt that they would want Moores and Parry to have any influence over when and where and to whom they sell their shares. I think that both of them would like to have the option to buy the respective shares if they can meet the requested value.

not sure mate, i would have thought the board would have to sanction any deal, but **** knows!!

[MrMichael]

Might I suggest some rules as follows-
1-We are all entitled to our opinion-
2-We are all entitled to express that opinion-
3-we are all entitled to express our opinion without receiving abuse from others who do not agree with it.
4-We are not entitled to make endless repeated posts saying essentially the same thing. When you have expressed an opinion leave it there.
5-Anyone posting inside information should be respected unless you have some cast iron evidence the info is false.
6-if you don't like other posters opinions-TOUGH. Get over it. WHY ARE YOU READING AN INTERNET FORUM? It will be full of opinions you won't like.
7-IMO posters dishing out repeated and persistent abuse and posters who say the same thing over and over should be suspended for -say-24 hours.If they persist with the same behaviour they should be permanently banned. This will considerable reduce the level of nastiness and bollocks on the site

A new set of basic rules to encourage slightly more responsible posting in this forum is something we've been looking at anyway, and several other people have also made some suggestions that pretty much amount to what you've put there. Getting that sorted is pretty high on the list of priorities at the moment.

[Alpha]

I think in a 50/50 scenario in a privately held company like LFC you would almost always have that option included. I seriously doubt that they would want Moores and Parry to have any influence over when and where and to whom they sell their shares. I think that both of them would like to have the option to buy the respective shares if they can meet the requested value.

According to FYDS at YNWA.tv, it is understood that as the deal broker, Gillett has first option on Hicks' 50% but not vice versa.

Does anybody agree there is significance in the fact that there has been no suggestion of Hicks making an offer for Gillett's 50%? If Hicks was as keen to hold onto his 50% as he says, wouldn't it be prudent to prepare a counter-offer to any that DIC/Gillett might make?

[CAD]

I think in a 50/50 scenario in a privately held company like LFC you would almost always have that option included. I seriously doubt that they would want Moores and Parry to have any influence over when and where and to whom they sell their shares. I think that both of them would like to have the option to buy the respective shares if they can meet the requested value.

According to FYDS at YNWA.tv, it is understood that as the deal broker, Gillett has first option on Hicks' 50% but not vice versa.

Does anybody agree there is significance in the fact that there has been no suggestion of Hicks making an offer for Gillett's 50%? If Hicks was as keen to hold onto his 50% as he says, wouldn't it be prudent to prepare a counter-offer to any that DIC/Gillett might make?

Alpha, that simply sounds too strange. Why would there be no reach around?

Again, we have too little information and must fall back on logic. Surely they both have the option to buy if one of them wants to sell.

[Exiled_red]

Alpha, that simply sounds too strange. Why would there be no reach around?

Again, we have too little information and must fall back on logic. Surely they both have the option to buy if one of them wants to sell.

I don't know if that is the case, but the only reason I can think of Gillett having first choice on Hicks shares but not vice versa, is that it was originally Gillett who wanted the club and brought Hicks in with him.

[steveheighwayrobbery]

I don't know if that is the case, but the only reason I can think of Gillett having first choice on Hicks shares but not vice versa, is that it was originally Gillett who wanted the club and brought Hicks in with him.

they will have a shareholder agreement. ther is nothing unusual in that. It is the best way of keeping ownership they way you want it to be. remember it is a private comany now not a plc

[Alpha]

Alpha, that simply sounds too strange. Why would there be no reach around?

Again, we have too little information and must fall back on logic. Surely they both have the option to buy if one of them wants to sell.

I agree it sounds strange. I don't know where he got his information.

[Fowler_God]

Alpha, that simply sounds too strange. Why would there be no reach around?

Again, we have too little information and must fall back on logic. Surely they both have the option to buy if one of them wants to sell.

Agreed. We all know Hicks is to much of a cunt to allow himself to be undermined with a deal like that

[MascheredUp]

From Tribull:

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, claims The Mirror.